- 3,103
- 6,660
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2005
Sorry, I usually steer clear of these conversations 'cause it blows up into arguments and stuff, but I'm not here to do that. I do want to clear the air, because I do understand both sides.
I think what
peteweezy
is saying (in which I'm trying to execute correctly as
tigo0240
mentioned) is that because there is a "limited" tag to it, it serves the wrong purpose to get the shoes to sell. For his stance, he's saying he personally does not collect them for his personal beliefs, which is 100% fine. What twists everything up was the latter half with the sexual orientation ASSOCIATION that implies that it's acceptable IF that person is gay/lesbian/etc. It's hard for many of us to get that because of the times that we're at, but it's fair for one to see it that way. There are people who will see it one way, and others who will see it the other.
Now to be the counter-argument, what the others are saying back (I think) is that one's sexual orientation SHOULD NOT dictate the choice of the colors of the shoes you'd like to buy and own. Again, also a fair opinion. The phrase "should not" unfortunately turns into a "will not"/"cannot" type of idea, and then that gets thrown back at him. There are people who also agree that it's a nice colorway (which I personally think it is as well) despite the limited tag to it. Again, all personal preference and opinions.
At the end of the day, we all have our preference of the shoes and our opinions, and some people like the shoes because of the execution, some because of the "limited" tag, and others just stay away from it because it's not part of their beliefs, or they just don't like the colorway at all. The most important thing is that we both understand the rationale behind the colorway: to represent the BETRUE campaign and LGBTQ community.
By the way, please correct me if I'm wrong in any way, but please do not insult me with "what the **** you talking about?" and so on. I'm just trying to lay it all out evenly for everyone here. =D
I think what
peteweezy
is saying (in which I'm trying to execute correctly as
tigo0240
mentioned) is that because there is a "limited" tag to it, it serves the wrong purpose to get the shoes to sell. For his stance, he's saying he personally does not collect them for his personal beliefs, which is 100% fine. What twists everything up was the latter half with the sexual orientation ASSOCIATION that implies that it's acceptable IF that person is gay/lesbian/etc. It's hard for many of us to get that because of the times that we're at, but it's fair for one to see it that way. There are people who will see it one way, and others who will see it the other.Now to be the counter-argument, what the others are saying back (I think) is that one's sexual orientation SHOULD NOT dictate the choice of the colors of the shoes you'd like to buy and own. Again, also a fair opinion. The phrase "should not" unfortunately turns into a "will not"/"cannot" type of idea, and then that gets thrown back at him. There are people who also agree that it's a nice colorway (which I personally think it is as well) despite the limited tag to it. Again, all personal preference and opinions.
At the end of the day, we all have our preference of the shoes and our opinions, and some people like the shoes because of the execution, some because of the "limited" tag, and others just stay away from it because it's not part of their beliefs, or they just don't like the colorway at all. The most important thing is that we both understand the rationale behind the colorway: to represent the BETRUE campaign and LGBTQ community.
By the way, please correct me if I'm wrong in any way, but please do not insult me with "what the **** you talking about?" and so on. I'm just trying to lay it all out evenly for everyone here. =D
