>> Seriously. For 10 million dollars he could of raised an army and taken over a small country. All he would have to do then is pass a law forbidding an extradition to America and he would of been set. 10 million dollars could have bought any number of extra-legal solutions to his problems.

Is that some kind of slang?

What?

Internet: Where being upset is worse than being an asshole.

Yeah I know. The republicans are all about making large infrastructure investments, but minority groups obstruct their plans every chance they get. It's like some Live and Let Die black conspiracy turned real.

Wait... You believe the police should be privatized?

Gamergate IS the problem.

I'm impressed that someone dares speak the truth in here.

Oh god it's spreading outside of Sweden.

I thought this was a local fad among Swedish nazis, but apparently it's something more.

These people toss around the label liberally.

Immigration is a hotter topic in europe specifically because we have better social security.

The US has this attitude of letting everybody in and just have them take care of themselves, while many european countries actually take care of their own people.

This creates a situation when we get people into the country who were not born there but who will get social security, free health care and everything like that.

In this case I'd say it's more about sinuses.

But as far as I know, obscenity laws are completely different from the law/s against child pornography. The difference being that obscenity laws do not regulate possession, only distribution. You can't be prosecuted for owning something that is obscene, only for distributing it.

Actually... No.

Well to be perfectly honest... I'm not that familiar with the american arguments on this subject, but I'm familiar with an argument by european proponents of this type of legislation... And that argument has nothing to do with the harm of the material itself, and this is specifically why their argument simply cannot be defeated.

Why?

Because they don't argue that the material itself causes harm. They argue that the material itself IS THE HARM. (sorry for the capitals, no \emph here)

When they look at it from that perspective, there's simply nothing that can change their mind because it doesn't matter what effects the material itself has. It doesn't matter whatever studies you show these people. Their argument is simply that the material itself is the actual damage done, and it must be forbidden.

If the IQ study is the one I think it is, it was based entirely on convicted child molesters, and not on the population of pedophiles as a whole. Therefore if, say, lower IQ causes these people to molest, then it also makes them more likely to get caught.

It'd be really interesting to see studies on the entire population, not just on incarcerated subsets.

Actually while I agree with what you're saying in general, I want to ask

1: Do you have any sources or links to such studies as you mention in the beginning of your post?

2: Comparing countries is a bit problematic because there might be a differences between two countries in terms of how likely people there are to go to the police following a rape. (though with japan it's probably a special case seeing that there's a study confirming that reported incidents of rape decreased as availability of porn increased, and it doesn't seem likely that japan became so much more sexist since the end of world war 2 that report frequencies changed as a result)

Could be worse. Could be javascript.