[rubicon]

Originally Posted by outlaw

I read the article. Most of the story went on about a comment that said "she doesn't even look like the same person". That sounds like an honest comment, if not brutally honest. What I got most out of this article are two things; why do people insist on posting selfies in very private situations, then get offended when the comments on their appearance isn't all gushing flattery; and why does everything nowadays degenerate into some PC diatribe about victimization of some identity group? The general public seems to have devolved into a bunch of thin skinned whiny crybabies looking for something about which to be offended.

We agree

[rubicon]

Originally Posted by outlaw

As soon as you start determining "consequences" for what is otherwise free speech, then you really don't have free speech anymore. Your list of non-approved speech seems to be endless. GB passed a law making it a crime to utter any speech that offends someone. I think a man was arrested in Chicago or NYC, maybe GB, for saying a policeman's horse looked gay, another arrested for "barking" at a police dog. When are we going to do something about mean stares and looks? Or a mean spirited disapproving head shake?

Again we agree. I mean free speech is likely to offend someone. The real danger is stifling free speech

the old saw "sticks and stones.... applies no longer but what would one expect from people who actually take selfies

finally with the right to free speech is the corresponding responsibility to oneself in a civil manner

[outlaw]

Originally Posted by rubicon

We agree

Thanks. When I think about it, it does have a little bit of your writing style; the observations, a touch of analysis, a pinch of critical thinking, and a thought provoking exit. Ok, maybe not all of that.

[CritterLover]

Originally Posted by JoelJohnson

The best response I saw was "Since I don't respect your opinion, your response means nothing to me"

That's a fact!