This is nothing new. When AT&T and Cingular merged, They started "not repairing" the AT&T towers. When I called about the problem, I was told that when Cingular took over the towers, they were not given the passwords to maintain them (an obvious lie), but that if I wanted to sign a new 2 year contract, I could start receiving a signal again with a plan that had less minutes and cost more per month. After much arguing, they eventually just let me cancel my current plan with them and I moved to Verizon. (Yes, I know that they are evil too.)
I found it unbelievable that anyone would pay more, receive less, and sign a new contract with a company that just failed to live up to their old contract. Unfortunately, my pessimistic view of the general public was once again shown to be overly optimistic.
You are correct. I would go so far to say that anyone who isn't talking about how to reduce the earths population is not even close to being an environmentalist. Conservation is nothing but a short term stop gap that is doomed to failure in the long run. In fact, most so called "environmentalists" are using conservation as a rationalization while they bury their heads in the sand concerning the very few real solutions.
Seriously. I have seen people use the "I'm not a computer expert" to explain why they selected a date two weeks in the future for activities they have already done. You don't need to be a computer expert to understand how a calendar works. I had people ask for help because they couldn't figure out that you had to turn a computer on to get it to work. This isn't a problem of them not being computer experts. I've seen people not able to fill out a simple form that literally looks exactly like a piece of paper. This isn't because computers are hard.
I used to use a simple rule of thumb to decide if someone is an idiot, or if it was that the computer was hard. If my two year old son could figure it out, a full grown adult should be able to figure it out with little to no effort. Now that my son is 4, I no longer think it is fair to expect most adults to be at his level of intelligence, but that's just because I am a pessimist about most of humanity.
You talk of context, yet even when it is spelled out for you you don't understand it. We are talking about women who are NOT doing for the child but are doing for their own physical pleasure. It is stupid to claim that because people do something all over the world, that it must be ok. Rape happens all over the world too, but that doesn't make it right. You think that no one is being sexually gratified when a mother breastfeeds her child, but you are simply wrong. Not EVERYONE is, but when a woman who is not even producing milk is latching a mouth onto a body part that absolutely produces sexual stimulation, you don't get to claim that it is only about sustenance. Here is an article where they are condoning breastfeeding when there is no food. It is in the second paragraph.
Again concerning context. Rubbing necessary medicine on your son's penis because he has an infection is being a good parent. Rubbing medicine on your son's penis because you like the way it feels is child molestation. The same applies to breast feeding. There must be some point where you consider it inappropriate for a child to latch their mouth on their mothers nipple. Is it 30? 25? 10? 5? 4? 3? 2? 1? Pick a number because, so far your arguments claim that it is perfectly OK for a 30 year old man to hop on the couch and start sucking on mamas tit. Do you still suck on your mothers tits? Again, some of these women are "breastfeeding" when they don't even produce milk. No sane person can call that "feeding".
As for the "Victorian values" comment. I have four things that for the most part sums up what I feel is inappropriate. Sex involving animals, Sex with unwilling partners, Sex with blood relatives, and Sex with CHILDREN. While I may not get sexual gratification out of many other things, I have no problem with them what so ever. The fact that you are cool with sex with children doesn't even come close to making me "Victorian". It just makes you a supporter of child molestation.
So, you are too ignorant to have read the posts that you are referring too, and you don't want to follow the link posted. I guess that sums up the value you add to the discussion.
If you are exercising your COCK then, yes, you have performed a sexual act. Clearly you are trying to pull a straw man by giving examples that do not include someone latching their mouth on an organ and rubbing their tongue on it. Since we ARE talking about latching your mouth on to an organ and rubbing your tongue on it, yes, under those circumstances peoples mouths are sexual organs. Seriously, if this is your daughter, YOU ARE A CHILD MOLESTER.
No, YOU read that 'pleasure==sex'. I explicitly stated "Toddlers" to indicate kids that are eating solid foods. Since, you don't consider sucking on tits to ever be sexual, can I meet your wife? WooHoo! Party at amRadioHed's house!
In case you haven't noticed, you can't really see a woman's genitals in a full frontal shot. Because of that, while it's true that you see a lot more female frontal nudity in movies then male frontal nudity you actually see a lot more male genitals than female genitals.
Your tying to use semantics to draw a line that just isn't there. Have your wife walk into a police station "not showing her genitals" and see what happens.
And yes you do see male genitals in R rated movies occasionally, as long as they aren't aroused it's allowed.
