Black Dog

Only if you attribute it to Voltaire.

I mean, if you're good with being an asshole, that's your call, literally no one is stopping you. Not to mention it's funny how quick you were to play the oppression card to assert your own bona fides.

Again, slower this time: being an jerk to someone because you're a jerk (or that person had it coming) is one thing. Being a jerk to someone because they are non-white is another.

Yeah, no you completely invalidate them by saying they don't matter because other people have it worse. Oh give me a break. You just described pretty much every single political philosophy/religious belief system.

Would that include racial slurs or sexist jokes? So you agree there's a line, you just have a different idea of where to draw it. Some people with "foreign" accents may have been born here. There's a degree of presumptuousness when you ask that question that way.

Suck it up stop being such a whiner etc etc

All that sounds really shitty. But why do you feel what happend to you invalidates anyone else's experiences?

In a word: no. Yeah so you're clearly full of crap.

OK, let's hear some of your tales of discrimination too.

OK, let's hear some examples.

Says the guy who never has to deal with such things.

Being rude to white people is called just being rude. Microaggressions are rudeness/cluelessness tinged with racism.

So that's a yes.

So you don't understand it either, then? Cool.

You're betraying your ignorance of what this term encompasses (hint: it's not about being rude).

Yes because it wouldn't be true.

What's wrong with just not being an a-hole and thinking about what you say? I agree. It's pretty childish to go around thinking you can just say whatever you want to whomever without any consequences.

LOL. Hockey players today are the best they've ever been. Watching games from the 80s is like watching a different sport. The players are so slow, the goalies are so terrible. The problem is the rules of the game haven't kept up.

Except the, uh, vivid scenario is unlikely to play out much in the real world. It exists only in the, shall we say, colouful reaches of your imagination. As I said: children are far more likely to be victimized by "sexual deviants" they know and trust than any random stranger.

You've given this an awful lot of thought. .

Again: it all depends on the circumstances in which the photos were taken, but if we're talking about a perv shot taken in a public place, I don't think that should be illegal, even if it is gross and creepy. But we've also lost track of the issue at hand, which wasn't about full-on nudity anyway.

Well why not? What's the difference? naked is naked, no? Ethicaly? No. Legally? Maybe. Who is being harmed?

because we hysterically overreact to things involving kids. Well that all depends, doesn't it? What if someone takes a picture of their own naked kid, say, running through the sprinkler in their own backyard? Are they deviants who should be locked up forever?

Also the people raging about pedophiles in this thread are showing a deep and profound ignorance of the nature of child sexual abuse, which is overwhelmingly (86% of cases) committed by people known to the victim.