online dating service
REGISTER | MAIL/PROFILE | HELP | NOW ONLINE | SEARCH | RATING | FORUMS | SUCCESS STORIES

 

     
Posted In Forum:
Home   login   MyForums  
Show ALL Forums  
 
 Author Thread: Is this a Hate Crime ?
 cheshirecatalyst
Joined: 9/14/2007
Msg: 92 (view)
 
Is this a Hate Crime ?
Posted: 11/24/2009 5:45:59 PM

Its funny to see all of you supporting Muslims based on your limited experiences


I've dated several Muslims and they were well-educated, respectful men. At no time did anyone treat me in a disparaging fashion, nor did they try to convert me or make me an "extra wife." They weren't anti-Israel either, and not all of them were arabs from the Arabian Peninsula.

Furthermore, some of them left highly-paid professional careers in wealthy countries that sometimes created considerable misery for them because they disagreed with philosophies/religion/politics/government. While they may retain their religious beliefs, they are happy to distance themselves from the government in Iran, or the Iran/Iraq war aftermath, etc. even when it means they have to start all over again.
 cheshirecatalyst
Joined: 9/14/2007
Msg: 39 (view)
 
Does Biblical matrimony need a women's liberation revision?
Posted: 11/24/2009 4:39:15 PM

These days I would think that this might not only apply to Christian men "putting away their wife but to women, as well, who choose to "put away" their husbands. Because now days women can and do choose to "put-away" their husbands don't, even when the husband doesn't want to leave. Things are quite different now.


You are right, and this is a reasonable modification.


33Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:34But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:"35Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.36Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.37But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil."



This is from the sermon on the mound. Do you really think Jesus wants His followers entering into a contract of any kind after reading this passage? Thanks for the effort though you made a good try considering you admittedly don't know the Bible very well.


I don't know the Bible well at all! But I would venture to say that a secondary contractual marriage probably isn’t going to be looked upon as being consistent with the bible. Whether that passage permits it or not, I do think that a temporary contract above and beyond a marriage is probably the only way to try an open marriage. You would have a written agreement that constituted what types of intimacy were permitted and how often. For example, would you allow intimacy without commitment? Would each spouse allow the other total autonomy over who to choose for their own partner? How will you handle guilt, anger, jealousy? Can one person unilaterally void your contractual agreement?


By the way, what do you mean specifically by "an open marriage" and how do you think this could work better than the monogamous types we see failing all around us these days? Should we just start jumping ship and trying anything because the current marriage boat is sinking? Or do you really see something in your definition of an "open marriage" that might be worth making the switch?


I’m honestly not sure that humans are designed to forsake all others, and that has always seemed to be a biblical construct. Many people can make this commitment and do very well with it, but others don’t. I know people who have faltered with the traditional marriage ideal, but they were not bad people by any stretch, and they did not repeatedly source out other partners just for the thrill of it. If you meet someone you really like and over time become friends with them, a natural attachment can follow. It’s not unnatural to want to further that. There are people other than our spouses that are capable of seeing as extensions of ourselves – people we are comfortable losing our ego with. They can be people whom we graciously subordinate our own needs and desires to, and people that will not abandon us in a time of need. I don’t that this is automatically wrong.

But I really don’t believe that so-called “open marriages” are more successful than traditional marriages – caveat emptor! I don’t have any handy stats to suggest that, but I think that with the freedom to take another partner, comes risk. First of all, let me state that by “open marriage” I’m not referring to swinging. Swinging is merely sexual freedom to some, but I think that having an open marriage implies that you have implemented a lifestyle change. It’s not comparable to recreational sex, at least in my mind. But what Christians can reasonably make this type of lifestyle change, without the significant cognitive dissonance that would come from living a life not in harmony with biblical principals? Isn’t fidelity a biblical concept? I’m not sure that many biblical people can have that level of intimacy with another person outside of their spouse, and come out of it feeling the same.


In continuing the thread, for those who care, I'm referring to the Bible. Many fellow Christians consider it to be the ultimate authority concerning Christian ethics within the confines of marriage. I just want to know if other Christians would, for conversation and informative purposes only, revise it's text to give other Christians a clearer picture of what type of marital confines we, as Christians, should have in our modern marriage arrangements? Few Christians would argue that the wording of the Bible concerning matrimony should be read with the ability to reinterpret the text to include women having rights. All I'm asking is how would that ideal Biblical marriage fit into modern times? With some obvious need for change, what changes would or should a Christian couple make in order to fit into a long term workable arrangement. Considering women have a lot more rights nowadays, there are some going to be some rather obvious effects as men and women both transition from somewhat of a "master/slave" type of relationship to a full and equal partnership in Christian marriage.


I do find it hard to understand why there is sometimes a “cafeteria style” of Christianity. That is to say, many people really don’t know their bible, but tend to cherry-pick out the parts they agree with/understand/embrace and never bother about the other bits. Some Christians don’t want to move to an equal partnership. I think, and have been told numerous times by religious people, that you have to accept the whole bible. Does this not constitute living ethically by the bible? I do recall something in the bible about two becoming one flesh, not three/four/five etc. How can that be reconciled with an open marriage? It’s important to be committed to the right person, according to Apostle Paul, but interestingly, does that have to mean that there is only one person who is right?

If someone were to implement an open marriage, then I think they have safely bypassed the concept of master/slave, because both partners would have to be bound by the same rules, as discussed previously. Open marriage is really the difference between deception, and open, mutually agreed-upon choice. Along that line of thought, you were have to surrender a degree of your “coupledom” in pursuit of other partners, as being a couple that attends functions together would not be an option rather than a requirement – the whole issue of being a pair-bond would have to be rethought.

All this I believe, is much easier to accomplish in a secular marriage without having to face behaviour that might be condemned in the scriptures .
 cheshirecatalyst
Joined: 9/14/2007
Msg: 87 (view)
 
Is this a Hate Crime ?
Posted: 11/24/2009 10:39:06 AM

No , actually you didn't. You simply said what everybody has known since time immemorial : Murder is as much about relieving anger as it is about getting a message across to some group. You think it's obtuse of me to point out that you're advocating for undeserved privileges ? Funny , I view it as obtuse of you to not recognize how inflammatory these laws are.


