Faith In Humanity... Failing...
Cronos
Join Date: 2002-10-18 Member: 1542Members
Join Date: 2002-10-18 Member: 1542Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Related to JJ and the Superbowl</div> I've had some faith in mankind. The ability to love, for example was my prime argument. If man can love one another (No, not that kind of love, get your mind out of the gutter) then he has some sembelence of... something =\
Even so, I had some hope for things such as common sense (aint so common any more) and the like.
Until I saw this <a href='http://www.rollingstone.com/news/newsarticle.asp?nid=19299' target='_blank'>Article</a>
Next thing you know, I wont be able to trip over and break my nose without being sued for emotional damage to a witness for seeing blood gush forth from my face.
Perhaps I dont understand the furore thats erupted in the US but in all honesty it got old after the 3rd day in a row of it getting reported in the news (Ironic how I started a discussion on it eh?).
In any case, I maintain that love is the only pure human emotion worth any value left in mankind.
Hold on...
//looks over shoulder at Jerry Springer
I take that back. Man has nothing.
Even so, I had some hope for things such as common sense (aint so common any more) and the like.
Until I saw this <a href='http://www.rollingstone.com/news/newsarticle.asp?nid=19299' target='_blank'>Article</a>
Next thing you know, I wont be able to trip over and break my nose without being sued for emotional damage to a witness for seeing blood gush forth from my face.
Perhaps I dont understand the furore thats erupted in the US but in all honesty it got old after the 3rd day in a row of it getting reported in the news (Ironic how I started a discussion on it eh?).
In any case, I maintain that love is the only pure human emotion worth any value left in mankind.
Hold on...
//looks over shoulder at Jerry Springer
I take that back. Man has nothing.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I'm with Bush, lets just get to Mars, we really need to start over on a fresh planet.
<!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Next thing you know, I wont be able to trip over and break my nose without being sued for emotional damage to a witness for seeing blood gush forth from my face.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Tell everyone you know to support <a href='http://www.atra.org/' target='_blank'>Tort Reform</a>
Then maybe we can remove some of the judges who would rather stuff their pockets than level the scales of justice. Or better yet, maybe we can send some of our trial lawyers back to Hell.
Troubles in Illinois as an example:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Justice for Sale</b>
Introduction
In a September 2002 Illinois State Senate Judiciary Subcommittee Hearing in Edwardsville, IL, a Metro-East lawyer expounded a theory about why businesses might have the upper-hand in class action lawsuits. He stated: “My Golden Rule is follow the money. If you follow the money, you'll learn that the people with the gold rule.” While it’s an interesting theory about class action lawsuit litigation, a majority of class action lawsuits never reach trial in Madison County and are instead settled out of court before corporate attorneys ever get a chance to flex their muscle in front of a jury.
Therefore, in an ongoing effort to attempt to quantify and explain why the documented 3,800 percent increase in class action lawsuit filings is happening in one Illinois circuit court,2 the Illinois Civil Justice League and Illinois Lawsuit Abuse Watch studied more than 1,450 contribution transactions in Supreme Court, Appellate and Circuit- level judicial races revolving around Madison County candidates over a 23-year period. More than 150 pages of contributions documents were pulled from files at the State Board of Elections in Springfield, IL, and more recent contributions were studied from their online database. The total donations analyzed in the study equaled $791,661. (The summary of races included in the study is available in the Appendix tables). Contributions were grouped into categories and classified by contributor. Those contributors were then cross-referenced through online searches, phone book advertisements and entries, and compared to other contributions. Contributions listed from spouses, family members, and past associates of law partners and business owners were grouped together to analyze the real sources of campaign influence in Metro-East judicial elections. The analysis of the trends and movement of these contributions over two decades of elections is summarized below.
