What say you? What say you?!!!!!
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (64)
sorted by:
There is a reason why constitutionally the only objection to human behavior is harming others. Outside of implementing a totalitarian system such as the one we currently live under, how would you suggest controlling people's behavior to such a degree that you eliminate such behavior completely?
As far as I can tell if you want to have more control over someone's life than what we have agreed on as a society is acceptable, things like not stealing from or physically harming others, you will by necessity need 24/7 surveillance of everyone at all times, and to very strictly control their behavior and interactions with everyone else. Things like being harmed you will obviously have one party that is a victim who is capable of reporting that a crime happened, but if you want to control behavior between two consenting individuals, how do you propose doing it without also having the strict totalitarian police state we have now?
I'm genuinely curious for an answer.
You don't have to like this person by any means, but surely you can see the difference between someone who behaves in a way you do not like but is otherwise not harming someone, and someone who behaves in a way you don't like who also promotes the castration, manipulation, and molestation of children, yes? Or do you not differentiate between the two?
Edit: I'm not the one who downvoted btw
You are the one conflating "tolerance" with "acceptance", I literally said that you do not have to like these people and celebrate them, but if you do not plan to keep in place a totalitarian police state, how would you suggest we go about controlling people's behavior to such a degree when it doesn't involve harming other people? You are perfectly welcome to tilt at windmills of your own design, start talking about tax payer funded concentration camps, etc. While completely ignoring everything else I said.
So again, what is your suggestion to change behavior such that this type of person doesn't exist and we do not have a totalitarian system? You ultimately have to tolerate people doing things you don't like when it doesn't harm other people, it doesn't mean that you have you accept or celebrate it, but if you aren't going to tolerate it, what is your plan to be rid of it?
Then say this type of stuff instead of jumping straight to calling OP a faggot. Insulting to get your point across is literally for faggots. The point of this person's post was the content of what was said, not the person saying it as well. This post by no means is celebrating the person saying it, the title is literally drawing attention to the content of what was said and the post has nothing to do with who said it other than being a repost of a Twitter post. Essentially, get a life man! You're yelling fire where there's a luke warm cup of water and calling people faggots when you should be explaining stuff.
We shouldn't physically force anyone to join our side and I don't think that's what Demijinx was saying. But we don't have to glorify this 'sexual degenerate' by reposting its tweets either. I think Demijink expected more discernment from this community. Then again maybe most people who upvoted OP don't know that MsBlaireWhite is actually a dude.
I hardly see reposting a tweet as glorifying the way a person behaves, especially when you include the context that the point of the post was what was being said, not the person who said it. If OP had posted "holy shit I love this Trany look at how cool they are and all these glorious things they are saying, yay tranies let's slice and dice some genitals now!", maybe I'd agree, but come now, surely you can see the point of this post isn't the person saying it but what is being said. Like you say, I don't think most people even knew this was a trany, because this post had absolutely nothing to do with tranies otherwise!
Maybe instead of calling OP a faggot he should've taken the time to explain his position more thoroughly rather than cutting straight to the insults.