Jedishy

Not really. Them drifting apart made more sense. They had to have known each other for some time due to her being ABs teacher as well as the both living in the same relatively small town and yet never seemed interested in each other until the love poison situation. After that they explored if it could have had more to it then the potion and whelp it didn't work. IE no spark from the get go it was all potion. Finding someone new he had never met before just makes more sense.

A good number. Beard balm?

Being bi myself doubt it would make much of a difference to me. But it would take getting used to. Sound to me you are degrading peoples sexuality. Or that it can be changed if you just try hard enough. Sorta like oh idk conversion therapy. Not feeling any acceptance for the fact that peoples sexuality are a deciding factor who they date/sleep with.

Ill get us started with one of my boys sleeping

Umm no. Its not their right. You do not have a right to touch other people or property against their will. Lets apply your arguement to any other situation: If someone want to just come into your house and take a nap its their choice so its their rights too If someone wants to take your food and eat it, its their choice so its their rights too You do not have any rights to stop other people from doing something legal. You do not have a right to violate the rights of others. And stopping someone from doing what they wish with their property requires one of the following property theft/damage assault trespass All of which are criminal and morally wrong and not something you have a right to do

Yes I have Never have I lied to get out of work

Yes you did. You claimed I justified it. Show me where. Show me where I justified it rather then what I did which was say stopping someone from doing what they wish with their property is wrong. Ill wait. Never tried to change your mind. I asked by what right do you think you have to use force against someone for an act that harms no one. Plenty of people think of bronies as sick deranged monsters for liking a " show for little girls " should they be able to " stop us " from watching the show? If you say no then its all special pleading, straw-men, and slippery slopes. IE no logic but just forcing your will on others because of feelings.

@cuteycindyhoney 1. Nice slippery slope fallacy. Protest does not auto equal restrictions of rights or harming the person you are protesting 2. You do not have the right to force your ideas on someone else via criminal acts which is what you are saying you would do 3. What you find offensive does not give you any right to touch another person or their property against their will 4. Nice strawman at the end. I never justified it, in fact I said I think its stupid personally. Saying someones right to do something should be protected does not mean you support what they do with it. Unless you are trying to say supporting freedom so speech makes you responsible for anything anyone ever says.

That has nothing to do with anything. I replied to the person saying they with would put a stop to it, then you said: And no its not their rights. You have no rights to touch the property or body of another person against their will. And no matter what emotional bs people want to use no one can justify infringing on the rights of others because they dont like how they use them or what they do with their property.

No its not your right to stop anyone from doing what they want with their property. Its going to require assault, theft, or damage of their property to stop it. You have NO right to touch someones property against their will let alone to stop them from doing what they want with it.

This is a very nice straw man question. One easily answered by my own statement on this very page if you bothered to look up. So its a cute deflection but it does nothing. One does not have to be in favor of something to say that others have the right to engage in it if they wish. I think many things stupid that people do. But it does not give me the right to stop them.

Well sorry to sound confrontational here but who are you to stop someone from doing what they want with their property? Unless they are in some way endangering others you have no right legal or moral to try to lay hands on anyone or demand they not do something. Sure I think its stupid. But guess what liberty means people get to be stupid. We do not have a moral right nor generally even a legal one unless the act " picks our pocket or breaks our leg " or by some random chance violates a contract with us, to stop anyone from doing anything without the aforementioned factors being in play.