"Morality Police"

[Soda Bobinski]

The term has been bandied about quite a bit in a recent thread ( http://www.ticklingforum.com/showthread.php?241549-tickling-strangers ) & it left me wondering :

Wouldn't someone labeling anyone the 'morality police' & thereby admonishing them for the behavior of attempting to impose their perceived 'self-righteousness' onto others ... in turn become their own brand of morality police?


"Hey. I just want to say that I think you're wrong for telling that other person that you think they're wrong. You shouldn't do that. "


When one , in effect , becomes that which he or she is speaking out against ... does that make them a hypocrite?

Is that not the inherent danger of using a term such as 'morality police'?

 

[Comfort Eagle]

Because there's something called 'social skills" that most people have in some context, and when people don't they confuse their own horrible ignorance of how to interact with people with others "policing them" for doing extraordinarily creepy and inappropriate shit.

You know. Because they're idiots.

 

[Fat Bastard]

Is this a topic of general discussion, and therefore better suited for the general discussion sub-forum, or is there some hidden tickling context I’m missing?

 

[primetime]

The term has been bandied about quite a bit in a recent thread ( http://www.ticklingforum.com/showthread.php?241549-tickling-strangers ) & it left me wondering :

Wouldn't someone labeling anyone the 'morality police' & thereby admonishing them for the behavior of attempting to impose their perceived 'self-righteousness' onto others ... in turn become their own brand of morality police?


"Hey. I just want to say that I think you're wrong for telling that other person that you think they're wrong. You shouldn't do that. "


When one , in effect , becomes that which he or she is speaking out against ... does that make them a hypocrite?

Is that not the inherent danger of using a term such as 'morality police'?

I have been using that term and I used it simply to illustrate a point. You have certain members who must show their absolute digust over someone else's post. We all know you don't have to agree with someone's post or ideas, but to "finger point" and name call goes over the line. They claim they do it because it is their opinion, but in reality, it is their emotion.

I use that term against them because they feel fit to call people "creepy", so I wanted to use a label back at them to show them how it feels to be labeled. Notice that they don't like to be called "moral police". Why? Why does that label bother them? Now, imagine being that poster and being called "creepy" when your original intent seemed innocent enough.

Tickling, whether you admit it or not, is inherently non-consensual. We have all grown up seeing people tickled "against their will". We have seen people get tickled out of nowhere from their friends. The "ticklee" didn't have a sign that said "Hey!! I love tickling! Please tickle me right now in front of everyone!". No, their friends decided to tickle them (TECHNICALLY) against their will. That is non-consensual. Even those who do not share the same passion we have for tickling, see tickling as inherently non-consensual. We have seen movies/cartoons/other media of some "damsel or guy" in distress being tickle tormented and begging for it to stop. So why are people stunned to see people so into "non-consensual" type tickling scenarios?

Now, enacting the non-con tickling in reality is a fine line. Jumping on a random stranger, holding them down and tickling them for long periods of time may not be a good idea. But how often do we see posters say exactly that? What we see are people wondering how they can indulge in their fetish, albeit with total strangers, and seek help because you just know you aren't the only one with those thoughts. If you don't like the idea of that, that is perfectly fine. No one says your feelings about it is wrong. But for all this talk about "consider other people's feelings", they sure do not do the same. People who posts questions such as the recent "tickling strangers" may not even consider their thoughts as bad, just something fun. But when you are called "CREEPY!!" and may go to jail and such, that tends to affect them as human beings as well.

It is all a matter of POV. You can tell one of those people who posts questions like that, that their idea may not be a good idea because there may be repurcussions,, but to label someone? To use your emotional response and just flat out be rude and mean? Yet, they talk about "consider the people's feelings?" and just behave in such a manner that any opposing opinion is wrong because they know what is RIGHT for all? That is the moral police. Those are people trying to tell others what is right and what is wrong. No one is perfect. People can make mistakes. Do you really have to label them vile names? Do you really need to express such "animosity" towards another? Totally different if they posted a "Not a good idea guy. Did you ever consider the other person's feelings?" versus "YOU'RE CREEPY!!! YOU WILL GET YOUR TEETH KNOCKED OUT!! YOU WILL GET SUED!!! YOU WILL GET ARRESTED!!!!"

In other words, be nice to everyone and your POV may not necessarily be the right one. Don't label people, just give your dissenting opinion. If the OP decides to be rude back to your civil response, then you know what you are dealing with.