I am not advocating for undeserved “privileges.” There are no “privileges” that can possibly be afforded to people against whom these crimes have been committed. Your comment suggests to me that it’s almost a minority “privilege” to get beaten and be able to complain about it afterwards!


What do you think the mob is doing when it beats the hell out of some store owner ? Do you think that these kids who pick up guns and walk through schools aren't trying to "send a message" ? Has it never occured to you that the husband who comes home to find his wife in bed with another man is killing her so as to send a message that "Cheating will not be tolerated ?" This has seriously never occured to you ? Wow. And I thought you were smarter enough to realize this stuff.


On the whole I would say that mobs attacking store owners are more of a crime of opportunity. Generally, the types of crimes committed by a mob are more often acts of impulse that a single individual might not experience. However, having said this, this example could certainly be a hate crime if the mob targeted a store based on the owner’s ethnicity or perhaps disability. The mob could very well turn a non-particularly-imposing immigrant into the boogeyman. But, do you really believe that the mob in your example has taken the approach that they have issues with store owners as a group? Is there some kind of dangerous, wilful ignorance being demonstrated towards convenience store operators?

Packs of angry kids can be dangerous; the mob mentality that takes over can turn even the harmless kid who eats paste into a hell of a lot of trouble. Add a little underage drinking and things can get ugly really fast. But kids walking through a school with a gun or guns are generally trying to send a different message of intimidation and outright defiance of authority.

The example of the man killing his spouse after finding her in bed is perhaps best explained by using your own words “murder is as much about relieving anger,” which very much describes the emotional response in this example. So no, the prospect that a spouse killing another spouse would be a legitimate example of hate crime really hasn’t occurred to me. Seriously. Never. Not that it would never be possible of course – but that’s really a very long stretch. OJ Simpson was not sending a message of hate to white people when he killed his Caucasian wife in 1992.

Now, realistically, no one would propose prosecuting most instances of domestic violence, rape, or sexual assault under the federal hate crime law. Your example is not a physical attack based on gender or sexual orientation, nor is it committed against women as a class. It is not bias-related. In hate crime, the perpetrator intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person.

The gender-based shooting of Amish school girls a few years ago is just such an example. The man who committed these crimes was not Amish, and reportedly did not know his victims personally. At the school, he separated the boys from the girls, and allowed the boys to leave. He then lined the girls against a blackboard and bound their feet with wire ties and plastic handcuffs before shooting them.


I can't use this thread ? Why not ? Because you already know that if I do , I'll show you what you refuse to believe.


You made your statement before I disclosed the magnitude of what was happening here in this thread a day ago. Since these laws are so “inflammatory,” you should have no trouble finding reasonably creditable evidence of same. It’s not my job to support your own assertions.


Be well.......
 cheshirecatalyst
Joined: 9/14/2007
Msg: 13 (view)
 
Growing meat!
Posted: 11/24/2009 2:43:46 AM
^^Cultured veal would probably taste the same, since a veal calf is deliberately discouraged from developing much musculature, what with being confined to a crate and all.
 cheshirecatalyst
Joined: 9/14/2007
Msg: 68 (view)
 
Is this a Hate Crime ?
Posted: 11/24/2009 2:38:47 AM
First of all, this thread is a "community" of sorts. We can clearly see several examples of people who won't care that a black/jew/muslim/whatever was killed. They won't rally to the cause. In fact, a day ago, we saw that very phenomena play out in this thread.

When on person posted a comment that a couple of specific groups of people should be targetted and killed, others started to post their own hate. Someone posted a comment that they had participated in a beating of a homosexual - and apparently enjoyed it. Of this group - no one jumped in to say it was wrong - until the comments were all summarily deleted by the mods. No only were theseposters not affected by the proposal of murder - they climbed on the bloody bandwagon! While this is not an actual example of a murder or murders, the point has been made. As far as whether these are actual examples of "thinking" people is anybody's guess. I might not take it that far myself.


And if it was a message to a community ? Well , what of it ?


I just told you "what of it." You can't be that obtuse........oh wait.........


Are the targetted "privileged" groups the only people who ever have violence and coercion used against them as a means to send messages ? No , they're not.


Who else are you thinking of here? People with bad dress sense? Now there's a message I could endorse.......


All these "hate crimes" bills do is re-inforce stereotypes and help to spread hate through resentment


Please provide some actual verifiable facts from creditable sources that prove there is a very strong correlation between the cause - hate crime bills, and the effect - increased resentment. Please refrain from using this thread as an example.

Tootles.......
 cheshirecatalyst
Joined: 9/14/2007
Msg: 101 (view)
 
What you can tell by their eye color
Posted: 11/24/2009 2:17:46 AM
OK OP, now switch all the descriptions around and repost this experiment. You'll find the same results.

Any of the characteristics of these eye colours could be applied to me. Sometimes I'm a warrior, but other times, I'm just a big pushover.

This descriptors are pretty generic when you break them down. Who doesn't get scared from time to time, or cover up their feelings? Are there many people who don't like to laugh or don't try to make others laugh?

Tootles.......
 cheshirecatalyst
Joined: 9/14/2007
Msg: 66 (view)
 
Is this a Hate Crime ?
Posted: 11/24/2009 1:52:09 AM
A violent act may physically hurt (or in the above example - kill) a single victim and cause grief for loved ones. I could simply be killed in a mugging gone wrong, or a home-invasion that I resisted against. Similarly, a Jew could be caught in the cross-fire of a bank robbery, which would not be a hate crime. Someone specifically targetting a Jew for a crime because they are a Jew, would be a hate crime by most people's definition.

But hate crimes do more - they distress entire communities - entire Jewish communities, muslim communities, LGBT, etc., etc., etc.

