Civility--bah!!
I hardly view them as homogenous. Some of them are just regular villains.Be careful. You'll blow Mr. Bett's worldview of all conservatives as a monolithic homogenous group of cackling inept super villains.Dirty Harry is a Republican. Republicans usually do stuff to infringe on same-sex couple's rights. Thus let's boycott any movie with Dirty Harry or any other person in the movie business that is a Republican.No, its not that absurdly simple. Clint Eastwood and many other Republicans support LGBT equality, like same sex marriage.
Yes, Pres Man, I'm afraid this now means you must marry Eastwood in Expendables 3: The Strawmanninging.
We don't cackle very well. Most of our laughs are really dorky. We're sort of all over the board in that regard.
Is it uncivil to tell someone who is expressing a bigoted viewpoint that their viewpoint is bigoted?IMHO, it depends on how it is said and the relevant circumstances. One thing I do know is that, if you point your finger at someone (who, in their mind, is just being true to their own belief system) and accuse them of being a bigot (which is a very emotion-laden label), the opportunity for open dialogue, persuasion, and influence is gone. Their defenses go up. There are probably some appropriate times to do this and people who will never listen, but I believe it should be done carefully and rarely--especially if a valued relationship is involved.
Is it uncivil to decline to purchase something from someone, for whatever reason?No. Boycotting (even though it may not always be effective) is a civil thing to do IMHO.
I understand that it's an emotion-laded label. You'll note, I didn't suggest calling the person a bigot. Reread my sentence very carefully, look at the syntax and everything. See if you can spot the difference between what I said, and the sentence structure of what you said.
Is it uncivil to tell someone who is expressing a bigoted viewpoint that their viewpoint is bigoted?
Is it uncivil to decline to purchase something from someone, for whatever reason?
Depends on how you do the first I'd suppose.
Absolutely not as to the second. Everyone should purchase only what they want, for whatever reason they want. OSC isn't owed a purchase of anything by anyone. I say boycott away if it is what you want to do.
Do you think expressing bigoted views (not just explaining, but attempting to convince others the rightness of them) is civil?
If so, what exactly about expressing a viewpoint that would deny the dignity of other human beings is civil?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Be careful. You'll blow Mr. Bett's worldview of all conservatives as a monolithic homogenous group of cackling inept super villains.
You've just hit on one of the things that I find very distasteful about liberals, generally speaking. It's not enough for them to portray conservatives as simply being WRONG, they have to portray them as being EVIL.
Be careful. You'll blow Mr. Bett's worldview of all conservatives as a monolithic homogenous group of cackling inept super villains.You've just hit on one of the things that I find very distasteful about liberals, generally speaking. It's not enough for them to portray conservatives as simply being WRONG, they have to portray them as being EVIL.
Heretic!!!1!!
As if american style liberals had anything to do with liberalism.
|
Be careful. You'll blow Mr. Bett's worldview of all conservatives as a monolithic homogenous group of cackling inept super villains.You've just hit on one of the things that I find very distasteful about liberals, generally speaking. It's not enough for them to portray conservatives as simply being WRONG, they have to portray them as being EVIL.
It's a human thing; I see a lot of conservatives doing the same thing, particularly the more religious ones. Frex, here's a (admittedly second-string at best) Christian fundamentalist radio host, Rick Wiles, talking about a pro-choice demonstration in Texas:
These demons weren't hiding behind bushes, they were out in the street; they were in the streets possessing the people who were demanding the right to murder babies.
I hope this is sinking in to our audience of the severity of the Satanic attack that the church is under right now. Make now mistake about what is happening; this is raw Satanic sewage coming up out of Hell. The sewer pipes of Hell have broken open and this is raw hate against Jesus Christ, against God, against the Bible, against righteous men and women, against life, against anything that is good and decent.
This is the face of the Obamanista revolution and this is only the beginning. This is only the beginning of what these people have planned.
If the restraints are ever taken off these people, they're going to kill us. There is going to be mass slaughter of Christians; that's what these people desire.
If the restraints are ever taken off these people, they're going to kill us. There is going to be mass slaughter of Christians; that's what these people desire.
Please tell me this guy has, like, ten listeners total.
Because if it's more than that I may puke.
Woo hoo that is some old-style religion right there!
