RE: Nipple Bigotry

RE: Nipple Bigotry (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

mnottertail -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/26/2007 11:15:47 AM)
frustrate silently or you are headed for the rhubarb, daddie-o-------this is the voice of experience talking..... Ron

CuriousLord -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/26/2007 11:37:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: Anyhow, my point's the only one on the table. You have made a great point. When anyone wonders what kind of prejudice, hypocrisy, and ignorance is behind nipple bigotry they can read your posts. .."nipple bigotry"? I'm arguing that female breasts- as you refer to them simply as "nipples"- are different from male breasts, and thus seen as more private and sexual to those who made the current laws. Look, the mod's asked me to be nice. And, in all fairness, I was being rough on you- I suppose. But how can you deny my point outside of constantly complaining you don't think it's fair? quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth What two things do all these statements have in common? quote: Breasts are involved in reproduction. Breasts are distinctly female. Breasts are sexual organs by definition. The current laws aren't unequal. breasts are private parts- sexual organs- like genitals. Breasts are sexual organs, Breasts are distinctly female. In common? They were all made by you, and they are factually wrong. "Breasts are involved in reproduction." Made by me? I'll take your word for it. Wrong? No. See the following. quote: ORIGINAL: "reproduction", Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary 1 : the act or process of reproducing; specifically : the process by which plants and animals give rise to offspring and which fundamentally consists of the segregation of a portion of the parental body by a sexual or an asexual process and its subsequent growth and differentiation into a new individual I'd like to draw your attention to "its subsequent growth". Now, this is to say that, reproduction includes the raising of a new life form. (If you don't agree, whatever, but don't argue with me when it's in the dictionary.) Breasts are used in breast feeding (hence, the "breast" in the term). Alright. On to the next. "Breasts are distinctly female." Again, I'll take your word on it that I said it. Wrong? Again, no. This time, I'll point to context. We're talking about female breasts. You know, the breasts you're "trying to free". While you can rip the statement out of context, it was saying, "Female breasts are distinctly female"- which is an obviously correct statement. Alright. Number three! "Breasts are sexual organs by definition." Yeah, I said this. Wrong? No. I already defined "sexual" and "organ" for you. Now, perhaps you're thinking of the compound noun, "sex organ". Stop confusing the two. There's another post with clearer definitions. Woot. Time for number four. "The current laws aren't unequal. breasts are private parts- sexual organs- like genitals." Did I say it? Back to taking your word on it. Is it wrong? Yet again, no. You see- the current laws don't let women show their nipples like men. This can be seen as unequal. (Something I'm surprised you're disagreeing with, since this seems to be your war cry.) Such laws consider breasts to be private parts- which I term "sexual organs" (again, by definition- argue with Merriam-Webster)- which also includes genitals. Revealing such private parts, or sexual organs, is against the law. This is a statement of the current state of law. I would hope that this is straightforward. Five and six, I'm skipping, since, well, you just repeated two previous points (word for word), for some reason I'm not going to bother with guessing. quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth And then there is this quote of yours: quote: I do not believe the spirit is, "Male genitals need to be covered, and female genitals and breasts must be covered." Why, if they are as your were previously quoted "sexual organs - like genitals", did you need to reference them separately when referring to female genitals. Need to? Who said I needed to? I was speaking them individually to make this easier on you. (I really do perceive you as having problems understaning.) quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth If the common and accepted, or your common for that matter, reference to genitals automatically implied or inferred breasts, there would be no need to add the term to the sentence to make sure people knew you were including them in your attempt at a point. I never said female breasts were female genitals. I'm serious. Read the definition. You're mad because you're misunderstanding what I mean by it. quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth I know it has to be in simple terms for you, so I'll use another reference you employed. You use "red" to modify car because without it nobody would know that's what you were talking about. You used breast to modify genitals, because perhaps down deep, maybe even you don't agree with the illogic of your position. ..I never used "breast" to modify "genitals".. ... I may have to leave this thread to meet the mod's request to take it easy. I no longer think you're lying, but.. this.. this is... how can you make these mistakes? Sorry, I just.. I.. whatever. quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth But this may be your best example of self contraction, and backtracking: quote: I think you may be confusing "sex organs" with "sexual organs"? ("Sex organs" is a term that typically refers to genitals and such, where as "sexual organs" are organs, or body tissue that serve a purpose, that are sexual, or of or related to gender.) Using your opinion as fact justifies the Islamic use of a body berka on females. Were your standards applied in the west, it would be required since for some; hair, feet, toes, necks, fingers, ears, lips, knees (especially the backs of knees), teeth, eyes, are all "sexual organs" capable of generating arousal. A: They're not my standards. I'm talking about the standards that exist in America today. B: There was no backtracking. That was explaining something you seem to be confused about. I'm trying to help you. Believe it or not, I don't enjoy being mad at you. I don't enjoy seeing people as less than intelligent. I don't come to these boards just to critize people who may not have quite the same IQ, and I don't think you have to be any sort of genius to get this stuff. I just want you to understand. quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Your views enlighten many by illustrating the puritanical and incorrect beliefs that are pervasive. You are entertaining and funny; but you also serve to illustrate the naiveté and factual ignorance that must be addressed. You're only laughing at yourself. You're seeing something you don't understand, then critizing it, because, apparently, you can't get this. Please try to change this. And lose the ego.

