|
Tesseraction posted:I agree. That said, America really does not have a nanny state in this regard, or at least as I meant it - it certainly has a shithead looking over your shoulder and handcuffing you for random bullshit, but it doesn't have a loving carer doing the best to help you, which is what a nanny state should actually mean. We have a term for that. It's called welfare. Telling someone what they can't do and backing it up with a stick never helped that person.
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 00:38 |
|
|
KillHour posted:. There is no moral or practical reason she shouldn't be able to get whatever treatment she wants. There is, it's medical ethics. Sorry that you still want to stick to your completely ignorant insistent that anyone should be able to consume anything. objects in mirror posted:Yes, but gays aren't prosecuted by government itself, whereas marijuana enthusiasts are. Your complaints stem from other humans being lovely towards gay people, whereas the prosecuting of people for possessing and using marijuana is the result of government action, which Democrats/liberals can actually have far more influence over than they can over human beings being inhospitable towards homosexuals. The Democrats obsession with LGBT issues does come at the expense of other issues because political capital is not unlimited. Uh, and your point is? Governments are still actively discriminating against them, and so is private business. I get you were really bummed out you can't smoke weed in front of a cop like you can in Washington, but gay people are actively kept from having jobs, housing, and me. Sorry that you're so angry over weed that you think gay people being allowed to live is "obsession" that's preventing you getting weed, I guess? That's a really hosed up set of priorities you have. KillHour posted:We have a term for that. It's called welfare. Telling someone what they can't do and backing it up with a stick never helped that person. Uh, what exactly is bad about welfare? And yes, telling people they can't do a lot of things and backing it up has helped literally billions of people!
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
KillHour posted:If you make the good stuff legal and more financially viable, what's the point of making the bad poo poo illegal again? You're already strongly pushing people towards other alternatives without dealing with the drug war. If someone STILL chooses opiates, despite the negatives, jail isn't going to dissuade them. Things you don't like don't have to be illegal just because you don't like them. Simply because without regulating sales you put people at the risk of buying fakes. This is different from decriminalisation or legalisation. It's regulation. Part of the idea is that undercutting the profits of the street-level poo poo requires you gently caress them over on as many counts as possible until they move into other markets (hopefully moral/legal ones).
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
To be clear - the crux of my argument isn't that people should consume horrible poo poo. It's that if people are going to consume horrible poo poo, making it illegal isn't going to stop them. It just ensures they don't know what horrible poo poo they're actually using (see: people dying from laced heroin).
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Simply because without regulating sales you put people at the risk of buying fakes. This is different from decriminalisation or legalisation. It's regulation. I am absolutely for regulation in making sure labels are accurate and consumers are educated. That's WHY I'm against drug prohibition.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:And America's system is the same, sadly. The only difference is they had other lovely drugs before krokodil could enter the ecosystem. If you want to hit the heroin traffickers in the right way, it would be this, but there's no political will and the DEA hated it enough to lay on international pressure.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
KillHour posted:We have a term for that. It's called welfare. Telling someone what they can't do and backing it up with a stick never helped that person. Welfare is not a nanny state. Welfare is an lovely solution to a widespread problem. A nanny state would not just tolerate poverty, it would seek to eliminate it. Seriously do you think a nanny is someone you pay to neglect your children? You pay them to see your children grow up to be productive/responsible/happy adults. Welfare just perpetuates poverty with the rare person who manages to escape that. The two are not the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:There is no constitutional protection for drug use of any kind. The Democrats do not control either Legislature and the national will isn't there to make it so. The 14th amendment has CONSTITUTIONAL RATIFICATION and still can't manage power, why should the right to ingest one single substance suddenly overcome