A Moral Conflict

[Savon]

Link to original post: [drupal=5322]A Moral Conflict[/drupal]



As most people know currently, Chick-Fil-A has been under fire because of statements made by the owner in regards to his opinion about gay marriage. I disagree with his viewpoint heavily, but on that same note I am aware that he is probably not some bigot like people attempt to make him out to be just because he supports traditional marriage.

Anyways the conflict I am having is comes down to respecting peoples opinions despite inherit aspects of them that could be interpreted as discrimination. I believe of course that we are all entitled to our own opinions, but I do not want to judge those who support traditional families in a negative manner but is my reasoning flawed on a premise that not agreeing with gay marriage is in itself a form of discrimination even if the person holding the belief has no issue with gays? I'm not gay so in many ways these issues don't really hit home for me, but the moment somebody makes a comparison to black discrimination that happened in the past in America I start to look at in a different way. In the same way many diners would have segregation or refuse to serve blacks and attempt to justify it as rights of their business. Where do i draw the line between rights and respecting beliefs?

 

[GwJ]

Well, here's what I think I know about this whole thing (I haven't done much research on this, so if I speak out of line, someone please correct me.):

Chick-Fil-A apparently donates money to anti-gay foundations. That's different than refusing to treat blacks. A portion of what you pay goes towards anti-gay foundations, that's a fact (assuming what I've heard is correct).


However, on the other side, how much of your $5.00 order goes towards oppressing gays? Does 5% of a $5.00 REALLY make eating there an immoral decision?

It depends.

 

[Jam Stunna]

You can't have a problem with gay marriage without having a problem with gays. That should make the morality of the situation much clearer.

EDIT- Also, the phrase "traditional family values" is a BS euphemism for bigotry.

EDIT 2- Lastly, everyone is NOT entitled to their opinion. Despite what we've been told over and over again, opinions can be wrong, and you are no more entitled to an incorrect opinion than you are to an incorrect answer on a test.

 

[global-wolf]

I disagree, Jam. Marriage really has been traditionally between a man and a woman in Western cultures, and it should be understandable that someone would disagree with the idea of gay marriage based on these grounds. I personally know people who do not like the idea of gay marriage but are perfectly fine with homosexuality. Where the problem comes in is the government's laws supporting married couples. It is completely wrong to deny one consenting couple these benefits while giving them to another.

Don't get me wrong, I support gay marriage fully, but you should understand why other people may not feel that way. Though "traditional values" really is BS. Marriage is not an issue of value, it's a cultural rite.

Chick-Fil-A actually hasn't donated any money to anti-gay organizations since 2010, and they've said that they would back out of the issue completely. I personally don't go there anyway, but they do not discriminate in who they serve and there is really no reason to boycott them anymore.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Do any of those people who are fine with gays but believe in traditional marriage also believe in dowry?

 

[global-wolf]

Traditional is relative. And no. Your open refusal to accept that some people have different ideas about what is correct is not much different from the idea that homosexuality should be squashed out of people.

 

[Firus]

Adding onto what Jam said, there are a lot of ideas of "traditional marriage" stemming from the Bible -- where people claim to get this idea of traditional marriage -- that nobody would dream of following nowadays, like marrying your brother's wife if they had no kids, having multiple wives, etc. etc.

So I'm most definitely going to agree that "traditional marriage" is a BS phrase. If you're really in support of traditional marriage, there are a lot of things you should be arguing for, when much of that stuff is actually quite appalling and opposed in today's society.

I can't agree that not everybody is entitled to their opinion, though. I am strongly opposed to telling anybody that they're not allowed to believe/think whatever they want to believe. I only have a problem with people acting on anything they believe in. If you want to express opposition to gay marriage or even homosexuality in general, I will probably lose a lot of respect for you, but I'm not going to get angry or offended unless you're telling people they can't marry or being hateful about it or something.

 

[Mr. Johan]

Chick-Fil-A apparently donates money to anti-gay foundations. That's different than refusing to treat blacks. A portion of what you pay goes towards anti-gay foundations, that's a fact (assuming what I've heard is correct).

Chick-Fil-A itself doesn't directly donate to anti-gay organizations. Credit for that action goes to the charity arm of CFA's corporate branch, Winshape.

However, since Winshape answers only to CFA, CFA is accountable to some degree for where that money goes.

