"they're" should have been "their"...
Cheers!
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.
Male menopause today?
.
"they're" should have been "their"...
Cheers!
Guilty!
He was accidentally castrated at birth, has no understanding of these things.
Did you just pass gas?
.
>> “I have never seen so many deleted posts from any thread before.” <<
.
Try this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3225861/posts
.
That was an automated flood post. A “bot”. This was a Mod deleting cogent comments. Other than the ones that suggested he/she was drunk I saw nothing violating what this place stands for. You had to see it before the posts were restored. > 40% pulled cause he/she didn’t agree.
It looked a lot like that thread.
Oh and on top of that, several people were muzzled. No Freepmail, posts moderated, etc.
A post about liberty was axed.
To Quote:
The post he wouldn’t restore, #73 is as follows:
To: nathanbedford
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.
Any JACKASS deleting that has no place being a Mod on FR.
It’s auto incorrect from Kindle
this board isn’t here to be a free for all. They have every right to pull indecent posts if the owner wants.
Dont want a free for all, but would you kill a post about spilling blood to refresh the tree of liberty?
of course not
Then why pull the post 73? It embodies who we are.
Among the first 70 posts on this thread which ones are indecent? They’ve been restored, with 3 or 4 exceptions, so you can read them now.
Hear Hear...
Well....I wouldn't kick her out of bed if I woke up next to her. OTOH, I wouldn't work that hard to get her into bed.
I just can't stand the ink. For more than a couple of passionate encounters in low light, anyway.
I never said any particular posts were indecent. I was just defending the owners and operators of the forum’s right to remove posts.
Just in the interest of keeping the thread alive, I will say that the day that a man does not instinctivly react favorably, or not, to a posted image of a member of the opposite sex, the Internet will end.
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.