the ridiculous hurdles to pass legislation in a Republican legislature that frowns on weed use? LGBTQ rights are already in the constitution, weed isn't. Actually, the argument that LGBTQ rights are already in the constitution stems from the power of liberals sympathetic to LGBTQ issues have in legal and intellectual circles. Constitutional protections for LGBTQ folk are the result of advocacy for them, it's not inherent to the constitution. Likewise, those who are hostile to and have distaste for marijuana have had huge influence in legal and intellectual circles such that, for instance, the supreme court could give a torturous reading of the commerce law in Gonzales v. Raich to allow the federal government to prosecute those who grow medical marijuana. I'm going to directly state what I've been hinting at: LGBTQ issues suck up a lot of political capital that, from a utilitarian perspective, could be better spent on other issues.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
fishmech posted:There is, it's medical ethics. Sorry that you still want to stick to your completely ignorant insistent that anyone should be able to consume anything. The "Above all else, do no harm" mantra exists only to avoid malpractice lawsuits, not help patients. And is often ignored when convenient anyways. fishmech posted:Uh, what exactly is bad about welfare? Welfare is great and is what we should be spending money on to help people. Not banning drugs. Why do you care if I sit in my bathroom and huff nail polish remover, anyways? fishmech posted:And yes, telling people they can't do a lot of things and backing it up has helped literally billions of people! It never helped the people we told that to. Broadly speaking, it helped the people those people were loving over.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
KillHour posted:To be clear - the crux of my argument isn't that people should consume horrible poo poo. It's that if people are going to consume horrible poo poo, making it illegal isn't going to stop them. It just ensures they don't know what horrible poo poo they're actually using (see: people dying from laced heroin). Actually, making it illegal to manufacture and sell many things has done tons to stop people from consuming it. When was the last time you bought Doctor John's Radium Elixir? It's never, because that poo poo's been illegal since the 40s. When was the last time you bought lead-based household paint? Probably the 80s at the latest, when stores finally ran out of remaining stocks. The reason it's bad to ban weed is not becasue "banning things is bad", it's because weed isn't harmful. You on the other hand have a very ignorant insistence that nothing should be banned even though banning is the proper form of regulation for many products!
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Welfare is not a nanny state. Welfare is an lovely solution to a widespread problem. A nanny state would not just tolerate poverty, it would seek to eliminate it. Seriously do you think a nanny is someone you pay to neglect your children? You pay them to see your children grow up to be productive/responsible/happy adults. Welfare just perpetuates poverty with the rare person who manages to escape that. So... You want to end welfare then? How exactly do you propose to eliminate poverty without welfare?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
KillHour posted:I am absolutely for regulation in making sure labels are accurate and consumers are educated. That's WHY I'm against drug prohibition. I'm for both - changing the policy as necessary to respond to the situation I have in front of me. I want the best for as many people as possible, and am happy to grimace and push something I'm not entirely sure of if the evidence shows it will help people. Guavanaut posted:Russia hit the addiction clinics so much worse than even America did though. And hit the opiate traffickers harder, who I will shed no tears for but in the absence of alternatives you get people injecting phosphorus directly into their veins with shared needles and unsurprisingly getting sick. Oh don't get me wrong, I'm all for prescribing heroin - the fact that the tabloids made it near-impossible to prescribe it here in the UK is part of why I'd happily see them be swallowed by a sinkhole.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
fishmech posted:There is, it's medical ethics. Sorry that you still want to stick to your completely ignorant insistent that anyone should be able to consume anything. An argument can be made that more overall harm comes to society because of marijuana prohibition (again -- arrests, life-ruining criminal record, violence in the black market, police abuse of authority, 4th amendment violations etc) than some gay people (2% of the population) facing lovely behavior from people who don't like them. I'm not going to say which is the greater harm, but it's ridiculous for you to reduce the former to "lol u just sad u can't smoke in front of a cop."
