‘Disgraceful’ for Pregnant Women to Show Their...wait for it

[surly74]

If/When I make this fabulous thing happen - can I be God then?
 :rollin:

Yes. more evidence than any other god.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

No offense ladies, but I have witnessed child birth with my own eyes and have witnessed bar fights with my own eyes. The bar fights are usually more civil and less bloody. :)

[WitchSabrina]

<---------------   loves "Dweeby"   :rollin:


quote="Shiranu"]I'm uh... I'm just going to clarify what I meant...

When I said men, I meant men. When you look at the people who are vocally involved when ever a sexual topic comes up, for the side of regulating sexuality, its men. Now to be fair, a part of that I would assume is the disproportionate amount of men to women in politics, but even then its rarely women who are trying to pass laws banning abortions, being unable to say the word vagina in court (even though they want to regulate it) or in this case talk about women being pregnant in public.

Yes, there are women who are anti-abortion and women rights, just like there are black and gay Republicans. But they are a huge minority in their own party, much less the total population. And pretty much anytime something like this comes up...be it in the U.S., Turkiye, Europe... wherever... it is generally spearheaded by men. Men who cant even discuss the topic at hand because they have to use all these code-words because they are so dweeby they cant say vagina or abortion or, "Omg I can't control myself! She had boobs so I was tempted, therefor it's all her fault!".

And yeah, I meant female biology because that was the topic at hand. Though men do have more problems, from what I have seen, with male sexuality and biology as well. Not by much, but certainly a little.[/quote]

[Jason78]

I'm uh... I'm just going to clarify what I meant...

When I said men, I meant men. When you look at the people who are vocally involved when ever a sexual topic comes up, for the side of regulating sexuality, its men.

Yes, there are women who are anti-abortion and women rights, just like there are black and gay Republicans. But they are a huge minority in their own party, much less the total population.

[snipped for brevity]

I disagree.  I see both men and women getting vocally involved.  Just over the last week in the UK we've had both David Cameron and Theresa May advocating internet censorship to protect children from porn.  We've got Sophie Bennett campaigning to have "lads mags" taken off the shelves in newsagents.  Jo Swinson seems to be all for covering up pictures of women.  We've got people from all sections of the community and from every gender weighing into the debate.

[Edit]
There's nothing immoral about nudity or the human body.

[WitchSabrina]

Thanks for clarifying it, Shiranu.

Heh. Now it gets even more interesting  :rollin:

Come on, Plu. Why is that interesting? It was very clear what he wrote from the beginning concerning the thread and the context. You people just hate me when I get pissed off and got carried away.

And that lizard-spock extension on legs could have put it better too.  [-(

Don't count me into that "people".  I don't hate you when you get carried away or fired up.  Personally, I tend to like people who can get carried away or fired up over specific passions they hold.  Makes life interesting IMHO.  The Only time I do not like people 'fired up" over their passions is when they are trying to sell me Islam or Jesus.

[Plu]

I just meant interesting in terms of our internal discussion :P It seems you interpreted Shiranu correctly, but it seems nobody else did. But then you didn't properly interpret Jason because he didn't properly interpret Shiranu, and so you came to the wrong conclusion about his post, and we pointed out that you came to the wrong conclusion about his post but that was only because both he and we came to the wrong conclusion about Shiranu's post.

So in the end I guess everyone was wrong about something, and that tends to lead to very interesting discussions.

(Although granted, if I recheck the timeline I guess you are actually least to blame this time around because your mistaken interpretation only came about due to the mistaken interpretations of others, and I can't really blame people for that. So I guess I owe you an apology there :)
That said; the whole discussion is still mostly for naught because it's based on general misunderstandings by everyone involved.)

[WitchSabrina]

I just meant interesting in terms of our internal discussion :P It seems you interpreted Shiranu correctly, but it seems nobody else did. But then you didn't properly interpret Jason because he didn't properly interpret Shiranu, and so you came to the wrong conclusion about his post, and we pointed out that you came to the wrong conclusion about his post but that was only because both he and we came to the wrong conclusion about Shiranu's post.

So in the end I guess everyone was wrong about something, and that tends to lead to very interesting discussions.

(Although granted, if I recheck the timeline I guess you are actually least to blame this time around because your mistaken interpretation only came about due to the mistaken interpretations of others, and I can't really blame people for that. So I guess I owe you an apology there :)
That said; the whole discussion is still mostly for naught because it's based on general misunderstandings by everyone involved.)

I am wrong often.  I've learned to embrace it, quite frankly.
 :butthead:

[surly74]

Oh I thought you were supposed to ignore me? I'm not talking to you.

I'm willing to move on if you are. i don't know many people from Turkey and hate to think an entire country hates me...i already have that with China, Argentina, and Alabama.

[Plu]

I am wrong often. I've learned to embrace it, quite frankly.

Admitting you were wrong is the first step towards being right.

[surly74]

I am wrong often.  I've learned to embrace it, quite frankly.
 :butthead:

that's the difference between religious people and us normals.

[WitchSabrina]

Yeah, lol. Well, forget about it.

I'll give you one thing, girlfriend:  Members here are So very fascinated by how you interpret who and when, did you interpret them correctly or wrongly, etc.  It ALWAYS becomes a side-line discussion.

LMAO :rollin:

[Plu]

That's because it's kinda critical to a discussion, though. You can't discuss anything if one side is failing to interpret the other side properly. (Or both are, as was the case here)
The first thing you have to do is make sure everyone's understanding what everyone else is saying.

Especially on message boards, that's really hard. And when a whole discussion stands or falls simply based on whether someone meant X or Y and we can't be sure, the only thing that can happen is completely fruitless discussion. In that regard, it's alwas nice to have people explain what they mean, especially when people have different ideas of their meaning.

It's something you don't see happening in direct discussion (ie; real life) but it's common on forums because of the indirect communication. But I wouldn't want to be on a discussion board where people don't bother making sure that things are interpreted as they meant; the only thing you can do on such a forum is either fight or circle-jerk, but you can never discuss.

[WitchSabrina]

Yeah, lol. Well, forget about it.

I'll give you one thing, girlfriend:  Members here are So very fascinated by how you interpret who and when, did you interpret them correctly or wrongly, etc.  It ALWAYS becomes a side-line discussion.

LMAO :rollin:

Double double, toil and trouble, fire burn and caldron bubble!  

[ Image ]

Second thoughts and the third thought, some times the fourth ones...etc. *Cackles


:rollin:

Ahhh...............   you know me so well, sister.
*giggle*