I understand that it's an emotion-laded label. You'll note, I didn't suggest calling the person a bigot. Reread my sentence very carefully, look at the syntax and everything. See if you can spot the difference between what I said, and the sentence structure of what you said.
I don't see much of a difference (in terms of the results you are likely to get) between saying "You're a bigot" and "Your way of thinking is bigoted."
Be careful. You'll blow Mr. Bett's worldview of all conservatives as a monolithic homogenous group of cackling inept super villains.You've just hit on one of the things that I find very distasteful about liberals, generally speaking. It's not enough for them to portray conservatives as simply being WRONG, they have to portray them as being EVIL.It's a human thing; I see a lot of conservatives doing the same thing, particularly the more religious ones. Frex, here's a (admittedly second-string at best) Christian fundamentalist radio host, Rick Wiles, talking about a pro-choice demonstration in Texas:
These demons weren't hiding behind bushes, they were out in the street; they were in the streets possessing the people who were demanding the right to murder babies.
I hope this is sinking in to our audience of the severity of the Satanic attack that the church is under right now. Make now mistake about what is happening; this is raw Satanic sewage coming up out of Hell. The sewer pipes of Hell have broken open and this is raw hate against Jesus Christ, against God, against the Bible, against righteous men and women, against life, against anything that is good and decent.
This is the face of the Obamanista revolution and this is only the beginning. This is only the beginning of what these people have planned.
If the restraints are ever taken off these people, they're going to kill us. There is going to be mass slaughter of Christians; that's what these people desire.
Yes, 2nd-string, cartoon fanatics do sound awfully similar in their lunatic denunciations.
Was that the point you were trying to make?
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find that difficult to believe when 36-43% (depending on the poll) Americans are opposed to gay marriage and that number continues to decrease. What that tells me, when combined with the fact that 57% of Americans support civil unions (at least according to the 2009 poll that was the last I could find on civil unions) is that there are still plenty of folks that can be led to the right decision based on reasoned rhetoric and continued strides forward as opposed to noncivil means.I don't see evidence of that. All that says is that somewhere around 40% of Americans have clung to the view that gay people do not deserve the same rights that they enjoy, despite near-constant news media saturation with every new development in the debate for the last decade. I think the fact that it continues to shrink is, at this point, more due to the fact that the tide has turned, and the social acceptability of opposing gay marriage has dropped low enough that people who previously expressed opposition to gay marriage have stopped expressing that opposition out of fear of that opinion reflecting negatively on them.
The alternative is, of course, that large chunks of America are regularly hearing new arguments in favor of gay marriage that they'd never heard before, and are suddenly finding them persuasive ("You mean gay people being allowed to marry each other doesn't make my marriage meaningless? I guess I do support gay marriage after all!") I can't see this as anything other than over-the-top idealism and wishful thinking. The reality is that social pressure is a much stronger force than rational argumentation when the entrenched beliefs of hundreds of millions of people are involved.
You don't have to speculate. The question has been asked.
The #1 reason people change their minds on same sex marriage is neither of the reasons you mentioned. It is because of personal experience with gays and lesbians. It's easy to marginalize some hypotherical "other" group, but when it is a family member, close friend, coworker, or neighbor who turns out to be gay, it becomes a lot harder.
Harvey Milk said the best way to change people's opinions on gays and lesbians is for gays and lesbians come out of the closet so that everybody they know has a face to associate with the group. It turns out he was right.
It is (somewhat unfortunately) part of human nature that people care about the issues that effect themselves and those people who are within their close circle. When I see someone spouting lines about how being gay is an abomination, I just shake my head and realize that it will change when it is somebody that they care about who is in that group.
These demons weren't hiding behind bushes, they were out in the street; they were in the streets possessing the people who were demanding the right to murder babies.
I hope this is sinking in to our audience of the severity of the Satanic attack that the church is under right now. Make now mistake about what is happening; this is raw Satanic sewage coming up out of Hell. The sewer pipes of Hell have broken open and this is raw hate against Jesus Christ, against God, against the Bible, against righteous men and women, against life, against anything that is good and decent.
This is the face of the Obamanista revolution and this is only the beginning. This is only the beginning of what these people have planned.
If the restraints are ever taken off these people, they're going to kill us. There is going to be mass slaughter of Christians; that's what these people desire.