It is a message crime intended to remind all gays, or all black people, or all Jewish people, or all Muslims that they do not belong. It encourages communities to turn against each other. It is a form of discrimination that infringes on human rights and keeps people from enjoying the full benefits of society.

 cheshirecatalyst
Joined: 9/14/2007
Msg: 64 (view)
 
Is this a Hate Crime ?
Posted: 11/24/2009 1:24:59 AM
One of the biggest problems with hate crimes is that many are not only associated with violent racism (such as white supremacist groups) but with "ordinary" members of the public. Hate crimes legislation will bring awareness to bigotry - the new disease of the ignorant - something we can see right here in this thread.

We saw this in the OPost with the bank teller yanking the hijab - the teller was an ordinary person, who has now brought a whole mess of trouble upon herself. If she hasn't already lost her job, she probably will soon enough.

Some people really don't understand that hate crimes don't have to involve physical harm or violence to the individual. They are certainly acts of extreme prejudice towards an individual's identity. With Hate Crimes legislation, the police will be discouraged from simply suggesting to the victim that "it's a civil matter."

There are plenty of examples here in this thread about these "message crimes" that are designed to intimidate the victim's minority community - Shepard and Byrd are just a couple. Additionally, the Southern Poverty Law Center estimates that "hate crimes" have increased by over 50% since 2000. And they are mostly committed by those ordinary folks.....

Under the guise of free speech, the Westboro Baptist church family of homobigots travels across the country to picket and harrass grieving family members of deceased gays and soldiers. You can't miss the irony here. Christianity is supposed to be all about "Love Thy Neighbor" and "Do Unto Others." Their right to free speech does not trump the rights of the bereaved - after all, you have the right to swing your arm as far as you can - until it hits me in the face. Hopefully this group will finally be punished with the full force and effect of the law.
 cheshirecatalyst
Joined: 9/14/2007
Msg: 125 (view)
 
Would you cheat on SO for alot of money?
Posted: 11/23/2009 10:10:27 PM
^^ OP seems to have bailed - now the current profile bears no relationship to the original one.

He was here with a hypothetical situation - critiquing his SO for her potential cheating, all the while he was here looking for someone himself.
 cheshirecatalyst
Joined: 9/14/2007
Msg: 60 (view)
 
Do ANY Men Read Profiles (First or at all?)
Posted: 11/23/2009 10:00:29 PM
I'm not sure which is more frustrating - men who don't even read the first line of the profile, or those who read it from top to bottom and think you will make an exception for them.......I don't understand why some men read the profile, reference stuff in it, and still think that I'd be interested in a married, chain-smoking, high school dropout who lives 10 hours away, after I'd asked for something completely different in the profile.

If I read a man's profile and find that he is looking for a slim 30-40 year old asian woman, I'm certainly not going to write to him and introduce myself as the next best thing!

I've got a long profile now because it weeds out the guys who don't have the tenacity to get through it - no reverse Darwinism here. I need a guy who reads extensively - it's a great commonality with me. But back when I had a much shorter one the majority didn't read that either.

On the other hand, women who write to me seem to have read it all the way through......

Tootles......
 cheshirecatalyst
Joined: 9/14/2007
Msg: 10 (view)
 
Growing meat!
Posted: 11/23/2009 9:35:41 PM
I think that tissue culturing would be an ideal situation, since it could be controlled for food safety, nutrition levels (omega 6, for example), and individual taste. Another obvious benefit is that it is cruelty-free.

Various types of meat could be cultured from stem cells, and it would taste better than any McD's mystery mcnuggets. We could grow meat with little fat, and we could avoid SARS, mad-cow, and salmonella to name a few. I'm thinking perhaps the texture of certain meats might seem a bit weird at first, as muscled meats would require walking around on, in order to become muscular.

It's a promising scenario, and I would probably try cultured meat. But after years of not eating meat I'm not sure that it would be something that I would revert back to anyway, more for health reasons than anything else.

Namaste......
 cheshirecatalyst
Joined: 9/14/2007
Msg: 318 (view)
 
Long vs short hair
Posted: 11/23/2009 7:00:49 PM
Was Hitler some kind of hairstyle maven? Did he have a personal opinion on long or short hair for people stylin' in the concentration camps? One more thing - Hitler didn't just "demean" people either........

Comments about Hitler in a thread on hair are bizarre man.........

'Nuff said........
 cheshirecatalyst
Joined: 9/14/2007
Msg: 316 (view)
 
Long vs short hair
Posted: 11/23/2009 6:48:52 PM

60 years ago , that was the message from europe (6ft, blue eyes)
Now , (Arma - dillo , or whatever his name is ) Think's we should all have long hair


Well, thanks for clearing THAT up. Unfortunately, the explanation doesn't make any more sense than the original comment. Unless you're somehow trying to inject a vague aryan Hitler-esque analogy into a thread on hair, which would make equal sense I suppose........
 cheshirecatalyst
Joined: 9/14/2007
Msg: 87 (view)
 
Would you cheat on SO for alot of money?
Posted: 11/23/2009 3:14:58 PM
If I found out that my SO was on a dating site looking for a long term relationship with someone else, I'd take the money.........and I wouldn't bother to cover my a$$ about doing so either.

At that point he would already have killed the relationship and he's halfway out the door - something good might as well come of it.
 cheshirecatalyst
Joined: 9/14/2007
Msg: 45 (view)
 
Would you cheat on SO for alot of money?
Posted: 11/23/2009 10:23:30 AM
OP, I have to say that one thing did stand out for me as well - unless you have actually parted company with this woman, you are on a dating site while you are commenting about this possibly real/probably hypothetical situation where some wealthy person might be offering $1,000,000 to your SO for sex..........

Sex, even with women so hot they will scorch your retinas, can certainly be had for cheaper than $1,000,000........

If she is just a casual dating partner, no harm, no foul. But why do you use the term "SO" if you can simultaneously come on PoF and essentially lie to women who are viewing your profile? I'm not sure who is the worse partner here, a woman who might be willing to accept money for sex, or a guy who promotes himself as something he might not be.........

