Jump to content
270soft Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

1 Follower

About Skavau

  • Rank
    Political Monster
  • Birthday 06/14/1989

Contact Methods

  • MSN
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

1,066 profile views
  1. Pornographic or at least sexualised nudity exists across the media in movies, video games, literature, music, art etc. You would necessarily, if you're consistent have to impose a huge media firewall which would involve the criminalisation of a whole host of things. You banning fornication and masturbation in itself is highly totalitarian and would take a very highly funded police force that snooped in people's private affairs to enforce. You are not pro-freedom by any stretch of the imagination.
  2. You controlling "sexual deviancy" would in fact inflict upon the lives of almost all Non-Christians and even many Christians. You would ban premarital sex, ban pornographic content, ban masturbation, ban certain themes in media. This would be highly intrusive to culture and require a big government to enforce and impose.
  3. You're actually going to argue that freedom is your freedom to control the lives of other people? Who are you to own my life, what I can do? I do not wish to control you. You do wish to control me.
  4. You do not own the definition of freedom. Freedom is not the ability to just live as you personally think people should live. Freedom is freedom from, and that includes freedom from people telling you what you may or may not do based on their religious beliefs. You're certainly free to refrain from 'sin' for yourself. You don't get to impose what you choose to refrain from on me.
  5. Anyone you know? How does that work? You just control your friends lives? In any case, that you're hinting again that you'd ban 'sex crimes' suggests that you would impose your religious values on non-Christians. I have no idea how you can call yourself a defender of freedom with a straight face.
  6. So are you therefore in favour of banning people from getting tattoos?
  7. That is in effect, forcing people to live by Christianity. A quasi-theocracy. You'd also need BIG GOVERNMENT to enforce those kind of morality laws. You literally have more in common with the mullahs of Iran than you do US politicians.
  8. This is unclear. You're presumably in favour of banning homosexuality, which would force the breakup of millions of couples across the US. You're presumably against pre-marital sex, pornography etc. There are ways to inflict on personal liberty that do not involve banning a religion.
  9. The lives of other Americans are not your lives to legislate. You do accept personal liberty and accountability, a value hugely ingrained in US culture and history, right?
  10. This is not consistent. Perhaps you don't want a theocracy, but you don't want anything considerably better, like Iran. You spoke of supporting strong anti-sodomy laws. I am going to assume based on your comments and other positions that this means banning homosexual intercourse, immediately infringing on the private lives of up to 2-5% of the population. Are you in favour of banning premarital sex, masturbation, pornography etc? All of these, if enforced, would require a big state to impose it and result in restrictions to people's lives who are not your religion.
  11. I suppose you could just look at results and pretend they were PR.
  12. It's bizarre how it hasn't been implemented into basically every version.
  13. It currently says "FPTP is is only available for now". Are there any plans to bring in a PR option soon? It really would add diversity to the kind of scenarios people could make.
  14. @anthony_admin Party leader candidate.
  • Create New...