This, of course, is utterly ridiculous crap. However, in talking to people on both sides of this issue, I have come to believe that the fundamental concern religious groups have (who have concern) about gay marriage is that they will be forced to perform such marriages (which they see as a sacred religous ceremony) in opposition to their doctrines, beliefs, and conscience. As such, they see this as a religious freedom issue which is protected by the Constitution. If those in favor of gay marriage could help them understand there is no intent to force them to perform religious ceremonies that would violate their beliefs in their own places of worship, I personally believe it would help de-escalate their concerns significantly. I believe it is possible to be both pro-gay marriage and pro-religious freedom.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Be careful. You'll blow Mr. Bett's worldview of all conservatives as a monolithic homogenous group of cackling inept super villains.You've just hit on one of the things that I find very distasteful about liberals, generally speaking. It's not enough for them to portray conservatives as simply being WRONG, they have to portray them as being EVIL.
1) There is no one here who is serious about portraying all conservatives as evil. We're joking.
2) Most liberals don't believe that conservatives are all evil. Many of us believe that some conservatives are evil, and that many of the rest are not particularly well-informed or politically sophisticated. We believe that the ones who are evil (or greedy, more accurately) have become very adept at manipulating the conservative base by pulling the strings of religion, racism, and anti-intellectualism. This is easy, because the conservative base is very, very vulnerable to manipulation, and loves to be manipulated.
3) Conservatives (again, not all of them, but enough) are far guiltier of painting liberals in broad, negative strokes - for evidence of just how effective this has been, you only need to look at how dangerous the word "liberal" has become to use publicly. Conservative politicians will call themselves conservative while campaigning. Liberal politicians stay the hell away from calling themselves liberal because to do so would give conservative pundits something to latch onto.
My advice: If you want us to stop calling the things conservatives do "evil", stop doing evil things.
You don't have to speculate. The question has been asked.
The #1 reason people change their minds on same sex marriage is neither of the reasons you mentioned. It is because of personal experience with gays and lesbians. It's easy to marginalize some hypotherical "other" group, but when it is a family member, close friend, coworker, or neighbor who turns out to be gay, it becomes a lot harder.
Harvey Milk said the best way to change people's opinions on gays and lesbians is for gays and lesbians come out of the closet so that everybody they know has a face to associate with the group. It turns out he was right.
It is (somewhat unfortunately) part of human nature that people care about the issues that effect themselves and those people who are within their close circle. When I see someone spouting lines about how being gay is an abomination, I just shake my head and realize that it will change when it is somebody that they care about who is in that group.
Very well put.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This, of course, is utterly ridiculous crap. However, in talking to people on both sides of this issue, I have come to believe that the fundamental concern religious groups have (who have concern) about gay marriage is that they will be forced to perform such marriages (which they see as a sacred religous ceremony) in opposition to their doctrines, beliefs, and conscience. As such, they see this as a religous freedom issue which is protected by the Constitution. If those in favor of gay marriage could help them understand there is no intent to force them to perform religous ceremonies that would violate their beliefs in their own places of worship, I personally believe it would help de-escalate their concerns significantly. I believe it is possible to be both pro-gay marriage and pro-religous freedom.
My impression over the last few years is that Christian fundamentalists tend not to be particularly interested in religious freedom, as a principle. They want to be able to freely practice their religion, but that's about as far as it goes. Once you move onto the question of whether others should be able to determine their own level of participation in religious belief and practice, the desire to defend religious freedom evaporates.
Either way, the idea that the gay rights movement wants to force Christian churches to marry gay couples is an idea that was fabricated by conservatives as a way of (surprise!) manipulating their base. It has never had any basis in reality, and the only way that you can get the impression that it does is by confining your political discourse to nothing but rabid religious conservative pundits. I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who choose to do that.
The hardline types are far more on the gays are evil, destroying America bandwagon. (Those who aren't just cycnically using a hot-button issue to drum up donations/votes anyway.) Even Card who comes off as much more reasonable and moderate than Rick Wiles here, is making a really crazy argument. One in which gay marriage seems to be only the last stand in fighting off the growing gay menace.
For an argument to the former group it might help to point out that churches have always been free to restrict who they will marry based on their own rules. The Catholic Church will not marry divorcees (though it may make exceptions by deciding the previous marriage wasn't real.) Orthodox Judaism doesn't perform marriages to non-Jews. And so many other examples.
