|
Blazinghand
United States25558 Posts
On June 26 2013 18:29 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 18:22 Blazinghand wrote:On June 26 2013 18:19 marvellosity wrote:On June 26 2013 18:10 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 17:50 Ahelvin wrote:On June 26 2013 17:43 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 16:48 salle wrote:On June 26 2013 11:28 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 07:25 salle wrote:On June 26 2013 06:15 Gen.Rolly wrote:
[quote]
Alright thanks. I still feel their position is unnecessary and there is no reason to use their position as TL admins to promote a particular political/moral ideology. If they wanted to offend people, they succeeded.
“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what.” ― Stephen Fry This is a great quote. To be more specific, it appears TL admins are taking advantage of community-generated e-sports content on TL.net to promote a particular political ideology. Since marriage is a political institution, where taxpayer-supported treatment to married couples and their dependents are codified into laws ratified by a democratic government, taking a stance on whether one feels those treatments should extend to homosexual couples is necessarily a political stance. Some may find the TL admins' use of their forum to promote their particular political viewpoint unnecessary, if not unfair because not everyone who contributes to the great community that is TL shares their views. I don't believe marriage is ever mentioned. it's simply a rainbow maned horse logo with the hover text "TL loves ESPORTS, equally." This is simply you extrapolating. But to reply to your post if "each individual and group should be treated equally under law" is a bad political stance then you have some very weird concepts of law and equality. Actually, it does imply the gay marriage debate. Homosexuals, in fact, are treated equally under the law. Marriage, however, is a separate matter. Married couples receive special treatment under the law. As a single person, whether gay or straight, one is not entitled to this treatment. So to speak of equality necessarily implies marriage equality. To recap my separate posts thus far, the U.S. is a democratic society, and the special treatment given to married couples by our government is given by the people, like all of our laws. Therefore, we the people decide who falls within that privileged group. Again, I feel the TL admins are taking advantage of the community-generated e-sports content on TL.net to promote a particular political ideology. Since marriage is a political institution, where taxpayer-supported treatment to married couples and their dependents are codified into laws ratified by a democratic government, taking a stance on whether one feels those treatments should extend to homosexual couples is necessarily a political stance. Some may find the TL admins' use of their forum to promote their particular political viewpoint unnecessary, if not unfair because not everyone who contributes to TL shares their views. Then the people that are contributing to TL and find TL taking a stance on the issue unfair can go to a different community I guess? There are plenty of other ways people can contribute to Esports outside TL (running a YouTube channel for instance). On June 26 2013 17:43 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 16:48 salle wrote:On June 26 2013 11:28 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 07:25 salle wrote:On June 26 2013 06:15 Gen.Rolly wrote:
[quote]
Alright thanks. I still feel their position is unnecessary and there is no reason to use their position as TL admins to promote a particular political/moral ideology. If they wanted to offend people, they succeeded.
