Comment on Australia Bans 2D Loli – Simpsons Parody Porn Conviction by Anonymous:

The manganese Simpsons does work, but what the fuck is up with the Goku-ized Lisa? I’m not sure what to make of her.


Anonymous made other comments on this post:

  • Australia Bans 2D Loli – Simpsons Parody Porn Conviction:
    I don’t think the ultra conservative anti-loli patrol frequents internet cafes. Unless you do it in an upscale Starbucks or a kid’s soccer game with a 12′ laptop monitor.

  • Australia Bans 2D Loli – Simpsons Parody Porn Conviction:
    this really is retarded, it’s true that perception that governs your view of the world but faith is 10 times worse, Hell if you look like a “A.K.A bundle of sticks” then some brain dead drunk homophobe will try to swing their weight towards you, if your seriously brain dead that thinking everything is suspicious then you mate are living in fear. what they should do is stop this bullshit stabbings, theft, and assaults i hear in the news paper. coming back to faith, if you believe in a god so …

  • Australia Bans 2D Loli – Simpsons Parody Porn Conviction:
    yes, unless the other side appeals that the decision the tribunal made could be laughed out of court.then the precedence holds zero grams

  • Australia Bans 2D Loli – Simpsons Parody Porn Conviction:
    it’s not constitutional, plus the case for this will bring in the bigshot movie dept ACMA and any other low life, hell Telstra, optus would be in on it look at it this way ‘fuel child porn’ how many companies would trial with you? even the tv stations would fight by side with you. your case is very strong because video hits have sexy scenes. too much for a pea-brained government to handle Australia, Yare Yare

  • Australia Bans 2D Loli – Simpsons Parody Porn Conviction:
    “1. They’re post hocking by saying “A occurred before B; therefore, A caused B” (ie. They possessed 2d material before going after real children, so the possession of 2d material led to them going after real children). An exaggerated example of this fallacy would be a robber talked to a stranger on the street before going out and robbing a convenience store, so the guy who the robber talked to is directly responsible for the robber’s actions and should thus be arrested with the robber. As a …

Recent comments by Anonymous:



Popular

Recent Articles