And for the record, it is certainly possible to be both pro-gay marriage and pro-religious freedom. In fact, I'm not sure it's possible to...
These are some good arguments. One of the problems I see with this debate (among many) is that, too often, pro-gay activists come off as anti-religion activists. I think if more people would say "I support both gay rights and religious freedom," there are many good "middle-of-the-road" people who would listen and perhaps drop their opposition. I believe hearts and minds can be changed with the right experiences.
I think if more people would say "I support both gay rights and religious freedom," there are many good "middle-of-the-road" people who would listen and perhaps drop their opposition. I believe hearts and minds can be changed with the right experiences.
Depends where and with whom you're talking. In Texas, I knew people for whom "I support religious freedom" was codespeak for "I seek to impose evangelical Protestantism on the population, and demand that public schools become prayer stations that teach miracles, special creation, and a 10,000-year-old Earth in science class."
As someone mentioned upthread, it was always about "freedom for my religion, not yours!"
Depends where and with whom you're talking. In Texas, "I support religious freedom" was codespeak for "I seek to impose evangelical Protestantism on the population, and demand that public schools become prayer stations that teach miracles, special creation, and a 10,000-year-old Earth in science class."
As someone mentioned upthread, it was always about "freedom for my religion, not yours!"
Agreed. That's why I mentioned "middle-of-the-road" people rather than extremists who are not willing to listen or have open dialogue at all. My experiences have been that the majority of Christians (at least the ones I know and associate with) are good people who will listen to a heart-felt argument presented in the right way.
I think if more people would say "I support both gay rights and religious freedom," there are many good "middle-of-the-road" people who would listen and perhaps drop their opposition. I believe hearts and minds can be changed with the right experiences.Depends where and with whom you're talking. In Texas, I knew people for whom "I support religious freedom" was codespeak for "I seek to impose evangelical Protestantism on the population, and demand that public schools become prayer stations that teach miracles, special creation, and a 10,000-year-old Earth in science class."
As someone mentioned upthread, it was always about "freedom for my religion, not yours!"
Exactly. I think the people who actually support religious freedom are probably the ones who came over to the pro-gay-rights side long ago. I don't know anyone who I could call an advocate of religious freedom but who opposes gay rights. Do you, Technotrooper?
My experiences have been that the majority of Christians (at least the ones I know and associate with) are good people who will listen to a heart-felt argument presented in the right way.
I tend to agree with part of that. My experience is that the majority of Christians are good people. Stop. Most of them, however, will pretend to listen to arguments that fall outside their indoctination, but will dismiss them completely, until they get to know you over a number of years and start realizing that you, too, are a good person and that you, too, actually believe what you're talking about. Then they open up a bit, so long as you never at any time directly contradict any of their dogmatic beliefs.
Exactly. I think the people who actually support religious freedom are probably the ones who came over to the pro-gay-rights side long ago. I don't know anyone who I could call an advocate of religious freedom but who opposes gay rights. Do you, Technotrooper?
I believe there are many good, moderate people who have not yet given this issue the kind of deep thought and philosophical examination they should. Such people may still believe, perhaps because of the external influences you cited, that you can't be pro-gay-rights and pro-religious freedom--that there is a fundamental conflict here and you have to choose a side. It doesn't help when pro-gay-rights extremists (admittedly a small minority but often very visible) come off as "hating" religion. I find this as offensive and unhelpful as I do the anti-gay statements made by religious extremists.
I wonder how many of those folks who are planning on boycotting this movie have enjoyed all of Martin Scorcese's movies, or any number of other known Hollywood pedophiles or psychopaths....
Most of them, however, will pretend to listen to arguments that fall outside their indoctination, but will dismiss them completely, until they get to know you over a number of years and start realizing that you, too, are a good person and that you, too, actually believe what you're talking about. Then they open up a bit, so long as you never at any time directly contradict any of their dogmatic beliefs.
Yes, I have had some similar experiences so I can't deny this doesn't happen sometimes.
Oooh! I'd never heard Marty was a pedophile! Do tell!