For the record, I do not agree with the OP in the "tickling strangers" thread, but I am not going to call him creepy and such. It isn't a good idea to do what he wants to do, but hey, if something happens to him or not, so be it.

 

[Soda Bobinski]

Is this a topic of general discussion, and therefore better suited for the general discussion sub-forum, or is there some hidden tickling context I’m missing?

lol Sorry. I wondered that myself but ultimately decided to post it in the Tickling Discussion forum since the idea for this thread was born out of the one which is tickling-based.

If the reference to that other thread ( which is posted in the OP ) isn't sufficient enough to 'qualify' this as being in the TD subforum , then I'll understand & completely support it if the mods feel it best to move it elsewhere.


If tickling content is what's needed to keep the thread where it is , then allow me to add the following in the hopes of appeasing any concerns of the 'correct placement' of it :

 

[C.A.B.]

I find it ironic that brandishing the label "Morality Police" as some sort of cudgel, in itself is admission that at least the concept of morality exists in the mind of the wielder. Some folks idea of right and wrong is never clear until consequences occur. Then again, sometimes not. Our prisons are full of such fools.

 

[rhiannon]

Is this a topic of general discussion, and therefore better suited for the general discussion sub-forum, or is there some hidden tickling context I’m missing?

I agree.

On topic: I absolutely don't mind being morality police if that means people who come here for the first time see that not all of us are total creeps.

And apart of that:

When one , in effect , becomes that which he or she is speaking out against ... does that make them a hypocrite?

Is that not the inherent danger of using a term such as 'morality police'?

I agree

 

[knicks255]

I actually just got issued my Morality Police cruiser. It's got a siren on it that goes "DON'T DO THAT SHIT DON'T DO THAT SHIT DON'T DO THAT SHIT". I'm hoping that if I can find a break in the case I'll make captain and get a buddy cop.

 

[DontAskJusTckle]

The key word is "morality." This subforum "Tickling Discussion" comprises all kinds of tickling with the exception of children as participants. That includes tickling that is (yawn) "consensual between two adults," but it also includes non-consensual tickling, tickling of people you don't know, and tickling outside of one's significant relationship.

Granted, most tickling scenarios discussed here fall into the consensual category. Husband and wife, dom and sub, tickling at gatherings, etc. The Morality Police seem determined to keep all conversation within that narrow realm, when in fact, most tickling in the world is NOT consensual. Moreover, the vast majority of fictional stories either written or filmed involve nonconsensual scenarios.

When a guy innocently asks for advice on how to engineer a tickling encounter in the real world outside of constraints imposed by the Morality Police, he is systematically attacked for even asking the question. But this is what's important to note. The objections are always based on morality. They don't come out and say "that's immoral," they prefer to use tag words like "creepy," to bring in the fear factor. They would probably use words like sociopathalogical but that's about four syllables beyond their vocabular limits.

I kept seeing this phenomenon occur, and it bothered me. People should be able to ask for advice on how to tickle strangers, or how to get a masseuse to tickle them without being systematically shamed and ostracized for it. So I decided to fight fire with fire. I started identifying the ringleaders and outing them as the Morale Police. I used their own tactics against them, heaping shame on them for pushing their moral standards on the rest of us. And they do not like that one bit.

Now it's being suggested that this strategy of using their own tactics against them might be inherently hypocritical? You can make your own determinations, but I'm comfortably certain it is not. It's like asking if it's hypocritical to beat up the kid who beat up your little brother. I see it more as an example of the old adage, what goes around comes around.

 

[C.A.B.]

...People should be able to ask for advice on how to tickle strangers...

They are certainly welcome to ask, but that advice might also include warnings that it is not perhaps the best of ideas (depending on circumstances). So, regardless of where one's moral center is, one should expect that all opinions will be expressed on a discussion board. I will agree that the worst thing that could be expressed is that no opinions should be expressed.

Now, as to one's nose being put out of joint over a differing opinion, that is an entirely different matter. Might fall under personal control and decorum. One can always close a browser window rather than engage in WWIII.

 

[ticklemepls]

I actually just got issued my Morality Police cruiser. It's got a siren on it that goes "DON'T DO THAT SHIT DON'T DO THAT SHIT DON'T DO THAT SHIT". I'm hoping that if I can find a break in the case I'll make captain and get a buddy cop.

