A good pun is its own reword.
I'm really surprised this is positive.
"Being gay isn't an accomplishment, it's just who you are"
Yet, "Be proud of who you are" is pretty common advice in order to embrace our differences and all that. And as others have said, being able to face discrimination is something to be proud of.
Let's say there is a god, and he, as you say, has the power to decide whether, after a person dies, they get to live happily in heaven or get banished to an eternity of excruciating suffering. If he would decide to send me to hell solely because I don't believe in him, even though I lived a life relatively free of sin filled with helping the less fortunate, then he's just a total dick and I rebuke him for it.
And on a less related note, that guy seemed like he was really overplaying the role of "I'm a douchebag and I know it, watch me shock all the sheep with my edgy, controversial truth-bombs."
Dude nice, you put argument in quotes to void my support before I even made it, and used the word "amuse" to make it seem like you were merely toying with a child as you question my clearly inferior opinion. See my replies the the first comment above.
Wait, this isn't infidels.com?
And you got me, my lack of belief is a direct result of me failing my middle school algebra class. I admit it.
Luckily, we all have the right to bear arms.
Ugh, the post just says "A victimless crime should not be a crime" not "There are crimes in the country you live in that should not be crimes because they don't have victims." Even if you don't think there ARE crimes without victims, that's not a reason to disagree.
Now, the obvious example (for the U.S.) is smoking pot, and you can argue that it doesn't have a victim, because it doesn't harm the user and it's not addictive, and you can argue that it does, because it can be a "gateway drug" or whatnot, but that isn't the point of the post. (And yes, pretty much every other crime in America definitely has a victim). The point is that IF it doesn't have a victim, it shouldn't be a crime.
I think the point is more interesting to apply to other less democratic countries with more examples of "victimless crimes."
How about a world without venture capitalists and the like?
Based on the word "giggle" appearing twice in that post, I doubt it would be easy to find someone weaker than you.
It's not supposed to be universally true, it's supposed to be comforting. Most scenarios where someone is upset aren't the holocaust. So it's not "pure bullshit," and that's just extremely overly cynical to say so.
What gives you the right to tell a child what to do when you do that thing? There's no reason why age matters here.
I see nothing wrong with telling someone to not do something that is harmful to me.
Sense of humor: You need it.