"There would have to be compromises"

i think what you mean to say here is that the majority vote wins... beyond that, who decides what compromises have to be made and who accepts the votes from the individuals?... a central body right?

...lol so if i employ someone, they should get to decide how my company works?

Well, ideally they would have discussions to ensure that the vote is much higher than 60%. And I'm saying that it shouldn't just be considered your company, it should also be considered the company of those who work there as it is their livelihood.

There's worse things in the world happening or being made and people have time to worry about something that has existed for a while and has little to no impact to society nowadays.

First world problems at its finest.

"Well, ideally they would have discussions to ensure that the vote is much higher than 60%"

yeah i get that individuality is a problem for socialism and communism, anyway who deals with the votes and compromises? a central body right?

"I'm saying that it shouldn't just be considered your company"

how does your philosophy work if its a single person? how does the centralisation concept you came up with work in that scenario?

So, does that mean we can only critique the single worst thing in the world, and that everything else is off limits?

The people themselves deal with the votes and compromises. And if it's a single person doing all the work, then yes he or she should be able to decide on their own.

"The people themselves deal with the votes and compromises"

and how does that work?

They discuss it together. How else?

and what happens of there is a disagreement or several parties refuse to cooperate? your hypothetical country just implodes on itself?

If it was so, then the worst thing in the world would have been subdued quickly because it would be the sole thing focused on and anything under it would come next, be focused on and taken care of, and so forth....in a perfect and sane world (of course this is a theory :p) - sadly in this world you got clowns and jokers like in the OP's source making a big fuss over something that really isnt relevant to society in this day and age while much worst things are being made or being done and is smoothly pushed aside.

When your biggest news channel makes a big deal out of a world leader playing Golf when there are other issues, you know you are in a screwed up world.

A call to censor a kiss from a man to a woman in a fairy tale that was originally much more darker is hardly something that is important to tackle to begin with but I think the fact that this claim is being made which is a type of censorship is in itself worse than the actual issue in the claim.

I saw your post. Her reasoning makes no sense, does she want a question to be posed in the story asking if it should be necessary to ask a comatosed individual to give them a kiss so they can wake up? How would you do that? Would totally make the story different to include mind reading, telepathy, or w/e.

But its like others said, if someone is dying (and unable to communicate whether its passed out or anything) and needs CPR to recover, would you wait for them to give permission - risking death of that individual or would you throw away all concern of whatever modern views we have this day and do CPR for the sake of saving a life?