aaaah thanx i expected such kind of answer to confirm my initial thought.. thanx for making up my day

as i suspected, you read in diagonal line, pick up some random words in simple syntaxed sentences, to gather them up together and twist them in the way you can express your own twisted version

 

i dont remember saying pedophilia or rape were ok

i dont remember saying one shall not restrict it

 

my point was: waving such topics as a front flag/excuse no one would ever dare to oppose or contredict, just to, at the same time, promote a totally irrelevant and unrelated opinion about some other topic, as some bootlegg cargo in a pretty freigther, is just wrong.

no matter that a guy says pedophilia or rape is wrong (in fact it is wrong), if in fact, what  he is doing underneath is using it as a cover shield to label something else as equally wrong

if he wants to fight against those, then just let make a law that says depiction of pedophilia or rape are illegal

if i want to ban pitbulls or attack dogs, i wont say "any domestic 4 legged pets that could present any kind of potential damaging threat to people" unless i dont like cats and want to get rid of them all same way

 

what is this cloudy wordtrick about "any socially disturbing/questionnable behavior", cant you see how broad range it does cover ?

especially when the person that decide what is socially unnaceptable is not the majority of folk but one single man. everyone consider pedophilia or rape as unnaceptable behavior... ok but it's not "everyone" but him who will apply the rule under his standards...

in fact i dont even see the point of explaining myself over and over again in any new different ways to just say same basic thing especialy when there will always be someone to turn the words upside down. it's a loss of time, i just laid some traps for someone to fall in and wasnt either surprised or dissapointing.

 

using pedophilia as a crusade flag is disturbing because one USEs people who already suffered from molester for one's own interest.

the two trojan horses of nowadays democracies are terrorists and pedophiles. Nobody would oppose or contredict any law project which openly display the goal of fighting them. when you build such laws in such a way it can be used to fight nearly anything else at same scale and extent as if it was pedophilia, you in fact dilute/lessen the seriousness of such offense when you match it against something totally irrelevant and not offensive at all.

the new tokyo law is worded in such way that one can decide gayness is socially unacceptable, and punish it with as serious sentences as he would punish pedophilia alike. is that ok for you ? cause for me it's not.. because gay shouldnt be sentenced as if it was a crime, neither the less as if it was as serious a crime as pedophilia, on top of that. but that's EXACTLY the plan out there. it's not MY plan, it is not MY thought or MY opinion... it is what is written between the lines of this politician's bill !

 

so think what you want, as far as i'm concerned i'm rather unsurprised with your predictable and obvious semantic shortways.