Yes, the poster above you thought of 4. Two of which, as it turns out I had actually seen. So, while it may be true that it is possible to get an R rating with full male frontal, the fact still stands that it is culturally more acceptable to show women naked than men, which was my point.
Has it occurred to you that breastfeeding feels good because pleasure is natures way of encouraging creatures to do things that are vital for their survival? You know, just like how eating, drinking and breathing all feel good too.
And..well... Putting your penis inside of a vagina and moving it around? Seriously, are trying to use the logic that something being natures way of getting creatures to do things vital to their survival is in any way contradictory to it being sexual? If you think that sex isn't pleasurable, then you are doing it wrong, and if you think it isn't vital to human survival, you are really poorly educated.
There is really something wrong with people who think if something feels good it must be bad.
I would agree with that statement, but that is a total non-sequitor, as I assume that you are not using the false dichotomy that everything that feels good must always be good, or everything that feels good must always be bad.
Look, breast feeding a 2 month old because it is hungry is just caring for your child. Having a 3 or 4 year old who has been eating solid foods for years suck on your nipples because it feels good is a sexual act.
Look, breast feeding a 2 month old because it is hungry is just caring for your child. Having a 3 or 4 year old who has been eating solid foods for years suck on your nipples because it feels good is a sexual act. Getting your nipples sucked because it feels good is pretty universally considered a sexual act. If you don't consider it a sexual act, then I would love to get to know your wife. Will it also not be a sexual act if she returns the favor by sucking on parts of me? Whoo Hoo! Party at CrackedButters' house!
Look, breast feeding a 2 month old because it is hungry is just caring for your child. Having a 3 or 4 year old who has been eating solid foods for years suck on your nipples because it feels good is a sexual act. So, no, it is not the same thing. When a woman stops breast feeding, she stops producing milk. Unless you are condoning letting kids continue breast feeding right into adulthood, at some point it has to stop.
It's no wonder intelligent design gets a fair shot, when there are people like you about.
Look up irony. Since you create it, you should know it.
Look, breast feeding a 2 month old because it is hungry is just caring for your child. Having a 3 or 4 year old who has been eating solid foods for years suck on your nipples because it feels good is a sexual act.
Yes, I can make a fire with a few pieces of wood and a piece of string, and yes I can make that string. Making a shelter is trivial, as would be making a bicycle powered generator (later followed by a steam generator) to run the ten lifetimes worth of light bulbs that would be sitting around unused. Yet still guns are the first thing that I would try to get my hands on. Having long term survival skills don't do a bit of good if you don't make it through the first month.
Actually, being able to build shelter wouldn't be a real useful skill, as a massive drop in the human population would leave far more structures than people, even after the inevitable fires wipe out entire neighborhoods. A more important skill would be knowing how to heat the structure without killing yourself.
I don't know why Google would show penises and not clitorises, but if you think that the public is more offended by women's genitalia than men's, you are a raving idiot. Just watch television. I have seen full frontal nudity many times on television. Not once have I ever seen full frontal nudity of a man on television. Go to the movies. you will see plenty of full frontal nudity of women in R rated movies. You won't get a single shot of a penis until you go to X. You view that women's genitalia is considered more acceptable than men's is patently wrong.
As for breasts? You do have a bit of a point. It does seem absurd that flashing an A cup boob is a crime if you are a woman, while flashing a C cup isn't if you are a man. I am rational enough to understand though that this misguided law comes from the fact that women use their breasts as sexual organs far more frequently than men do. I think is safe to assume that you are fully aware of this fact.
As for breast feeding in public... If it is illegal to show your breasts, then it should apply equally across the board. If you addressed it at that level, I could support you. But, claiming that it is "SIMPLY A BABY EATING" is disingenuous at best. If you want to claim that it is just a bathroom issue, then you could get a lot more support by suggesting that places like malls install breast feeding rooms. It's not that hard. I've seen them, and they have always been far more comfortable and clean that the common areas.
Look, you can get offended that people don't want to see your wife's tits. Personal, I do, and would love for you to post a link where I and anybody else that wants to see them can go and get a look at them, but then I'm also not offended by blow jobs. That doesn't mean I don't understand when other people don't want to see be getting one, or even seem my penis when it doesn't have someones mouth attached to it.