CuriousLord -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/26/2007 11:39:05 AM)
As long as they get it, I'm fine. Even if it takes a while. I just hope people keep their minds open instead of reverting to, "I don't agree with him. ATTACK!"

CuriousLord -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/26/2007 11:42:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: michaelOfGeorgia i can picture it now...a large group of protesters, mostly women, all carrying signs, all topless...protesting the inequality of women. Hah, yeah. Such a movement really would pick up steam. Not everyone's as concerned with logic as I am. I really do think, for a large portion of America, the argument, "BOOBS!!!!" would be surficient. And, if that's how such a movement would take place, so be it- so long as the leaders have a more thought-out, sophisticated understanding of the matter.

CuriousLord -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/26/2007 11:54:19 AM)
General: Read me. Because people are misunderstanding this left and right. "Sexual organs" is a way to refer to the "naughty parts" that you can't show in public. "Sexual organs" refers to "functional features of the human body that are known to vary with gender for the purposes of general law". For men, this means the penis, balls, and the immediate area around 'n such. For women, this means the vaginia and the breasts. For both, this should also include the ass, though, since the ass isn't on trial in this particular subject, a term also including it was unnecessary. If you accept breasts as "sexual organs"- this does not mean that you are calling them genitals nor does it mean you're conceding that the law should demand them to be covered. It just means you're accepting reality. "Sexual organs" does not mean that they are (or aren't) required for intercourse. "Sexual" has meanings outside of intercourse- despite however you might be used to seeing it normally. Coining breasts as "sexual organs" does not mean that they are genitals. Merely, they are a feature that varies with the genders. (Several have argued that breasts do not vary with genders. I make no argument for this beyond the empirical evidence you can likely see outside of your window or comparing your chest to the other gender's. If more becomes necessary, it's readily accessible- though I believe this, and common sense, to be enough.) Now, you see, people have been moving away from this sort of restriction- so the law has been "interrepted differently". Thinner bathing suits have become more prevalent. As they shrunk, peoples' understanding of the law has changed. Whether or not boobs are being shown is pretty much a function of whether or not nipples are being shown now. I'm sure there's more to mention. But, I hope this clears up enough for now.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/26/2007 12:35:28 PM)
CL When you contradict yourself within explaining your contradictions no further argument or debate is possible, so I'm afraid as much as I regret it, this will be my last response to you on this subject. But tell me, when you viewed our profile, did you look at beth's breasts, her genitals, or did you only read the journal? Obviously there was much to comprehend, too much perhaps. You provided a lot more entertainment, but these, taken together are is my personal favorite: quote: "Sexual organs" does not mean that they are (or aren't) required for intercourse. "Sexual" has meanings outside of intercourse- despite however you might be used to seeing it normally. Coining breasts as "sexual organs" does not mean that they are genitals. quote: "Male genitals need to be covered, and female genitals and breasts must be covered." quote: They're not my standards. I'm talking about the standards that exist in America today. CL - The Ayatollah of America out to maintaining "standards" of covering "genitals" and "sexual organs" as soon as he determines if he agrees with his own definition of what they are. quote: I don't enjoy seeing people as less than intelligent. I don't come to these boards just to critize people who may not have quite the same IQ, and I don't think you have to be any sort of genius to get this stuff. Next thing you'll be providing your resume listing a membership to Mensa. Qualifying your intelligence is no more necessary than disqualifying it. Your words should, and do represent you. Isn't that enough? However when you are right you are right. quote: I never used "breast" to modify "genitals".. You didn't. You used they term alluding to distinguish them, similar to "red" distinguishing "car". It was my usage error, and I didn't pick it up on review. However the same question remains. If every car was red - no need for the distinction. If you believed breasts are genitals - no need to distinguish them separately. You are also correct on another matter. I do have problems understanding a person who can be quoted contracting their own argument. However - I'll stipulate that you have very clearly exposed yourself and your positions. Thank you! Good luck on your journey and remember to always take advantage, as we do, of as much fun that comes your way!