“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what.” ― Stephen Fry This is a great quote. To be more specific, it appears TL admins are taking advantage of community-generated e-sports content on TL.net to promote a particular political ideology. Since marriage is a political institution, where taxpayer-supported treatment to married couples and their dependents are codified into laws ratified by a democratic government, taking a stance on whether one feels those treatments should extend to homosexual couples is necessarily a political stance. Some may find the TL admins' use of their forum to promote their particular political viewpoint unnecessary, if not unfair because not everyone who contributes to the great community that is TL shares their views. I don't believe marriage is ever mentioned. it's simply a rainbow maned horse logo with the hover text "TL loves ESPORTS, equally." This is simply you extrapolating. But to reply to your post if "each individual and group should be treated equally under law" is a bad political stance then you have some very weird concepts of law and equality. Actually, it does imply the gay marriage debate. Homosexuals, in fact, are treated equally under the law. Marriage, however, is a separate matter. Married couples receive special treatment under the law. As a single person, whether gay or straight, one is not entitled to this treatment. So to speak of equality necessarily implies marriage equality. From a pure legal standpoint, this seems wrong. Straight people have the right to marry the person they love, and have this commitment recognized by the state. Gay people do not have this right. What am I missing? Legally speaking, straight people are afforded privileges by the democratic state if and when they marry. These are the benefits gay couples also seek. Were the debate simply about being with the person you love and having that arrangement labeled "marriage", there would be little debate, since gay people are free to be with whomever they will, even if the arrangement does not have a special name. Legal treatments given to marriage are what is at stake here, and since they are granted by a democratic government, the people have a say about who receives them and who does not. Still not seeing the problem with everyone being treated equally though. Your argument that straight married couples receive special treatment and gays do not still boils down to one group not being treated the same as the other  It's also worth noting that just because a government is democratic doesn't mean it's just. We have undemocratic elements of the government here in the US (courts, the federal reserve, constitutional limits on power) because we recognize that the tyranny of the majority is a thing. Agreed. Too many people seem to think democracy boils down to "but if a majority want x, then it's democracy!" Just no. Like this dude said. Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 18:16 arsonist wrote:
Because the majority choosing what rights (privileges, whichever) the minority should or should not get is always a good idea.
As J Edgar hoover said, democracy is two sheep and a woof voting on what's for dinner. olniw the sheep are plansixes and the wolf is a poor oppressed person who accidentally insulted plansix by telling him the truth and dinner us plansix trsamplijg on then rights of the proletariat. that is to say, democracy is an important part of government, but remember that half of Americans are dumber than the median American eh plansix
|
On June 26 2013 18:10 Gen.Rolly wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 17:50 Ahelvin wrote:On June 26 2013 17:43 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 16:48 salle wrote:On June 26 2013 11:28 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 07:25 salle wrote:On June 26 2013 06:15 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 06:06 marvellosity wrote:On June 26 2013 06:05 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 06:02 marvellosity wrote:
[quote]
Yes, TL admins have spoken about it plenty. It's pretty clear you haven't read the thread.
If you don't want to talk about it, don't click on the thread. Easy right? ^^ Can you quote them please? I do not have time to read through 70 pages of thread, sorry. I clicked on the thread to voice my opinion, not to engage in a lengthy discussion about the relationship between politics and esports. Not going to trawl the thread for you, but along the lines of "we're anti-discrimination and for equality, so we're happy to do this, and if you're not happy then tough titties". Paraphrasing a little. Alright thanks. I still feel their position is unnecessary and there is no reason to use their position as TL admins to promote a particular political/moral ideology. If they wanted to offend people, they succeeded. “It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what.” ― Stephen Fry This is a great quote. To be more specific, it appears TL admins are taking advantage of community-generated e-sports content on TL.net to promote a particular political ideology. Since marriage is a political institution, where taxpayer-supported treatment to married couples and their dependents are codified into laws ratified by a democratic government, taking a stance on whether one feels those treatments should extend to homosexual couples is necessarily a political stance. Some may find the TL admins' use of their forum to promote their particular political viewpoint unnecessary, if not unfair because not everyone who contributes to the great community that is TL shares their views. I don't believe marriage is ever mentioned. it's simply a rainbow maned horse logo with the hover text "TL loves ESPORTS, equally." This is simply you extrapolating. But to reply to your post if "each individual and group should be treated equally under law" is a bad political stance then you have some very weird concepts of law and equality. Actually, it does imply the gay marriage debate. Homosexuals, in fact, are treated equally under the law. Marriage, however, is a separate matter. Married couples receive special treatment under the law. As a single person, whether gay or straight, one is not entitled to this treatment. So to speak of equality necessarily implies marriage equality. To recap my separate posts thus far, the U.S. is a democratic society, and the special treatment given to married couples by our government is given by the people, like all of our laws. Therefore, we the people decide who falls within that privileged group. Again, I feel the TL admins are taking advantage of the community-generated e-sports content on TL.net to promote a particular political ideology. Since marriage is a political institution, where taxpayer-supported treatment to married couples and their dependents are codified into laws ratified by a democratic government, taking a stance on whether one feels those treatments should extend to homosexual couples is necessarily a political stance. Some may find the TL admins' use of their forum to promote their particular political viewpoint unnecessary, if not unfair because not everyone who contributes to TL shares their views. Then the people that are contributing to TL and find TL taking a stance on the issue unfair can go to a different community I guess? There are plenty of other ways people can contribute to Esports outside TL (running a YouTube channel for instance). On June 26 2013 17:43 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 16:48 salle wrote:On June 26 2013 11:28 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 07:25 salle wrote:On June 26 2013 06:15 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 06:06 marvellosity wrote:On June 26 2013 06:05 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 06:02 marvellosity wrote:
[quote]
Yes, TL admins have spoken about it plenty. It's pretty clear you haven't read the thread.
