Wow, I totally missed out on an enthralling discission, allow me to join.
rance:
I'd like to put forth that society does
not attempt to define "what is acceptable and what isn't" (eg: "right and wrong"), but only what is
economical (working together for food, shelter, etc). Right and wrong are only put into the picture in order to manipulate that economic relationship (eg: power struggle). Catholic Church vs science, Imperialism vs The Colonies, American Freedom vs religious fundamentalism, civil liberties vs family values -- these were/are just economic power struggles covered up with the illusion of "right and wrong".
Neither homosexual nor heterosexual relationships are universally right or wrong; sure homosexuality cannot provide procreation, but humans do not live merely to breed, so beyond that everyone should be free to make their own personal choices. The LGBT movement is not about forcing others to accept LGBTs as "right", it's only about treating them as
economic equals (getting a job, buying a home, etc -- parts of our lives which really have nothing to do with sexuality, but which still suffer from prejudice). When you understand it from that perspective, "intolerance of that which is
wrong" is just a sloppy way of justifying that intolerance. Again, right and wrong really have nothing to do with the equation, and are only brought up by intolerant individuals who believe their lives will be destroyed if gays can get married, become eligible for a home loan, move into their neighborhood, and start sending their kids to the same school (oh the horror!).
The only sort of intolerance that can be justified is pretty much
intolerance of intolerance, or less paradoxically, intolerance of
ignorance. But even that, along with more traditional intolerance of murder/crime/violence/etc, can be measured economically without resorting to arbitrary definitions of right and wrong: uneducated, prejudiced people just tend to slow down society.
Honestly, a gay couple holding hands in public does not jeopardize your chance of employment or housing any more than a straight couple. You might not like seeing it, but until they inflict a
measurable injustice against your liberties, there's nothing implicitly right/acceptable or wrong/unacceptable about their behavior. I say
measurable, because economic gain/loss can be quantified while right and wrong cannot.
Let me get straight to the point: you're going to see lots of offensive stuff on the internet, but
no one is forcing you to click on anything. If you don't like it, just ignore it, move on. The world does not revolve around you, and no one should be obliged to change anything for the sake of your personal comfort.
Practically speaking, as long as AO is being sustained directly out of
chompy's wallet, he gets to call the shots on whether or not ads are part of the site. And I would advise everyone to not be overzealous with ABP/NoScript; it could really undermine chompy's efforts to keep the site running. Of course, if you're willing to donate, then there might be recourse to reducing the ads.
The issue of popups and browser security is legitimate, but please let's start a separate thread for that, because it deserves to not be encumbered with rants about sexual orientation, sociology, and anonymous internet rambling.