As for the "It is NOT sexual", that is unfortunately not always true. It is pretty common for women to continue to breast feed for their own physical enjoyment. For some reason no one is arresting these women for child molestation, and they are often encouraged by people with "authority". Of course, appropriate age and reasons for breast feeding, whether in public or private, is kind of a different topic, but since you made the claim that it is not sexual as an absolute statement, you brought it into this discussion.
They do NOT have a policy against pictures showing ANYONE eating. They have a policy against showing nudity. That is why you cannot put pictures like the ones on Free Cumswallowing Videos Galleries at zuzazu.com on Facebook either. Sure, these women are eating. They are also not allowed to post those pictures of them eating on Facebook.
Personally, I'd be happy if Facebook did not have policy against nudity. Heck, I'm barely in support of public anti-nudity laws. The only reason I have any support for them is the thought of really crowded places where people are going to be grinding into each other whether dressed or not. But, that does not mean that I am ignorant enough to try to claim that anti-nudity policies are the same as anti-eating policies.
You jest, but I can't count the number of times I heard the rational for continuing to breast feed toddlers as "It feels good". When you have someone suck your nipples because you think it feels good, it IS a sexual act. Since my own child was born, I have met many women that really should be arrested for child molestation.
That is cool logic. And by extension of it... When *I* get charged taxes, I pass that cost of living on to my employer, who in turn passes it on to the consumer. This puts the citizen's hidden tax burden two levels deep. This makes it even harder for the taxpayer to know exactly what their true tax burden is. So, by your logic *I* should not have to pay taxes anymore. As soon as the various tax authorities let me know that I no longer have to pay taxes, I will declare you a genius.
What I don't understand is why people think that everyone's mind is so feeble that TV is a distraction. Seriously, getting snooty about other peoples choice of entertainment doesn't make you smart.
Actually, it is likely that these "bandwidth hogs" are INCREASING your available bandwidth. How fast of a connection do you think you would have if no one ever maxed out their 56k modems. We certainly wouldn't be seeing 6mbps connections being rolled out. We wouldn't likely even see 256kbps lines. It is the guys that are watching HD movies off of netflix and running bittorrent 24/7 that are creating the expectation that we need faster internet. They are the ones that are fighting the good fight so that you and I can get good speeds tomorrow.
Slashdot Mirror
This is nothing new. When AT&T and Cingular merged, They started "not repairing" the AT&T towers. When I called about the problem, I was told that when Cingular took over the towers, they were not given the passwords to maintain them (an obvious lie), but that if I wanted to sign a new 2 year contract, I could start receiving a signal again with a plan that had less minutes and cost more per month. After much arguing, they eventually just let me cancel my current plan with them and I moved to Verizon. (Yes, I know that they are evil too.)
I found it unbelievable that anyone would pay more, receive less, and sign a new contract with a company that just failed to live up to their old contract. Unfortunately, my pessimistic view of the general public was once again shown to be overly optimistic.
You are correct. I would go so far to say that anyone who isn't talking about how to reduce the earths population is not even close to being an environmentalist. Conservation is nothing but a short term stop gap that is doomed to failure in the long run. In fact, most so called "environmentalists" are using conservation as a rationalization while they bury their heads in the sand concerning the very few real solutions.
Seriously. I have seen people use the "I'm not a computer expert" to explain why they selected a date two weeks in the future for activities they have already done. You don't need to be a computer expert to understand how a calendar works. I had people ask for help because they couldn't figure out that you had to turn a computer on to get it to work. This isn't a problem of them not being computer experts. I've seen people not able to fill out a simple form that literally looks exactly like a piece of paper. This isn't because computers are hard.
I used to use a simple rule of thumb to decide if someone is an idiot, or if it was that the computer was hard. If my two year old son could figure it out, a full grown adult should be able to figure it out with little to no effort. Now that my son is 4, I no longer think it is fair to expect most adults to be at his level of intelligence, but that's just because I am a pessimist about most of humanity.
You talk of context, yet even when it is spelled out for you you don't understand it. We are talking about women who are NOT doing for the child but are doing for their own physical pleasure. It is stupid to claim that because people do something all over the world, that it must be ok. Rape happens all over the world too, but that doesn't make it right. You think that no one is being sexually gratified when a mother breastfeeds her child, but you are simply wrong. Not EVERYONE is, but when a woman who is not even producing milk is latching a mouth onto a body part that absolutely produces sexual stimulation, you don't get to claim that it is only about sustenance. Here is an article where they are condoning breastfeeding when there is no food. It is in the second paragraph.
