posted
I made digs because he was afraid of answering. You yourself have said he was.
Wether his fear was over getting annoying taunts or his fear was of having to defend his ideals is the question. I was asking if you were saying he was afraid to defend his ideals. (Though I'm sure you wouldn't of phrased it that way had you been saying it.)
You then made the assumption.
But really, who cares?
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
After seeing the squabbling that happened without me explaining further, I'm now glad that I didn't.
One my my recent resolutions is to not participate in contentious discussions on hatrack. There are times where you can't answer all questions without it starting/continuing a fight.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Exactly. So what was the point of the original, rude post?
And no, I didn't say he was afraid. When I don't participate in a discussion because of how I think it will go, it's because it's bothersome, not because I'm afraid of it.
posted
Oh yes, the little boy connotations of "afraid".
a·fraid adj. 1. Filled with fear: afraid of ghosts; afraid to die; afraid for his life.
2. Having feelings of aversion or unwillingness in regard to something: not afraid of hard work; afraid to show emotion.
3. Filled with regret or concern. Used especially to soften an unpleasant statement: I'm afraid you're wrong.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, this is where it's getting complicated and stupid since I used the word afraid twice in my post each with a different meaning. But it doesn't really matter.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
It is quite anoying when you divert a perfictly good thread about an intresting topic to MINDLESS BICKERING. Try creating a thread just for your squabbling, and leave ligitamet threads alone. You have long sence killed the original topic of debate. Posts: 264 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I got back from work, came to Hatrack to check out this thread, and was all excited when I saw that it had grown to two pages.
Then I opened it up.
But seriously, back to the debate, if you set aside the issue of making laws about nudity - in other words, if you assume that the government should be allowed to make such laws - do you think that having separate laws for men and woman are inherently unfair? If you assert that the "taboo" of nudity is nothing more than a cultural taboo, then shouldn't the fact that men walking around topless vs. women walking around topless would cause different reactions be taken into consideration? After all, according to this argument, the whole concept of nudity is defined by culture, so if the general culture considers topless woman to be partially nude, whereas it does not consider that true for men, shouldn't that affect the laws aboutnudity?
Is it legal in most states for women to walk around topless?
Posts: 196 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:if you assume that the government should be allowed to make such laws - do you think that having separate laws for men and woman are inherently unfair?
posted
I like the idea of women being allowed to legally be topless wherever men can be. I think that if we can innure men to the sight of the female breast, "de-sexualize" it so to speak, things will be easier for women all around. (But not for liquor companies, of course- how wil they make their money when women's breasts no longer sell things?)
Posts: 1021 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The breast isn't the only body part that sells product. As Tom pointed out, we see images of legs, backs, necks... Men are more likely to be stimulated visually and advertisers will continue to promote goods with visuals that get our attention. Inuring the public to the display of breasts won't stem the tide of sexually based advertising.
Posts: 2022 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, in order to be treated identically I have to wear a bra?! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Posts: 1132 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think all of the Hatrack ladies interested in striking a blow for equality should do their very best to innure me to the naked female breast. I'm certain that this will do something wonderful for the society we live in, or at least the society I live in, which is considerably smaller and has more imaginary bits.
quote:do you think that having separate laws for men and woman are inherently unfair? If you assert that the "taboo" of nudity is nothing more than a cultural taboo...
Along these lines, how does the goverment decide what is a cultural taboo, and thus irrelevant, and what isn't?
quote:I like the idea of women being allowed to legally be topless wherever men can be. I think that if we can innure men to the sight of the female breast, "de-sexualize" it so to speak, things will be easier for women all around.
I don't like that idea at all. I like them sexualized.
posted
Allegra- we are currentl awaiting feacl occult results for parasites. we have done about $2000 of testing in the past month, with no real results besides "She's really, really lactose intolerant, don't even cook something with dairy" and the ped says he doesn't know any other tests to suggest.
My friend's fairy is that mortal food is hard on fey systems.
quote: 'Yes, I'm breastfeeding. Now, go away before I kill you.'
Well, I knew it would be a priceless shot and hubby was fooling around with different lenses- it was like, "TAKE THE PICTURE BEFORE HE'S DONE!!!".
Posts: 1021 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
$2000 worth of testing and that is all you know. That stinks. I hope you know more soon. Were they able to rule out some of the things brought up in the thread? ((((dpr&family))))
That really is an adorable picture of you and your baby.
Posts: 1015 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh. No. You guys will have to figure out how to put the seat up--and down. THAT'S what that means.
Posts: 3636 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:$2000 worth of testing and that is all you know. That stinks. I hope you know more soon. Were they able to rule out some of the things brought up in the thread? ((((dpr&family))))
I know, it does suck (Thank God for insurance!!!). They ruled out Celiac's, her bllod levels of calcium are normal so I don't think we have to worry about William's Syndrome. But I wish we had a definitive answer, "This is what's wrong, and here's how we'll treat it".
(Oh, and thanks,I think Andrew is adorable in that photo too).
Posts: 1021 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
man some of the statements in this article make my brain hurt.
There are good reasons for modesty laws, Thomasson said -- "to protect the innocence of women and girls and to promote a decent society supportive of children and families." Posts: 1572 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
True, I guess I should a void posting any more frivolous nonsense. It's such a waste of energy.
Posts: 2022 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
shesh!
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