I wont lie, I laughed my ass off at this... You sir, rock I want a cruiser too!

Additionally, the fact that people use the term "moral police" like it's an insult is actually kinda amusing... yes I have morals- and I know right from wrong. Thank you for recognizing this. But alas, some people cannot be taught right from wrong.... no matter how old they are, they will continue to act like 5 year olds

 

[SoleMates]

The term has been bandied about quite a bit in a recent thread ( http://www.ticklingforum.com/showthread.php?241549-tickling-strangers ) & it left me wondering :

Wouldn't someone labeling anyone the 'morality police' & thereby admonishing them for the behavior of attempting to impose their perceived 'self-righteousness' onto others ... in turn become their own brand of morality police?


"Hey. I just want to say that I think you're wrong for telling that other person that you think they're wrong. You shouldn't do that. "


When one , in effect , becomes that which he or she is speaking out against ... does that make them a hypocrite?

Is that not the inherent danger of using a term such as 'morality police'?

It's not a new concept that just came up in that thread; there's a handful of individuals here who get butthurt every time someone reminds them that their opinions are firmly in the minority and that their actions are unwanted by the people they perpetrate them on. To answer your question, though, yes it makes them a hypocrite, but they don't care, because if they understood logic in the first place, half these arguments would never happen.

And yes, "You can't, so don't" is perfectly valid advice when being asked about something that you shouldn't do. People would be just as willing to point out that you shouldn't do it when asked how to play Russian Roulette with a semi-automatic. But again, the butthurt.

They're control freaks, which is why they both feel the need to impose their fetish on other people with or without their consent, and why they get so pissy over people telling them "no" on a messageboard.

And honestly, that's the last I'm going to say on this topic. I think I'm just going to retire to Images/Video Clips and stick to posting previews.

 

[Soda Bobinski]

I have been using that term and I used it simply to illustrate a point. You have certain members who must show their absolute digust over someone else's post. We all know you don't have to agree with someone's post or ideas, but to "finger point" and name call goes over the line. They claim they do it because it is their opinion, but in reality, it is their emotion.

I use that term against them because they feel fit to call people "creepy", so I wanted to use a label back at them to show them how it feels to be labeled. Notice that they don't like to be called "moral police". Why? Why does that label bother them? Now, imagine being that poster and being called "creepy" when your original intent seemed innocent enough.

Tickling, whether you admit it or not, is inherently non-consensual. We have all grown up seeing people tickled "against their will". We have seen people get tickled out of nowhere from their friends. The "ticklee" didn't have a sign that said "Hey!! I love tickling! Please tickle me right now in front of everyone!". No, their friends decided to tickle them (TECHNICALLY) against their will. That is non-consensual. Even those who do not share the same passion we have for tickling, see tickling as inherently non-consensual. We have seen movies/cartoons/other media of some "damsel or guy" in distress being tickle tormented and begging for it to stop. So why are people stunned to see people so into "non-consensual" type tickling scenarios?

Now, enacting the non-con tickling in reality is a fine line. Jumping on a random stranger, holding them down and tickling them for long periods of time may not be a good idea. But how often do we see posters say exactly that? What we see are people wondering how they can indulge in their fetish, albeit with total strangers, and seek help because you just know you aren't the only one with those thoughts. If you don't like the idea of that, that is perfectly fine. No one says your feelings about it is wrong. But for all this talk about "consider other people's feelings", they sure do not do the same. People who posts questions such as the recent "tickling strangers" may not even consider their thoughts as bad, just something fun. But when you are called "CREEPY!!" and may go to jail and such, that tends to affect them as human beings as well.

It is all a matter of POV. You can tell one of those people who posts questions like that, that their idea may not be a good idea because there may be repurcussions,, but to label someone? To use your emotional response and just flat out be rude and mean? Yet, they talk about "consider the people's feelings?" and just behave in such a manner that any opposing opinion is wrong because they know what is RIGHT for all? That is the moral police. Those are people trying to tell others what is right and what is wrong. No one is perfect. People can make mistakes. Do you really have to label them vile names? Do you really need to express such "animosity" towards another? Totally different if they posted a "Not a good idea guy. Did you ever consider the other person's feelings?" versus "YOU'RE CREEPY!!! YOU WILL GET YOUR TEETH KNOCKED OUT!! YOU WILL GET SUED!!! YOU WILL GET ARRESTED!!!!"