Winshape donates to Exodus International, which conducted "ex-gay therapy" until recently, and it also donates to the Family Research Council, who itself donated money to Uganda in order to push its "Kill the Gays" bill in 2010.

The last bit itself is enough to dissuade me from giving money to CFA, even if its by association.

 

[global-wolf]

@Firus: Again, the word "traditional" is relative. The GOP often uses it in the faulty way you describe, but it doesn't have to be in that context. Actual traditional American marriage is one between a man and a woman where the bride dresses in white, following an engagement lasting at least a couple months. You could apply the word "traditional" to the marriages of other cultures too, such as traditional Chinese marriage where the brides wears red. "Traditional" isn't limited to the description of marriage in the bible.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Traditional is relative. And no. Your open refusal to accept that some people have different ideas about what is correct is not much different from the idea that homosexuality should be squashed out of people.

No, come on. Let's talk about this traditional marriage that these people like so much.

Traditionally, in the United States:
-Marriage between blacks was illegal.
-Marriage between blacks and whites was illegal (in fact, this was illegal for far longer than its been legal).
-Marriage required a dowry.
-Marriages were arranged.
-Marriage required (or at least strongly preferred) virginity in the female partner.
-Marriage was not determined by love.

And these are all practices that believers in traditional marriage continue to practice, right? Because we continue to practice tradition, even when those traditions have been made obsolete by time and good sense?

I can't agree that not everybody is entitled to their opinion, though. I am strongly opposed to telling anybody that they're not allowed to believe/think whatever they want to believe. I only have a problem with people acting on anything they believe in. If you want to express opposition to gay marriage or even homosexuality in general, I will probably lose a lot of respect for you, but I'm not going to get angry or offended unless you're telling people they can't marry or being hateful about it or something.

The thing is that thought usually directly leads to action, or at least the acceptance of other people's actions. People believed that blacks were inferior during slavery, just as they believed that Jews were inferior during the Holocaust, whether they owned a slave or gassed a whole family themselves or not. Those evils occurred and persisted because the popular opinions held at the time tacitly (or vigorously) supported them.

 

[Jam Stunna]

@Firus: Again, the word "traditional" is relative. The GOP often uses it in the faulty way you describe, but it doesn't have to be in that context. Actual traditional American marriage is one between a man and a woman where the bride dresses in white, following an engagement lasting at least a couple months. You could apply the word "traditional" to the marriages of other cultures too, such as traditional Chinese marriage where the brides wears red. "Traditional" isn't limited to the description of marriage in the bible.

So what you're basically saying is that it's okay to pick and choose which traditions you honor, and that it's purely coincidental that the traditions that "traditional marriage" people choose to honor exclude gays.

 

[Big-Cat]

On the subject of eating at Chick-Fil-A, I go to a restaurant to buy their food. I don't go their because of their viewpoints.

 

[global-wolf]

No, come on. Let's talk about this traditional marriage that these people like so much.

Traditionally, in the United States:
-Marriage between blacks was illegal.
-Marriage between blacks and whites was illegal (in fact, this was illegal for far longer than its been legal).
-Marriage required a dowry.
-Marriages were arranged.
-Marriage required (or at least strongly preferred) virginity in the female partner.
-Marriage was not determined by love.

And these are all practices that believers in traditional marriage continue to practice, right? Because we continue to practice tradition, even when those traditions have been made obsolete by time and good sense?

The practices of our culture in the past have no place in the current world. It's a completely different situation. It is NOW that traditional American marriage is between a man and a woman. Not just American marriage, actually, but also the marriages of many other cultures who do not practice Christianity. When the bible was written the kind of marriage described in there would not have been traditional, it would have been new. Similarly, in the future the American culture might consider some widely-accepted aspect of today's marriage to be completely ridiculous.

Good sense is subjective; to many GOP members, avoiding the wrath of god is perfectly sensible.

The thing is that thought usually directly leads to action, or at least the acceptance of other people's actions. People believed that blacks were inferior during slavery, just as they believed that Jews were inferior during the Holocaust, whether they owned a slave or gassed a whole family themselves or not. Those evils occurred and persisted because the popular opinions held at the time tacitly (or vigorously) supported them.

In our own political history, civil rights usually had to be achieved by litigation, long before the wide majority of people supported them. Take the African American civil rights movement.

