Posted on 11/11/2014 12:44:00 AM PST by Secret Agent Man
The Cranberries prior posting about the gal singer who assaulted the flight attendant and cop was the last stupid straw about posting about guilt based on looks. (Note I am not a big Cranberries fan, I have no dog in this particular hunt - it's just an example.)
I am not against posts that discuss a person's looks per se. Particularly if it factors into the issue being discussed. If it's relevant, it's relevant.
What I am objecting to are the stupid inane posts that add nothing of value to the thread and detract from the reputation of this site as being a far better place than any liberal discussion site out there.
I am just so flipping tired of idiots claiming to be conservatives posting comments of absolutely zero value about the guilt or innocence of - almost always - a female person, based solely on her looks.
It's stupid. After being done a billion times, it's not even funny. Why so-called conservatives here think this is appropriate every time a female is in a news story that has potential criminal/illegal actions, what it really is is just tiresome. It adds nothing substantive to the thread. It makes the image of this place look crass.
And it makes light of actual crimes committed by people based on if they have breasts and vaginas. And it's entirely one way. Note we do not have thousands of post replies over the years discussing the guilt or innocence of male criminals based on how good looking they are. The female conservatives here (and the pervy guys who post all the time about females) have somehow restrained themselves from any posts of this kind, yet they cannot help themselves to go this way when there's a legal controversy with a female. Then it's find a photo, and let the idiotic guilt or innocence comment postings commence.
Can we just try to keep it classy here? Do we always have to devolve to appeal to the lowest common denominator of gutter humor here when women make the news for bad behavior/crimes? Don;t we have better standards as conservatives? Having a sense of humor is important, but why is it funny that a woman is innocent or guilty because of her looks? What makes this funny? Because ugly women deserve to be locked up? Because hot women can always get out of crimes or bad behavior and ugly women can't? This is the funny stereotype these comments are playing off of?
And when the crimes are sexual crimes, as they often are, in the articles these comments surface in, why should this be made fun of? Because there aren't any negative consequences that occur to a young boy or girl when an adult female decides to satisfy their sexual urges with usually an underage boy or girl? The same stuff isn't treated lightly or humorously when an adult male does it, in fact death threat statements and the like are posted. But it's all fun and games and smart-ass humor when a woman does it.
What makes it wrong is conservatives ought to know better. They do know that there are negative consequences to teens who have sex with adults, BOTH men and women. It's not victimless only if a woman does it. It screws up their viewpoint of sex and male-female relationships. In both cases these posters KNOW that it's wrong to have an adult authority figure having sex with kids they are in positions of overseeing. It's wrong for male and female adults to look at students as potential personal sexual conquests.
This is sick behavior for a site supposedly made up of conservatives.
You’re wasting your time, pal. And ours. jmo
Thirty years old? Stop that! I feel old enough as it is. ;^)
AskImam.com is amazingly funny.
Here is an example question:
1. Can I perform ghusl by just letting the Mani flow without doing wudu if I am not going to perform Salāh? 2. I just did my ghusl and prayed. However, after my Salāh I saw semen. Do I have to wash myself again and repeat the prayer or is my prayer valid?The answer was incomprehensible. Here's an excerpt:
Regarding your second question, if you witnessed semen after your Salāh, then ghusl will become fardh upon you but repeating your Salāh will not be necessary.?????
I knew you'd make it to this thread. Love the tagline.
But I'd hit it.
(TWO count em TWO memes in ONE post)
Yes.
In fact they may just be evil.
A woman cannot technically rape a man. Unless the man is stimulated the rape will not take place in the penetration sense. Maybe in other more oral ways but not in that way. For instance, Hitlery could hold a gun to my head and demand I satisfy but my “Mr Happy” would probably crawl up into my abdomen in a reverse erection.
And without getting any wudu on your Salah.
I'm impressed by your expert Shamaaqah
I believe a reverse-erection is called a 'woman'. LOL
Whenever I am at a restaurant, I ask that they put the wudu in a little cup to the side. I like to dress my Salah myself.
I suspect neither of you thought it through.
Hitlery with a woman. Hitlery with a man. Which option do you think happens most often.
Which is just how Hillary likes 'em!
(rimshot!)
I can’t get the site to work for me...I’m trying to get into the “women” section. That should be entertaining.
I do hear, however, that once your ghusl becomes fardh there’s no turning back.
Uh, yeah, why else do you think the horse is rearing? It's trying to get away from the noxious cloud before it's done in by it.
Well, if his Mr. Happy inverted, he'd kinda be of some use to Hitlery after all.
I always think of the move “The Graduate” as being shot in color, was it really black and white?
Watch it, central_va, Laz is thinking about hitting you now.
Lighten up, Francis.
I fully agree.
The only time I have a problem with it is when it concerns adult/minor sex.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.