“Either refuse to do neck tattoos on ANYONE, or just do the damned thing.”

Because your life is NOT your own and thus YOU don’t get to choose. I (and the rest of your OWNERS) will decide for you, because you are OUR property. But hey, I’ll be ‘generous’ and ALLOW you to choose between TWO of my dictates. See, you’re…

“refusing service based on gender, that’s a legal issue”

Just goes to show that the principle of slavery is still alive and well in America.

“they don’t HAVE to serve you”

But she WANTS it. So they HAVE to submit the absolute which is her whim.

What’s odd about it? It’s her body, after all. So she has a right to demand HE submit to her whims in regard to it. How is that ‘odd’?

It’s no more ‘odd’ than slavery.

AND she illustrates the other times people said NO to her without incident.

“you are missing the main point which is consent. ...the fact that someone else made a decision for her and stripped her of the agency over her own body is the problem here.”

The ONLY problem here is YOU “missing the main point which is consent”. You REJECT the SAME “agency” of the tattoist over HIS body, and DEMAND he…

Funny. You just declared that the artist’s body is NOT his to do with what HE wants. You’ve just declared him a SLAVE to “her choice”.

So much for your defense of a person’s right to their body.

Put in simplier terms, your premise is that killing raises moral questions, whereas not killing doesn’t raise any moral questions. Of course, whether one agrees or disagrees with the first part of your premise, the actual problem is in the second part of your premise. It is false.

You claim by not killing, no moral…

“Well, considering you didn’t answer any of my questions I’ll hold off on answering yours.”

Your questions were immaterial because the point you were trying to make with them is that you consider the line between justified and unjustified killing to be “morally gray”. You then claimed that NOT killing doesn’t share…

“Superman is supposed to be a symbol of always finding another way to stop the foe without killing”

Again, this is the very question under consideration. WHY? And why is this supposedly good? What makes this “pure”? What makes it an ‘unsullied’ good? What makes REFUSING to kill under ANY circumstance good? Why is such…

“a symbol of pure heroism that should never be sullied”

Of course this already begs the question being asked - what makes killing anti-heroic? In other words, you are indicating it is not moral to kill, whereas Timm is indicating that it can be. So it is only by your ethic that it would ‘sully’ a hero. That if a hero…

“it turns out that university administrations are quite keen on this sort of thing”

Yup. Reward a behavior and you get more of it. This goes back to ‘sit-ins’ in the 60s and Administrations either afraid to respond or actually encouraging the ‘occupation’ of their facilities as a means of achieving one’s goals.

So long…

“at the end of the day a woman with an opinion is just that; and that is person who deserves to be belittled and bullied”

Yes, if she were a -man- with an opinion, “The Internet” wouldn’t have “belittled and bullied” her.

Bwahahahahahahahaha!

Jezebel continues to provide the humor. :)

“Maybe the reason was GGs reputation surrounding them?”

So people made up accusations in direct contradiction to the facts - to what ACTUALLY happened - and you try to suggest those being attacked are at fault for the falsehoods aimed at them? Wow.

Apparently Yagamy and all the others who keep making wild accusations in direct contradiction to the posted video didn’t ‘notice’. So its quite useful to post it in response to these bizarre and hateful claims.

If you notice, they aren’t just ignoring the fact that the panel was recorded. They are simply making up accusations in complete contradictions to the facts. Truth is not their concern. Discourse is not their concern. Silencing others is their only concern.

“how exactly is it anywhere near what it’s being portrayed”

You presume truth is something they value. The purpose of the accusations is not to identify what actually happened. The purpose of the accusations is to silence those who disagree with them.

You are directing facts at people who are explicitly just MAKING UP accusations. In other words, they’ve already demonstrated facts are not something they value. Truth is not something with which they are concerned.

Stop trying to confuse people with facts that contradict the Narrative!!!!

What a surprise. All the vicious, hateful commenters who turned out to be wrong haven't apologized for their irrational invective. One might almost conclude the *truth* was NEVER their concern. Like the screeching faithful, they simply sought to attack 'heresy' and uphold their 'scripture'.