You know exactly what I mean, don't play coy. I was merely attempting to mimic your style. I wouldn't have phrased it that way normally if I weren't. But since it wasn't clear enough, let me rephrase it. If a person donates to a candidate who, for example, supports access to abortion, that rightfully warrants cancellation. Obviously you don't agree. This isn't even how I personally feel. However, there are many people out there that feel that this is an issue just as deplorable and worthy of cancellation as anything you listed. Who determines that you're right and they're wrong? Who gets to draw that line?
- I am not the arbiter of what's right/wrong. What is/isn't conducive to well-being determines whether something is right or wrong.
- Restricting access to abortion and telling a woman what she can't do with her own body violates a woman's right to bodily autonomy and demonstrably causes harm.
- Abortion is not the "murder of an unborn child." It's the termination of a pregnancy. Whether or not the termination of a pregnancy results in the death of a fetus is a separate issue.
- If a person really did believe abortion was child-murder, then they have the right to "cancel" any person they think is giving money to candidates who support the supposed "child-murder." Nobody is entitled to anybody else's money.
Had Cawthon supported Biden, then this post could just have easily have been about conservatives attacking him for supporting a politician who is in favor of abortion access.
While it would be misguided, social conservatives would be free to do that. They don't have to spend their money supporting people who they perceive to be "advocating for the murder of unborn children."
It strikes me as a holier-than-thou attitude to believe yourself to be perfectly right in all your moral determinations and your opponents to be perfectly wrong.
People generally believe they're right about things when they post about them. I believe I'm right about the topics that have been discussed in this thread. That doesn't mean anyone is claiming to be infallible. What a total waste of a post. "You believe you're right, and you believe the people who disagree with you are wrong." Uh, yeah.
There are people who could agree with Lacius on every one of their points and still vote Republican because they feel that abortion is a more important issue than all of those other issues combined.
Those people would be wrong to do so. It's also unlikely that someone would agree with me on literally everything else while also being anti-choice.
if those people truly believed in god and the teachings of the bible they would turn the other cheek and let God sort it out. We were never tasked with judging others for their choices so to me it's very hypocritical when a christian tries to impose their views on others as written law.
For numerous reasons, even Christians should condemn Scott for his political contributions.
I would note that you can feel strongly about abortion without religious beliefs
The anti-choice movement is inherently religious and based on the belief that a "soul" exists and begins at conception. There isn't a secular argument that I've heard for restricting access to abortion.
Just because someone supports something doesn't mean they hate another group of people.
If what a person supports is a candidate who talks about enacting homophobic policies and enacts those homophobic policies, then it probably means that person is homophobic. Even if the person giving money to the homophobic candidate isn't homophobic and just cares deeply about something else, that person is accepting of the homophobia in order to so. That's still a form of homophobia.
This whole thread is people so high on their own anger for a guy supporting who he thought was right for a country.
That doesn't mean he wasn't wrong. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
If you disagree with his support for a candidate, that's fine.
If someone wants to condemn the support for the former president and doesn't want that person to get any of their money (since it's being used to support candidates who are deplorable and commit atrocities), that's also fine.
He's voiced his own opinions, you can voice yours.
Then what are you complaining about?
People, this is GBATemp and y'all are turning it into Twitter. Seriously. People can have opinions.
People have a right to their opinions, and they have a right to donate to the political candidates of their choosing. They do not have a right to be free from criticism, boycotts, etc. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from all consequences resulting from that speech.
From the looks of it, he's a good man.
From the looks of it, he gave money to a candidate who is demonstrably, anti-LGBT, anti-woman, anti-immigrant, anti-immigrant child, anti-environment, anti-Black, and anti-democracy. At best, he accepted these things because he wanted tax breaks. At worst, he supports some or all of these things. I haven't seen any indication that Scott is a "good man." In determining whether or not someone is a "good person," I don't need to see anything other than their actions, and Scott's actions doesn't speak kindly of him.