What do you mean? That is not the law, is it? Genitals are.
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose
That's just an arbitrary social construct attached to sexuality. Could just as easily have been the ears (may have forgotten
)1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @lpearsemoran
Well, sexuality being connected to genitals is not entirely arbitrary! But norms around it are. Just needs to be consistent.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @lpearsemoran
I think I've said that I'm not a moral relativist. The same rules and freedoms must apply to all.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose
What about context? Everyone has a right to life? What about the guy about to stab your child?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @HPluckrose
Hence, we rely on good judgement (subjective application of intuition, knowledge/experience and logic) not emotionless rule
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @lpearsemoran
Can you tell me where you're going with this? Do you think we differ on something? If so, what?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
I was hoping we'd come around in a big circle to an understanding that sometimes we weigh two competing rights. No simple rule
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
I don't think ppl saying Morris dancers shld be allowed face paint is indicative of not recognising competing rights exist.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.