Lap dances and pole dancing are not the same as a drag show, but while we are on the topic. You cool with me whipping Jesus in public, then nailing him to a fake cross with fake blood running down his face?
The topic was first amendment. Stay in context. Either acknowledge that it's not a good argument, or accept that they are "the same as drag show" within that context.
Not even sure what the Jesus thing is about, but I suppose everything is being allowed under the pretext of first amendment so why not. It sounds like an enactment which is a - what did people call it - an "art form".
Youre the one talking about lap dances dipshit
And you are the one talking about drag shows, and started verbal slurs "dipshit".
bankimu
You're such a dumbass lmao.
You two were made for each other. If you were both dolls, now is when you'd start kissing.
This subbranch starts with a "/s" comment; it isn't clear what is supposed to be sarcastic and instead reads like earnest illogic. There's no spacing distinction between sarcasm and not, so is the entire comment sarcastic?
Then you jump in with a serious reply that immediately starts providing evidence for an unstated claim, which you presumably believe is "obvious." The first girl is introducing the context of schools. Are you sticking with that or switching to the different context of public? If you're pivoting to the general public, then you're off topic.
Then the first girl replies as if she made an argument. She also doesn't acknowledge you (maybe) changing the context to public. She seems to be fixated on exposing children who are in school to material unrelated to the curriculum.
As a note, the first amendment is context dependent. For example, shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater is not covered; this is because it would likely lead to injury via a stampede. A realistic re-enactment of a Jew being tortured and executed by a foreign government being performed for children at school might not be covered.
Lap dances and pole dancing are not the same as a drag show, but while we are on the topic. You cool with me whipping Jesus in public, then nailing him to a fake cross with fake blood running down his face?
The topic was first amendment. Stay in context. Either acknowledge that it's not a good argument, or accept that they are "the same as drag show" within that context.
Not even sure what the Jesus thing is about, but I suppose everything is being allowed under the pretext of first amendment so why not. It sounds like an enactment which is a - what did people call it - an "art form".
Youre the one talking about lap dances dipshit
And you are the one talking about drag shows, and started verbal slurs "dipshit".
You're such a dumbass lmao.
You two were made for each other. If you were both dolls, now is when you'd start kissing.
This subbranch starts with a "/s" comment; it isn't clear what is supposed to be sarcastic and instead reads like earnest illogic. There's no spacing distinction between sarcasm and not, so is the entire comment sarcastic?
Then you jump in with a serious reply that immediately starts providing evidence for an unstated claim, which you presumably believe is "obvious." The first girl is introducing the context of schools. Are you sticking with that or switching to the different context of public? If you're pivoting to the general public, then you're off topic.
Then the first girl replies as if she made an argument. She also doesn't acknowledge you (maybe) changing the context to public. She seems to be fixated on exposing children who are in school to material unrelated to the curriculum.
As a note, the first amendment is context dependent. For example, shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater is not covered; this is because it would likely lead to injury via a stampede. A realistic re-enactment of a Jew being tortured and executed by a foreign government being performed for children at school might not be covered.
Then comes hurling of insults.