To use your sports analogy, perhaps you're both free agents from an emotional perspective....perhaps you should show her your PoF dating profile. That should really facilitate some interesting "hypothetical" discussions. OP, it does certainly appear that you are willing to cheat "for free," so how can you judge her?

Be well.......
 cheshirecatalyst
Joined: 9/14/2007
Msg: 15 (view)
 
Food Inc.
Posted: 11/23/2009 1:32:34 AM

first, found it amazingly cruel how animals are raised and slaughtered,


I've seen enough graphic videos of slaughters to last a lifetime.

I'd love to watch this movie, but can anyone tell me if it does indeed portray any graphic stuff?
 cheshirecatalyst
Joined: 9/14/2007
Msg: 39 (view)
 
Evan Chandler Commits Suicide
Posted: 11/23/2009 1:21:53 AM
Well, we can certainly blame Evan Chandler and MJ for many things. I'm pretty sure neither one of them had anything to do with the melting of the polar ice caps though......

But does that make Dr. Conrad Murray (who OD'd Michael on Propofol) a good guy or a bad guy?

What about Jon and Kate - how do you feel about them?
 cheshirecatalyst
Joined: 9/14/2007
Msg: 64 (view)
 
Hardest profession to date?
Posted: 11/23/2009 1:12:55 AM
I would say that cops, slaughterhouse workers, and civil litigation attorneys are all hard to date. Cops and CL attorneys can be very regimented and unyielding - it's often all black and white to them. Civil Litigation attorneys argue professionally with other professional arguers as part of their job, and sometimes it extends way beyond the job. It can be incredibly draining to date them. It's also hard to date a cop because you have genuine concern for their well-being. Slaughterhouse workers seem to have an aura of death about them....

Funeral Directors could also be a bit depressing if you think about that same deathly aura, but I know someone who is quite an easy-going person who likes helping bereaved families.
 cheshirecatalyst
Joined: 9/14/2007
Msg: 31 (view)
 
Smoking, who to blame!
Posted: 11/23/2009 12:35:28 AM

I, and many others call it "socialized" medicine because the differences between socialized and single-payer medicine are not very big.


Agree, but surely you can understand that Americans frequently use the term "socialized medicine," in an almost invariably derogatory sense when mentioning Canada. We at least ask that you use the right terminology if you feel the urge to disparage our health care system.

The problem in Canada is not the system, it’s the money. The problem in the US is not the money, it’s the system. The US spends more of its gross domestic product on medical care than any nation in the world, yet its citizens do not live longer than many other European or Western nations.

Furthermore, every country rations health care in some way - Canada rations by need, the United States rations care by income and insurance status. Which is more egregious?

And a single-payer system does not eliminate medical innovation. Many of the technologies we take for granted today were developed in some way or another in other countries with national health care systems. The US does well with medical innovations because it is a wealthy country with competitive universities. But you've probably got a few hundred thousand researchers from Europe and other countries living in the US due to the financial compensation and research capabilities (I am an epidemiologist who went to school in the US).

Tootles......
 cheshirecatalyst
Joined: 9/14/2007
Msg: 13 (view)
 
Where do you guys get designer clothes for a reasonable price?
Posted: 11/22/2009 11:43:46 PM
eBay of course - I'm a fan of Lagenlook clothes, and I have a favourite designer - Krista Larson.

I would never have been exposed to her great clothes, if I hadn't shopped on eBay. You can also buy pristine (very delicately worn) designer clothes on da cheap.....

For shoes there is nothing beating the selection on eBay, or the ability to search by almost any conceivable characteristic. Whether you're looking for high heeled sneakers, cardboard shoes, or the most exquisitively painful/beautiful shoes imaginable, you will find it......


Happy Shopping........
 cheshirecatalyst
Joined: 9/14/2007
Msg: 28 (view)
 
Smoking, who to blame!
Posted: 11/22/2009 9:44:30 PM

the Canadian socialized healthcare taxes,


Excusing the fact that this is momentarily off-topic, we in Canada DO NOT have socialized medicine - you are referring to the UK system. We have single-payer medicine. We would also very much disagree with your definitions of a free society, as they pertain to medical treatment, but that's another thread altogether.

In the US, you call it "What the democrats are proposing....."

Please google the difference between the two systems if you are unsure.
 cheshirecatalyst
Joined: 9/14/2007
Msg: 24 (view)
 
Smoking, who to blame!
Posted: 11/22/2009 7:02:32 PM

If I choose to buy a bag of chips, I make that choice knowing full well it's not a healthy one regardless of the marketing scams printed across the front.


Bags of chips contain "marketing scams?" Really? Like what - Multi-level marketing scams? Ponzi Schemes? Or Nigerian money-lending scams? I'm not sure what your point is anymore - do you object to product labelling? Or do you believe that companies should not be held responsibile for their own products? Or perhaps you are saying that it's "caveat emptor" for everyone using/consuming a product?

But seriously, you learned about the dangers of trans-fats because you read it. In Canada, products containing trans-fats are REQUIRED to be labelled as such so that people can make educated decisions - because some people don't know. It's not just a "fun fact" to print something on a package, it's legally required.

A chip with 40% less fat is still a chip with 40% less fat (all other things being equal of course). Sure, if you eat 100% more of those reduced-fat chips it negates the advantage. But if people are going to eat chips (and they will), they at least they can choose something that might have lower calories than another version of the same product. Some choices are better than others, even if they are both still worse than something else. I'd rather eat chips with 40% less fat than regular chips, even though I should be eating a banana..........

You can't compel people to eat Caesar salads (which by the way, are NOT healthy when consumed regularly) instead of steak, and it's not the Surgeon General's job to do so. It's a balance of "informed choice" versus "informed consent."
 cheshirecatalyst
Joined: 9/14/2007
Msg: 25 (view)
 
What does 'FRIENDS' actually mean?
Posted: 11/22/2009 6:36:09 PM

without them trying to get me in bed, strictly platonic.


