[llamaimperative]

Presumably people who use the law to oppose distribution of child pornography are the “same type” then too, right?

A censorious impulse is a censorious impulse, after all!

Obviously you can use whatever taxonomy of people you want, but yours seems like an extremely esoteric and rather useless one.

[Turing_Machine]

Don't give yourself a hernia setting up that straw man, dude.

[llamaimperative]

Hey you offered the framework!

What about people opposed to allowing non-doctors to call themselves doctors?

There are a million examples of “censorious impulses” you would not lump in with these, ergo the taxonomy is a bad one.

[Turing_Machine]

> Hey you offered the framework!

I did nothing of the sort. You're trying to set up a classic slippery slope fallacy and I'm not going to play that game.

Me: I think alcohol prohibitionists are meddling busybodies. You: Oh, well, I guess you think there's nothing wrong with injecting babies with pure grain alcohol starting at birth.

Me: I think furnaces and central heating are wonderful inventions. You: Oh, well, I guess you think it's okay to go around setting houses on fire.

That's how the game is played. I stopped being impressed by it decades ago. Likely before you were even born.

Bye now!

[llamaimperative]

> Believing that they have the right to make this type of decision for others is what makes them the "same kind of people".