CuriousLord -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/26/2007 12:46:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth CL When you contradict yourself within explaining your contradictions no further argument or debate is possible, so I'm afraid as much as I regret it, this will be my last response to you on this subject. But tell me, when you viewed our profile, did you look at beth's breasts, her genitals, or did you only read the journal? Sigh. There're no contradictions. You keep thinking things mean more than they do, because you keep assuming common connotations. I'm simply not used to talking to someone who assumes so much. If you just read what I say for its core value- without assuming so much- you'll stop getting so lost. Pictures or journal? No, I'm not interested in either. I was just curious how old you were. (You're not exactly particularly more attractive than porn that's readily available on the net, so, please, don't try to go there.) None of this was even relevant to the debate anyhow. quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth Obviously there was much to comprehend, too much perhaps. You provided a lot more entertainment, but these, taken together are is my personal favorite: quote: "Sexual organs" does not mean that they are (or aren't) required for intercourse. "Sexual" has meanings outside of intercourse- despite however you might be used to seeing it normally. Coining breasts as "sexual organs" does not mean that they are genitals. quote: "Male genitals need to be covered, and female genitals and breasts must be covered." quote: They're not my standards. I'm talking about the standards that exist in America today. CL - The Ayatollah of America out to maintaining "standards" of covering "genitals" and "sexual organs" as soon as he determines if he agrees with his own definition of what they are. I never said that breasts were genitals. Never. I keep getting annoyed at you for putting those words in my mouth. And, yeah. Insult the law makers. Whatever. You're obviously much more level-headed. quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth However when you are right you are right. quote: I never used "breast" to modify "genitals".. You didn't. You used they term alluding to distinguish them, similar to "red" distinguishing "car". It was my usage error, and I didn't pick it up on review. However the same question remains. If every car was red - no need for the distinction. If you believed breasts are genitals - no need to distinguish them separately. No.. I used "sexual" to modify "organs" in the same way that "red" modifies "car". The rest was your baseless assumption. Seriously. Stop assuming. If you can find a place I said it, go for it. quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth You are also correct on another matter. I do have problems understanding a person who can be quoted contracting their own argument. You've failed to do so. Unless you care to cite where. quote: ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth However - I'll stipulate that you have very clearly exposed yourself and your positions. Thank you! Good luck on your journey and remember to always take advantage, as we do, of as much fun that comes your way! Yeah, have fun. Just quit misunderstanding things in the process of having this fun. PS- In the future, in other threads- don't do this either. If something I say sounds wrong to you- not because it's actually wrong, but because you think it implies something that's wrong- either reevaluate it until you figure it out or ask. Accusing someone of being prejustice isn't a mature way to go about dealing with such confusion.