Unfortunately, the category of "Friends" won't do that either. People pretty much ignore any classification on PoF, at least if my experience is any indicator.

I'm set up for "Friends," but I still get married men contacting me for sex etc. People who have excluded "Friends" on their filter will still contact me.

I haven't changed my filters because I don't want to exclude people for chatting and discussion on forum topics, but short of PoF implementing an "electronic chastity belt," it won't make a fokking difference, except possibly in search criteria.

I've even indicated in the first line of my profile that I don't want to date, but some people will still write to me and tell me that they thought I wasn't serious (when they do actually read it).

Go figure......
 cheshirecatalyst
Joined: 9/14/2007
Msg: 21 (view)
 
Smoking, who to blame!
Posted: 11/22/2009 6:14:06 PM

My point is simple, and who cares what they put on there packaging


From a deceptive advertising standard, it matters very much what information is put on packaging. Companies have a vested interest in not supplying false information for the very reason you are objecting to - they can be sued - and not just cigarette manufacturers either - all manufacturers/suppliers/distributors. Laws such as these protect regular folks like us from not falling victim to scams etc. or using products that we believe are safe which aren't.

If people start smoking e-Cigarettes because they are told by the manufacturer that they are safe, they could rightly be able to sue years later when the FDA/Surgeon General finds out that they aren't. The gun vs. bazooka argument is very relevant if you are planning on shooting an elephant as opposed to your basic hood rat. In other words, don't take a knife into a gun fight........

From a "product liability" standard, it very much makes a difference what's on the packages. In North America, when people are hurt by products, even when using them voluntarily, the public may have a class action lawsuit.

It's not really important whether the product is breast implants, airbags in a car, or cigarettes. There are some limitations on damage due to smoking after certain dates when the companies started making people aware of the dangers via their packaging. But smokers can sue for compensatory damages, pain and suffering, loss of consortium, and punitive damages (with exceptions).

There is a big difference between cigarettes and lattes or lattes and parachutes in terms of the necessity to provide liability warnings. You don't hear the surgeon general ranting about latte consumption in the country.


If someone chooses to smoke, it's not because we failed making it clear at how dangerous they are. It's because we failed that individual as a friend to tell him/her personally that it's a bad choice.


No, it's because they chose to do so anyway. People will smoke/drink/drive drunk etc no matter what you or I tell them. I've told my mother thousands of times over 40 years not to smoke but she still does - is that because I've failed as "friend?" No, she has made a conscious choice to accept the risk.

If we leave it up to individuals alone to educate themselves, well, some people won't be educated, it's that simple. Some countries in the world have no drinking age and you can often see 10 year old kids in bars drinking - I saw this in Costa Rica recently. I'm willing to bet that the children don't have a good understanding of alcoholism. Do they not deserve to be protected from drinking at that age by law? Clearly, they can't rely on the parents to educate them, probably because they aren't well-informed either........People deserve to know if the products they are using cause them genuine health problems - that is a legal right!

Be well........
 cheshirecatalyst
Joined: 9/14/2007
Msg: 691 (view)
 
Very long hair on a woman is very femine and sexy, but few women have long hair
Posted: 11/22/2009 4:28:41 PM
Kunik, you have amazing restraint in ignoring the very uncalled-for remark about sacrificing your sexiness (which is absolutely NOT true).

Your hair looks absolutely great!
 cheshirecatalyst
Joined: 9/14/2007
Msg: 33 (view)
 
Evan Chandler Commits Suicide
Posted: 11/22/2009 1:05:08 PM
^^^I tend to agree with you. While he had an unnatural relationship with children for an adult, I don't think it was sexual.

While the "Jesus Juice" inventor was certainly a musical genius, I don't think he had any common sense, what with continuing to consort with children after the civil suit.

He was also child-like in that he absolutely could not manage money, even with money managers. He was worth over a billion (on paper) and had only $600,000 in the bank at the time of his death, and he scarcely paid any of his bills.

Creditors to the estate are coming out of the woodwork. Even the Prince of Bahrain sued him.
 cheshirecatalyst
Joined: 9/14/2007
Msg: 8 (view)
 
Dating profile overhaul - take two.
Posted: 11/22/2009 8:53:25 AM
Pegasus, I'm glad you bear no resemblance to the pic in question!

On an aside, I didn't mean that you should remove the references to the "bible" at all. I merely put forth the possibility of moving it down a bit in the list.

G'Luck......
 cheshirecatalyst
Joined: 9/14/2007
Msg: 60 (view)
 
Oprah show ending - (Not Quite) Arrogant to the end.
Posted: 11/22/2009 12:15:09 AM
I didn't know there was such a cache of Oprah-haters. It does seem a bit irrational to claim to outright hate the woman. There seem to be almost as many Oprah-haters as there are Obama-haters.

Whether it be September 9th or September 11th I don't know and am not going to bother to look it up.

She is ending it "at that time" because she is hoping to let Dr. Oz slip into her time slot. The date is timed to coincide with his show becoming a free-agent on that date. It's purely strategic - she is his mentor. Competition for that time slot will be fierce.......

I don't see any need for her to change the date. Why should she? Should all business decisions be pended for another date? Should no one be married or buried on September 11th because it detracts from the solemnity of the occasion?

She is not called the "Queen of Media" for nuthin'.
 cheshirecatalyst
Joined: 9/14/2007
Msg: 46 (view)
 
Breaking a Date...By Text Message
Posted: 11/22/2009 12:01:09 AM
Texting such a message does imply to me that he couldn't be bothered to call and give a proper explanation.

I have a texting package on my phone, but without my reading glasses I can't read it. If you have a bluetooth you can at least talk to the person without futzing about with tiny buttons, which is especially useful (not to mention safer) while driving.

