Well pedophiles are just being them when they touch little kids. Is that okay? A bit extreme of an example, there. But would it be okay if people walked around naked everywhere because they're naturally a nudist and being themselves? Why not? They're technically not hurting anyone, right? People could just look away, right? There's appropriate behavior and then being yourself. For example, the real you might want to tell your boss to eat a dick. The smart you just (or should (or should get it on camera)) nods until they go away.
It's the same with those who are naturally violent and want confrontation all the time. Their "being themselves" isn't an appropriate way to act.
You probably think that's a good example, but it simply isn't. It isn't because of the simple fact that this is discussing someone that isn't putting anybody through harm, and that their choices are ones that bring unrightful negative effect, where as being a pedophile includes the victim and the victimizer, where as the "fabulous" homoesxuals don't have those two roles in their life choice.
Once again, there is a difference between the two examples you are saying. You are saying that acting a certain way that doesn't involve a victim or a victimizer is the same as a situation that involved the victim and the victimizer. As for the nudist thing, they are definetly the minority of people, and they have respect for others and do their nudist acts in areas where they are allowed or areas of their own privacy where nobody can see them. There is a difference between life styles that make you act a certain way that doesn't expose nudity, and a life style that involves exposing yourself in areas not allowed.
Your example of the boss is just terrible aswell. You are comparing an asshole boss to a man that acts a certain way and could be a nice person, there is no accurate comparison.
No, it isn't the same, and if you think so then I have no idea what logic you follow by. Like I said, there is a difference between being yourself that involves the victim and the victimizer, and being yourself that doesn't involve those things.
I can't help but notice your "right, right?" after a few sentences as if you think you're cornering me. You haven't been here long, so I think I should tell you that when it comes to debates, you simply won't win against me, I have a reputation for being a good debater on this site, as vain as that may make me seem. Just thought you should know, because I think I know what direction this is going to go.
Is it normal to find "fabulous" people annoying?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
Well pedophiles are just being them when they touch little kids. Is that okay? A bit extreme of an example, there. But would it be okay if people walked around naked everywhere because they're naturally a nudist and being themselves? Why not? They're technically not hurting anyone, right? People could just look away, right? There's appropriate behavior and then being yourself. For example, the real you might want to tell your boss to eat a dick. The smart you just (or should (or should get it on camera)) nods until they go away.
It's the same with those who are naturally violent and want confrontation all the time. Their "being themselves" isn't an appropriate way to act.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
You probably think that's a good example, but it simply isn't. It isn't because of the simple fact that this is discussing someone that isn't putting anybody through harm, and that their choices are ones that bring unrightful negative effect, where as being a pedophile includes the victim and the victimizer, where as the "fabulous" homoesxuals don't have those two roles in their life choice.
Once again, there is a difference between the two examples you are saying. You are saying that acting a certain way that doesn't involve a victim or a victimizer is the same as a situation that involved the victim and the victimizer. As for the nudist thing, they are definetly the minority of people, and they have respect for others and do their nudist acts in areas where they are allowed or areas of their own privacy where nobody can see them. There is a difference between life styles that make you act a certain way that doesn't expose nudity, and a life style that involves exposing yourself in areas not allowed.
Your example of the boss is just terrible aswell. You are comparing an asshole boss to a man that acts a certain way and could be a nice person, there is no accurate comparison.
No, it isn't the same, and if you think so then I have no idea what logic you follow by. Like I said, there is a difference between being yourself that involves the victim and the victimizer, and being yourself that doesn't involve those things.
I can't help but notice your "right, right?" after a few sentences as if you think you're cornering me. You haven't been here long, so I think I should tell you that when it comes to debates, you simply won't win against me, I have a reputation for being a good debater on this site, as vain as that may make me seem. Just thought you should know, because I think I know what direction this is going to go.