I don't think anyone is trying to calculate some kind of moral blame. They're identifying a scenario they don't want to happen and they're trying to prevent it. Fault doesn't matter.
rchive
joined 2 years ago
I'm talking about whether people are physically capable of breaking with their party on a single issue. They obviously are.
There are places that are worse, for sure, and I'm sorry to hear that. But the average is better. Just like the existence of really hot days does not disprove climate change, really terrible events in certain places do not disprove the overall trend of things getting better.
That's not the right comparison. He didn't commit suicide because he was ashamed of supporting gay rights, he was ashamed of wanting to cross dress and of having engaged in the activity. Regardless of politics, that's a pretty uncommon behavior. Most people don't want other people to know they're a sexual deviant of some kind. I'd guess that this behavior is much more maligned in conservative circles than liberal or left, for sure, but the point is that it's not just the breaking from the standard beliefs of that side.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. There are tons of Republicans who support gay rights in some fashion, even if it's not a majority position within the party.
You can disagree with your party on one issue. There are tons of Democrats who are opposed to increased gun control, for example.
I've seen a lot of advocates for legalization, if not glamorization, come from the sex work industry. Aella, for example.
I think they're saying theoretically the underage students could view her content or even interact with her without her knowing it's them.
That's a good example of unintended consequences. Another is alcohol becoming really dangerous on the black market once Prohibition happened in the US.
If it's a required thing they should obviously get paid for that time.