If you don't want to talk about it, don't click on the thread. Easy right? ^^ Can you quote them please? I do not have time to read through 70 pages of thread, sorry. I clicked on the thread to voice my opinion, not to engage in a lengthy discussion about the relationship between politics and esports. Not going to trawl the thread for you, but along the lines of "we're anti-discrimination and for equality, so we're happy to do this, and if you're not happy then tough titties". Paraphrasing a little. Alright thanks. I still feel their position is unnecessary and there is no reason to use their position as TL admins to promote a particular political/moral ideology. If they wanted to offend people, they succeeded. “It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what.” ― Stephen Fry This is a great quote. To be more specific, it appears TL admins are taking advantage of community-generated e-sports content on TL.net to promote a particular political ideology. Since marriage is a political institution, where taxpayer-supported treatment to married couples and their dependents are codified into laws ratified by a democratic government, taking a stance on whether one feels those treatments should extend to homosexual couples is necessarily a political stance. Some may find the TL admins' use of their forum to promote their particular political viewpoint unnecessary, if not unfair because not everyone who contributes to the great community that is TL shares their views. I don't believe marriage is ever mentioned. it's simply a rainbow maned horse logo with the hover text "TL loves ESPORTS, equally." This is simply you extrapolating. But to reply to your post if "each individual and group should be treated equally under law" is a bad political stance then you have some very weird concepts of law and equality. Actually, it does imply the gay marriage debate. Homosexuals, in fact, are treated equally under the law. Marriage, however, is a separate matter. Married couples receive special treatment under the law. As a single person, whether gay or straight, one is not entitled to this treatment. So to speak of equality necessarily implies marriage equality. From a pure legal standpoint, this seems wrong. Straight people have the right to marry the person they love, and have this commitment recognized by the state. Gay people do not have this right. What am I missing? Legally speaking, straight people are afforded privileges by the democratic state if and when they marry. These are the benefits gay couples also seek. Were the debate simply about being with the person you love and having that arrangement labeled "marriage", there would be little debate, since gay people are free to be with whomever they will, even if the arrangement does not have a special name. Legal treatments given to marriage are what is at stake here, and since they are granted by a democratic government, the people have a say about who receives them and who does not.
you don't really believe that, do you? In fact, in at least some countries there is some sort of legal partnership for gay couples with similiar benefits to marriage, but conservative parties/people are fighting against it being called "marriage".
|
On June 26 2013 11:50 LarJarsE wrote:
Quite frankly, if you are against equality & equal rights, you are an asshole.
LOL, so good. They should just make this the website title right now. I mean, can it be put any more simply than that?
|
Might I suggest that people present their arguments without insulting other posters? It seems especially ridiculous to go out of ones way to insult someone who is not actually partaking in a particular discussion. It should really not be that hard to refrain from doing so and it would make for a much more reasonable atmosphere as well as debate.
|
On June 26 2013 18:58 Ghostcom wrote:
Might I suggest that people present their arguments without insulting other posters? It seems especially ridiculous to go out of ones way to insult someone who is not actually partaking in a particular discussion. It should really not be that hard to refrain from doing so and it would make for a much more reasonable atmosphere as well as debate.
