Things that make you go What the F**k?

[five points]

Yes, the poster who dismissed the Cuties furore as "a Qanon conspiracy theory". And now you with your " perfectly valid to harbour strong doubts and suspicions of the motives and authenticity of claims originating from movements like QAnon" apologia.

[J70]

Yes, the poster who dismissed the Cuties furore as "a Qanon conspiracy theory". And now you with your " perfectly valid to harbour strong doubts and suspicions of the motives and authenticity of claims originating from movements like QAnon" apologia.

I'll let the other lad speak for himself, on second thoughts.

But please do elaborate on how my statements are "apologia" for child pornography.

[Baile Brigín 2]

Yes, the poster who dismissed the Cuties furore as "a Qanon conspiracy theory". And now you with your " perfectly valid to harbour strong doubts and suspicions of the motives and authenticity of claims originating from movements like QAnon" apologia.

I don't think you understand the word 'aplogia'.

I simply asked why the poster wanted to have something banned and the proposer was unable to answer. We now apparantly have Netflix showing 'child porn'.

You are jumping aboard a Qanon bandwagon without bothering to do research and then the Qanon trick that anyone who questions you is a paedo apologist.

Try harder, you aren't on 4cham or stormfront.

So you are now the wtf.

[Roesider]

Which means what?

...

Should each case not be taken on its merits?

It means exactly this: Each case should indeed be taken on its merits.

It's ridiculous and dangerous to dismiss public concerns because of where they first originated.

Yes, a broken clock is right twice a day. However, its perfectly valid to harbour strong doubts and suspicions of the motives and authenticity of claims originating from movements like QAnon.

There are better hills to die on than defending or equivocating about child pornography.

Was anyone defending or equivocating about child pornography?

There are those who feel that it's a topic that needs investigation. Why that is the case is a different matter.

[Roesider]

Yes, the poster who dismissed the Cuties furore as "a Qanon conspiracy theory". And now you with your " perfectly valid to harbour strong doubts and suspicions of the motives and authenticity of claims originating from movements like QAnon" apologia.

I don't think you understand the word 'aplogia'.

I simply asked why the poster wanted to have something banned and the proposer was unable to answer. We now apparantly have Netflix showing 'child porn'.

You are jumping aboard a Qanon bandwagon without bothering to do research and then the Qanon trick that anyone who questions you is a paedo apologist.

Try harder, you aren't on 4cham or stormfront.

So you are now the wtf.

What are you going on about? I already answered. There should be no need for any grouping (internet or otherwise) to tell you that films containing pre-teen girls in skimpy clothes with close up body shots is disturbing.

If people want to justify their reason for watching is down to not giving in to qanon then they can continue to convince themselves of that. maybe after their 10th viewing they will start to understand the intellectual arguments behind what the director was attempting to portray. 

[five points]

Yes, the poster who dismissed the Cuties furore as "a Qanon conspiracy theory". And now you with your " perfectly valid to harbour strong doubts and suspicions of the motives and authenticity of claims originating from movements like QAnon" apologia.

I don't think you understand the word 'aplogia'.

I simply asked why the poster wanted to have something banned and the proposer was unable to answer. We now apparantly have Netflix showing 'child porn'.

You are jumping aboard a Qanon bandwagon without bothering to do research and then the Qanon trick that anyone who questions you is a paedo apologist.

Try harder, you aren't on 4cham or stormfront.

So you are now the wtf.

I have researched it. Look up the definition of the  term "child porn". It includes simulations of sexual acts by and involving minors.

You seem more annoyed by 4chan and Qanon than by this crap.

[J70]

Yes, the poster who dismissed the Cuties furore as "a Qanon conspiracy theory". And now you with your " perfectly valid to harbour strong doubts and suspicions of the motives and authenticity of claims originating from movements like QAnon" apologia.

I don't think you understand the word 'aplogia'.

I simply asked why the poster wanted to have something banned and the proposer was unable to answer. We now apparantly have Netflix showing 'child porn'.

You are jumping aboard a Qanon bandwagon without bothering to do research and then the Qanon trick that anyone who questions you is a paedo apologist.