In other words, be nice to everyone and your POV may not necessarily be the right one. Don't label people, just give your dissenting opinion. If the OP decides to be rude back to your civil response, then you know what you are dealing with.

For the record, I do not agree with the OP in the "tickling strangers" thread, but I am not going to call him creepy and such. It isn't a good idea to do what he wants to do, but hey, if something happens to him or not, so be it.

The key word is "morality." This subforum "Tickling Discussion" comprises all kinds of tickling with the exception of children as participants. That includes tickling that is (yawn) "consensual between two adults," but it also includes non-consensual tickling, tickling of people you don't know, and tickling outside of one's significant relationship.

Granted, most tickling scenarios discussed here fall into the consensual category. Husband and wife, dom and sub, tickling at gatherings, etc. The Morality Police seem determined to keep all conversation within that narrow realm, when in fact, most tickling in the world is NOT consensual. Moreover, the vast majority of fictional stories either written or filmed involve nonconsensual scenarios.

When a guy innocently asks for advice on how to engineer a tickling encounter in the real world outside of constraints imposed by the Morality Police, he is systematically attacked for even asking the question. But this is what's important to note. The objections are always based on morality. They don't come out and say "that's immoral," they prefer to use tag words like "creepy," to bring in the fear factor. They would probably use words like sociopathalogical but that's about four syllables beyond their vocabular limits.

I kept seeing this phenomenon occur, and it bothered me. People should be able to ask for advice on how to tickle strangers, or how to get a masseuse to tickle them without being systematically shamed and ostracized for it. So I decided to fight fire with fire. I started identifying the ringleaders and outing them as the Morale Police. I used their own tactics against them, heaping shame on them for pushing their moral standards on the rest of us. And they do not like that one bit.

Now it's being suggested that this strategy of using their own tactics against them might be inherently hypocritical? You can make your own determinations, but I'm comfortably certain it is not. It's like asking if it's hypocritical to beat up the kid who beat up your little brother. I see it more as an example of the old adage, what goes around comes around.

So ... what are you guys saying? That your reasons for pointing out the wrongs of others are more justifiable than those of the users you're calling out?

Does this mean you're the Morality Police Police?

 

[Myriads]

Is this a topic of general discussion, and therefore better suited for the general discussion sub-forum, or is there some hidden tickling context I’m missing?

It's a topic that is about a segment of the forums membership, and recent events that took place on the forum, thus it's a topic that directly relates to the general atmosphere, and context of the TMF. All topics relating to the entirety of the forum, it's members, and attitudes here, are properly placed in the Tickling Discussion Forum (TKDis for short)

The thread was placed correctly by the OP.

Myriads

 

[C.A.B.]

Am I only one that doesn't bother to read desperate rants longer than a short paragraph? LOL!

Brevity is the soul of wit.

 

[primetime]

It's not a new concept that just came up in that thread; there's a handful of individuals here who get butthurt every time someone reminds them that their opinions are firmly in the minority and that their actions are unwanted by the people they perpetrate them on. To answer your question, though, yes it makes them a hypocrite, but they don't care, because if they understood logic in the first place, half these arguments would never happen.

And yes, "You can't, so don't" is perfectly valid advice when being asked about something that you shouldn't do. People would be just as willing to point out that you shouldn't do it when asked how to play Russian Roulette with a semi-automatic. But again, the butthurt.

They're control freaks, which is why they both feel the need to impose their fetish on other people with or without their consent, and why they get so pissy over people telling them "no" on a messageboard.

And honestly, that's the last I'm going to say on this topic. I think I'm just going to retire to Images/Video Clips and stick to posting previews.

That's what irritates us the most about the "moral police". They honestly think that their actions are ok. I have no problems with people disagreeing with a topic, but let's be real. Is there really a need to say "YOU'RE CREEPY!!!!"? Isn't just saying "It is not a good idea to tickle random strangers. You never know how someone is feeling that day. Yes, you may get off on it, but there may be consequences to your actions...." Notice the difference in responses?

I know, I know, some of you are saying "Well, I did put it that way and you are calling me the moal police!!!". If you ever bothered to read my posts, not everyone who responded against the OP of the tickling random strangers is considered "moral police". That title goes to a select few who time and time and time again always chime in with their blistering name calling and "finger pointing of shame" towards another. They know who they are.

