>>19303016 (pb)

>Both have questionable morals to begin with

According to whom'st'd've? Start there.

>along side their bloated egos

Grenell and Tate don't seem on par in this example. One seems to me to be confidence, and the other ego, sure.

>and elevated social status'

OK, yeah.

>Impose THEIR questionable morality upon weak minds

Grenell doesn't strike me as someone imposing things on people rather than just speaking his mind. Free Speech. You can't play caregiver to everyone's conscience, either. Restricting people from exposure to perspectives and possibilities is censorship; which is abhorrent in a free society.

Tate? Yeah, he's definitely got a following and is an "influencer". But back to the first point. Whose morals are we using as a baseline, here? Who decided that for everyone? And once that's established, whose job is it to use rule of law to impose that moral standard?

If you object to womanizing, I can see that and agree with it. There are those, however, that feel as though they do the things they do, from modeling to adult entertainment, on their own volition and free will. Yes there are predators there just like any other industry. Should government have restrictions and enforceable laws so as to prevent libertines from taking their excesses to abuse situations? To an extent, yes. But it should only do so when it can be clearly determined that someone's rights are being infringed. There are people that simply choose that way to live and that's for them to decide for themselves.

If you object to homosexuality, a subject that has its roots going back as far as recorded history (as with the other issue), then that's OK. But again, what role does government have to play in preventing that which you don't agree with? None.

One does not have to subscribe to either way of thinking, but unless it's a real situation of abuse, government has no right to step in. It's fun to debate the impact of these things on society, though, so long as the central point of allowing people to live as they see fit (so long as they aren't infringing on someone else's rights, again) is agreed upon. People aren't robots (thank God for that). When people give themselves over to someone's specific and prescribed methodology for living, along with all its restrictions, variety dies and so does culture.