That seems to imply you would prefer that things be kept quiet and private, including discussions such as these. Yet evidently you chose to share your original observations, for which I am most pleased. If this were a story, RPS or otherwise, you'd reach a great number of like-minded people, as you did. But you also reached a great number of dissenting voices. That's part of the deal of the internet. You benefit from it, and you deal with repercussions.
Likewise a story on the internet is not jealously guarded by a few people, but is willingly shared - unless in a friends-locked post, and it is put there primarily so that it may be shared. And when you share it, you put up with people who don't like it, who may write to tell you so.
Thats fandom for you. And that's what RPS is, too. It's out there. And you can choose not to read it because you find it morally objectionable. You can choose instead to rant about abortion foes and possibly draw the ire of a rabid right to lifer. That right to lifer thinks you are morally impaired.
Or you can choose only to discuss non-controversial subjects: quilting, resolutions, diets. Or if you want to talk about abortion, you can write that in a letter and send it to 30 friends. You can ask for that letter back, all 30 copies. I suppose that's safe.
You can choose, you choose, you choose.I get to choose, too, and so to the others, pro and anti abortion, pro or anti RPS. You may choose not to read RPS, but do not tell me I am immoral. True, you may find it, or me, morally objectionable. But just as the opionion of the Right-To-Lifer has no meaning for you, so the anti-RPS stance is unimportant to those who like it. Who is morally correct? I don't know. . .can you say for certain? I wouldn't presume to.
If you believe abortion is not the murder of an innocent (and I believe that, too), then you really must consider that a tongue-in-cheek story about two male actors having sex -- which may or may not ever be read by anyone other than like-minded fans -- is perhaps a wee bit less of a potentially immoral choice.
no subject
Likewise a story on the internet is not jealously guarded by a few people, but is willingly shared - unless in a friends-locked post, and it is put there primarily so that it may be shared. And when you share it, you put up with people who don't like it, who may write to tell you so.
Thats fandom for you. And that's what RPS is, too. It's out there. And you can choose not to read it because you find it morally objectionable. You can choose instead to rant about abortion foes and possibly draw the ire of a rabid right to lifer. That right to lifer thinks you are morally impaired.
Or you can choose only to discuss non-controversial subjects: quilting, resolutions, diets. Or if you want to talk about abortion, you can write that in a letter and send it to 30 friends. You can ask for that letter back, all 30 copies. I suppose that's safe.
You can choose, you choose, you choose. I get to choose, too, and so to the others, pro and anti abortion, pro or anti RPS. You may choose not to read RPS, but do not tell me I am immoral. True, you may find it, or me, morally objectionable. But just as the opionion of the Right-To-Lifer has no meaning for you, so the anti-RPS stance is unimportant to those who like it. Who is morally correct? I don't know. . .can you say for certain? I wouldn't presume to.
If you believe abortion is not the murder of an innocent (and I believe that, too), then you really must consider that a tongue-in-cheek story about two male actors having sex -- which may or may not ever be read by anyone other than like-minded fans -- is perhaps a wee bit less of a potentially immoral choice.