Relevance? I wasn't talking about drugs at all, but changing the subject.
-
-
Replying to @Dragonblaze
Oh. Well, I'm sure we agree that allowing people to own or harm other people is not liberal.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
No. The only question is where we draw the line. We can prosecute cancer charlatans, but not anti-vaxxers. Both are damaging to health.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Dragonblaze
This line is nowhere near my point though, so I'll leave it here.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
The point I'm making is that being all for free speech and liberalism isn't always so clear-cut. I'm definitely for banning some matters.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Dragonblaze
Things that aren't free speech or liberal? Like sex-trafficking?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
No, that's what my cancer charlatan and anti-vaxxer examples are about. I would gladly ban both, whereas only one is now banned in effect.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
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.