Also, I reject the idea that someone should be attacked for offering an honest opinion on the basis that some lawyers might mention them in court.
Further, I think an argument based in social utility for the outlawing of something which is not a fundamental right is fine. might not be correct, but it is not invalid. Most of the world is grey rather than black and white. Beyond the vital fundamentals, if it is best for society at least am argument can be made for it.
Last edited by Scouse; September 27, 2012 at 05:38 PM.