Canada is a free country now

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Asher


Oh get over yourself.

The public should not interfere with what consenting adults want to do with eachother in a place of a private business or private home.

Stop pushing your morals on other people.

businesses aren't private, they are public

JM

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Richelieu
Since he knows that the PC can't win or lose any votes in Quebec with this issue he's hoping Harper is going to use it to get at least the socially conservatives in Ontario.

You have to be socially conservative to think businesses peddling group sex is not so good an idea?

[Asher]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Like smoking?

Try being consistent, junior.

You've already tried this angle before.

I don't care if smokers smoke in private businesses or private homes, provided they can opt out of the public health care that taxpayers provide them with. Lung cancer treatment is ridiculously expensive.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
businesses aren't private, they are public

JM

Semantics: I said private as in privately owned and operated. They are a public space, yes, but not in the same sense that a public schoolground is a public space.

[Asher]

Originally posted by notyoueither
You have to be socially conservative to think businesses pedalling group sex is not so good an idea?

Yes.

Socially liberal people have no qualms with consenting adults having sex with eachother, period.

Socially conservative prudes such as yourself, who take a moral highground on issues and try to force their morals on others, oppose it.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Asher

You've already tried this angle before.

I don't care if smokers smoke in private businesses or private homes, provided they can opt out of the public health care that taxpayers provide them with. Lung cancer treatment is ridiculously expensive.

And AIDS is like the flu?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Asher

Yes.

Socially liberal people have no qualms with consenting adults having sex with eachother, period.

Socially conservative prudes such as yourself, who take a moral highground on issues and try to force their morals on others, oppose it.

If you had a clue why I oppose this, you wouldn't make such an ass of yourself.

In case you hadn't noticed, my thinking is more leftist than 'socially conservative'.

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by notyoueither


You have to be socially conservative to think businesses pedalling group sex is not so good an idea?

I'm guessing you meant "peddling". And i am (and they are) saying that it's not peddling. It's an activity exercised between consenting adults.

You saying that it is "peddling" does reflect your own values and i would say that - from this exchange at least - they seem to be socially conservative.

[Asher]

Originally posted by notyoueither
And AIDS is like the flu?

The chance of getting AIDS with protected sex is extremely remote compared to the chance of getting cancer from smoking.

Nice try, junior.

[notyoueither]

You have facts to back that up placed firmly up your rectum?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Richelieu


I'm guessing you meant "peddling". And i am (and they are) saying that it's not peddling. It's an activity exercised between consenting adults.

You saying that it is "peddling" does reflect your own values and i would say that - from this exchange at least - they seem to be socially conservative.

Protecting people from exploitative businesses is 'socially conservative'?

And yes, I meant peddling, so I DanSed my post.

[Asher]

Originally posted by notyoueither
If you had a clue why I oppose this, you wouldn't make such an ass of yourself.

In case you hadn't noticed, my thinking is more leftist than 'socially conservative'.

I'm smart enough to see past the illusion of it being leftist to see it as the socially conservative prudish opinion it is.

You oppose consenting adults having sex with eachother in swinging clubs. That is a fundamentally socially conservative stance, regardless if you want to pretend to be concerned with people's health. You may as well promote abstinence as well, ace.

Swingers are going to swing regardless if you give them a safe place to do it. You may as well give them that place, and tax it.

Please don't patronize us with your "this isn't socially conservative" nonsense.

[notyoueither]

I oppose:

The courts being too activist.

Businesses cashing in on destructive and exploitative behaviour.

If you wanna call me socially conservative based on that, then feel free to continue making an ass of yourself.

[Asher]

Originally posted by notyoueither
You have facts to back that up placed firmly up your rectum?

Absolutely. Everybody knows the high chance smoking has for giving you cancer (I'd hope I don't have to even discuss that part).

Everyone should also know that condoms are very, very good at protecting against pregnancy and the spread of HIV. That's why gay couples can have one partner with HIV and the other never getting it, provided they have safe sex.

If you're going to take either position of (a) smoking doesn't give you a much higher chance of cancer, or (b) condoms doesn't substantially help protect against HIV, then you'll need to do so. But good luck...

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Protecting people from exploitative businesses is 'socially conservative'?

And yes, I meant peddling, so I DanSed my post.

"Protecting" people from going to a place where they want to go so they can engage in an activity that they want to engage in?

You know you should remove the "Wiglaf" part from your sig.