JBeukema
Rookie
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #161
Because it _IS_ the same thing. The argument is that advertisers have a right to do it even if it's a nuisance to others. But a line has to be drawn somewhere. OF COURSE it's not the same degree of nuisance, but it's the same argument.
Here's something on a closer scale to what's being discussed.
I don't know how you feel about censorship in general, but you're not allowed to say fuck shit ass **** bitch on certain channels and/or certain times of day, or show nudity or gratuitous violence. This is so children won't be exposed to things they shouldn't be seeing. Would you then make the argument that if there was nudity on Nickelodeon, no big deal because they could just change the channel? By the time you're able to change the channel, the kid's already seen the nudity, not?
flinging poo at your house is vandalism. there's already a law which prevents it.
If there wasn't a law, it would be legal, get it? If you think preventing a nuisance is never OK if it inconveniences somebody else, you are an anarchist.
Jesus Christ, you're thick

That's all I'm saying. You guys keep insinuating that I'm proclaiming the scenarios as equivalent levels of nuisance. I'm not. I'm just pointing out that something _CAN_ be illegal to protect the interests of most people, even if it inconveniences others.
you
are
an
idiot
I think the thread proves beyond any doubt that nanny-staters are mentally deficient