Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
Really? No threads about the Gillette ad yet?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ThatRobGuy" data-source="post: 73587445" data-attributes="member: 123415"><p>Let's not be disingenuous here...you're better than that.</p><p></p><p>Nobody is ever going get angry for demonizing the behavior of brutally attacking someone. Pretty sure we're all in agreement that brutally attacking someone is wrong...</p><p></p><p>Read my previous #152.</p><p></p><p>If another analogy works better, let's use cars.</p><p></p><p>People having the ability to drive cars has sometimes led to people having the ability to drive drunk. If someone proposed "we need to make society aware of how toxic it is for people to drive drunk, and that starts with getting rid of toxic precursor behavior like driving...because driving has preceded drunk driving before" When people rightfully object to that, it wouldn't be fair to turn around and imply "well, you're just mad because you feel entitled to drunk driving!"</p><p></p><p>Attempting to be flirtatious, hitting on women, or even catcalling isn't the precursor to "beat them up if they object". Saying otherwise would almost be similar to the flawed "gateway drug" argument anti-pot people use.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ThatRobGuy, post: 73587445, member: 123415"] Let's not be disingenuous here...you're better than that. Nobody is ever going get angry for demonizing the behavior of brutally attacking someone. Pretty sure we're all in agreement that brutally attacking someone is wrong... Read my previous #152. If another analogy works better, let's use cars. People having the ability to drive cars has sometimes led to people having the ability to drive drunk. If someone proposed "we need to make society aware of how toxic it is for people to drive drunk, and that starts with getting rid of toxic precursor behavior like driving...because driving has preceded drunk driving before" When people rightfully object to that, it wouldn't be fair to turn around and imply "well, you're just mad because you feel entitled to drunk driving!" Attempting to be flirtatious, hitting on women, or even catcalling isn't the precursor to "beat them up if they object". Saying otherwise would almost be similar to the flawed "gateway drug" argument anti-pot people use. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
Really? No threads about the Gillette ad yet?
Top
Bottom