Plaintiffs Lawyer Contributions
When analyzing the source of the judicial contributions, contributors were grouped into several categories, including plaintiffs lawyers, non-plaintiffs lawyers, labor organizations, businesses, doctors, judges, and other public officials. The major trend in contributors was the fact that 75% of the total contributions were from plaintiffs trial lawyers practicing in personal injury, class action, or medical malpractice litigation. In total, 90% of contributions came from some sort of verified practicing lawyer or retired lawyer.
Classification Total Contributions
Plaintiffs Trial Lawyers $593,061.00
Non-Trial Lawyers $115,394.00
Private Citizens $32,725.00
Businesses $11,427.00
Labor Organizations $5,350.00
Doctors $4,000.00
Public Officials $3,150.00
Judges $2,200.00
When broken down by individual races, spotlighting the 2002 campaign for Appellate Judge in the Fifth Judicial District (Melissa Chapman v. John Long) and the one 2002 judicial retention race with an active committee in the Third Circuit (Nicholas Byron), plaintiffs trial lawyer contributions totaled nearly 85%. Total lawyer contributions for the 2002 Melissa Chapman race equaled 94%, with 88% of total contributions coming from plaintiffs trial lawyers.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry if that wasn't your topic but it seemed like a good opportunity to sound off <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->
"Well your wrong, your wanton gluttony is responsible for America's obesity problem"
On topic, who cares? Its a boob.
Now if Janet stripped down, performed fellatio on Justin whilst masturbating herself with a Barbie doll then yeah, that would be offensive. But the accidental exposure of a perfectly normal part of the human body?
What kind of message is this sending to children? The human body is a dirty, dirty thing that must at all times be completely covered? If a child saw this, and says to their parent "What's that?" a mother or father should simply say "That's a breast" and explain what they are.
Why do we persist in such a Victorian view that the human body is a disgusting object? There was nothing sexual about Janet's exposure. Should women be barred from breast-feeding in public? Should we dress our women like the Saudis and Iranians do?
But is the real problem society? Or is it that people can actually undertake legal action like this with a good chance of success? The state of legal liability is in unsustained free-fall; it's just getting ridiculous now yet no-one seems to be able, or willing, to halt it. What seemed ludicrous to us 10 years ago, such as a burglar being able to sue the owners of a house he breaks into and hurts himself within, now seems commonplace and accepted. What will seem normal in 2014? Sueing people for breathing? (they're using up valuable oxygen and are polluting our air with CO2) Sueing people for giving birth? (that's another mouth to feed and it's using up my tax dollars!)
I think it's time to wake up and smell the insanity.
Some people didn't want to see JJ's breast on a LIVE... wait, let me rephrase that...
<span style='color:red'><span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'><b>LIVE</b></span></span>
video feed wasn't exactly the best idea, what with the possibility of 2+ mil. people watching. Yup. Good way to boost sales that was...
Maybe some people just dont want to see that peirced belly button or [insert body part here] [doing this/that/other thing]. We'll just have to wait till we become just a little less insecure about our bodies.
Next thing you know, they see a boob during what is supposed to be a good game of a sport, not some filth ridden smut they could find on HBO or something.
This is how an american parent feels, and I kinda agree with them. JJ is an idoit.
Next thing you know, they see a boob during what is supposed to be a good game of a sport, not some filth ridden smut they could find on HBO or something.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
OMG! A breast! You mean, what they were fed with and their mother has?
There's nothing offensive about seeing a breast. Like I said, if JJ was performing some lewd sexual act then that would be considered inappropriate material for a 10 year old (or anyone under 16) to be watching. Honestly Forlorn what makes seeing a breast so bad?
Next thing you know, they see a boob during what is supposed to be a good game of a sport, not some filth ridden smut they could find on HBO or something.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
OMG! A breast! You mean, what they were fed with and their mother has?
There's nothing offensive about seeing a breast. Like I said, if JJ was performing some lewd sexual act then that would be considered inappropriate material for a 10 year old (or anyone under 16) to be watching. Honestly Forlorn what makes seeing a breast so bad? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The same thing that makes **** marriage 'so bad'. It's not 'traditional'. Really, get a grip people, I've got a ****, and I'm pretty sure most of you have one too... and really, men have nipples and can walk around without a shirt... hell fat people have manboobs...