bignipples2share -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/26/2007 4:22:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord So be it. But how come no one can accept a dictionary-provided definition? It's frustrating to me. I have provided you with the dictionary definition. You have taken it unto yourself to put your own slant on it. I'm even providing another one for you further below. quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord Sorry, but the "sexual" can refer to genders and "organ" can refer to a functional part of the body. Why are you insulting me and stating I’m not capable of understanding? He is sexual, she is sexual. We are sexual human beings. Our brains are the biggest sex organ there is. THANKfully, our brains are not out and exposed, or I’m sure women would be having to cover theirs up too. I’m sure because different hormones run through it, there would be SOMEbody out there saying women HAD to cover theirs up. I really don’t understand how you’re not getting this. quote: If you can't get that- even after reading the dictionary- I can't help you. You're so stuck in single definitions- that "sexual" means "relating to intercourse" and that "organ" refers to the biological list of primary organs. Why are you insulting me and stating I’m not capable of understanding, and beyond help? I’m seeing a pattern of your doing this, just on this thread alone. You want to split sentences up until their meaning is changed. You put your own slant on anothers point they are trying to get across. You seem to have gone along with the crowd and put a moral standard on an interpretation made by that sector of the populace. This does NOT make that interpretation right, just that it’s accepted by many. I reiterate, by being acceptable to many, THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT! You dissect it and put inferences on it, yet when someone presents the subject in a simple straight forward way and attacks the point, not the person, from every angle to present their case, you becoming insulting. I have looked this up in the dictionary. I have understood the meaning of each word. I have put those meanings back together and I have shown you where the difference lay. I have also presented various scenarios, yet it seems that it is you who is sticking to just one meaning, which is, in my opinion, wrong. Now, since you seem to have tunnel vision in this instance, I must put your insulting quote right back in your lap. “You're so stuck in single definitions. If you can't get that- even after reading the plethora of information provided to you - I can't help you. You're so stuck in single definitions (single being that of the implied definition of the combined reference of the TERM, ‘sexual organ’)- that "sexual" means "relating to intercourse" and that "organ" refers to the biological list of primary organs. quote: It's even a stupid argument. "Sexual organs" could be replaced by any other term that refers to the grouping of things that must be covered as they're seen to those having made the laws to be most closely linked to private aspects of human nature. Just because YOU don’t like this debate (your word is aguement) does not make is stupid. quote: Yet, you insist on telling me that the dictionary is wrong? It has been asked of you to show evidence of exactly where it says that breasts are sexual organs in the dictionary. You have NOT provided that answer. You have only provided an interpretation of what the dictionary is saying. Not what it actually says. If and when the dictionary does combine the two words AND say that breasts are included, then I would want to know at what point it was changed, why it was changed and who exactly made this decision. quote: Grrr. Grow up, damn it. "Sexual" can refer to things of or relating to gender- "sexes" in the definition was a reference to gender, it wasn't incorrectly trying to make sex, intercourse, plural with the annex of '-es'. "Organ" can refer to things that serve a fuction as a group of cells in the body. Excuse me, but I am grown. Your attempts to insult are becoming petty, to say the very least. Yes, ‘sexual’ can refer to things of or relating to gender, I have stated such. You beard is a ‘sexual thing of or relating to gender. I have also presented the many differences as to how the word is applied. You, on the other hand, have not. quote: It's straight-forward. It's accurate. If you can't get this, see a tutor. But not me. Yet another insult. I believe you are not getting the gist of this whole thing. You seem to be trapped in a box that others have created for you and are not able to see beyond, even when the lid has been removed, the sides of the box have been cut down for you and you’re standing on a flat box. This is not an insult, it is my observation and how I see your reaction. Does it make it right? Ummmmmm, Errrrrrrr……………….. Since you’re so insistent on what the dictionary states as sexual organs, do proceed to this link I have provided for you. http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/sexual+organs Please come back with exactly where it mentions breasts. Should you come back with ANYTHING that states breasts as sexual organs, DO make sure of your source AND be specific as to where you got it (book, website, etc.). I’d be interested in their background and how they came by this decision and their sources in which they made this decision. I could then discuss the various factors with them, on a much more civil and reasonable attitude that you’ve displayed here. Have I been redundant in my presentation? You betcha!!!!! However, I deemed it necessary to do so. Still do. ~Big