That is the main issue, which goes right over the head of people. It is the tone of the responses is why some posters get labeled as "moral police". One particular poster even got called out on it in the other thread and all they could do is no longer talk with me. But no problems going after another poster.

These moral police posters also usually say "Notice the OP never keeps responding after we do". Well yeah. After being called a creep, possibly sued, jailed, assaulted, why would you want to even continue? You express your idea looking for feedback and here comes a few select people to berate them with over the top responses. "YOU'RE CREEPY!!! YOU WILL GO TO JAIL!!!" Seriously? People have to respond this way? And they wonder why threads go so long with responses..... Disagree with someone's idea, but don't get mean about it....

 

[Lttg]

Anyone that's been on this site any length of time can see that there's a disproportionately high number of posts and posters that radiate sociopathic and/or sexually frustrated messages, and typically it's these people that parrot the "morality police" line to compensate. I'd like to see a far more heavy-handed approach to moderating on this site in an attempt to curb the echo chamber for potential rapists that it has become (or always was, I'm not sure).

 

[primetime]

So ... what are you guys saying? That your reasons for pointing out the wrongs of others are more justifiable than those of the users you're calling out?

Does this mean you're the Morality Police Police?

Not necessarily. All we do is just make them feel the same way they make others feel. There are times I AGREE with what they are saying in the sense that it is "wrong", but I have an issue on how they go about it. No need for them to be hostile towards people because their types of phrases "YOU'RE CREEPY!!!" makes them appear to be "better" than the other person.

It's like "grammar nazis". They feel this compulsion to point out the wrongs of writing to people. And how do people usually feel about "grammar nazis"?

 

[C.A.B.]

Anyone that's been on this site any length of time can see that there's a disproportionately high number of posts and posters that radiate sociopathic and/or sexually frustrated messages, and typically it's these people that parrot the "morality police" line to compensate. I'd like to see a far more heavy-handed approach to moderating on this site in an attempt to curb the echo chamber for potential rapists that it has become (or always was, I'm not sure).

So you want the Moderators to become 'Thought Police' and curb rape crimes before they happen? I'm not following your line of thinking. Can you expound please?

 

[helplessandhappy]

That's what irritates us the most about the "moral police". They honestly think that their actions are ok. I have no problems with people disagreeing with a topic, but let's be real. Is there really a need to say "YOU'RE CREEPY!!!!"? Isn't just saying "It is not a good idea to tickle random strangers. You never know how someone is feeling that day. Yes, you may get off on it, but there may be consequences to your actions...." Notice the difference in responses?

I know, I know, some of you are saying "Well, I did put it that way and you are calling me the moal police!!!". If you ever bothered to read my posts, not everyone who responded against the OP of the tickling random strangers is considered "moral police". That title goes to a select few who time and time and time again always chime in with their blistering name calling and "finger pointing of shame" towards another. They know who they are.

That is the main issue, which goes right over the head of people. It is the tone of the responses is why some posters get labeled as "moral police". One particular poster even got called out on it in the other thread and all they could do is no longer talk with me. But no problems going after another poster.

These moral police posters also usually say "Notice the OP never keeps responding after we do". Well yeah. After being called a creep, possibly sued, jailed, assaulted, why would you want to even continue? You express your idea looking for feedback and here comes a few select people to berate them with over the top responses. "YOU'RE CREEPY!!! YOU WILL GO TO JAIL!!!" Seriously? People have to respond this way? And they wonder why threads go so long with responses..... Disagree with someone's idea, but don't get mean about it....

You definitely have a point, which is why I personally apologized if I offended anyone. It's a topic that clearly makes people uncomfortable, and when people are uncomfortable, they tend to not be their nicest selves.

I think all conversations would go better (just in life, in general) if everyone would stop pretending not to be judgmental. We ALL are judgmental. Every human on this planet judges someone for something, whether they realize it or not. The stranger ticklers in the other thread may not see anything wrong with that particular behavior, but I guarantee most of them would "moral police" someone for doing [whatever] that crossed a line into their own comfort zone. Everyone has their own lines with things, and everyone would get angry about something. So we should stop attacking each other for judging and being "holier than thou" and just realize everyone has their limits.

