It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The First Amendment & Boobs

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 03:22 PM
link   
The First Amendment is an illusion...you can say boobs in your mind without moving your lips or opening your mouth. You can even imagine yourself with boobs or a different set of boobs in your mind. You can even imagine boobs grow on trees, or cars aren't called cars but are called boobs, or even God is not the word God but the word boobs. You can do this all with your mind without the First Amendment.

However women or a woman is massively important to life. In fact a woman might be the most important thing in life, so if you don't respect a woman you don't respect life, and that is not an illusion.




posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Well that was kind of a let down, I mixed up my amendments and thought this was a thread on the right of the people to bear boobs



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Falenor

Bare, or bear?



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: redmage

Once again, I was not addressing you specifically. I clearly stated that. I also clearly stated that I was addressing men, in general, regarding the concept of chivalry. Not manners. Chivalry. There is a difference.

In fact, the reason I replied to your post was because your words gave me cause to think that you already understood that difference and didn't need it explained to you. I certainly didn't expect hostility and snarkiness like this:



Do you often assume the absolute worst of intentions when it comes to addressing "men in general"? 


No. I don't. I don't assume the worst about anyone. Nor do I support the idiocy of the current "feminist" ideology. I think they all need a good, solid kick in the ass. And maybe a pacifier and a nap.

It seems you were so busy painting me as having some type of problem with "men in general" and making what I said all about you...despite the fact that I stated up front that it was not about you at all...that you failed to see the point I was trying to make. I will try again.

I don't assume anyone assumes anything. I am not down a rabbit hole or making leaps. I am not bashing on men. I am speaking to the difference between being mannerly; the concept of simple human kindness and good manners, and being "chivalrous", and how society has used that to further the division between women and men. Ok?

Chivalry is not about having manners and being kind. It is knightly behavior, specifically behavior toward women. But our society has given it a very different definition, one that perpetuates the idea that men are obligated to do things like open doors for women and that women are then obligated to be thankful for it.

You equate chivalry with manners. I agree...however that is not the way society views it. Manners are for everyone, while chivalry is completely separate...and only required of men. It was a virtue of knights, ages ago and used to be considered romantic and swoon-worthy. Now, it's a societal expectation of all men, and has been used as a method of defining their character by holding it separate from ordinary good manners and kindness.

It breeds the resentment of forced obligation because it implies that men have to do these things, and if they don't, they will be breaking some rule. They will be frowned upon. Over time, that has caused issues that would not exist if the concept of chivalry were never there, and everyone simply treated everyone else the way they would like to be treated, for no other reason than they want to.

When I said f*ck chivalry, I meant the concept that men are obligated to do kind things for women whom they do not even know, without being asked to, for no other reason than because they are female; there is no female counterpart to that contrived obligation. So females have been taught that this unsolicited task being done for them presents an obligation to thank the males, and if they don't, they are now breaking a social rule. It creates resentment, and a division between sexes that should not exist.

The fact that a lot of men out there have stopped opening doors for women because they get no thanks for it, and even hostility at times, is perfect evidence of this division. If everyone thought that chivalry was synonymous with basic human kindness and good manners, we wouldn't be having this discussion. There would be no separation of responsibilities regarding etiquette between sexes.

We'd all just be human beings doing nice things for other human beings if we felt like it. No obligation or expectation of reward or consequence either way. Chivalry does need to die, because it is an archaic concept that has been far removed from its original meaning. Just call it manners. Or being a gentleman. Or being ladylike. Or simple common decency.

That was my point. I was not attacking you or anyone else. I was attacking an outdated, socially misunderstood concept.



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Falenor

Bare, or bear?



Uhh....ummm....(Realizes his grammatical error and frantically starts deleting his past search history)



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Abysha
a reply to: RainyState

I think a better retort would have been "Well I also believe two things; 1st amendment and large penises".

I'd love to see his reaction to that. And the poor guy on the left would just be at a loss for words, lol.


But he didn't say BIG boobs, just boobs. Your argument opens a whole new can of worms



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: RainyState

Nor did he say breasts.

So, the alternate version would have been, "Well I also believe in two things; 1st amendment and large dicks".

If you catch my meaning. If you get my drift.

(He's a dick)
edit on 10/7/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Falenor

Well that was kind of a let down, I mixed up my amendments and thought this was a thread on the right of the people to bear boobs


Odd...but I guess it's OK. As long as no actual bears are harmed in the process of acquiring those boobs.



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: RainyState

originally posted by: Abysha
a reply to: RainyState

I think a better retort would have been "Well I also believe two things; 1st amendment and large penises".

I'd love to see his reaction to that. And the poor guy on the left would just be at a loss for words, lol.


But he didn't say BIG boobs, just boobs. Your argument opens a whole new can of worms


You don't need to say it. Google gifs for "boobs" and compare the ratio of big to little ones.



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: CulturalResilience

Well, he had a first amendment right to say it, and she had a first amendment right to call him a low-tier, blithering, jack-a$$ but she didn't.

It was the wrong context to say it. He just said for shock value, which I guess he succeeded in, but mostly, he just made himself look stupid.



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: redhorse



he just made himself look stupid

Or a hero. Depends on how you look at it. The irony is that she was showing her cleavage.



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 06:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

They all do that.

Not that I noticed.



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 06:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: RainyState

originally posted by: Abysha
a reply to: RainyState

I think a better retort would have been "Well I also believe two things; 1st amendment and large penises".

I'd love to see his reaction to that. And the poor guy on the left would just be at a loss for words, lol.


But he didn't say BIG boobs, just boobs. Your argument opens a whole new can of worms


You don't need to say it. Google gifs for "boobs" and compare the ratio of big to little ones.



I'm a firm believer in QUALITY over quantity!

I'll have to take your word for it. Mrs. RainyState would not appreciate that Google search, even if only for research purposes.



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 07:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: CulturalResilience


Certainly funny that a woman finds a man basically saying he likes boobs offensive.
If she would take a look at her broadcast colleagues on the tv, she would see many of them showing off their cleavage.
Couple that with skirts so short you almost see their whoo haa's and it's hard to not take notice.

Yeah , some I have seen more cotton in an aspirin bottle



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 06:55 AM
link   
a reply to: game over man
A woman is no more or less important to life than a man. Neither sex can produce life without the other. Your comment sounds like the sort of thing one of those laughable, self-proclaimed male feminist says in the desperate hope of getting some.



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Boobs boobs boobs.

This guy is a dick though, he knew what he was doing. He said it simply to get a reaction.



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: CulturalResilience

There is a serious issue raised though. Should free speech include the right to say something that some may find, or have been ordered to say they find offensive?


Yes.

If not, then you aren't for free speech.

QED



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 02:53 PM
link   
I wonder if this free speech thing would apply to f##k or s##t or c##t or any other bad 4 letter word? What if a liberal came onto Fox News and start cussing up a storm, would you guys be for or against it?
edit on 10/8/2017 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
I wonder if this free speech thing would apply to f##k or s##t or c##t or any other bad 4 letter word? What if a liberal came onto Fox News and start cussing up a storm, would you guys be for or against it?


For it.

Duh.

Either you're for free speech or you're not.

Once you start qualifying speech, then you are for the "not".



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

So it wouldn't phase you at all if they did that with your kids in the room? You'd be like "Yeah! You go buddy!"?




top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join