Again concerning context. Rubbing necessary medicine on your son's penis because he has an infection is being a good parent. Rubbing medicine on your son's penis because you like the way it feels is child molestation. The same applies to breast feeding. There must be some point where you consider it inappropriate for a child to latch their mouth on their mothers nipple. Is it 30? 25? 10? 5? 4? 3? 2? 1? Pick a number because, so far your arguments claim that it is perfectly OK for a 30 year old man to hop on the couch and start sucking on mamas tit. Do you still suck on your mothers tits? Again, some of these women are "breastfeeding" when they don't even produce milk. No sane person can call that "feeding".
As for the "Victorian values" comment. I have four things that for the most part sums up what I feel is inappropriate. Sex involving animals, Sex with unwilling partners, Sex with blood relatives, and Sex with CHILDREN. While I may not get sexual gratification out of many other things, I have no problem with them what so ever. The fact that you are cool with sex with children doesn't even come close to making me "Victorian". It just makes you a supporter of child molestation.
So, you are too ignorant to have read the posts that you are referring too, and you don't want to follow the link posted. I guess that sums up the value you add to the discussion.
If you are exercising your COCK then, yes, you have performed a sexual act. Clearly you are trying to pull a straw man by giving examples that do not include someone latching their mouth on an organ and rubbing their tongue on it. Since we ARE talking about latching your mouth on to an organ and rubbing your tongue on it, yes, under those circumstances peoples mouths are sexual organs. Seriously, if this is your daughter, YOU ARE A CHILD MOLESTER.
So, you can buy two phones and get one? That's a much better deal.
No, YOU read that 'pleasure==sex'. I explicitly stated "Toddlers" to indicate kids that are eating solid foods. Since, you don't consider sucking on tits to ever be sexual, can I meet your wife? WooHoo! Party at amRadioHed's house!
In case you haven't noticed, you can't really see a woman's genitals in a full frontal shot. Because of that, while it's true that you see a lot more female frontal nudity in movies then male frontal nudity you actually see a lot more male genitals than female genitals.
Your tying to use semantics to draw a line that just isn't there. Have your wife walk into a police station "not showing her genitals" and see what happens.
And yes you do see male genitals in R rated movies occasionally, as long as they aren't aroused it's allowed.
Yes, the poster above you thought of 4. Two of which, as it turns out I had actually seen. So, while it may be true that it is possible to get an R rating with full male frontal, the fact still stands that it is culturally more acceptable to show women naked than men, which was my point.
I must concede that it is not unheard of, and only extremely rare.
Has it occurred to you that breastfeeding feels good because pleasure is natures way of encouraging creatures to do things that are vital for their survival? You know, just like how eating, drinking and breathing all feel good too.
And..well... Putting your penis inside of a vagina and moving it around? Seriously, are trying to use the logic that something being natures way of getting creatures to do things vital to their survival is in any way contradictory to it being sexual? If you think that sex isn't pleasurable, then you are doing it wrong, and if you think it isn't vital to human survival, you are really poorly educated.
There is really something wrong with people who think if something feels good it must be bad.
I would agree with that statement, but that is a total non-sequitor, as I assume that you are not using the false dichotomy that everything that feels good must always be good, or everything that feels good must always be bad.
Look, breast feeding a 2 month old because it is hungry is just caring for your child. Having a 3 or 4 year old who has been eating solid foods for years suck on your nipples because it feels good is a sexual act.
Look, breast feeding a 2 month old because it is hungry is just caring for your child. Having a 3 or 4 year old who has been eating solid foods for years suck on your nipples because it feels good is a sexual act. Getting your nipples sucked because it feels good is pretty universally considered a sexual act. If you don't consider it a sexual act, then I would love to get to know your wife. Will it also not be a sexual act if she returns the favor by sucking on parts of me? Whoo Hoo! Party at CrackedButters' house!
It's no wonder intelligent design gets a fair shot, when there are people like you about.
Look up irony. Since you create it, you should know it.
Look, breast feeding a 2 month old because it is hungry is just caring for your child. Having a 3 or 4 year old who has been eating solid foods for years suck on your nipples because it feels good is a sexual act.
You mean buy Two phones at full price. The "Free" phone that you get from the carrier is paid for by you in full through the fees on the service.
