Science Forums 2

[InfiniteNow]

If you allow it for one, you must allow it for another.

Let's say, using this precedent, some religiot group decides that beer is bad, so they pretend to sell beer online, and once you submit your credit card you don't get any beer and they use all profits to ensure beer is made illegal. They lobby with that money, and run negative ad campaigns, and they reinvest all proceeds to making beer harder and harder to buy, and ultimately impossible.

Or, let's say that they tasted some really bad oxtail pokjie so they buy a few butcher shops, and when you try to buy oxtail they take your money but don't give you any oxtail, and they then ciphen all funds from oxtail sales toward the abolishment of oxtail availability.

Or, they don't like porn of any type, and they setup all sites like this...

Bastards. You best leave my visual stimuli alone!

The only difference is that you personally are opposed to child porn (as most of us are), so it seems okay to single it out. It's a bit like trying to limit the free speech of people who don't believe in evolution. While I whole-heartedly disagree with what creationists say and do, it's their right to say it, because speech is protected by law.

In the same way, the equal application of laws is itself tacit in the law, unless special provisions are outlined in the text of the law. Following this to the next step, fraud laws would themselves be fraudulent if they only applied to those who "we don't like" or with whom we "disagree."