CuriousLord -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/26/2007 4:31:43 PM)
Alright. No need to answer the post part by part as you're misunderstanding a couple of points. --- The "sexual organs" is the easiest to deal with. It's an adjective and a noun. Think really hard about this. It's not a compound noun- which is sort of like an idiom among nouns- but an adjective. Then a noun. The phrase is a homonym of the one you looked up, yes, but that doesn't mean it can't be used as-is. --- Erm.. let's see. The "you're so immature" bit we're been bickering about. I'm tired of hearing this whining. It's over. Drop it. --- Ah, then the "just because this is what people believe does not make it right" bit. Wonderful. Yes, this is obvious. This doesn't mean you have liscense to misunderstand and/or misrepresent their points. I'm representing the common view here on CollarMe.com, where we're a bit more sexily jaded. While I must confess I had no idea so many would be so emotional about it, I must point out that it's important to understand other sides- which you, among others, have been showing a refusal to acknowledge. --- Summary: -Adjective + noun vs. compound noun. -No more insults. -Acknowledging and convaying the views of others does not imply agreement.

feastie -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/26/2007 5:09:09 PM)
Scarlett, I didn't write the law nor establish the base for it. Many crimes have been wrought due to the lust of a man for a woman. Men lust over breasts, they just do. To them they are a huge part of sex because men are such visual creatures. I figure the law was written by a man too. Tell me though, how many women talk about a man's nipples in their lists of turn ons? I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just pointing out how it came to be.

bignipples2share -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/26/2007 5:09:29 PM)
quote: : ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth quote: Anyhow, my point's the only one on the table. You have made a great point. When anyone wonders what kind of prejudice, hypocrisy, and ignorance is behind nipple bigotry they can read your posts. .."nipple bigotry"? I'm arguing that female breasts- as you refer to them simply as "nipples"- are different from male breasts, and thus seen as more private and sexual to those who made the current laws. I have presented in several instances, in several ways, that breasts are the same. Just because it’s the law does NOT mean breasts are really, truly, without question, irrevocably, different. Laws can be changed and that’s exactly what this is about. This law is society driven. quote: ORIGINAL: "reproduction", Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary 1 : the act or process of reproducing; specifically : the process by which plants and animals give rise to offspring and which fundamentally consists of the segregation of a portion of the parental body by a sexual or an asexual process and its subsequent growth and differentiation into a new individual I read that and don’t see how this includes breasts. We’ve already established that both women AND men can lactate. The parts of me that could make that baby are NOT on the outside of my body. quote: I'd like to draw your attention to "its subsequent growth". Now, this is to say that, reproduction includes the raising of a new life form. (If you don't agree, whatever, but don't argue with me when it's in the dictionary.) Breasts are used in breast feeding (hence, the "breast" in the term). MEN CAN BREAST FEED….MEN CAN BREAST FEED WOMEN DON’T HAVE TO. BOTH ARE CAPAPBLE. Both can raise it. quote: Alright. On to the next. "Breasts are distinctly female." Again, I'll take your word on it that I said it. Wrong? Again, no. This time, I'll point to context. We're talking about female breasts. You know, the breasts you're "trying to free". While you can rip the statement out of context, it was saying, "Female breasts are distinctly female"- which is an obviously correct statement. Sure, ignore where I have pointed out their sameness. I don’t see your ‘obviously correct statement’. quote: Alright. Number three! "Breasts are sexual organs by definition." Yeah, I said this. Wrong? No. I already defined "sexual" and "organ" for you. Now, perhaps you're thinking of the compound noun, "sex organ". Stop confusing the two. There's another post with clearer definitions. I also provided the definition, from the dictionary, that defined sexual and organ for you. You just didn’t like it. Thank you. Yes I did supply posts with clearer definitions. quote: "The current laws aren't unequal. breasts are private parts The law is subject to interpretation AND they can also BE CHANGED! quote: You see- the current laws don't let women show their nipples like men. LAWS CAN BE CHANGED. Just because you don’t like it does it can’t be changed. quote: A: They're not my standards. I'm talking about the standards that exist in America today. B: There was no backtracking. That was (I HAVE) explain(ED)ing something you seem to be confused about. I'm trying to help you. Believe it or not, I don't enjoy being mad at you. I don't enjoy seeing people as less than intelligent. I don't come to these boards just to critize people who may not have quite the same IQ, and I don't think you have to be any sort of genius to get this stuff. I just want you to understand. You're seeing something you don't understand, then critizing it, because, apparently, you can't get this. Please try to change this. And lose the ego. I will throw this statement right back into your ball court, but take out the portions I have reduced the font on, such as being mad, as I’m not made at you now, or have I been at any point in this debate. The fact that you see people as less than intelligent when their opinions differ from yours, when their interpretation differs from yours, is something I think you need to work on. Maybe a tutor will help. I’d suggest a brush up on Galileo, Newton and throw some books on Newton and their trials and tribulations to get THEIR points across. quote: As long as they get it, I'm fine. Even if it takes a while. I just hope people keep their minds open instead of reverting to, "I don't agree with him. ATTACK!" I agree with this, so STOP DOING IT!!!! Geesh, and I'm only caught up to post #102 ~Big

