Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
To be fair, I have no interest in engaging with someone who keeps screaming that the sky is bright orange all day long, every day of the year.

Sometimes, amazingly, people really are just that wrong.

For example: anyone against vaccinations.

Suppose someone's anti-vaccination for themselves because of medical reasons (as in, "I'll die if I take this shot"). Would that make them wrong?

They're not against vaccinations. They're all for them, they just literally can't have them.

There's a massive difference.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
To be fair, I have no interest in engaging with someone who keeps screaming that the sky is bright orange all day long, every day of the year.

Sometimes, amazingly, people really are just that wrong.

For example: anyone against vaccinations.

Suppose someone's anti-vaccination for themselves because of medical reasons (as in, "I'll die if I take this shot"). Would that make them wrong?

Just saying, most (if not all) places that require vaccinations do have "medical exemptions" clauses. Those are not the issue. The issue are the "contentious objections" clauses that allow people to value disproven junk science and Jenny McCarthy above the lives of those around them.

 Verviedi wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
At this point, opposing gay marriage is just bigotry and backwards if you ask me.

"Everyone should be free to express their sexuality/views!"
"Hello, I honestly believe that only heterosexuals can marry, because the purpose of marriage is to raise a family, and gays can't do tha-"
"FETH YOU STEVE, GET OUT, YOU BACKWARDS BIGOT"

Nice try, but not quite. Wanting to be able to do something that affects only you and others who choose to be involved is not equivalent to wanting to prevent other people from doing things they want to do which have no direct affect on you at all.

Additionally, I always find the "gays can't raise a family" argument hilarious, because not only is it spurious bollocks(adoption, IVF with a surrogate), but the people who use it never seem to argue that straight couples should be prevented from getting marries if they don't want to have children or are sterile and can't have children.

 Matthew wrote:
Might be a bit of a sensitive spot for some, but I just want to know what you guys think of gay mariiage? I personally think that it's completely fine, and no book or law can prevent me from thinking that.

I could care less, what people do in their home or in relationships is none of my damned buisness. With that being said I'm not a huge fan of ANY PDA hetero or homo. Do what you wanna do, but please keep it in the bedroom.

Why would I want to impinge on the liberty to happily wed of other people? Why would I want to prevent my aunt and cousin from having a happy life? Plus what goes on in the bedroom of somebody else's bedroom is none of your damn business unless it's not consensual.