 

[global-wolf]

So what you're basically saying is that it's okay to pick and choose which traditions you honor, and that it's purely coincidental that the traditions that "traditional marriage" people choose to honor exclude gays.

No. I'm saying that traditions are subjective. I don't know how you could've missed that point. And where in there did I imply that it's a coincidence?

 

[#HBC | J]

On the subject of eating at Chick-Fil-A, I go to a restaurant to buy their food. I don't go their because of their viewpoints.

This is my point of view as well. It's kind of different seeing people protesting Chick-Fil-A in the past a bit outside the places. It's understandable to a degree but hmmm...

I have a very long-winded opinion on this matter and I don't want to bother/post a wall haha.

 

[Jeyfar]

Lastly, everyone is NOT entitled to their opinion. Despite what we've been told over and over again, opinions can be wrong, and you are no more entitled to an incorrect opinion than you are to an incorrect answer on a test.

You don't start to know since when I wanted someone else to have the same opinion I do on that matter.

Also, guys, the Edit button is your friend, don't double post.

 

[Melomaniacal]

The practices of our culture in the past have no place in the current world. It's a completely different situation. It is NOW that traditional American marriage is between a man and a woman. Not just American marriage, actually, but also the marriages of many other cultures who do not practice Christianity. When the bible was written the kind of marriage described in there would not have been traditional, it would have been new. Similarly, in the future the American culture might consider some widely-accepted aspect of today's marriage to be completely ridiculous.

Good sense is subjective; to many GOP members, avoiding the wrath of god is perfectly sensible.

What? Traditions are based on past rituals or beliefs that are meant to be upheld. Yes, new traditions can be made, but to say that traditions are only current practices makes your arguement completely moot. If traditions should be able to change, why should it matter that people want traditional marriage to change to include homosexuals? Why is that not allowed to change? More importantly, why should it just be accepted that an entire population is being denied rights and discriminated against based on a tradition that doesn't need to exist?

 

[global-wolf]

What? Traditions are based on past rituals or beliefs that are meant to be upheld. Yes, new traditions can be made, but to say that traditions are only current practices makes your arguement completely moot. If traditions should be able to change, why should it matter that people want traditional marriage to change to include homosexuals? Why is that not allowed to change? More importantly, why should it just be accepted that an entire population is being denied rights and discriminated against based on a tradition that doesn't need to exist?

Traditions are what you say they are, but what is a tradition a few decades ago may not be a tradition now, because it was discontinued or had evolved in that time. I'm not arguing against gay marriage on the basis that gay marriage isn't traditional. I said earlier that I support gay marriage.

You should understand that people like to hold on to traditions. Change in legislation always comes before universal support of a big social change like this so until gay marriage has been legalized for a while there's no way you'll convince the current anti-gay population that denied marriage to gay people is an injustice, because in their minds there has never been gay marriage, people are all equal because all men can marry a woman and vice versa, and they see no reason to allow people to officially commit what they see as sin and defiance towards god.

What tradition "needs" to exist anyway? Marriage itself doesn't even need to exist.

 

[Melomaniacal]

Traditions are what you say they are, but what is a tradition a few decades ago may not be a tradition now, because it was discontinued or had evolved in that time. I'm not arguing against gay marriage on the basis that gay marriage isn't traditional. I said earlier that I support gay marriage.

You should understand that people like to hold on to traditions. Change in legislation always comes before universal support of a big social change like this so until gay marriage has been legalized for a while there's no way you'll convince the current anti-gay population that denied marriage to gay people is an injustice, because in their minds there has never been gay marriage, people are all equal because all men can marry a woman and vice versa, and they see no reason to allow people to officially commit what they see as sin and defiance towards god.

What tradition "needs" to exist anyway? Marriage itself doesn't even need to exist.

I understand that you support gay marriage, I was just under the impression that you were defending those who are anti-gay-marriage based on their beliefs in "traditions." However, if traditions (which exist because of "practices of our culture in the past") "have no place in the current world" as you said, then the fact that it is a "tradition" for gays to not marry is absolutely irrelevant. The truth is these people are still following an old tradition based on a religious doctrine, and it is discriminating against a large population, and that is wrong and needs to be changed. I honestly don't care if people like to hold on to their traditions if I know it's wrong, and I know they can change, because I know they have changed. I'm not going to roll over on this issue, just as people didn't roll over on challenging other past discriminating traditions.