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My experiences have been that the majority of Christians (at least the ones I know and associate with) are good people who will listen to a heart-felt argument presented in the right way.I tend to agree with part of that. My experience is that the majority of Christians are good people. Stop. Most of them, however, will pretend to listen to arguments that fall outside their indoctination, but will dismiss them completely, until they get to know you over a number of years and start realizing that you, too, are a good person and that you, too, actually believe what you're talking about. Then they open up a bit, so long as you never at any time directly contradict any of their dogmatic beliefs.
"Indoctrination" and "dogmatic" are pretty negatively charged terms. That's not a good way to begin dialogue if you want someone to listen.
"Dismiss arguments" is not the same thing as "disagree for reasons." Religious people will typically approach topics with fundamentally different assumptions from yours (general "yours" not you specifically). Because you don't share the same assumptions, or don't understand why they don't see things your way, don't assume that they're dismissing your arguments out of hand.
None of the above should be construed as a defense of OSC or any kind of justification for denying civil rights on religious grounds.
Be careful. You'll blow Mr. Bett's worldview of all conservatives as a monolithic homogenous group of cackling inept super villains.You've just hit on one of the things that I find very distasteful about liberals, generally speaking. It's not enough for them to portray conservatives as simply being WRONG, they have to portray them as being EVIL.1) There is no one here who is serious about portraying all conservatives as evil. We're joking.
2) Most liberals don't believe that conservatives are all evil. Many of us believe that some conservatives are evil, and that many of the rest are not particularly well-informed or politically sophisticated. We believe that the ones who are evil (or greedy, more accurately) have become very adept at manipulating the conservative base by pulling the strings of religion, racism, and anti-intellectualism. This is easy, because the conservative base is very, very vulnerable to manipulation, and loves to be manipulated.
3) Conservatives (again, not all of them, but enough) are far guiltier of painting liberals in broad, negative strokes - for evidence of just how effective this has been, you only need to look at how dangerous the word "liberal" has become to use publicly. Conservative politicians will call themselves conservative while campaigning. Liberal politicians stay the hell away from calling themselves liberal because to do so would give conservative pundits something to latch onto.
My advice: If you want us to stop calling the things conservatives do "evil", stop doing evil things.
1. I don't think anyone really saw you as serious. But that doesn't mean what you say here is true. Honestly, come clean; don't attempt the clown nose on/clown nose off shtick.
2. So the evil ones are manipulating the slow ones, who love being manipulated. Compelling argument, there.
3. As we see here. And yet, liberal (somehow!) has come to be seen in a negative light. Must be marketing, nothing more. After all, you're awesome!
I wonder how many of those folks who are planning on boycotting this movie have enjoyed all of Martin Scorcese's movies, or any number of other known Hollywood pedophiles or psychopaths....
I'm pretty sure Martin Scorsese is not a pedophile...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I understand that it's an emotion-laded label. You'll note, I didn't suggest calling the person a bigot. Reread my sentence very carefully, look at the syntax and everything. See if you can spot the difference between what I said, and the sentence structure of what you said.I don't see much of a difference (in terms of the results you are likely to get) between saying "You're a bigot" and "Your way of thinking is bigoted."
I've found that the times where there is no difference, is when someone defines themselves by the viewpoints they hold, which is in essence part of the problem.
Take the Christian fundamentalists who are trying to remove evolution from the teaching of science and biology. At the core is a fundamental self-identification with the concept of Christianity, they define themselves by this concept. Anything that disagrees with it, disagrees with their very nature (in their minds), so they must fight it tooth and nail.
They're not alone in this behavior, it happens in other groups as well. It also happens to the same people on completely different issues. People feel that if they are proven wrong, they will somehow become less than they are now, that part of their existence will have been proven wrong.
People hold onto ideas as if it is these ideas that give the people purpose and meaning, when it is very much the other way around.
People who express bigoted viewpoints are attempting to deny the dignity of other human beings. I don't see that as civil. Do you think that denying the dignity of other human beings is civil?
I stopped having a problem with gay marriage when I took religion out of the picture.
Religion/religious beliefs should not dictate public policy.
Marriage is public policy.
Ergo...
Also:
All Americans should get the same Federal or State benefits.
Gay Americans are Americans.
Ergo...
Also:
Jesus doesn't tell me to be a judgemental a%%$%$!, or worry about what others are doing.
Ergo...
I could go on, but I think you get the picture.