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Russia hit the addiction clinics so much worse than even America did though. And hit the opiate traffickers harder, who I will shed no tears for but in the absence of alternatives you get people injecting phosphorus directly into their veins with shared needles and unsurprisingly getting sick. Of course, because the DEA doesn't want heroin traffickers put out of business in the first place objects in mirror posted:I'm going to directly state what I've been hinting at: i get what you're saying but you could have picked a better time to share this opinion with the world
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
objects in mirror posted:I'm going to directly state what I've been hinting at: Congrats on stating something that's false I guess? Sorry that you're a hateful enough person to think it's ok if people are still getting booted out of jobs and homes because "eww icky gays" is considered a valid reason in many states? Seriously you're disgusting, and your allegation isn't even true. KillHour posted:The "Above all else, do no harm" mantra exists only to avoid malpractice lawsuits, not help patients. And is often ignored when convenient anyways. Ah yes, all those malpractice lawsuits of Ancient Greece. There are absolutely tons of drugs that should be banned. I care because your habit of huffing nail polish remover has apparently led to your current permanently impaired state. It actually did help the people we told that to. Barring people from driving drunk helps the drunk driver and their potential victims. Barring mass sales of raw milk has save literally millions of lives in total. objects in mirror posted:An argument can be made that more overall harm comes to society because of marijuana prohibition (again -- arrests, life-ruining criminal record, violence in the black market, police abuse of authority, 4th amendment violations etc) than some gay people (2% of the population) facing lovely behavior from people who don't like them. I'm not going to say which is the greater harm, but it's ridiculous for you to reduce the former to "lol u just sad u can't smoke in front of a cop." The greater harm is anyone who isn't straight being able to be abused by society at large. Flat loving out. And again: gay people having rights isn't why you can't smoke weed in the first place. You can make the argument there, but you would be wrong. fishmech fucked around with this message at 01:30 on Jun 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
Oh man, you're right. Peace out for now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Actually, making it illegal to manufacture and sell many things has done tons to stop people from consuming it. When was the last time you bought Doctor John's Radium Elixir? It's never, because that poo poo's been illegal since the 40s. When was the last time you bought lead-based household paint? Probably the 80s at the latest, when stores finally ran out of remaining stocks. Lead paint falls squarely in my earlier example of things that hurt the environment that I'm for banning, so that's been covered. It's not illegal to sell radium. Nor is it illegal to sell radium dissolved in tonic water. It is illegal to sell radium dissolved in tonic water as something to drink. Which, again, I'm completely in favour of.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Lead paint falls squarely in my earlier example of things that hurt the environment that I'm for banning, so that's been covered. It's not illegal to sell radium. Nor is it illegal to sell radium dissolved in tonic water. It is illegal to sell radium dissolved in tonic water as something to drink. Which, again, I'm completely in favour of. So basically you want anybody to be able to consume everything except you want them to not be able to consume a lot of things. Do you not get how you're repeatedly contradicting yourself?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Congrats on stating something that's false I guess? Sorry that you're a hateful enough person to think it's ok if people are still getting booted out of jobs and homes because "eww icky gays" is considered a valid reason in many states? Sorry you're uncaring and dumb enough to think it's ok if people get arrested and have their lives ruined for smoking marijuana because "marijuana smoking is not a right." (This isn't how I usually argue but I believe in answering fire with fire)
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
objects in mirror posted:Sorry you're uncaring and dumb enough to think it's ok if people get arrested and have their lives ruined for smoking marijuana because "marijuana smoking is not a right." But you're not answering fire with fire. No one is an obligate smoker of weed. Gay people are gay all the time, and even if they never engage in "gay acts" they can still be legally oppressed in much of the country. And once again: gay people having rights is doing nothing to prevent weed from being legal. In fact, many of the states that pioneered in gay rights also flat out legalized weed!