I'm just trying to understand why you think it should okay that people are anti-gay-marriage based on their concept of a tradition, if traditions should change when we know something is wrong. You shouldn't be just accepting their discrimination on the grounds that "oh, it's their belief because it's traditional," you should fight for what's right. The response to their belief shouldn't just be accepting their bigotry, it should be trying to show them the pain they are causing and the wrong they are doing. The exact same way we fought for women's rights and civil rights because we knew those traditions were cruel. How is this any different?

And marriage as a legal institution absolutely needs to exist. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights...ages_in_the_United_States#Rights_and_benefits
Unless you want to argue that every couple should have those rights and benefits. Though I will admit that I think it is unfortunate that marriage must exist, I do think it is necessary.


Also, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying to go out and hate everyone who doesn't support gay marriage. I'm saying to stand up for what you believe in, and support those being discriminated against. You have every right to argue against their beliefs, just as they have every right to argue against yours.

 

[Yoshi]

I'm very confused about the whole CFA incident. Same for Oreos a month or so back. When did food decide to go political? I miss the days when you could eat a potato and it was just a potato, not a pro-conservative, that when you eat, you're showing political allegiance. Gaaaa, people...

 

[Melomaniacal]

I'm very confused about the whole CFA incident. Same for Oreos a month or so back. When did food decide to go political? I miss the days when you could eat a potato and it was just a potato, not a pro-conservative, that when you eat, you're showing political allegiance. Gaaaa, people...

I think it's mostly a matter of who you choose to support. You wouldn't buy something from a person who was going to use that money to kill puppies, right? Now, obviously I'm going to the extreme to demonstrate a point, but it's the same idea.

 

[Firus]

I think it's mostly a matter of who you choose to support. You wouldn't buy something from a person who was going to use that money to kill puppies, right? Now, obviously I'm going to the extreme to demonstrate a point, but it's the same idea.

The impression I got from Yoshi's post wasn't "why do people care" so much as "why are food companies showing political allegiance in the first place." That might just be my own take on the situation, though.

I understand the benefits to companies coming out and supporting one political opinion or another, or supporting it with their money, but I really try to avoid politics in everyday life. Politics get nasty and people tend to be very bad with disagreeing on politics without getting into vicious arguments. So I avoid getting into that. And because of the connections I make with politics, I like to keep it out of entertainment and the like. I don't like finding political messages in my music, movies, books (unless I'm reading a political book, though that's pretty rare), video games, or food.

And I'm pissed that, if I eat Chick-fil-A, people are going to be assuming things about me that aren't true. Or that they're going to look down on me for not being firm enough in my beliefs to avoid supporting a company that donates money to a cause I oppose. It's one of the best places to eat on my college campus, and it's going to be pretty bloody annoying and difficult to avoid eating there, but I have a feeling many of my friends are going to be doing that.

Well, that's my rant for the day.

 

[Melomaniacal]

The impression I got from Yoshi's post wasn't "why do people care" so much as "why are food companies showing political allegiance in the first place." That might just be my own take on the situation, though.

I understand the benefits to companies coming out and supporting one political opinion or another, or supporting it with their money, but I really try to avoid politics in everyday life. Politics get nasty and people tend to be very bad with disagreeing on politics without getting into vicious arguments. So I avoid getting into that. And because of the connections I make with politics, I like to keep it out of entertainment and the like. I don't like finding political messages in my music, movies, books (unless I'm reading a political book, though that's pretty rare), video games, or food.

And I'm pissed that, if I eat Chick-fil-A, people are going to be assuming things about me that aren't true. Or that they're going to look down on me for not being firm enough in my beliefs to avoid supporting a company that donates money to a cause I oppose. It's one of the best places to eat on my college campus, and it's going to be pretty bloody annoying and difficult to avoid eating there, but I have a feeling many of my friends are going to be doing that.

Well, that's my rant for the day.

That may be the case, and that would make more sense.
And on some level it is pretty annoying. I agree that you shouldn't be judged for eating at this restaurant, and really this is just another issue where armchair activists want to show their Facebook friends how political they are because it's easy and convenient right now. However, at the same time I also personally would not want to support them after this (or before it, really. I don't like to support fast-food chains anymore, but that's just me and that's a different issue), and I want to see them get blow-back from this.