But, you can't fault him for letting you know. I'd let it blow over, it's not a biggie for most people......
 cheshirecatalyst
Joined: 9/14/2007
Msg: 42 (view)
 
Dad or Jail?
Posted: 11/21/2009 11:45:12 PM
^^^ I don't see anywhere in the actual article that the father is a criminal or that he is in jail. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.....
 cheshirecatalyst
Joined: 9/14/2007
Msg: 5 (view)
 
Smoking, who to blame!
Posted: 11/21/2009 10:03:19 PM
^^It's not water vapour, it's propylene glycol, which is probably why you're coughing - among many other things, it's a form of anti-freeze, a de-icer for aircraft wings, and a main ingredient in deodorant.

Years down the road I'm sure they will find out that inhaling antifreeze isn't good either. At least your breath won't smell like stale armpits.
 cheshirecatalyst
Joined: 9/14/2007
Msg: 29 (view)
 
DNA Based Dating
Posted: 11/21/2009 9:54:47 PM
Thread search!

http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts11493695.aspx
 cheshirecatalyst
Joined: 9/14/2007
Msg: 3 (view)
 
Smoking, who to blame!
Posted: 11/21/2009 9:39:11 PM
OP, While I don't agree with the majority of your post, I also agree that primary responsibility for ill health lies with smokers themselves. Although I am rather torn by assuming the attitude that they "they got what they paid for" because I know how lingering some smoking related deaths can be.


If someone smokes, and dies from it... people say, it's the tobacco company fault!


After all, no one forces the individual to take up the habit. However, many plaintiffs have attempted to hold tobacco manufacturers responsible for wrongful death, injury, or medical expenses related to cigarette smoking. A few years ago there was a judgement against cigarette manufacturers that held that they had violated civil racketeering laws, liability, negligence, and even warranty claims, and lied to consumers about the health risks of smoking.

Part of that landmark opinion held that companies are targetting youth in order to get them hooked. For most people, once they are hooked that's it. Class action lawsuits have been brought against manufacturers over those "light" smokes because they incorrectly created the impression that these were safer than "regular" smokes. So yeah, even though they are tools of addiction and death, companies that produce and market them can be sued because the product eventually killed the user.

Perhaps if cigarette companies simply stated that "when used properly, our product will reduce the quality of your life and kill you early," they would avoid these liability claims.

Be well.........
 cheshirecatalyst
Joined: 9/14/2007
Msg: 32 (view)
 
Dad or Jail?
Posted: 11/21/2009 6:46:59 PM

Mastrogiovanni said he has deliberately missed court ordered visitations with his father, and because of that, Macomb County Judge John Foster has ruled he should be held in contempt of court and sentenced to time in a youth home.


Notwithstanding that the boy is headstrong/out-of-control or the father might be abusive - are children actually legally bound by court-ordered visitation agreements between the parents? If the father made a good-faith attempt to see the son or was willing to accommodate him on the scheduled dates, why is it that the son can be punished for this particular offense?

To be held in contempt-of-court implies that you agreed to a condition in a court of law and later breached that condition. I thought that only the parents were bound by such agreements.....

Is the judge really able to hold the minor child in contempt-of-court when he probably didn't play any part in the custody agreement? I'm interested to know if this is really a possibility, a legal precedent, or whether the Judge erred...........does anyone know?

TKS
 cheshirecatalyst
Joined: 9/14/2007
Msg: 250 (view)
 
A Very Ugly Situation - What Would YOU Do?
Posted: 11/21/2009 6:39:04 PM
Thanks SS, I still wasn't completely clear on the female vs female version, especially since it appeared that the women in your first example were not seeing each other in a sexual fashion. Once I read the last couple of links I see that in California it applies because a woman will experience "b!tch" as a term that impacts women negatively but NOT men. Thus, disparate impact.


Thanks for posting........
 cheshirecatalyst
Joined: 9/14/2007
Msg: 4 (view)
 
Dating profile overhaul - take two.
Posted: 11/21/2009 12:07:43 PM
OP, can you give us an idea as to whom you're approaching and how many messages you've sent? A 10% response rate is considered good, but not if you're only emailing super-hot girls. Do you send individualized emails? I believe that Nottingham is a fairly large city, which should have sufficient dating prospects. It's not as though you live in "Dog Patch."

I'm not seeing anything that's a deal killer on your profile. I liked your pics and you had a good selection of both thoughtful and active personal interests. I would definitely respond to you........

The reference to "bible" first in your list of interests did strike me that you might be a "bible thumper," but that didn't hold true in the rest of your profile.

I was a bit worried by your confession that you prefer not smiling in pics for a reason that seemed a bit mysterious. While your lack of smiling pics probably won't dissuade women from contacting you initially, are they going to be surprised when they meet you and you smile in person? I hope not, because you are an attractive guy..........

G'Luck........
 cheshirecatalyst
Joined: 9/14/2007
Msg: 88 (view)
 
no kids
Posted: 11/21/2009 11:35:49 AM

So are you saying you can't relate to these parentings because most of their conversation revolves around parenting and childbirth?


Sometimes this is true, but it also works both ways. Sometimes parents didn't engage me much in parenting issues. Was it because I did not have corresponding personal experiences? Yes, of course, but they also had other issues they could talk about as well.

I used to carpool for 2 hours a day in a van with parents. I really had very little to offer in the conversation, so I started wearing my iPod. I just couldn't relate to conversations that centered around the best place to buy cheap diapers. This is why I don't really date men with young kids. Not only do I have trouble relating, my house isn't set up for kids and I don't have the type of hobbies that young kids would be safe doing or would be able to enjoy. I used to have men ask if their kids could ride my horse, but she was a show horse and not a kids riding horse. They sometimes assumed I was being difficult, rather than trying to safeguard them from getting injured.

On a side note - you can always start "smoking" those e-cigs to get extra breaks at work. Just tell your peers your weaning yourself "on" nicotine just so you can enjoy their company more frequently......