Yes, I can make a fire with a few pieces of wood and a piece of string, and yes I can make that string. Making a shelter is trivial, as would be making a bicycle powered generator (later followed by a steam generator) to run the ten lifetimes worth of light bulbs that would be sitting around unused. Yet still guns are the first thing that I would try to get my hands on. Having long term survival skills don't do a bit of good if you don't make it through the first month.
Actually, being able to build shelter wouldn't be a real useful skill, as a massive drop in the human population would leave far more structures than people, even after the inevitable fires wipe out entire neighborhoods. A more important skill would be knowing how to heat the structure without killing yourself.
I don't know why Google would show penises and not clitorises, but if you think that the public is more offended by women's genitalia than men's, you are a raving idiot. Just watch television. I have seen full frontal nudity many times on television. Not once have I ever seen full frontal nudity of a man on television. Go to the movies. you will see plenty of full frontal nudity of women in R rated movies. You won't get a single shot of a penis until you go to X. You view that women's genitalia is considered more acceptable than men's is patently wrong.
As for breasts? You do have a bit of a point. It does seem absurd that flashing an A cup boob is a crime if you are a woman, while flashing a C cup isn't if you are a man. I am rational enough to understand though that this misguided law comes from the fact that women use their breasts as sexual organs far more frequently than men do. I think is safe to assume that you are fully aware of this fact.
As for breast feeding in public... If it is illegal to show your breasts, then it should apply equally across the board. If you addressed it at that level, I could support you. But, claiming that it is "SIMPLY A BABY EATING" is disingenuous at best. If you want to claim that it is just a bathroom issue, then you could get a lot more support by suggesting that places like malls install breast feeding rooms. It's not that hard. I've seen them, and they have always been far more comfortable and clean that the common areas.
Look, you can get offended that people don't want to see your wife's tits. Personal, I do, and would love for you to post a link where I and anybody else that wants to see them can go and get a look at them, but then I'm also not offended by blow jobs. That doesn't mean I don't understand when other people don't want to see be getting one, or even seem my penis when it doesn't have someones mouth attached to it.
As for the "It is NOT sexual", that is unfortunately not always true. It is pretty common for women to continue to breast feed for their own physical enjoyment. For some reason no one is arresting these women for child molestation, and they are often encouraged by people with "authority". Of course, appropriate age and reasons for breast feeding, whether in public or private, is kind of a different topic, but since you made the claim that it is not sexual as an absolute statement, you brought it into this discussion.
They do NOT have a policy against pictures showing ANYONE eating. They have a policy against showing nudity. That is why you cannot put pictures like the ones on Free Cumswallowing Videos Galleries at zuzazu.com on Facebook either. Sure, these women are eating. They are also not allowed to post those pictures of them eating on Facebook.
Personally, I'd be happy if Facebook did not have policy against nudity. Heck, I'm barely in support of public anti-nudity laws. The only reason I have any support for them is the thought of really crowded places where people are going to be grinding into each other whether dressed or not. But, that does not mean that I am ignorant enough to try to claim that anti-nudity policies are the same as anti-eating policies.
You jest, but I can't count the number of times I heard the rational for continuing to breast feed toddlers as "It feels good". When you have someone suck your nipples because you think it feels good, it IS a sexual act. Since my own child was born, I have met many women that really should be arrested for child molestation.
There is no reason that they cannot be both.
That is cool logic. And by extension of it... When *I* get charged taxes, I pass that cost of living on to my employer, who in turn passes it on to the consumer. This puts the citizen's hidden tax burden two levels deep. This makes it even harder for the taxpayer to know exactly what their true tax burden is. So, by your logic *I* should not have to pay taxes anymore. As soon as the various tax authorities let me know that I no longer have to pay taxes, I will declare you a genius.
What I don't understand is why people think that everyone's mind is so feeble that TV is a distraction. Seriously, getting snooty about other peoples choice of entertainment doesn't make you smart.
[troll]Too bad they couldn't have had thousands of programmers reviewing the code for free before this happened...[/troll]
You know, the world might be a little better place if that were what happened.
Actually, it is likely that these "bandwidth hogs" are INCREASING your available bandwidth. How fast of a connection do you think you would have if no one ever maxed out their 56k modems. We certainly wouldn't be seeing 6mbps connections being rolled out. We wouldn't likely even see 256kbps lines. It is the guys that are watching HD movies off of netflix and running bittorrent 24/7 that are creating the expectation that we need faster internet. They are the ones that are fighting the good fight so that you and I can get good speeds tomorrow.