 

[Yoshi]

Ahhh now I get it. Still stupid in my opinion. I don't think we even get CFA in Canada. Regardless I think it's a bad move to outright support an idea from an area not usually known to give opinions. You make food, stick to that. In the end I really don't care, I just wouldn't want people to assume things about me, if I were to eat at a CFA.

 

[Falconv1.0]

I find it hilarious how people will boycott CFA but not plenty of companies who use overseas child labor and all that other good stuff. Also who knows what private beliefs a lot of company owners might have that you're completely unaware of?

I'm not defending the anti gay marriage stuff, that's dumb, but it's really just "oh this was on a big headline so we're gonna boycott it" story. Also mayors saying that CFA is not welcome to open in their areas is ridiculous. If you're not breaking any laws, the only people who determine if your business is welcome is the customer.

@Jam: Actually, in fact, everyone is entitled to their opinion. You saying that changed no one's opinion! The only thing is, they also have to accept that they might get negative reactions for having certain opinions, which apparently includes mods on a video game forum claiming that they are not entitled to an opinion because they have a differing opinion. Sounds pretty logical.

 

[global-wolf]

I understand that you support gay marriage, I was just under the impression that you were defending those who are anti-gay-marriage based on their beliefs in "traditions." However, if traditions (which exist because of "practices of our culture in the past") "have no place in the current world" as you said, then the fact that it is a "tradition" for gays to not marry is absolutely irrelevant. The truth is these people are still following an old tradition based on a religious doctrine, and it is discriminating against a large population, and that is wrong and needs to be changed. I honestly don't care if people like to hold on to their traditions if I know it's wrong, and I know they can change, because I know they have changed. I'm not going to roll over on this issue, just as people didn't roll over on challenging other past discriminating traditions.

I'm just trying to understand why you think it should okay that people are anti-gay-marriage based on their concept of a tradition, if traditions should change when we know something is wrong. You shouldn't be just accepting their discrimination on the grounds that "oh, it's their belief because it's traditional," you should fight for what's right. The response to their belief shouldn't just be accepting their bigotry, it should be trying to show them the pain they are causing and the wrong they are doing. The exact same way we fought for women's rights and civil rights because we knew those traditions were cruel. How is this any different?

And marriage as a legal institution absolutely needs to exist. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights...ages_in_the_United_States#Rights_and_benefits
Unless you want to argue that every couple should have those rights and benefits. Though I will admit that I think it is unfortunate that marriage must exist, I do think it is necessary.


Also, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying to go out and hate everyone who doesn't support gay marriage. I'm saying to stand up for what you believe in, and support those being discriminated against. You have every right to argue against their beliefs, just as they have every right to argue against yours.

The tradition of marriage between a man and a woman is really quite separate from the whole biblical thing, anti-gay people simply use the description of marriage in the bible to justify their opposition to gay marriage in the faulty way that you have described, which is saying that gay marriage should not be allowed because it's not in the bible. I don't believe that their anti-gay view actually stems from their religious beliefs, I think it comes from a deep-rooted homophobia that makes turn a blind eye to consistent reasoning in this issue (or any issue really, for this sector of the population.) The people I mentioned in my first reply to Jam Stunna are not religious at all, and they don't have a problem with homosexuality; they believe in opposite-sex marriage for its own sake.

I'm not really arguing for acceptance of all people's opinions even when they limit others, my original purpose in bringing up this point was to respond to Jam's statement that some opinions are absolutely wrong, which is quite ridiculous. What is "right" changes with the people and with the times. We must strive for what we believe is right, but what is "right" now may not be right forever.

It's nice that you brought up the marriage benefits, because that's my reason for absolutely having to allow gay marriage. Denying a consenting couple these rights just because they're same sex is injustice.

 

[Jam Stunna]

@Jam: Actually, in fact, everyone is entitled to their opinion. You saying that changed no one's opinion! The only thing is, they also have to accept that they might get negative reactions for having certain opinions, which apparently includes mods on a video game forum claiming that they are not entitled to an opinion because they have a differing opinion. Sounds pretty logical.

I never said anything about differing opinions. I said you are not entitled to incorrect opinions. What is the basis for being entitled (not allowed, entitled) to believe something that is factually inaccurate?

 

[Teran]

I think this all stems from the fact they're not actually opinions.

Being of the opinion that grass is black is not actually holding an opinion, it is just being flat out wrong about the fact that grass is green.