Next thing you know, they see a boob during what is supposed to be a good game of a sport, not some filth ridden smut they could find on HBO or something.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
OMG! A breast! You mean, what they were fed with and their mother has?
There's nothing offensive about seeing a breast. Like I said, if JJ was performing some lewd sexual act then that would be considered inappropriate material for a 10 year old (or anyone under 16) to be watching. Honestly Forlorn what makes seeing a breast so bad? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The same thing that makes **** marriage 'so bad'. It's not 'traditional'. Really, get a grip people, I've got a ****, and I'm pretty sure most of you have one too... and really, men have nipples and can walk around without a shirt... hell fat people have manboobs... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
. nevermind, overgenarlizing
MTV stated many times that the half-time show would be "shocking". Hell, the very fact that <i>MTV</i> was producing it should've told these people who were so offended to not watch it. Maybe some day America will grow up... <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo-->
These "soccer moms" are furious that their right to decide what their child views was stolen from them by an "out-of-the-blue" exposure. I can sympathise with that. Just because you dont think the viewing of a breast is all that bad doesnt make it any less of a violation.
Did JJ/JT do the wrong thing/make a mistake and should they apolgise (as she has done) - yup. Should she be sued - hell no.
Frankly - we dont need that kind of BS during sports games. If you wish to view the female mammary gland, then get the internet, buy a magazine. But sports are about sports, not breasts. Lets keep it that way.
JJ was not doing anything sexual. I ask you Marine: should women not be allowed to breast-feed in public? They're "exposing" themselves after all. Why should any parent worry about their children seeing this kind of thing?
Serious injury? o.O
Anyways... I don't see the big fuss either. You'd think your kids don't glimpse people sunbathing topless while on holiday or in biology and stuff. I find myself often agreeing with some naturalist views; it's somewhat sadening that there's almost a culture of shame surrounding the human body and I think that the general embarrassment a lot of people suffer concerning their own bodies can be blamed for a less than stellar mental health and confidence.
One thing you forget ryo is that a lot of kids aren't breast-fed these days either. I was bottle-fed myself and so are countless others... I know about all the worries of doing it either way but it's kinda odd that some of us are losing even that sort of gentle intimacy with others in modern society =o
As for your actual faith in humanity, you're better off not dwelling on the downsides and keep your memories for the upsides. Also keep in mind that you're part of the seething mass we call humankind so it helps if you try and keep yourself up there as a good rolemodel, helping out and generally trying to improve the life of those around you =3
Yep - it's called guilt.
- parent looks at Jackon's breast.
- parent likes looking at Jackson's breast.
- parent feels guilty about liking looking at Jackson's breast.
- parent deals with guilt by telling child that they should not enjoy looking at Jackon's breast.
Philip Larkin got the joke.
Next thing you know, they see a boob during what is supposed to be a good game of a sport, not some filth ridden smut they could find on HBO or something.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
OMG! A breast! You mean, what they were fed with and their mother has?
There's nothing offensive about seeing a breast. Like I said, if JJ was performing some lewd sexual act then that would be considered inappropriate material for a 10 year old (or anyone under 16) to be watching. Honestly Forlorn what makes seeing a breast so bad? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because it's a cultural difference you will never understand untill you live in the US.
Some things in the US we are childish about, and on other things were a too loose with.
And to think I thought you understood a bit about cultures...
Why did the romans enjoy bloodbath gladatorial games?
Why did Napolean enjoy smelly women (or the french)?
Why were fat women considered to be most attractive at one point(cause they were rich)?
Why was it considered to be more attractive when pale, but it's more attractive to be tan?
Come on people, use your heads on this one, it's not that tough to figure out.
Get over it.
And i know kids have seen alot worse than that, unless they are dangerously sheltered.