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
objects in mirror posted:Actually, the argument that LGBTQ rights are already in the constitution stems from the power of liberals sympathetic to LGBTQ issues have in legal and intellectual circles. Constitutional protections for LGBTQ folk are the result of advocacy for them, it's not inherent to the constitution. Likewise, those who are hostile to and have distaste for marijuana have had huge influence in legal and intellectual circles such that, for instance, the supreme court could give a torturous reading of the commerce law in Gonzales v. Raich to allow the federal government to prosecute those who grow medical marijuana. This is really a horrible time to be trying to make this point, like I don't think there's ever a good time to make it because it's dumb but cmon
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Ah yes, all those malpractice lawsuits of Ancient Greece. I'm aware that the mantra is thousands of years old. It's outdated. Get over it. I'm glad you care so much about my opinions, but the feeling isn't mutual. It's not the booze that's illegal, or the drinking. It's the driving while drunk, which I never argued against. Those goal posts keep going further... And banning that is to help the other people they could kill. Banning selling raw milk and rotten meat its fine for the same reason banning medication laced with arsenic or airbags that don't work is. We're specifically talking about drugs that are well labeled, pure, and not misleading.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
fishmech posted:So basically you want anybody to be able to consume everything except you want them to not be able to consume a lot of things. Do you not get how you're repeatedly contradicting yourself? I don't care if you want to consume radium. I care if it's labeled as food. That's not contradicting myself. You can consume whatever you want. You can't call whatever you want safe for consumption! This isn't rocket science.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
objects in mirror posted:Actually, the argument that LGBTQ rights are already in the constitution stems from the power of liberals sympathetic to LGBTQ issues have in legal and intellectual circles. Constitutional protections for LGBTQ folk are the result of advocacy for them, it's not inherent to the constitution. Uh. I mean, it's not inherent to the original constitution, sure, but do you really not remember the 14th amendment? There was even a civil war prior to it! Amendment 14, Section 1 posted:All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. This is the entirety of the 'liberal' debate about LGBTQ rights. It's there in the amendment. It was written to protect black people but comically enough doesn't discriminate against future beneficiaries. objects in mirror posted:Likewise, those who are hostile to and have distaste for marijuana have had huge influence in legal and intellectual circles such that, for instance, the supreme court could give a torturous reading of the commerce law in Gonzales v. Raich to allow the federal government to prosecute those who grow medical marijuana. That was in 2005 with a GOP-stacked supreme court! C'mon I know Ginsberg agreed but she was working on the law of the time. It's like they have to side with the law and not personal opinion! Notice how the liberals tended towards the dissenting opinions? objects in mirror posted:I'm going to directly state what I've been hinting at: This could be an interesting conversation with how the LGBTQ and the black community have seen different levels of representative success. That said, it's not for the marijuana legalisation thread unless you can genuinely claim that marijuana smokers are being ignored by the 14th amendment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
KillHour posted:I'm aware that the mantra is thousands of years old. It's outdated. Get over it. It is not outdated in the least. The only goal posts moving are yours, because you started out saying you shouldn't make it illegal to get and consume anything and now you're doing this. Well labeled, pure and "not misleading" radium water will still cause harm, which is why it is banned. Same goes for all sorts of banned substances. KillHour posted:I don't care if you want to consume radium. I care if it's labeled as food. That's not contradicting myself. You can consume whatever you want. You can't call whatever you want safe for consumption! This isn't rocket science. Yes we get it, you don't understand the needs of public helath and safety. You are contradicting yourself because you started by saying nothing should be banned for consumption. If it's not safe for consumption, then tons of things aren't safe for legal sale, period. Deal with it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
fishmech posted:The greater harm is anyone who isn't straight being able to be abused by society at large. Flat loving out. And again: gay people having rights isn't why you can't smoke weed in the first place. Yea, that's really shortsighted and stupid and, incidentally, quite convenient to the neo-liberal elite that considers a higher minimum wage anathema but still consider themselves liberal because they stand up for LBQGT rights. LBQGT issues sucking up a lot of political capital and oxygen has worked as a distraction from other issues and it's time liberals realized that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