That implies you can have a reasoned debate on equality. There is no rational argument against it, and therefore no discussion to take place.
|
On June 26 2013 19:09 Angry_Fetus wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 18:58 Ghostcom wrote:
Might I suggest that people present their arguments without insulting other posters? It seems especially ridiculous to go out of ones way to insult someone who is not actually partaking in a particular discussion. It should really not be that hard to refrain from doing so and it would make for a much more reasonable atmosphere as well as debate. That implies you can have a reasoned debate on equality. There is no rational argument against it, and therefore no discussion to take place.
Considering that equality is not the only thing that is being discussed in this thread, my suggestion really did not imply that. In any case, one is doing a disservice to the cause for which one is arguing by resorting to insults.
|
On June 26 2013 19:09 Angry_Fetus wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 18:58 Ghostcom wrote:
Might I suggest that people present their arguments without insulting other posters? It seems especially ridiculous to go out of ones way to insult someone who is not actually partaking in a particular discussion. It should really not be that hard to refrain from doing so and it would make for a much more reasonable atmosphere as well as debate. That implies you can have a reasoned debate on equality. There is no rational argument against it, and therefore no discussion to take place.
Plenty of rational arguments against equality but this thread isn't about equality it's about equal rights which there is no rational argument against.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On June 26 2013 20:13 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 19:09 Angry_Fetus wrote:On June 26 2013 18:58 Ghostcom wrote:
Might I suggest that people present their arguments without insulting other posters? It seems especially ridiculous to go out of ones way to insult someone who is not actually partaking in a particular discussion. It should really not be that hard to refrain from doing so and it would make for a much more reasonable atmosphere as well as debate. That implies you can have a reasoned debate on equality. There is no rational argument against it, and therefore no discussion to take place. Plenty of rational arguments against equality but this thread isn't about equality it's about equal rights which there is no rational argument against.
Um, how are you distinguishing between equality and equal rights?
|
On June 26 2013 20:43 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 20:13 Zaros wrote:On June 26 2013 19:09 Angry_Fetus wrote:On June 26 2013 18:58 Ghostcom wrote:
Might I suggest that people present their arguments without insulting other posters? It seems especially ridiculous to go out of ones way to insult someone who is not actually partaking in a particular discussion. It should really not be that hard to refrain from doing so and it would make for a much more reasonable atmosphere as well as debate. That implies you can have a reasoned debate on equality. There is no rational argument against it, and therefore no discussion to take place. Plenty of rational arguments against equality but this thread isn't about equality it's about equal rights which there is no rational argument against. Um, how are you distinguishing between equality and equal rights?
Equality is treating people differently to make them the same, equal rights is treating them the same even though they are different.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On June 26 2013 20:44 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 20:43 marvellosity wrote:On June 26 2013 20:13 Zaros wrote:On June 26 2013 19:09 Angry_Fetus wrote:On June 26 2013 18:58 Ghostcom wrote:
Might I suggest that people present their arguments without insulting other posters? It seems especially ridiculous to go out of ones way to insult someone who is not actually partaking in a particular discussion. It should really not be that hard to refrain from doing so and it would make for a much more reasonable atmosphere as well as debate. That implies you can have a reasoned debate on equality. There is no rational argument against it, and therefore no discussion to take place. Plenty of rational arguments against equality but this thread isn't about equality it's about equal rights which there is no rational argument against. Um, how are you distinguishing between equality and equal rights? Equality is treating people differently to make them the same, equal rights is treating them the same even though they are different.
Pretty sure that's not how anyone uses the term equality.
Edit: again, distinction between equality of outcome and equality of oppurtunity
double edit: most people use equality under the 2nd definition, not the first
|
There’s much discussion here about the equality, definition of marriage, opportunity and rights, and such. What I find missing, is a discussion on the moral implications of homosexuality. Let me add a bit.