I'd rather live in a culture that would have a laugh over it rather than get all foamy.
You use a breast in sex as stimulation, same as an **** (you have GOT to be kidding me? The swear filter blocks out er3ct?) p3nis or nipple. What I was trying to say (and granted, it did come across as a bit contradictory) is that if you're showing these organs in a sexual sense, then that's probably not acceptable. But if you're showing a limp p3nis, an unaroused nipple or a frontal view of a v4gina (not spread open for example) then it's not sexual, and thus I can't see why there's anything to be worried about.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Because it's a cultural difference you will never understand untill you live in the US.
Some things in the US we are childish about, and on other things were a too loose with.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Forlorn I understand that the US (and indeed, most western nations) dis-approve of public nudity, and I know that this stems from a Victorian-Christian mindset. What I am asking you, and indeed everyone in this debate, is that aside from the cultural mindset imposed upon you, do you see anything wrong with nudity, be it partial or full-on? Before we just blindly say "Exposing a breast in public is wrong - period", we must endevour to understand exactly why it is considered wrong, and if such views are no longer relevant today.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Exposed breasts may or may not be appropriate viewing for a child, but thats up to their parents to decide, not us, and certainly not JJ.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Kind of back on the original topic, but personally I'd be far more worried about my children watching a violent contact sport like football <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> However, let's put this in perspective; there would be few, if any, parents who would object to a topless man. Why should parents fear showing their children breasts? This of course links back into the previous paragraph.
JJ was not doing anything sexual. I ask you Marine: should women not be allowed to breast-feed in public? They're "exposing" themselves after all. Why should any parent worry about their children seeing this kind of thing? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hrmmm, I'm not so sure it was in a non sexual manner. She had a portion of clothing covering her breast that was ripped of during a performance by the hollywood manwhor3 Justin Timberlake. Admittedly, I have only seen 3 second slow motion "show-me-the-nipple" shots on the news, and apparently they didnt mean to expose THAT much of the breast. However, I would be shocked if two modern pop singers where entertaining, one puts his hand on the other ones breast and rips the fabric off while singing "Jesus loves the little children" y'know.
Why did he pull the fabric off her breast if it was completely non sexual? Something tells me he wasnt screening her for breast cancer <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
In a completely unrelated matter, non-sexual exposure of mammary, I dont see anything wrong with it technically. However, it begs the question - why are you exposing it? Couldnt you have just ducked into a nearby room and saved the trouble?
Here's a comparision for you. I'm a non Christian, but a lot of my friends are. Lets say they are having a party. I'm invited, so I show up. Carrying a 6 pack of beer. Now I could drink that beer (I'm 19), defend my drinking from a religious standpoint, and have done nothing wrong technically. But I've just p1ssed a lot of people off, be I right or no. Its far easier to just let the baby have its bottle, show up and drink cordial.
I dont do it for my sake, I do it for their sake. The same applies to breast feeding mothers in public. Why not just slip into a toilet and save those poor soccer moms a heart attack? I dont think they should be banned from breast feeding - but I'd give em the evil eye if they just whipped it out and chucked a baby on to prove a point.
Exposed breasts may or may not be appropriate viewing for a child, but thats up to their parents to decide, not us, and certainly not JJ.
Get over it.
And i know kids have seen alot worse than that, unless they are dangerously sheltered. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow, what the hell, do you show your little 7 year olds porn that early on -
Your kids must love you
On a side note, is anyone here actually a parent? yeah, that's what I thought.
<span style='color:white'>You're wearing thin here...</span>
Your kids must love you
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So seeing a breast for half a second is classified as "porn"? Man how the heck is your wife going to breast-feed your kids Forlorn - blindfold your baby?
You fail to explain how a breast is pornographic and what affect, if any, would be had upon a child who saw one (and again, a lot of kids do, who hasn't had a bath with Mummy?)