CuriousLord -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/26/2007 5:18:51 PM)
Hum.. let's see. The reproduction definition was because someone contested "reproducing", or one of its alternate forms. That wasn't about the boobs bit. So, no, it wasn't supposed to do the boobs thing. Again, adjective + noun; not compound noun. --- "MEN CAN BREAST FEED….MEN CAN BREAST FEED" I've heard of a little coming out. Though, as a Chemie, I'd like to state I find it unlikely that such a substance is the same as a female's lactation. Still, if you'd like to point out an instance of a man breast feeding- which should be readily available on a credible source from Google- feel free. And, of course both men and women raise kids. How does that even come into play here? -- Yeah. Male and female breasts can be similar. They're also different. Pointing out similiarites does not mitigate differences. -- You still can't seem to get (adjective + noun) vs. (compound noun). Try.. for me? -- Yeah, laws can be changed.. ..duh? -- If I remember correctly, Galileo didn't get his points across. He was executed by the idiots he tried to talk sense into. Oddly fimilar, really. Ah, and, Newton- he was a genius and knew it. Very egotistical man. Not that I can relate. Thanks for bringing up two individuals which I can't empathize with. -- Again, accusing me when I ask you to calm. Sheesh.

LdyScarletDomina -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/26/2007 7:34:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: feastie Scarlett, I didn't write the law nor establish the base for it. Many crimes have been wrought due to the lust of a man for a woman. Men lust over breasts, they just do. To them they are a huge part of sex because men are such visual creatures. I figure the law was written by a man too. Tell me though, how many women talk about a man's nipples in their lists of turn ons? I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just pointing out how it came to be. feastie I wasn't attacking your opinion in anyway hon, not in the least. I agree with you in point that men have perpetuated the situation and I agree that at this point in modern USA the breast has gone from a natural food receptical to being repressed based on someone else's moral/sexual fears! I just wanted to share my own fears about how that kind of thinking by a mass society can lead to further danger. Lady Scarlet