Try harder, you aren't on 4cham or stormfront.

So you are now the wtf.

What are you going on about? I already answered. There should be no need for any grouping (internet or otherwise) to tell you that films containing pre-teen girls in skimpy clothes with close up body shots is disturbing.

If people want to justify their reason for watching is down to not giving in to qanon then they can continue to convince themselves of that. maybe after their 10th viewing they will start to understand the intellectual arguments behind what the director was attempting to portray. 

The only thing I know about this film is the discussion on this thread. You may be right that it is child porn, although you haven’t offered much of an argument. I’m arguing the principle.

Grown adults can make and watch films/documentaries about disturbing subjects without it serving the purpose of titillation. Did anyone watch Schindler’s List ten times for sexual kicks because it depicts Jewish Holocaust victims stripped naked on their way to the “showers”? Or are most people mature enough to see the scene as a true-to-life depiction of the depravity and inhumanity of the Nazis?

[sid waddell]

Which means what?

...

Should each case not be taken on its merits?

It means exactly this: Each case should indeed be taken on its merits.

It's ridiculous and dangerous to dismiss public concerns because of where they first originated.

Yes, a broken clock is right twice a day. However, its perfectly valid to harbour strong doubts and suspicions of the motives and authenticity of claims originating from movements like QAnon.

There are better hills to die on than defending or equivocating about child pornography.

Was anyone defending or equivocating about child pornography?

There are those who feel that it's a topic that needs investigation. Why that is the case is a different matter.

Go and watch it then. You haven't watched it, so you're complaining about something you know nothing about.

If you go and watch it, you'll be watching something you believe to be child pornography.

Lolz.

You're not that oul' wan who was on Liveline saying that "Normal People" was like "something you'd see in parrrno", by any chance, are you?

[sid waddell]

Yes, the poster who dismissed the Cuties furore as "a Qanon conspiracy theory". And now you with your " perfectly valid to harbour strong doubts and suspicions of the motives and authenticity of claims originating from movements like QAnon" apologia.

I don't think you understand the word 'aplogia'.

I simply asked why the poster wanted to have something banned and the proposer was unable to answer. We now apparantly have Netflix showing 'child porn'.

You are jumping aboard a Qanon bandwagon without bothering to do research and then the Qanon trick that anyone who questions you is a paedo apologist.

Try harder, you aren't on 4cham or stormfront.

So you are now the wtf.

What are you going on about? I already answered. There should be no need for any grouping (internet or otherwise) to tell you that films containing pre-teen girls in skimpy clothes with close up body shots is disturbing.

If people want to justify their reason for watching is down to not giving in to qanon then they can continue to convince themselves of that. maybe after their 10th viewing they will start to understand the intellectual arguments behind what the director was attempting to portray. 

The only thing I know about this film is the discussion on this thread. You may be right that it is child porn, although you haven’t offered much of an argument. I’m arguing the principle.

Grown adults can make and watch films/documentaries about disturbing subjects without it serving the purpose of titillation. Did anyone watch Schindler’s List ten times for sexual kicks because it depicts Jewish Holocaust victims stripped naked on their way to the “showers”? Or are most people mature enough to see the scene as a true-to-life depiction of the depravity and inhumanity of the Nazis?

Trump

[Baile Brigín 2]

Yes, the poster who dismissed the Cuties furore as "a Qanon conspiracy theory". And now you with your " perfectly valid to harbour strong doubts and suspicions of the motives and authenticity of claims originating from movements like QAnon" apologia.

I don't think you understand the word 'aplogia'.

I simply asked why the poster wanted to have something banned and the proposer was unable to answer. We now apparantly have Netflix showing 'child porn'.

You are jumping aboard a Qanon bandwagon without bothering to do research and then the Qanon trick that anyone who questions you is a paedo apologist.

Try harder, you aren't on 4cham or stormfront.

So you are now the wtf.

What are you going on about? I already answered. There should be no need for any grouping (internet or otherwise) to tell you that films containing pre-teen girls in skimpy clothes with close up body shots is disturbing.

