GLAAD calls for apology from "Rob, Arnie & Dawn Show" for encouraging the beating of transgender or questioning children

Everyone has the right to an opinion. They don't have the right to incite violence against children, no matter how 'different' they might be.

And don't call me "my friend", you terrible, terrible person. 

i feel like looking for a dog today and hitting it with my car or smacking a crying child in a restaurant

oh my....hope that wasn't mean...oh, wait....freedom of speech. i'm all good. no consequences. PHEW

:-D

got to do with being trans?

Transphobia is the issue, And frankly if you cant cope with the repercussions of free speech then maybe they should think more carefully about what they say next time.

With freedom comes responsibility. 

Weird isnt it how there seems to be alot of "new" members that only have posted here, Hmmm you were not told to sign up and post here where you? 

You did off your own backs?

No I dont think so.

OK, I'm not an American, but I'm calling you an asshole anyway. I could get away with calling you an asshole in my country, too, even though we haven't got a first amemendment. But I could call you an asshole in any country and still face no sanction because the truth is an absolute defence against libel.

So your argument is that Rob and Arnie should use their free speech but if someone uses free speech against them, then somehow they're victims? Lemme get this straight (and I use the word advisedly), it's only free speech if you use it? But if I use it, then somehow it's wrong?

So let's get onto another point? I have a life, not a lifestyle. And while I'll happily defend your right to live the life you want, I sure as hell won't defend your lifestyle if that includes sitting behind your computer, going into a primarily gay site and tippy-tapping away that people you've never met are unnatural freaks and weirdoes. Exactly how badly are you being brought up? You might be wearing long trousers, but from the kind of shit you're spewing, I'm pretty sure you're not out of diapers.

Oh, and another thing. Rob and Arnie used their free speech, lots of others used theirs. Guess what, all those people you don't like include corporations that pay Rob and Arnie's wages. It's not political correctness, it's common sense and good manners. Rob, Arnie and you displayed neither. And now you're being spanked. Guess what, you're losing. Grow up and get used to it.

Also, you're quoting Robbie Williams from boyband Take That to back up your case? He's been fucking odd for years now - you might need a new prophet.

.

One question to you, logic. Are you here to rant or to discuss? If you are here to discuss and find answers to your questions, then this could be an interesting debate.

You might not agree with the answers that people here will give you, but you can guarantee that the answers you receive (from the people who aren't just irritated at your tone) will be truthful and sincere.

Freedom of speech goes both both ways.  You have the freedom to say what you just said logic (umm...), and I have the freedom to reply.  Free speech is a two way street.

You have your list of people who are off limits, and yet I have to say, for being off limits those groups are constantly being attacked.  The problem isn't that you can't attack them, the problem is that they talk.

As for those who are fair game... well, they are.  Everyone is fair game.  If you make any public statement expect someone to disagree with you.  I excpect plenty of people to disagree with me, but that is something I understand when I enter into an argument.

Miss California got a lot of backlash for what she said.  She said it in a public forum, therefor opening herself up to critcism. I've noticed that people who throw around the "free speech" argument really aren't fans of true free speech, because they don't think that they should be criticized for saying whatever they want, and are not fans of discussions, just proclemations.

Trust me logic, it is still not "cool" to be gay or bi.  Kids are still harassed, humiliated, beaten and even killed because they are percieved as gay or bi.  And what about extreme flamboyancy?  So?  Also, the idea of what is normal is not a constent.  It is constantly changing and shifting as society grows and changes.  What is "normal" for one individual may not be considered "normal" for another.  There really is no such thing as normal, just common. 

The issue with saying that polygomy and incest are going to come next when it comes to the marriage argument is this.  In incest, there is the issue of consent and control.  Other than just the biological and social issues, it is also that since the relationship is formed within the confines of an already established hierarchy, one cannot say that one or both of the partners fully consent.  One member always holds more authority than the other.  An uncle holds authority over a niece or nephew.  How can that niece or nephew truly be considered a consenting adult when the person they are with is someone they have been taught to respect and obey all their lives?  Even with siblings.  One sibling is older, and therefor holds a certain degree of power over the younger sibling.  So why can't family members get married (and why should incestious relationships be considered a problem)?  It is near impossible to establish true consent from both parties.

Why is polygomy a problem?  Well, other than the misogony in the whole idea, there is again considered the problem with consent, and also equal rights.  Look at every single one of these polygomist groups.  They are all male dominated, and the brides are forced to marry at a young age to older men that they did not choose to marry.  As for equal rights.  Say all parties involved are of age and give full concent to the agreement, then why can't they be legally joined?  Well, specifically with polygomy, it means that only the husband can take on more spouses.  The wives on the other hand are required to be faithful to their husband, one singular male.  If you take away the gender roles, and allow both partners to have multiple spouses, then what is the problem?  Other than a major legal headache and the total deconstruction of legal (state and federal marriage) marriage, there really is no issue, other than a personal, moral one.  A marriage contract would become worthless and meaningless, but in this day and age of drive through weddings, 48 hour marriages and a sky rocketing divorce rate, isn't it already?  If the people involved are all legally unrelated adults who give full and knowing concent, I don't really care what they do in their personal lives.  The thing is, if polygomy/polyamory was legal, how many people would honestly do it? 

Free speech is your right Logic, but it is also my right. 

Check out my blog soap at:

soapsudzbybobo.blogspot.com