re: #151 Obdicut

Then why the hell are you speaking on their behalf?

The same reason both of us have spoken on behalf of women.

The convo started when it was claimed the website SJ linked to wasn’t using an analogy with an equivalent point. I disagreed and made the point.

What we see now is the evolution of the conversation.

My point is, because there are people who will be insulted by the practice, and the practice is in essence non-consensual, the website was justified in exercising a bit of tit for tat.