Search results

Another issue here is why stuff like this happens so much in the first place: the prison-like school system.

Where did you get the "White land owning males" stuff from?

Do you think everything that should be legal is OK? Because I don't.

I guess I really do need to explain this to you. Maybe an example will help. Dude: Gay people should be allowed to marry each other. Homophobe: Except they don't have that freedom. Sorry, Charlie. Dude: Uh, I said they should be allowed to do it, not that they're allowed to do it now...

I think that would be disgusting and I wouldn't encourage anyone to play it. No, you missed my point. You brought up the point that the first amendment does not apply in Japan. What I'm trying to tell you is that this is about free speech, not the first amendment. They are not the same thing.

I find it amusing that two people made almost identical, incorrect responses. And one of them was just criticizing another CAG's reading comprehension skills. Seriously, compare the sentences in the two posts, one at a time. Except you can't. Except you don't have that freedom. Its illegal...

Did you miss the word "should" in his post?

How socialist can you be when you think it's ok for the government to overrule individual rights because the majority said so?

Wow depascal, it's like you've taken every common misconception about free speech on the internet and packed them all into one post. Of course you can. Just like I can point out that you're wrong. You haven't thought about this issue enough, because for some reason you've equated the first...

On a related note, I think you'll like this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7993694.stm

Why, were you expecting it to be bigger? :shock:

I think you meant medium, not genre. [/nitpick]

Uh, you know, in theory, the court is supposed to interpret the law, not just decide if it wants gay marriage to be legal or not. The two rulings were about different things. Unless you're just admitting that the courts often do whatever the hell they want.

Got it. Going back to your earlier posts: I'd say only when someone becomes violent. Yeah, it's been funny watching progressives whine about rights all of a sudden. Of course gay marriage should be legal, but now they're worried about the majority trampling over rights? Who is forcing you...

Yeah, good post. Seriously, I appreciate that you can make that admission. I'm sure there are people who would torture in extreme circumstances but would never admit it.

So it was handed out by progressives in the executive branch, instead of the legislative branch. Many religions preach compassion. You should tell that to the people who are hurt or killed by it. Where is your compassion?

Do we really need ass banks?

Are you suggesting you don't have a rigid ideology? Are there circumstances under which you think torture is acceptable?

Uh, this is a freedom of speech issue, whether you like it or not. You should do what Koggit did and just admit it. Who decides what has artistic merit? Where is it being "pushed" on the public? This is a great example of exercising free speech rights, because this stuff is so unpopular.

Who cares if people choose to be gay or not? What difference does it make?