Brooklyn1 wrote:

The principle that society is entitled to make rules for its
collective betterment that may disadvantage some individuals is not
in dispute.

The point that you have missed is the ridiculous scope and
impossibility of clear definition of the rules that some people
believe they are entitled to foist on to others. There are some
rules that should not be made because the test that the betterment
of society exceeds the loss of individual freedom is not met. There
are some that should not be made because defining them unambiguously
and enforcing them equitably is not possible. This one is both.

For a country whose public mythos features freedom of the individual
very strongly there seem a great many who are ready to declare that
you may be as free as you like as long as you agree with *their* way
of life and *their* view of right conduct. This is a good recipe
for a conformist authoritarian society which those same people spend
their energy railing against. How do they justify such illogical
behaviour? Simple. They are right and the rest are wrong so
everybody shut up and do as you told. Or as you put it, if you
don't like it move away.

You sound like a moron, which is what you are.

Why is it that whenever somebody disagrees with you the first thing you do
is offer insult and the last thing is rebuttal? It seems that you are not
capable of producing a reasoned argument or stating any facts in support.
But it's your right to make yourself a horse's arse internationally.

D