the rest of your post is just silly - hysterical rantings about stormtoopers and references to 'hormonal cravings' when I had clearly referred to social and professional associations as well. Also re 'chasing ass': I don't think that way and don't live that way, if my references to beautiful women gave that impression then I'm quite prepared to be more careful in future, however I make no apologies for seeing beauty in some people.
Also I don't want to give the impression that I carried on with civil discussion, just to attack you in the end. Basically I just wanted to draw the line very clearly, which separates your beliefs (and more basic everyday reactions to other people) to mine. I still say you have a hopeless case but that is not meant to attack you personally, however the fact remains that your 'programme' would impose severe restrictions on MY freedom of association as I would then be forced to travel to other countries one at a time, which is a ridiculous and unacceptable imposition on anyone's freedom of association IMO.
This should really belong to a new thread by now IMHO.
Current Events » in reply to And sounds like you have a "know better than thou" problem.
no: I'm complaining about YOUR proposed restrictions on MY freedom of association
The whole thread (20 posts)
- I feel dirtied...
- So you agree with thought legislation?
- Don't be dramatic
- So fight ideas with ideas.
- re: So fight ideas with ideas.
- what he said
- It's a very small step
- Here's a question for you -
- I don't deny that it happened.
- which begs one more question -
- I don't deny that it happened.
- Here's a question for you -
- It's a very small step
- what he said
- re: So fight ideas with ideas.
- So fight ideas with ideas.
- Don't be dramatic
- So you agree with thought legislation?