Whether homosexuality is wrong or not is not opinion based. People try to worm out of this by being all "let's agree to disagree because it's like, our opinions man", but really this is all just a stupid façade for weaklings who don't have the spine to just state their stance on a fact.

I mean hypothetically, let's say that Christian doctrine is 100% legit, that would make homosexuality a sin. That would mean that, yes, it is wrong because God said so, and this can't be opined because it is fact.

Likewise for if all the religious doctrines are lies, then homosexuality is just a natural occurrence due to physiological variations, in which case the stance that homosexuality is wrong is a load of bull**** because there is nothing to back said idea up. None of this "oh it's about propagating the species" crap as if nature has some sort of inherent purpose when devoid of religion and spirituality. Nature is all kinds of weird,

So yeah, there are only two ways to look at this, but only one of them is right. Stick with your hypothesis and state it as fact and you'll be okay! Just be sure to back it up well.

And no goddamn opinions!

Well, except for your opinion about which stance is fact.

Man life is such an endless cycle of pedantic bull****, I need alcohol.

 

[Falconv1.0]

Man I sure hope Mura comes in here to enlighten us about the Dark Age of Opinions again.

 

[Teran]

Also everyone is entitled to being a douchebag, doesn't not make you a ****ing douchebag.

Just saiyan.

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

I always figured an opinion was like a stance on a subject. If you have an opinion about something you have some sort of stance or side you take. If you do not have an opinion... well you actually have an opinion, but you just find it difficult to formulate an explanation for it or you are too lazy to say it. Opinions are fluid and can change often. If you hear someone else explain their opinion, you might find yourself changing your own opinion a bit.

But, to answer Savon, I would say you should always "respect" someone's beliefs. Its only their actions you should ever have to fight against.

 

[Teran]

I would call a stance on what is fact a hypothesis!

/Science***

 

[Pink Reaper]

What the **** is a Chick-Fil-A?

Sounds like some ghetto *** fast food. Is it ghetto *** fast food?

 

[Firus]

It's a fast-food chicken restaurant predominantly found in the south. Actually has really good-tasting food, in my opinion and the opinion of everybody else I've ever talked to. Not really ghetto.

 

[Falconv1.0]

Me and my bisexual friend went there once and made creepy smiles hoping people might think we're a couple, cuz lol we were aware of the anti gay stuff awhile ago and didn't **** our pants over it.

 

[theeboredone]

Problem is, as Falcon alluded to is that if you choose to not support Chick-Fil-A due to their stance on Gays, then at what point do you keep going based on moral precedence, or pull back the reigns on your crusade for what is "right"?

Apple claims to have a "zero tolerance" for child labor, yet recent reports show the companies that manufacture their products in China do engage in such activities. Such events have been going on for years and years. Not just with Apple, but with other companies as well. However, because it's not some big fiasco of a story that Chick-Fil-A, no one really cares to do anything about it. Furthermore, people rely on Apple products, and it "cleanses" their consciousness, despite being told of the stories that might be associated with making the product.

Chances are, were we all to grow a pair and have a full ethical conscious, then we'd not have a lot of the luxuries we have today. Whether it's a PS3 or an Iphone.

But since we don't, I just think this Chick-Fil-A story is just a media **** storm and nothing more. It will blow over in a few months, and everyone will go back to eating there.

 

[Sizzle]

Chick-Fil-A has great food. The bigger joke here is all of the mayors trying to block new CFA restaurants from being established. If CFA has been denying gay patrons from eating their food or being able to work in their restaurants, then sure, their views of stopping CFA from expanding might have grounds. But if these mayors try and use government power to block CFA from obtaining a business license, maybe they should reread the First Amendment. What a shocking threat of abuse of power.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

[COLLAPSE="Morality"]

[/COLLAPSE]

Anyone who has a Facebook will have seen these a hundred times by now, but here is to all of those respectable fellows who don't have it.

 

[Falconv1.0]

[COLLAPSE="Morality"]

[/COLLAPSE]

Anyone who has a Facebook will have seen these a hundred times by now, but here is to all of those respectable fellows who don't have it.

Things trending on Facebook absolutely do not need a ****ing reposting here.

Quick let's start posting inspirational images from HPLYRIKZ OMG SO TRU LOL while we're at it.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

You're missing the point. Namely, that "trending" picture actually has a point. Not entirely sure why you focused on the Facebook part; while I understand where you are coming from, I have no clue why you came from there.