3 ms·
> "Politicians shouldn't support $SOMETHING because it increases the chances they might be assassinated" Powerful and/or controversial politicians always have
by Mikeb85 13y ago
> "Politicians shouldn't support $SOMETHING because it increases the chances they might be assassinated"
Powerful and/or controversial politicians always have lots of security for this reason.
> "Maybe gay people should just stop having so much gay sex if they want to stop being victimized by society"
Poor example. They're victimized for being gay, not for the type and quantity of sex they're having.
- wrongc0ntinent 13y agoGood example, poor wording.
- scarmig 13y ago> "Powerful and/or controversial politicians always have lots of security for this reason." Yes, and I'd argue that goes with my point. As a society, we never say "well, they sort of had it coming when they were a hack for the socialists/capitalists/whites/blacks/misogynists/feminists/whatever"; we condemn the assassin, and on top of that provide extra security to the politician. In the same way, if a woman goes out in public and gets raped (which is surely more risky than staying indoors all day), we don't condemn her for doing something that statistically increases her chances of becoming a victim of sexual violence, but condemn the rapist and, on top of that, try to build government policies and social practices that decrease the chance of her becoming that victim.