If people want to justify their reason for watching is down to not giving in to qanon then they can continue to convince themselves of that. maybe after their 10th viewing they will start to understand the intellectual arguments behind what the director was attempting to portray. 

The only thing I know about this film is the discussion on this thread. You may be right that it is child porn, although you haven’t offered much of an argument. I’m arguing the principle.

Grown adults can make and watch films/documentaries about disturbing subjects without it serving the purpose of titillation. Did anyone watch Schindler’s List ten times for sexual kicks because it depicts Jewish Holocaust victims stripped naked on their way to the “showers”? Or are most people mature enough to see the scene as a true-to-life depiction of the depravity and inhumanity of the Nazis?

We have stumbled into their trap.

If you don't agree that something none of us have seen needs banning you are a peado defender. Straight off the Qanon playbook.

I understand this show to be very edge of the envelope and more of a parody of the Qanon types sexualising everything, but the idea that Netflix are making and selling child porn is as ludicrous as the satanic cult of peados using pizza as code.

[five points]

If you don't agree that something none of us have seen needs banning you are a peado defender. Straight off the Qanon playbook.

It was you who first mentioned banning it. I for one wouldn't be in favour of it being banned. It's good that depravity is exposed.

[sid waddell]

Yes, the poster who dismissed the Cuties furore as "a Qanon conspiracy theory". And now you with your " perfectly valid to harbour strong doubts and suspicions of the motives and authenticity of claims originating from movements like QAnon" apologia.

I don't think you understand the word 'aplogia'.

I simply asked why the poster wanted to have something banned and the proposer was unable to answer. We now apparantly have Netflix showing 'child porn'.

You are jumping aboard a Qanon bandwagon without bothering to do research and then the Qanon trick that anyone who questions you is a paedo apologist.

Try harder, you aren't on 4cham or stormfront.

So you are now the wtf.

What are you going on about? I already answered. There should be no need for any grouping (internet or otherwise) to tell you that films containing pre-teen girls in skimpy clothes with close up body shots is disturbing.

If people want to justify their reason for watching is down to not giving in to qanon then they can continue to convince themselves of that. maybe after their 10th viewing they will start to understand the intellectual arguments behind what the director was attempting to portray. 

The only thing I know about this film is the discussion on this thread. You may be right that it is child porn, although you haven’t offered much of an argument. I’m arguing the principle.

Grown adults can make and watch films/documentaries about disturbing subjects without it serving the purpose of titillation. Did anyone watch Schindler’s List ten times for sexual kicks because it depicts Jewish Holocaust victims stripped naked on their way to the “showers”? Or are most people mature enough to see the scene as a true-to-life depiction of the depravity and inhumanity of the Nazis?

We have stumbled into their trap.

If you don't agree that something none of us have seen needs banning you are a peado defender. Straight off the Qanon playbook.

I understand this show to be very edge of the envelope and more of a parody of the Qanon types sexualising everything, but the idea that Netflix are making and selling child porn is as ludicrous as the satanic cult of peados using pizza as code.

These are the same far right loons who bang on about "freeze peach" and howl about so called "cancel culture"

They'll be howling for book burnings next

No surprise to see arch-loon five points is among them

These are the same people who didn't understand that the "Paedogeddon" episode of Brass Eye was satire

[five points]

No surprise to see arch-loon five points is among them

If you stopped insulting me, even for a little while, I might actually engage with you. I even agree with some of the opinions you post here, particularly on non-political stuff.

[Baile Brigín 2]

If you don't agree that something none of us have seen needs banning you are a peado defender. Straight off the Qanon playbook.

It was you who first mentioned banning it. I for one wouldn't be in favour of it being banned. It's good that depravity is exposed.

Its good that depraviry is exposed.

Riiigghhhtttt

[five points]

If you don't agree that something none of us have seen needs banning you are a peado defender. Straight off the Qanon playbook.

It was you who first mentioned banning it. I for one wouldn't be in favour of it being banned. It's good that depravity is exposed.

Its good that depraviry is exposed.

Riiigghhhtttt

What did you want me to say?