fishmech posted:It actually did help the people we told that to. Barring people from driving drunk helps the drunk driver and their potential victims. Barring mass sales of raw milk has save literally millions of lives in total.  Come on, dude, raw milk wasn't killing that many people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
My point is I don't care if you want to harm yourself. You should be allowed to do whatever you want to yourself up to and including suicide as long as it does not actively harm others. Everything else, including your weird obsession with pasteurization, is tangential to my core point. Those are my only goal posts and you seem to love changing the subject.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
objects in mirror posted:Yea, that's really shortsighted and stupid and, incidentally, quite convenient to the neo-liberal elite that considers a higher minimum wage anathema but still consider themselves liberal because they stand up for LBQGT rights. LBQGT issues sucking up a lot of political capital and oxygen has worked as a distraction from other issues and it's time liberals realized that. Once again dude, LGBT rights aren't why you can't smoke weed in whatever state you're in, and continuing to support rights for a group that until 2003 could still be jailed just for having sex, and still today can be fired, kicked out of homes, etc just for existing while gay? That's also not preventing legal weed. Mirthless posted:
Uh yes, it would have killed that many people over the hundred plus years since widespread pasteurization came in. KillHour posted:My point is I don't care if you want to harm yourself. You should be allowed to do whatever you want to yourself up to and including suicide as long as it does not actively harm others. Everything else, including your weird obsession with pasteurization, is tangential to my core point. Those are my only goal posts and you seem to love changing the subject. Yeah we understood that your point is you don't believe in public health and safety hours ago. People should care about other people's safety. We live in a society. You are constantly changing the goalposts, you started when you said "you should be able to consume anything you want" and then quickly said "but not antibiotics all you want". fishmech fucked around with this message at 01:46 on Jun 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
fishmech posted:If it's not safe for consumption, then tons of things aren't safe for legal sale, period. Deal with it. If you can't eat something, you shouldn't be able to buy it at all!  - Someone who apparently lives in a house made of bacon.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
There is an argument to be made that civil liberties groups were overfocused on LGBT issues at the expense of criminal justice issues in the last 13 years. The argument to be made is the gigantic prison population and the number of black men over 30 who can't vote. You're really understating this issue a lot fishmech, it's kind of bizarre. I get the feeling you just have a "gently caress people who are in jail for drug crimes" attitude and if that's not what you're trying to relay you're doing a pretty poor job of it
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
99 posts in the drug legalization thread? Did Obama legalize weed while I was getting dinner? Oh, it's just fishmech.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
KillHour posted:If you can't eat something, you shouldn't be able to buy it at all! There are tons of ways to consume things that don't involve eating. Are you really this dumb? When you have something that was developed as drug, is not effective as a drug, and is actively dangerous when used - for instance - why are you so adamant that it should be able to be purchased, exactly? Mirthless posted:There is an argument to be made that civil liberties groups were overfocused on LGBT issues at the expense of criminal justice issues in the last 13 years. The argument to be made is the gigantic prison population and the number of black men over 30 who can't vote. You're really understating this issue a lot fishmech, it's kind of bizarre. I get the feeling you just have a "gently caress people who are in jail for drug crimes" attitude and if that's not what you're trying to relay you're doing a pretty poor job of it Absolutely 0 of those people are in jail because other people dared to also support LGBT rights, dude. Rights aren't a zero sum game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
I think this strayed a bunch from the initial question I asked, which wasDay Man posted:What exactly should you not have the right to do to your own body? Fishmech is now arguing for the FDA. The FDA governs what can and cannot be sold and the claims you are allowed to make. It is not illegal for you to believe that lead cures cancer and eat a bunch of lead. (This is doing something to your own body.) It is illegal to convince someone else to do so. It should remain illegal to sell fake cures. It should remain illegal to lie about your product being dangerous. I asked what you should not be allowed to do to your own body. If you eat lead on purpose, should that carry jail time or a fine? How about arsenic? Why should ingesting any substance be illegal? All of the harmful things that may result (DWI, robbery, assault, etc.) are already illegal. If someone is ingesting something and harming nobody else, why should society be protecting them from themselves?