Likely guilty
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.
Ain't nobody got time for dat!
There were 8 teachers named “Amy” who seem to have had sex with their male charges.
I think it must have to do with being named “Amy”.
That’s hot.
Well, that’s your choice, of course.
Queers are doing everything they can to force acceptance and approval of their perversions. I refuse to “respect” that by going along with their attempt to whitewash their sickness and redefine the language.
I think we crossed lines communications-wise. My original question was about the painting of Napoleon in an earlier post, to which I thought you were referring. I learned many years ago that the leg in the portrait of Napoleon on his horse was not his own, but was put in by the painter using a model substitute, the name of whom I can not remember at the moment.
(Post 250 by Laz).
LOL!
I trained her well.
Now it is your turn, grasshopper.
I'm certain this is not the only occurrence. Bonding occurs in sexual relations and when it cannot lead to a licit marriage, something is bound to be torn and people suffer.
+1
Yes, our lines crossed.
I was replying to #262 and #272, which is about the film “The Graduate”.
Thanks for clarifying.
That was also Anne Bancroft’s leg. She did some leg stand in work before she got full roles in film.
I shall snatch her from your hand, Master Po!
I could not be more proud.
May the Force be with you.
Do you mean like, in the head?
Hmmm. Not sure if you are attempting to be humorous here. If the painting of Napoleon features Bancroft’s leg, how did it get on there? A gag portrait for a movie?
Likely guilty
Sorry. Just pulling your leg.
Let the hair down, ditch the glasses. Makeup anyone? Need more evidence...
I think that photo is after her lover killed himself and she was convicted. There is another photo of her smiling cheerfully, which I presume is before. Anytime one does evil it makes one ugly and guilty.
(Ms.) Patriotic1
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.