And Forlorn, while there are few, if any, parents posting in here, we can safely all assume that we're all the children of parents. So how about a little evidance that exposing a child to a breast causes permenant harm? I personally saw my mother's breasts for quite a while, I was breast fed plus I commonly had baths and showers with her. When I was 10 I believe my parents explained sex to me, showing me a very good book that helped to no end (they did the same for my sister). My parents had a talk with me about safe-sex when I was in high school, giving me a packet of condoms for which I was quite grateful as I could learn how to put them on (not like my friend who upon wearing one for the first time attempted to remove it by grasping the end and stretching it out until it snapped back; needless to say, he was in a bit of pain) . Thus when I started dating girls I knew all about sex and how to do it safely, plus I was comfortable with my sexuality.
Today I'm in the 3rd year of a fantastic relationship with my fiancee and I'm not in the slightest bit disturbed or put-out by having sex, and the human body, explained to me at an early age.
And an exposed breast with the nipple covered is not porn either. We've had: "filth ridden smut" and "porn" so far.
It was definitely a sexual act, and as such wasn't appropriate on something so widely watched, but I don't find it any more offensive than any of the other sexual innuendo that is so common in pop music performances these days (and that is to say, I don't really care, I just choose to ignore it.)
My mom is a medical illustrator. I was seeing illustrations and photographs of vaginas, uteruses, breasts, and penises from practically the day I was born. I don't think I was damaged in any way. To the contrary, I'm a lot less squemish about sexual things than the average person, and I think that makes me more level headed and responsible.
I do not think the outrage in concentrated soley on the breast, but the idea that it was planned for. We have a TV rating system here so that parents can monitor what their children watch, does this get used? I dont know? The mishap did seem preplanned and they should of notified CBS, or at least have Britney expose have the mishap <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> .
Anyhow I want to focus on a different aspect of the story that was brought up. The ridiculous lawsuite that was filed. Some one had mentioned that she was probably the woman that sued McDonalds because her coffee was hot. There seems to be a get rich quick mentallity in america now, and its being propigated through trial lawyers. Case in point, my friend's brother gets into an accident with another car going below 5 mph. No damage is done to either car, he offered to pay for any damages. She sues him for duress, so now he has to travel all the way back up here and pay for a lawyer because some trailer trash(and she was trailor trash) wants to get an easy buck. Something more needs to be done to prevent excessive lawsuites. Hence I will not vote for anyone that has Edwards on their ticket.
I have seen several boobs in Africa.
I'm emotionally damaged beyond repair.
/me points ^ up to my prior post. Feel free to read it "again" <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Parents are almost naturally drawn to the assumption that they are in complete control of what influences their child is exposed to. This mentallity is as easily understandeable - after all, I want to ensure that my child grows up to her/his potentials - as it is delusional. Beginning with the moment a child starts playing with the neighbours children, and ever growing from there, largely uncontrollable influences enter the scene. This is why many adolescents have so big problems with their parents: The child is at a point where (s)he is bound to defy parental control, while the parents are often still fixed in the notion that they have to exert control for the childs best.
This very general example already shows that a power-oriented mentallity will fail in upbringing. Instead of directely controlling the influences, parents have to make sure in one way or another that the child understands the rationale behind this control - that it adopts a mindset at least similiar to that her/his parents used while controlling outside influences. This practice isn't limited to 'new' 'alternative' ways of upbringing, even the most conservative parents have ways of embedding their ideas in their children - and be it the now despised practice of spanking them.
This incident is nothing but a highly exposed demonstration of how impossible it really is for parents to excert control over their children - and following the mindset of power, it's only logical not to try and take influence on the child recepting, but on the environment emitting it. This endeavour is of course bound to fail:
If parents consider the public exposure of breasts not to be desireable, they either succeeded in transporting this notion to their children, in which case the Superbowl incident will have no effect whatsoever, or they didn't, in which case the damage is already done and won't be reverted by a lawsuit.
So, we're seeing a number of bad parents making a big uproar over a ridiculously small incident. Nothing new if you ask me.