I wonder how many of those folks who are planning on boycotting this movie have enjoyed all of Martin Scorcese's movies, or any number of other known Hollywood pedophiles or psychopaths....I'm pretty sure Martin Scorsese is not a pedophile...
The only thing a quick google search turns up is him defending Polanski. But maybe AD just meant that Scorcese was a sicko like all the other pedos and psychos making movies.
Either way, I've seen and enjoyed most of Marty's films from Mean Streets to Goodfellas and then some scattered ones since. Polanski, well, Chinatown was the f+@@ing shiznit, yo! Rosemary's Baby, Macbeth, I was kind of meh about The Pianist but I did like that Ninth Gate one up until the end.
"Indoctrination" and "dogmatic" are pretty negatively charged terms.
Agreed, but I couldn't think of anything "nicer" at the moment that meant the same thing.
"Dismiss arguments" is not the same thing as "disagree for reasons."
Maybe. Depends on the "reasons." Let me clarify that I had some very good Christian friends in Virginia, for example, that I used to go to Bible study with; they were fairly open about picking and choosing what to practice, based on their own assessment of what it means to be moral and how to best serve God's will. In other places, I met any number of people who believed what they always believed because that's what they were taught to believe, and no thinking entered into it, because that would be a "lapse in faith." So "reasons" cover a lot of ground, from defensible to outright reactionary.
I wonder how many of those folks who are planning on boycotting this movie have enjoyed all of Martin Scorcese's movies, or any number of other known Hollywood pedophiles or psychopaths....
Careful; if you really want to go there, we might start looking at people who put money into the collection plate at their local Catholic church on Sunday.
I wonder how many of those folks who are planning on boycotting this movie have enjoyed all of Martin Scorcese's movies, or any number of other known Hollywood pedophiles or psychopaths....Careful; if you really want to go there, we might start looking at people who put money into the collection plate at their local Catholic church on Sunday.
Although, I would like to know if AD's got some dirt on Marty, or whether he's blowing it in the opening salvo.
|
I wonder how many of those folks who are planning on boycotting this movie have enjoyed all of Martin Scorcese's movies, or any number of other known Hollywood pedophiles or psychopaths....
You say Martin Scorcese, but I think you mean Roman Polanski.
Polanski drugged and raped a 13 year old girl in the late 70s, and then fled the country to avoid criminal legal repercussions. Then when he finally settled the resulting civil suit he just sort of decided not to pay her. He's sort of just been hanging out overseas, occasionally waving his middle finger at the US justice system and acting like *he* is the one being inconvenienced.
Polanski still makes movies, is widely praised as amazing director, and enjoys a considerable amount of support by critics, actors, and his fellow directors. So I can see how you could make a point that boycotting Card but not boycotting Polanski (who has done something far, far worse than Card) would be a bit hypocritical.
Martin Scorcease ... didn't do anything even remotely similar. I'm pretty sure the worse thing he's ever done was direct a movie where David Bowie played Pontius Pilate.
[EDIT] Scorcease also signed a petition objecting to Switzerland's decision to arrest Polanski after inviting him there to present him with a reward:
"The arrest of Roman Polanski in a neutral country, where he assumed he could travel without hindrance...opens the way for actions of which no one can know the effects."
I guess you could hold that against Scorcease, but then you'd also have to boycott Terry Gilliam, Wong Kar-Wai, Darren Aronofsky, Alfonso Cuarón, Monica Bellucci, Tilda Swinton and Asia Argento. All of whom also signed the petition. *shrug*
I stopped having a problem with gay marriage when I took religion out of the picture.
Religion/religious beliefs should not dictate public policy.
Marriage is public policy.
Ergo...Also:
All Americans should get the same Federal or State benefits.
Gay Americans are Americans.
Ergo...Also:
Jesus doesn't tell me to be a judgemental a~~*$**, or worry about what others are doing.
Ergo...I could go on, but I think you get the picture.
Why do you hate religion?
You need to be more civil. Calling people "judgemental a~~*$**" is horrible.
I'm not perfect, I'm working on that...
I don't hate religion. I am a Christian.
I do however see problems with organized religion...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess you could hold that against Scorcease, but then you'd also have to boycott...Monica Bellucci...
No way am I boycotting Monica Bellucci!