 

[primetime]

Anyone that's been on this site any length of time can see that there's a disproportionately high number of posts and posters that radiate sociopathic and/or sexually frustrated messages, and typically it's these people that parrot the "morality police" line to compensate. I'd like to see a far more heavy-handed approach to moderating on this site in an attempt to curb the echo chamber for potential rapists that it has become (or always was, I'm not sure).

And there seems to be a disproportionately high number of posters who really can't pay attention to the words of those people using "morality police" line about why they are calling them that.

 

[primetime]

You definitely have a point, which is why I personally apologized if I offended anyone. It's a topic that clearly makes people uncomfortable, and when people are uncomfortable, they tend to not be their nicest selves.

I think all conversations would go better (just in life, in general) if everyone would stop pretending not to be judgmental. We ALL are judgmental. Every human on this planet judges someone for something, whether they realize it or not. The stranger ticklers in the other thread may not see anything wrong with that particular behavior, but I guarantee most of them would "moral police" someone for doing [whatever] that crossed a line into their own comfort zone. Everyone has their own lines with things, and everyone would get angry about something. So we should stop attacking each other for judging and being "holier than thou" and just realize everyone has their limits.

Thank you. I completely agree with your post. That is all I am trying to say. No one is perfect. No one's way of thinking is necessarily the "right one". But why the need to attack someone because of their post? You can always agree to disagree and there is a way to do it. That is all I am asking.

Thank you.

 

[Lttg]

So you want the Moderators to become 'Thought Police' and curb rape crimes before they happen? I'm not following your line of thinking. Can you expound please?

Do you know the first thing about rape culture? If you did you'd understand why it's important to show people that it is absolutely not something that should be tolerated. And I wasn't suggesting the mods take pre-emptive action, but it doesn't take "thought police" to see a thread about "hey guys how can I touch strangers without their permission?" and give a sterner response than just "I think that is a bad idea".

 

[C.A.B.]

Do you know the first thing about rape culture? If you did you'd understand why it's important to show people that it is absolutely not something that should be tolerated. And I wasn't suggesting the mods take pre-emptive action, but it doesn't take "thought police" to see a thread about "hey guys how can I touch strangers without their permission?" and give a sterner response than just "I think that is a bad idea".

Please explain what your understanding of "Rape Culture" is so that we can have a base of understanding. Touching strangers without permission is too broad a descriptor to imply it is always "rape." So clarify what it is you mean specifically. If a buffoon pokes a stranger in the ribs, it is certainly poor form, and, depending on the demeanor of the recipient, might escalate to a complaint and charges. But to lump such boorishness in with your so-called "Rape Culture" is probably over the top. Also be aware that there are trolls that get off on starting such inflammatory topics very much on purpose to celebrate their mother's purchasing them a new jar of Vaseline they can use in the basement.

The moderators on this site know and do their jobs well after doing this for nigh on a decade, and enjoy my full confidence.

 

[ticklemepls]

That's what irritates us the most about the "moral police". They honestly think that their actions are ok. I have no problems with people disagreeing with a topic, but let's be real. Is there really a need to say "YOU'RE CREEPY!!!!"? Isn't just saying "It is not a good idea to tickle random strangers. You never know how someone is feeling that day. Yes, you may get off on it, but there may be consequences to your actions...." Notice the difference in responses?

I know, I know, some of you are saying "Well, I did put it that way and you are calling me the moal police!!!". If you ever bothered to read my posts, not everyone who responded against the OP of the tickling random strangers is considered "moral police". That title goes to a select few who time and time and time again always chime in with their blistering name calling and "finger pointing of shame" towards another. They know who they are.

That is the main issue, which goes right over the head of people. It is the tone of the responses is why some posters get labeled as "moral police". One particular poster even got called out on it in the other thread and all they could do is no longer talk with me. But no problems going after another poster.

These moral police posters also usually say "Notice the OP never keeps responding after we do". Well yeah. After being called a creep, possibly sued, jailed, assaulted, why would you want to even continue? You express your idea looking for feedback and here comes a few select people to berate them with over the top responses. "YOU'RE CREEPY!!! YOU WILL GO TO JAIL!!!" Seriously? People have to respond this way? And they wonder why threads go so long with responses..... Disagree with someone's idea, but don't get mean about it....

Lets set the record straight here: in my case I said the ACTION was creepy, not the person... I did infact ask if they were crazy- yep.... cause honestly who would walk around thinking that "hey I wonder how I can invade someone's personal space today"... but alas, this is an argument that can keep going and going and going...