Prior to the normalization of homosexuality in 1973, homosexuality was considered as a “disorder”, if you will, under the psychiatric manual. This meant that if your friend tells you that he/she is homosexual, then it would not be wrong for you to express concern on such tastes, and suggest that he/she seek counseling or treatment. Post-normalization, homosexuality officially became what we know today as a “preference” – that is we no longer view it as being “wrong” (wrong in the deviation-from-norm sense). From a moral standpoint, the cultural view of homosexuality also shifted from it being morally wrong (as in sexually immoral similar to cheating on your spouse you could say) to morally acceptable. Given these changes, it was inevitable that at some point, the same-sex-marriage debate would come up.
Why is this relevant?
Because today, in just the same way that homosexuality was normalized, there are researchers and interests groups out there who are looking to normalize pedophilia – perhaps based off of evidence that there are numerous/growing-number-of well-adjusted individuals in society who have pedophilic tastes but do not act out in ways that violate the rights of others. Consider the possible consequences of this? In 40 years, we could potentially have pedo-pride parades, debates on child-adult marriages, and child-adult couple adoptions, etc. Now I'm sure even to those who support same-sex-marriage, this must be a bit unsettling.
Thus, this whole issue hinges not just on definitions of marriage, but also one’s views on the morality of homosexuality itself. If you are one who believe that morality is a social construct that shifts with cultural paradigms, perhaps to maximize happiness or survival, then you might agree with same-sex marriage, or child-adult marriage, or whatever suits the shifting tastes of society as a whole. If you are one who believes that morality exists regardless of human affirmation/denial, then you might want to think a bit deeper about what that morality really is, why it exists, and its purpose.
In any case, there seem to be some in this thread who are looking to have meaningful discussion and respectful interaction - but it's drowned out by endless mud slinging and insults. How would you convince someone of something by making personal attacks on them? Let's all tone it down a notch =P
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On June 26 2013 20:58 xSNRx wrote:
Because today, in just the same way that homosexuality was normalized, there are researchers and interests groups out there who are looking to normalize pedophilia – perhaps based off of evidence that there are numerous/growing-number-of well-adjusted individuals in society who have pedophilic tastes but do not act out in ways that violate the rights of others. Consider the possible consequences of this? In 40 years, we could potentially have pedo-pride parades, debates on child-adult marriages, and child-adult couple adoptions, etc. Now I'm sure even to those of us who support same-sex-marriage, this must be a bit unsettling.
Um, kids can't give (informed) consent. Your entire argument is therefore ridiculous.
|
The slippery slope argument never swayed me with regards to bestiality and pedophilia. You can draw a clear line at consent. Incest and consanguinity laws as well as polygamy on the other hand are certainly undermined using the same reasoning as gay marriage.
|
On June 26 2013 17:43 Gen.Rolly wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 16:48 salle wrote:On June 26 2013 11:28 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 07:25 salle wrote:On June 26 2013 06:15 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 06:06 marvellosity wrote:On June 26 2013 06:05 Gen.Rolly wrote:On June 26 2013 06:02 marvellosity wrote:On June 26 2013 06:01 Gen.Rolly wrote:
Why are TL admins taking a stance on a such a hot political issue? Have any of them spoken out about why they are taking such a stance? I am personally turned off by the juxtaposition of politics and something totally unrelated to it. Can we just focus on the games please? There are plenty of other forums to voice your approval or disapproval for any given political/moral topic. Yes, TL admins have spoken about it plenty. It's pretty clear you haven't read the thread. If you don't want to talk about it, don't click on the thread. Easy right? ^^ Can you quote them please? I do not have time to read through 70 pages of thread, sorry. I clicked on the thread to voice my opinion, not to engage in a lengthy discussion about the relationship between politics and esports. Not going to trawl the thread for you, but along the lines of "we're anti-discrimination and for equality, so we're happy to do this, and if you're not happy then tough titties". Paraphrasing a little. Alright thanks. I still feel their position is unnecessary and there is no reason to use their position as TL admins to promote a particular political/moral ideology. If they wanted to offend people, they succeeded. “It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what.” ― Stephen Fry This is a great quote. To be more specific, it appears TL admins are taking advantage of community-generated e-sports content on TL.net to promote a particular political ideology. Since marriage is a political institution, where taxpayer-supported treatment to married couples and their dependents are codified into laws ratified by a democratic government, taking a stance on whether one feels those treatments should extend to homosexual couples is necessarily a political stance. Some may find the TL admins' use of their forum to promote their particular political viewpoint unnecessary, if not unfair because not everyone who contributes to the great community that is TL shares their views. I don't believe marriage is ever mentioned. it's simply a rainbow maned horse logo with the hover text "TL loves ESPORTS, equally." This is simply you extrapolating. But to reply to your post if "each individual and group should be treated equally under law" is a bad political stance then you have some very weird concepts of law and equality. Actually, it does imply the gay marriage debate. Homosexuals, in fact, are treated equally under the law. Marriage, however, is a separate matter. Married couples receive special treatment under the law. As a single person, whether gay or straight, one is not entitled to this treatment. So to speak of equality necessarily implies marriage equality.