Tootles......
 cheshirecatalyst
Joined: 9/14/2007
Msg: 247 (view)
 
A Very Ugly Situation - What Would YOU Do?
Posted: 11/21/2009 11:13:17 AM
At the risk of derailing this thread ^^you ^^ are demeaning and derogatory - "pretty little head" eh? You couldn't even finish the movie and you'd like to take issue with me......that's rich......

I hope your post remains here as a testament to how you deal with women who disagree with you.
 cheshirecatalyst
Joined: 9/14/2007
Msg: 28 (view)
 
Personal protection canines
Posted: 11/21/2009 10:29:33 AM

if a dog is properly trained and the dog does bite someone with reason (owner was attacked) should the owner be held responsible for charges of a dangerous dog or hospital bills?


In insurance law, dogs are "allowed one bite" before they are officially classified as dangerous. This is known as "scienter." But as a dog owner you are strictly liable for dog bites. If your dog used excessive force, you may be liable to dog bites for people entering your property unlawfully.

OP, you have a tremendous responsibility when breeding and training dogs for defense. If you start training with large dogs such as the Cane Corso and pitbull types, whether you intend to or not, you will attract clients who want to use them to appear "macho." I seriously doubt that you would have many clients that also want to have these particular types of dogs as family pets. Will you take any responsibility for homing the dog with people who are genuinely concerned with their protection, versus those who want to appear threatening? There are smaller breeds of dogs who are also good at protection without appearing overwhelming to others.

Please also look at this from a business angle - you MUST have liability insurance for this venture. You must also take great care in cultivating your reputation as someone who will not breed offensive and aggressive dogs. Where will your supply of breeding dogs come from? Will you start off with "foundation" animals who have been carefully selected for stable temperament and overall positive characteristics? This can be a trial-and-error process, and you must be able to look critically at your breeding stock and their offspring for their suitability. As a breeding and training professional, you MUST be careful to align yourself with dogs that perform well for defense which are also not offensive. If you start to see undesirable results in your breeding dogs, you must be responsible and discontinue breeding them in favour of other foundation stock.

I agree with others that you will not be able to breed guard dogs/family pets. If I were looking for a guard dog, I would probably focus on trainers who marketed their dogs as safe pets who would be protective but otherwise indifferent to visitors. I don't think you can safely market these dogs for families with young children, but that is just my opinion.

Read this thread if you want to see more thoughts on pitbulls as pets:


http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts8606532.aspx


G'Luck.....
 cheshirecatalyst
Joined: 9/14/2007
Msg: 26 (view)
 
Evan Chandler Commits Suicide
Posted: 11/21/2009 10:00:33 AM
Nappykat,

I often wondered whether we would or will ever hear anything from Jordy Chandler. After MJ died, there were many rumours on the internet that Jordy had confessed to shaking down MJ, but these were not true.

Of course, I seriously doubt Jordy would be able or willing to say anything at all, especially since to do so would mean that he would likely be sued for extortion or perjury by the family/estate.

Apparently Jordy is also a recluse with few friends.......
 cheshirecatalyst
Joined: 9/14/2007
Msg: 245 (view)
 
A Very Ugly Situation - What Would YOU Do?
Posted: 11/21/2009 9:47:41 AM
^^It was called Minority Report.

It was actually science fiction and not "left wing radical."

While it was a great model for an oppressed, dystopian future society, it was meant to be "entertainment" rather than a realistic model.
 cheshirecatalyst
Joined: 9/14/2007
Msg: 243 (view)
 
A Very Ugly Situation - What Would YOU Do?
Posted: 11/21/2009 9:43:21 AM

To be honest with you, my first firing over sexual harassment was a woman. She called another woman a b*tch and that word is a clear cut sexual harassment violator, no matter who says it against who...


Smiling Salmon, as a case of "sexual" harassment, this surprises me. Since "****" is now a colloquial term that is basically used against anyone you might disagree with (not that it's acceptable) how did this become sexual? I wasn't sure so I checked the University of Toronto's definition:

"Sexual Harassment is unwanted sexual attention or unwanted emphasis on your sex or sexual orientation. It includes any unwelcome pressure for sexual favors, any comments, gestures or other conduct which places an offensive focus on the sex or sexual orientation of another person, and any gender-based conduct that is directed at you and that creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working or learning environment for you. Sexual harassment is often confused with sexual assault. Sexual harassment is any unwanted comment, gesture or contact of a sexual nature."

It does seem that, as a possible sexual offense, a judge might not agree with your company if it came down to a civil dispute, which is what seems to have happened. Why were you almost on the hook for $8,000? What did that money represent?

Genuinely curious.........
 cheshirecatalyst
Joined: 9/14/2007
Msg: 86 (view)
 
no kids
Posted: 11/21/2009 8:35:15 AM

If I ever get another job I'm going to say I have kids ~ I'll get a free pass for whatever comes up


This is actually not a bad strategy. As the only childless person in my group, I was always the first to be asked to stay behind at work, and some people did not think to impose on me with last minute "must have" work while everyone else was preparing to leave.........

However, now that my mother is elderly and somewhat confused, I actually DO have a child. So those of us without biological children often never really escape the confines of parenthood. I guess it's just a "Benjamin Buttons" kind of thing.......

Be well..........
 cheshirecatalyst
Joined: 9/14/2007
Msg: 22 (view)
 
Evan Chandler Commits Suicide
Posted: 11/20/2009 11:14:52 PM
Evan Chandler was so messed up that, like Jackson, he was his own worst enemy. For a medical doctor, he was a bit of a nutcase. Even though much of his nuttiness arose "post hoc," his subsequent lifestyle, his credibility and motivation seem to cast a lot of doubt on the validity of the case (for me anyway).


*At the time of his death he'd had numerous botox and surgical procedures done to his face, to the apparent point of obsession

*Had such tremendous mood swings that he basically became a hermit

*He was discredited by private eye Anthony Pellicano who taped phone calls and found that he was looking for hush money so that he could break into movies

*The Chandler family received so much hate mail that they couldn't go out in public anymore

*After the initial $16 million they received from Jackson, Chandler filed another $40 million lawsuit against Jackson and Lisa Marie Presley in 1996.

