Actually you can argue against haters too, as it's not necessary to use the "with" theory in order for things to work. I do however understand what you mean under your idea I think, but I'm talking about the biased and ignore arguments as well, example: "Gay is wrong, because I think it's gross" "Umm, that's your personal thought (Though I can offer maybe) but I will say, it's not true to the world because others are not you, and you should keep un-true effects to your self.. hmm?"
Or we should just ignore the guy with the un-true effects and just embrace it without even having to argue against it, with our own meanings, because you don't need to argue with him in order for some things to happen.
I seen similar things "against haters" with gay rights and others and the morons just stayed more hidden (The anti-gay people).
"bring nothing of value to the conversation" I seen a lot of values with the "against" theory and even "with", I think it can work if some wants to try, especially since a lot of furries has had there lives more pushed around and crap based on the "un-true" effects.
If you mean "valid" as in a "reason" exist regardless on if it's a dumb, biased, or fear reason, or if it's good reason then you make your point (Every hatred crap going on, including hatred against gays, blacks, jews, etc...) but I disagree that it's "unfair" to "hate back" because honestly I don't see a point not too, well I mean, you don't have to but hating back is not going to cause anything worse most of the time maybe.
(Also regardless on what reason people has on furries, is still a dick move too regardless on why due to what's already proven I think)
It's the same with gays, some people seem to accept the hatred against people who use hatred based on bible theories, some call them "religious freak", but that didn't make people continue making things worse, it's basically a reaction to a possible reaction from hatred; sometimes saying it in a "how do you like it way".
It's kind of a point of "shaming them back".
There are some people who can't control there hatred of things existing in public, the only argument I would have if I just couldn't "hate back" is to say "You have to get over it, you don't own the public".
So what he did was reacting a unfair move to bring more unfair back to them. (Fuck off haters is like that but in a leave my life alone thing too)
"No thanks I can just as well hate those that hate me for superfluous reasons."
It's true you know, if hate did not exist in the first place, then there would be no reason to hate "back" as that may be the only thing unfair. I honestly don't see how it's "unfair" for him to say that as a reaction. It makes me think that just because haters could have biased or some "real" argument based, there reason is somehow more "fair".
Actually you can argue against haters too, as it's not necessary to use the "with" theory in order for things to work. I do however understand what you mean under your idea I think, but I'm talking about the biased and ignore arguments as well, example: "Gay is wrong, because I think it's gross" "Umm, that's your personal thought (Though I can offer maybe) but I will say, it's not true to the world because others are not you, and you should keep un-true effects to your self.. hmm?"
Or we should just ignore the guy with the un-true effects and just embrace it without even having to argue against it, with our own meanings, because you don't need to argue with him in order for some things to happen.
I seen similar things "against haters" with gay rights and others and the morons just stayed more hidden (The anti-gay people).
"bring nothing of value to the conversation" I seen a lot of values with the "against" theory and even "with", I think it can work if some wants to try, especially since a lot of furries has had there lives more pushed around and crap based on the "un-true" effects.
If you mean "valid" as in a "reason" exist regardless on if it's a dumb, biased, or fear reason, or if it's good reason then you make your point (Every hatred crap going on, including hatred against gays, blacks, jews, etc...) but I disagree that it's "unfair" to "hate back" because honestly I don't see a point not too, well I mean, you don't have to but hating back is not going to cause anything worse most of the time maybe.
(Also regardless on what reason people has on furries, is still a dick move too regardless on why due to what's already proven I think)
It's the same with gays, some people seem to accept the hatred against people who use hatred based on bible theories, some call them "religious freak", but that didn't make people continue making things worse, it's basically a reaction to a possible reaction from hatred; sometimes saying it in a "how do you like it way".
It's kind of a point of "shaming them back".
There are some people who can't control there hatred of things existing in public, the only argument I would have if I just couldn't "hate back" is to say "You have to get over it, you don't own the public".
So what he did was reacting a unfair move to bring more unfair back to them. (Fuck off haters is like that but in a leave my life alone thing too)
"No thanks I can just as well hate those that hate me for superfluous reasons."
It's true you know, if hate did not exist in the first place, then there would be no reason to hate "back" as that may be the only thing unfair. I honestly don't see how it's "unfair" for him to say that as a reaction. It makes me think that just because haters could have biased or some "real" argument based, there reason is somehow more "fair".
Account abandoned and probably will make a new anonymous account with no trace of evidence of it being me. I think it's justified.