Satire, parody, sarcasm? I thought it was. Society is just a circus and clowns abound, I comforted myself.
Then disillusion struck. I searched when I should have sat down.
Search string = "define clearly what is harmful to children"
Engine = google
Who amongst you can do a half-decent Sam A Jackson impersonation?
The obnoxious, 20pt font sized, blurb reads boldly: Harmful to children means that quality of any description or representation, in whatever form, of *sex*ually explicit nudity, *sex*ual conduct, *sex*ual excitement, or sadomasochistic abuse, when it:(a) Taken as a whole, predominantly appeals to the prurient interest in *****sex****** of children;(b) Is patently offensive to prevailing.
Say sex again, I double dare you motherfucker
Im assuming the issue of violence is as well fleshed out further down the article. Revelations is not as popular or well understood (in terms of making sense) as Genesis. Even I know this and Ive read neither.
Does this mean sex is worse than violence, or that sex is way less harmful which makes it understated, which prompts google to elevate its significance in order to create awareness?
I can live with that. So sex is only emphasized because it is actually innocuous 99% percent of the time but deadly every now and then. Sure. Thanks google. I'll have 1% less, to be 100% safe.
Hello Google, its not hard. Prioritize facts. After, and by after I mean once the first thing is done, you may continue, if you must, with bs theories, popular zeitgeist, bore me to death, etc.
Query: define clearly what is harmful to children
Answer: Harm is the opposite of protect, and yes absolutely often differentially a function of age.
See how I defined it without using words like 'children' or 'sex' unnecessarily or subliminally making you want ...
When I see someone beautiful,
I tend to stare.