Will FreeRepublic Finally Stop Posts Equating Guilt or Innocence with (Females') Looks???

[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.

[Mark17]

I have never seen so many deleted posts from any thread before. While I am sure you were probably getting snowed on, I was at the beach, trying to escape the heat.

[Vaquero]

World is crumbling under our feet. Marxist in the White House whose trying to give us all Ebola while cheating at elections, taking away the constitution and embracing our foreign enemies and someone posts a piece about a group I never heard of as a fluff piece and THATS what upsets you??

Well enjoy.

[LesbianThespianGymnasticMidget]

This poor thread poster is obviously having a bad day. Thought you might ping the group so we can brighten his day up. Evil Grin.

[Gaffer]

As worthy as the subject might or might not be, it does not belong in “News/Activism” forum.

[Cringing Negativism Network]

Holy cow.

I don’t know the history, but I haven’t seen this sort of deletion thread ever before, also.

[ctdonath2]

It’s a base guy thing that has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. Poor taste yes. Like another said: don’t like it? don’t click. I to have given up on threads abusing Helen Thomas instead of trying to reform the offenders. Consider doing likewise.

[healy61]

Well, now to find who are the Cranberries.

[Mark17]

Yes, I would like to see what is being deleted.

[BIV]

We are all cranberries now.

[nathanbedford]

Will FreeRepublic Finally Stop Posts Equating Guilt or Innocence with (Females') Looks???

I devoutly hope not.

Satire is a fundamental element of free speech. Every comment that engages in politically incorrect satire strikes a blow for free speech. Have you read Jonathan Swift's, Gulliver's Travels, it is full of outrageous satire as is Voltaire's, Candide, which is exceedingly risqué and, I might add, misogynistic.

When we concede the right of any group to police speech because of their sensitivities we are at the mercy of goalposts which are ever-changing. What offends African-Americans, no matter how niggardly the justification therefore, is to give away your language. To hand the keys to political commentary to feminists is to surrender the battlefield. If women have the right to their vagina monologues to make policy we have a right to our crudity to resist it.

This is not a question of bad manners, this is a blow for freedom. It is an invitation to join Men's Lib.

[glock rocks]

Amen.

[broken_arrow1]

Two words - Debra Lafave...Oh to be abused!

[Smokin' Joe]

As of this post, 43.6% of the comments here will have been deleted.

Oh yeah, that's freedom. (/s)

To quote Thomas Jefferson:

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.

[nuconvert]

Cranberries aside, I agree with your sentiment.

[It looks like the Mods were having fun on this thread.]

[Pinkbell]

I agree with you, and I find it very disturbing on threads that involve a female having sex with an underage child. There is nothing humorous about it, and it’s treated differently as though the crime is not as severe if a woman does it as opposed to a man.

I figured you would get the hell beat out of you for this thread, and it took courage.

[driftdiver]

Because Christian conservative middle aged men think it’s humorous to make jokes about adults having sex with children.

At least that’s the impression I get. The abuse you’re taking seems to confirm.

[mindburglar]

Brevity is the soul of wit. Guilty.

[tumblindice]

It’s all just a part of this rich tapestry we call life.

[teeman8r]

Lighten up, francis

[Reddy]

The guilty or not posts don’t bother me unless they’re on the threads about pedophilia.. It’s gross and vulgar to make light of the fact that these women used underage boys sexually, no matter how they appear outwardly. If it’s just done in jest, why isn’t guilty or not found on the threads where the genders are reversed? Wouldn’t it be also hilarious to make comments about whether a man, based on his appearance, is guilty or not of having sex with an underage girl?

I personally know a young man who was so devastated by the shame of being raped by his teacher that he later committed suicide. Yeah, I could post a picture of the disgusting pervert that did it, she’s still in jail. Wouldn’t that be fun to determine if she is guilty or not based on her photo?

Just stop. It’s not funny.