*He also accused Jacko of marrying Lisa Marie to distance himself from the scandal.

*Jordy Chandler - Evan's son and the claimant in the payoff, claimed that his dad
attacked him with a dumbell and pepperspray, and tried to choke him. Jordy got a retraining order against his father.

*After receiving his "share" of the $16 million, Evan Chandler quit his dental practice.

*He embarked on several other messy lawsuits against other people.

*He was sued by Jordy's stepfather.

*He was sued by his first attorney in the Jackson case.

*Both of his marriages ended in divorce.

cited here:http://www.mirror.co.uk/celebs/news/2009/11/19/michael-jackson-sex-case-dad-evan-chandler-wanted-justice-but-ended-up-destroyed-115875-21832905/
 cheshirecatalyst
Joined: 9/14/2007
Msg: 76 (view)
 
no kids
Posted: 11/20/2009 1:20:34 PM

IT'S A PITY YOUR MOTHER DIDN'T FEEL THE SAME WAY THAT YOU FEEL..


Actually, she didn't want kids either. She succumbed to societal pressure, as well as pressure by my father, who felt that every woman of childbearing age should be unceremoniously knocked-up, even if there is no interest in marriage. Ultimately, he did refuse to marry her, and never supported his offspring - ME. To those who would suggest that I'm better off having been born, I would state that if I wasn't conceived, I would have no conscious awareness of that fact either.

No, I did not "forget to have a baby." Perhaps because of that experience, I don't want kids either, and am not keen on dating a daddy with young kids. Just because I can have kids doesn't mean I should. While somebody needs to perpetuate the human race, the world is already overpopulated; it won't hurt if not all women procreate. Yet women who don't are often accused of being selfish; after all, they don't devote their lives to the next generation. Since they don't have children to put first, they have only themselves to think of, the reasoning goes. One might counter that it's selfish to breed your own Mini Me when there are already so many children in the world abandoned, poverty stricken, or otherwise desperate for care. You could put them first instead, whether through adoption, volunteer work, donating money, or advocating for global solutions.

Marx would have said that parents breed units of labour. Now, our neoliberal ideologues would say that parents breed consumers. Choosing not to have children could be viewed as activism - striking at the very heart of society's ills. Kind of makes you want to stand up and cheer.

Namaste.......
 cheshirecatalyst
Joined: 9/14/2007
Msg: 13 (view)
 
Is this a Hate Crime ?
Posted: 11/20/2009 11:30:46 AM
Many people DO care, so what if you are not one of them? It is often worse BECAUSE whites did it to a minority, IF that is their only motivation in doing so.

Would James Byrd have been dragged behind a truck if he wasn't black? Were you aware that one of the the perps bore nazi symbols and the words "Aryan Pride" as tatts? These white supremacists are just looking for people to lynch.

Would Matt Shepard have been targetted if he wasn't gay? The defendants in the trial argued that they were driven to insanity by alleged sexual advances of Shepard - so why would that not be a hate crime? Legislation is also needed to prevent the Phelps clan of Westboro Baptist church from assembling at the funerals of gays and war veterans, which otherwise, would not be a crime.

In both of these examples these victims would probably still be here except for the fact that someone targetted them because they weren't white anglo-saxon protestants...........

Tootles......
 cheshirecatalyst
Joined: 9/14/2007
Msg: 11 (view)
 
Is this a Hate Crime ?
Posted: 11/20/2009 11:12:10 AM
^^ Are you disputing the date? The fact that these incidents prompted hate crimes legislation (at long last)? Otherwise, I'm not sure what your point is....

Yeah, I'm TOTALLy in favour of hate crimes, just as long as they were committed BEFORE 1998........... /sarcasm.

Legislation should have been enacted long before this.



Tootles......
 cheshirecatalyst
Joined: 9/14/2007
Msg: 9 (view)
 
Is this a Hate Crime ?
Posted: 11/20/2009 11:02:25 AM

Hate crimes are frankly, bullchips.


Without hate crimes legislation to expand current law to include crimes, there would be fewer laws to convict based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability.

Hate crimes legislation is rooted in the 1998 incident involving James Byrd, a black man who was dragged behind a pickup truck, and gay teenager Matthew Shepard who was left to die while tied to a fence.

If we had no attacks based only on sexual orientation or gender, in addition to race, colour, religion, or national origin, perhaps we wouldn't need such legiation.
 cheshirecatalyst
Joined: 9/14/2007
Msg: 4 (view)
 
Is this a Hate Crime ?
Posted: 11/20/2009 10:19:09 AM
Yes, I agree with Ismene and Cookie. It is a hate crime - Islamophobia. While the victim wasn't physically assaulted or otherwise injured, it is still deeply offensive.

What is the world coming to when bank tellers take it upon themselves to pull hijabs off women and attack them because of their Islamic dress and religion?

While I don't believe the crime merits the maximum penalty here, a message needs to be sent to the anti-muslim cottage industry that appears to be popping up.

Be well.......
 cheshirecatalyst
Joined: 9/14/2007
Msg: 300 (view)
 
Long vs short hair
Posted: 11/19/2009 2:42:18 PM

but I have also seen women on here that want to date someone that is taller than them. Does that mean that they have a height fetish?


Well, I am one of those women who likes tall men. But I am also 5'7" in bare feet and sometimes almost 6' in certain heels. I don't fantasize about tall men though, and I've dated men who were much shorter than 6'.

Many men have contacted me and only been interested in the hair, and don't care about much else, other than the fact that I am female. I had some pretty explicit and unnecessary emails about my hair. I've never sent an similar email to a man about his height.

Wanting height in men is appropriate if you're already tall. If you're a woman who is 5'0", then it becomes a bit silly to require the man to be 6'.

Lots of women do have height requirements. Some of them are reasonable without being fetishistic. A man who writes to me only about my hair might just have a fetish.

Be well.........
 
Show ALL Forums