Actually, homosexuals are not treated equally under the law. There are numerous states in which it is legal to be evicted, denied service, or fired for being gay.
|
Why is a logo which declares support for LGBT people causing so much ... hostility? Am I missing something or are there a lot of people who browse the internet who do not support 'equality' and 'equal rights'?
#Confused
|
On June 26 2013 21:50 Nymzee wrote:
Why is a logo which declares support for LGBT people causing so much ... hostility? Am I missing something or are there a lot of people who browse the internet who do not support 'equality' and 'equal rights'?
#Confused
that's a bingo.
|
On June 26 2013 20:58 xSNRx wrote:Thus, this whole issue hinges not just on definitions of marriage, but also one’s views on the morality of homosexuality itself. If you are one who believe that morality is a social construct that shifts with cultural paradigms, perhaps to maximize happiness or survival, then you might agree with same-sex marriage, or child-adult marriage, or whatever suits the shifting tastes of society as a whole. If you are one who believes that morality exists regardless of human affirmation/denial, then you might want to think a bit deeper about what that morality really is, why it exists, and its purpose.
If you think that morality should be such that maximize happiness then you already assume something more important then cultural paradigms. Under utilitarian ethics some cultures are worse, some are better, and some are equal even if they differ.
|
On June 26 2013 18:17 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 05:34 Plansix wrote:On June 26 2013 05:30 dr.fahrenheit wrote:
on the whole "privileged" thing (plansix & klondikebar):
if there are people who are underprivileged in a society because they are gay, guess what beeing straight makes you in that society... I completely agree. Just don't call me that to my face, I don't like it. A lot of people don't, even if its true. I think in a debate on the internet it's definitely more important to prevent privileged people from having their feelings hurt than to be truthful and frank. E: To be clear, that above sentence was sarcastic. I think that referring to people as privileged is the generally accepted term in social justice academia and honestly if Plansix wants me to call him overpowered or something instead he's welcome to get involved in social justice literature, write some papers on nomenclature and change the discourse. His current arguments are pretty unconvincing in my opinion.
To be clear, I don't really care that much if people call me "privileged". I care just enough to discuss it on the internet, so about the same amount that I care about Facebook. That is slightly above me caring about how much wiper fluid I have in my car.
People are free to use whatever word they want. However, I do think it is a good to make those folks aware that many view the word "privileged" as a pejorative. Pragmatically speaking, it doesn't hurt to be aware that some people may respond poorly to being called something, even if it true. There is nothing wrong with be careful about what words you use to making your point.
|
After having built a monopoly, you now pass to the second phase and start with the LGBT agenda.
Its not like people can go somewhere else.
Well played sirs(?), well played.
|
Updating the logo of your site for one week marks a massive revolution and the beginning of non-stop promotion of the LGBT agenda?
Some people need to get real. TL is showing their support for equality, which any major company should. Equal rights for everyone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
