|
LORD OF BOOTY posted:"next time anything remotely similar to this happens, we start beating the gently caress out of straight cis people, regardless of race or religion." or poo poo, don't even wait for a next time, do it now. hackbunny posted:Harass his family? Burn him in effigy? Deface the corpse? Storm the morgue, steal the corpse, use it as a prop at the first available pride parade? Just spitballing Yardbomb posted:Bury him upside down in a bedazzled, hot pink spray-painted dumpster filled with diarrhea. There is not a human on this earth who would see such a thing and interpret it as strength. Do you think there is someone who, upon seeing Omar's corpse hung high, would change their mind about committing such an act? Or is it much more likely to fuel their own desire for violence? I consider Norway's response to Breivik (and the fact that he still lives) a true indication of their strength and courage. This is a result of the historic acceptance of homophobic culture in America. The only 'vengeance' to be had is for this tragedy to be remembered as a display of the importance of LGBT acceptance and unity. BigRed0427 posted:If we are going to get political with this, then lets push the non-discrimination laws. Hard. Right. Revenge will be found by using this event to further the cause, not by using this event to justify violence, fear, or xenophobia. Atoramos fucked around with this message at 22:00 on Jun 12, 2016 |
#
¿
Jun 12, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 13:35 |
|
|
fishmech posted:Buddy, look, there is absolutely no benefit to anyone from having the bans for people who've had sex with men who had sex with men in place, whether they be indefinite ones or time based. This is really should be the end to that argument. OwlFancier is free to post his opinions, but happens to be entirely wrong about this matter. Factually there is no reason to prevent gays from donating blood. OwlFancier posted:I have no aversion to excessive caution where it can be afforded. This is not 'excessive caution', at this point it is straight-up discriminatory. And worse, this is not somewhere it can be afforded. We have all the data necessary to determine if there is a statistical reason to prevent gays from donating blood, and as it turns out: there isn't.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
Again you continue to ignore the facts while focusing on the idea that it's not a 'right'. There's statistically no reason to prevent gays from donating blood, and it's not caution that's affordable at any point in time as blood is in a constant state of needed supply. Give me a good reason to support your cause other than 'donating isn't a right'. Because a few years ago 'marriage isn't a right' was a legitimate argument, too.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 17:53
|
|