bignipples2share -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/26/2007 8:36:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord Alright. No need to answer the post part by part as you're misunderstanding a couple of points. --- The "sexual organs" is the easiest to deal with. It's an adjective and a noun. Think really hard about this. It's not a compound noun- which is sort of like an idiom among nouns- but an adjective. Then a noun. The phrase is a homonym of the one you looked up, yes, but that doesn't mean it can't be used as-is. --- Erm.. let's see. The "you're so immature" bit we're been bickering about. I'm tired of hearing this whining. It's over. Drop it. --- Ah, then the "just because this is what people believe does not make it right" bit. Wonderful. Yes, this is obvious. This doesn't mean you have liscense to misunderstand and/or misrepresent their points. I'm representing the common view here on CollarMe.com, where we're a bit more sexily jaded. While I must confess I had no idea so many would be so emotional about it, I must point out that it's important to understand other sides- which you, among others, have been showing a refusal to acknowledge. --- Summary: -Adjective + noun vs. compound noun. -No more insults. -Acknowledging and convaying the views of others does not imply agreement. How very condescending your answers are, however, your pedestal has toppled and fallen over. You continue to insult and can NOT open you mind. You seem incapable of addressing the actual points put before you. You’d much rather denigrate others and get up on your high horse. If you’re tired of hearing the whining, then I suggest to you that you stop. It doesn’t matter if the majority believes something, that does NOT always make it right. The world is NOT flat. Their point is debatable, which is exactly what is being debated here. I am NOT misrepresenting their points, I’m questioning them AND giving alternatives, which is something you’ve repeatedly misunderstand the concept of. It is you who are so stuck on one side and can’t see through a veil of spider webbed conceptions to view an any other alternative. I suggest you get your emotions back in check, because it’s been you who have shown the greatest display of a refusal to acknowledge a different side, your ego, your temper and your only defense is to berate and TRY to put down the intelligence of others. There is no longer a reason for you to address me unless you can come back with actual facts and supporting documentation of your sources. I consider you dismissed. Oh, and DO take some rope up with you for that high horse you’re on. You’re gonna need it drag that fallen pedestal away. ~Big

CuriousLord -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/26/2007 8:40:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bignipples2share How very condescending your answers are, however, your pedestal has toppled and fallen over. You continue to insult and can NOT open you mind. You seem incapable of addressing the actual points put before you. You’d much rather denigrate others and get up on your high horse. If you’re tired of hearing the whining, then I suggest to you that you stop. It doesn’t matter if the majority believes something, that does NOT always make it right. The world is NOT flat. Their point is debatable, which is exactly what is being debated here. I am NOT misrepresenting their points, I’m questioning them AND giving alternatives, which is something you’ve repeatedly misunderstand the concept of. It is you who are so stuck on one side and can’t see through a veil of spider webbed conceptions to view an any other alternative. I suggest you get your emotions back in check, because it’s been you who have shown the greatest display of a refusal to acknowledge a different side, your ego, your temper and your only defense is to berate and TRY to put down the intelligence of others. There is no longer a reason for you to address me unless you can come back with actual facts and supporting documentation of your sources. I consider you dismissed. Oh, and DO take some rope up with you for that high horse you’re on. You’re gonna need it drag that fallen pedestal away. You notice how I did a rebuttal of points- making my points- and you're stuck on this whole posturing thing? Yeah. Get over it.

ModeratorEleven -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/26/2007 9:02:25 PM)
Oh children, last warning. XI

bignipples2share -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/26/2007 9:07:38 PM)
but, but, but MOMmmm <pointing finger> he saided.......... < pouting and walking away> ~Big

CuriousLord -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/26/2007 9:10:06 PM)
Pft. You owe me a hug for how nice I've been being. And none of this half-open stuff, either; full-blown hug. And flowers. And chocolates. And a partiage (sp?) in a pear tree.

CuriousLord -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/26/2007 9:50:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bignipples2share but, but, but MOMmmm <pointing finger> he saided.......... < pouting and walking away> Cute. So while I'm glad the mod brought an end to the.. pedistool bit.. would you care to continue debating in earnest, or have you had it with this? I'll admit, this has gone to something annoying, though the curious part of me is strong enough to continue just about any debate.

gooddogbenji -> RE: Nipple Bigotry (7/26/2007 10:00:22 PM)
I just want to say that the Adam's apple is an organ relating to a gender, or whatever CL stated earlier. Cover up, you dirty bastards! Knees, also (apparently) are different on men and women. And, I have just learned, I need to cover my ankles when my cock is flaccid. Go figure. Yours, benji

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875