Tweet
Re: Satan's latest weapon: Post-Pubescent female breasts
Really?! underage male positioning himself for a sodomizing of his mother, but of course it is open to some interpretation. However, one thing we can all agree upon is that this image contains a "post-pubescent female breast". Underage male with wings? Cherub. Next breast size doesn't indicate age at all. In fact sculptures of this era all have women exactly like this no one has ever claimed them to be post-pubescent. What are we resorting to next?book burning?
Originally posted by Jeb Thurmond
View Post
Lately the unsaved trash who invade our forum to persecute us have started using a new tactic: posting pornography, aka pron. While the most obvious examples are quickly deleted with a simple mouse-click, the forces of darkness have gotten clever enough to try infiltration tactics - sneaking the porn in, under the radar.
Since this is the men's only forum, I should be able to post examples without accidentally tramatizing anyone, but just in case....IF YOU ARE FEMALE OR UNDER THE AGE OF 30 LEAVE THIS THREAD NOW!
If not, scroll down..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Okay, here is an example of infiltration porn:
Now, It certainly looks to me like an underage male positioning himself for a sodomizing of his mother, but of course it is open to some interpretation. However, one thing we can all agree upon is that this image contains a "post-pubescent female breast".
Which is the definition of pornography under the soon-to-be-passed "Child Online Protection Act". (Go ahead and read the bill for yourself).
See SEC. 231, 6B "
So, by depicting, describing, or representing post-pubescent female breasts on our forum, they can have us punished with this:
So, that means that if a troll makes a post with something that Depicts, describes, or represents a post-pubescent female breast, then copies and pastes it ten times, and for some reason we only delete it after ten days, that's 100 violations.
With 100,000 dollars in fines and civil penalties, plus the 6 months in jail, that adds up to us having to spend ten million dollars and 50 years in jail.
Suddenly all these pictures of naked cherubs and boys with bulges in their shorts all makes sense, doesn't it?
Now, because the Child Online Protection Act is not in effect yet, these porn attacks have no effect on us. We just take half a second clicking the delete button and that's that. When the act goes into effect, we will hire 24-hour porn-catchers (The chinese are very cost-effective at this) and/or require a credit card number from people who wish to read the forum.
As for the question of what to do about statues and paintings that contain post-pubescent female breasts, we have already begun a program to file down and/or repaint the breasts in question to become pubescent female breasts. Venus Di Milo, by the way, has far more artistic merit as a 13-year old girl than as a post-pubescent woman.
So don't get me wrong: I am 100% in favor of the Child Online Protection Act. All these claims that we're invading privacy is nonsense, and the Bush administration will prove it once they've managed to sue Google into reveiling what you've all be entering into search engines:
So why subpoena Google? The government will make its case by reading us a list of all the disgusting, licentious things that people typed into a Google window over the course of a week. Because that would prove that people look for dirty stuff on the web.
Thus the Republican Party will prove that any child could find him or herself looking at online filth just by innocently typing (for example) “pregnant shemale amputee midgets drowning in semen” into a Google window. It probably happens all the time, for school projects and whatnot, and just think about what that seemingly innocuous search could lead to!
I for one am happy to be alive at a time when the government wants to view information about our online habits, when they’re not even trying to prosecute a crime. They need to subpoena Google in order to prove that people use the Internet for porn, in order to shore up their case for re-passing that bill that the ultra-liberal Supreme Court absurdly called a violation of privacy.
This is going to work so well we won't even need to complete that legislation to to remove the letters E, S, and X from keyboards sold to minors.
Since this is the men's only forum, I should be able to post examples without accidentally tramatizing anyone, but just in case....IF YOU ARE FEMALE OR UNDER THE AGE OF 30 LEAVE THIS THREAD NOW!
If not, scroll down..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Okay, here is an example of infiltration porn:
Now, It certainly looks to me like an underage male positioning himself for a sodomizing of his mother, but of course it is open to some interpretation. However, one thing we can all agree upon is that this image contains a "post-pubescent female breast".
Which is the definition of pornography under the soon-to-be-passed "Child Online Protection Act". (Go ahead and read the bill for yourself).
See SEC. 231, 6B "
So, by depicting, describing, or representing post-pubescent female breasts on our forum, they can have us punished with this:
So, that means that if a troll makes a post with something that Depicts, describes, or represents a post-pubescent female breast, then copies and pastes it ten times, and for some reason we only delete it after ten days, that's 100 violations.
With 100,000 dollars in fines and civil penalties, plus the 6 months in jail, that adds up to us having to spend ten million dollars and 50 years in jail.
Suddenly all these pictures of naked cherubs and boys with bulges in their shorts all makes sense, doesn't it?
Now, because the Child Online Protection Act is not in effect yet, these porn attacks have no effect on us. We just take half a second clicking the delete button and that's that. When the act goes into effect, we will hire 24-hour porn-catchers (The chinese are very cost-effective at this) and/or require a credit card number from people who wish to read the forum.
As for the question of what to do about statues and paintings that contain post-pubescent female breasts, we have already begun a program to file down and/or repaint the breasts in question to become pubescent female breasts. Venus Di Milo, by the way, has far more artistic merit as a 13-year old girl than as a post-pubescent woman.
So don't get me wrong: I am 100% in favor of the Child Online Protection Act. All these claims that we're invading privacy is nonsense, and the Bush administration will prove it once they've managed to sue Google into reveiling what you've all be entering into search engines:
So why subpoena Google? The government will make its case by reading us a list of all the disgusting, licentious things that people typed into a Google window over the course of a week. Because that would prove that people look for dirty stuff on the web.
Thus the Republican Party will prove that any child could find him or herself looking at online filth just by innocently typing (for example) “pregnant shemale amputee midgets drowning in semen” into a Google window. It probably happens all the time, for school projects and whatnot, and just think about what that seemingly innocuous search could lead to!
I for one am happy to be alive at a time when the government wants to view information about our online habits, when they’re not even trying to prosecute a crime. They need to subpoena Google in order to prove that people use the Internet for porn, in order to shore up their case for re-passing that bill that the ultra-liberal Supreme Court absurdly called a violation of privacy.
This is going to work so well we won't even need to complete that legislation to to remove the letters E, S, and X from keyboards sold to minors.
Comment