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Once again dude, LGBT rights aren't why you can't smoke weed in whatever state you're in, and continuing to support rights for a group that until 2003 could still be jailed just for having sex, and still today can be fired, kicked out of homes, etc just for existing while gay? That's also not preventing legal weed. Raw milk has been banned in the united states for less than a century. Do not make me go on a quest to prove to you that raw milk was not killing tens of thousands of people a year. it is not good for you and it is a good thing that it is not sold in grocery stores but I can still go to the loving farm and buy it and if I have a healthy immune system it's unlikely to make me sick. I feel like this is a perfectly good balance. Buy direct from a manufacturer or make it yourself. If you lack the expertise, you don't get to have it. People with the expertise are capable of understanding the risks. That is my feeling on drugs in general, with the exception of weed, which should be sold in every grocery store in the loving country, it's not like they aren't all already selling rolling papers. Mirthless fucked around with this message at 01:52 on Jun 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
objects in mirror posted:Yea, that's really shortsighted and stupid and, incidentally, quite convenient to the neo-liberal elite that considers a higher minimum wage anathema but still consider themselves liberal because they stand up for LBQGT rights. LBQGT issues sucking up a lot of political capital and oxygen has worked as a distraction from other issues and it's time liberals realized that. Hey dumbass, maybe right after the worst mass shooting in US history, specifically targeted at LGBTQ people, is the wrong time to pitch a fit about how us demanding fair treatment is "sucking up a lot of political capital."
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
fishmech posted:There are tons of ways to consume things that don't involve eating. Are you really this dumb? I'm sorry, I must have forgotten about those people who mainline cinder blocks. I use a house as an example, and you retort with that? Do you randomly select words in posts and reply just to those, taking them completely out of context? fishmech posted:When you have something that was developed as drug, is not effective as a drug, and is actively dangerous when used - for instance - why are you so adamant that it should be able to be purchased, exactly? Because you should be allowed to consume it, regardless. I just don't want people consuming it ACCIDENTALLY. That's why labeling is important.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
Day Man posted:I think this strayed a bunch from the initial question I asked, which was What don't you get exactly? You shouldn't be allowed to consume all sorts of things. Regulations and bans on sales and productions successfully prevent people from consuming tons of those things. Because lots of people completely lack the ability to build a complicated backyard setup to synthesize various medications, formerly used industrial chemicals, obsolete food colorings, and so on - let alone the money or the time. The reason banning weed is bad isn't because banning things in general is bad. It's because weed is not harmful. Society's job is to protect everyone from themselves. Humans get up to lots of dumb bullshit if you don't protect them. KillHour posted:I'm sorry, I must have forgotten about those people who mainline cinder blocks. I use a house as an example, and you retort with that? Do you randomly select words in posts and reply just to those, taking them completely out of context? You're making a stupid argument, and I'm not taking things out of context. No, there is no inherent right to consume anything you want. You yourself admitted immediately after said that the first time, that people shouldn't be allow to consume all the antibiotics you want. You already admit and understand that your argument is bullshit. And labeling doesn't fix things. You use labeling for things that have some use. You ban sales od many things that not just have no use, but are actively harmful.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
fishmech posted:There are tons of ways to consume things that don't involve eating. Are you really this dumb? Err.. We were talking about resources which are, by nature, limited. I hate to be exceedingly reductive but breast cancer awareness charities suck all the air out of the room when it comes to cancer research. As far as civil rights issues go, gay rights has been the pink ribbon. It's high profile, it makes people feel good, and it brings in the donations that fund the fight. I don't want to sound like I'm against this or anything, it's just... not an entirely invalid point
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 00:38 |
|
|
Small Frozen Thing posted:Hey dumbass, maybe right after the worst mass shooting in US history, specifically targeted at LGBTQ people, is the wrong time to pitch a fit about how us demanding fair treatment is "sucking up a lot of political capital." Uh gays only have themselves to blame. Maybe if they weren't so racist against Muslims he wouldn't have had to use violence. http://gawker.com/orlando-shooter-was-reportedly-a-regular-at-pulse-and-h-1781920316
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:58
|
|