I'm not sure which offends me more, the racism, or the sexism.

[Q Classic]

It's her right to express her opinion. It's her right to choose that life.

It's also the right of the public to point out those glaring examples of ignorance, and to point out that she's an utter failure of a human.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Mrs Snuggles
It's her right to express her opinion. It's her right to choose that life.

Just because you say it, does not make it true.

If you really believed it was OK for anyone to live this way, you'd believe it about your own children. But no sane person does. Nor does any sane person believe that people have an unlimited right of free speech.

The practice of marrying trophy wives brings shame on both parties.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

If my daughter wanted to be a trophy wife, I wouldn't think it would be ok. But I wouldn't stop her. Once she turns 18, it is her life. I'd try and dissuade her, but I wouldn't tie her up in a basement to prevent it, and you can be sure I'd try to continue to be a part of her life.

But hopefully, I'd raise her in such a way that being a trophy wife wouldn't be a consideration.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
If my daughter wanted to be a trophy wife, I wouldn't think it would be ok. But I wouldn't stop her. Once she turns 18, it is her life. I'd try and dissuade her, but I wouldn't tie her up in a basement to prevent it, and you can be sure I'd try to continue to be a part of her life.

But hopefully, I'd raise her in such a way that being a trophy wife wouldn't be a consideration.

The problem is that there used to be a set of sanctions in between laws and individual persuasion – namely social sanctions. Even the upper classes used to behave themselves for fear of being shamed socially.

Now we live in the shameless society and have to put up with **** like this. People rant about shameless welfare moms, but this bint is even worse.

[Q Classic]

Agathon, dear, did you not see the NEXT ****ING SENTENCE that I wrote? Don't pull a Kid on me.

As far as children and so on goes: if I raised them, and that's how they chose to live their life, I'd be highly disappointed.

And I wouldn't let them forget it. Ever. And they are just as free to try and cut me out of their life as I am of trying to pull them back to sanity.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Mrs Snuggles
Agathon, dear, did you not see the NEXT ****ING SENTENCE that I wrote? Don't pull a Kid on me.

Yeah I did. My point was rather more oblique. I guess I better explain myself better. My point is that historically, in between the law and individual acts of disapproval there were social rules that carried a kind of intermediate weight. Now there are really no effective sanctions in between making something illegal or telling someone that you personally don't like it. Formerly, you could express your personal disapproval and it would be backed by the societal disapproval which gave your criticism weight. The intermediate sanctions were provided by social rules and the attendant shame that people garnered by breaking them. Their withering is why we have a more or less shameless society.

In former times such social disapproval would have carried much more weight than it now does. The social context of disapproval has changed and made it virtually ineffective. This is the main reason that press photographers can now get away with jamming cameras up starlets' skirts as they get out of cars.

So sure, we can disapprove, but it won't bear any real weight. We can't make acting like this illegal, and so our society fills up with boneheads like this which ruins everyone else's day.

[Patroklos]

Agathon






I am going to go vommit now

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Agathon






I am going to go vommit now

I am in ur mind, killing ur doodz.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Originally posted by Agathon


The problem is that there used to be a set of sanctions in between laws and individual persuasion – namely social sanctions. Even the upper classes used to behave themselves for fear of being shamed socially.

Trophy wives are not a new thing. In fact, 60 years back the motto was "women should be seen and not heard". What WAS an Upper Class wife if not a trophy wife (in most cases)?

Also, the social approval was from the rich inner circles. Now with media being what it is, even the considerations of the middle and lower classes are viewed as shaping society. This is why people believe they have a right to know anything and everything about the personal lives of celebrities.

There used to be more privacy.

[Kidlicious]

This lady is right though. She probably is more likely to land a rich guy by making herself look stupid.

That said, I'll repeat what I already said. She's got some mental problem, probably having to do with narcissim.

[Q Classic]

Agathon, the point there is more accurate, and one I agree --to an extent-- with.

Honestly, though, I don't know if a middle ground can be found, since legislation of certain social paradigms would be offensive to me, and non-legislated social opprobrium seems to change with the wind, as well as be dependent on cultural backgrounds.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Agathon


Yeah I did. My point was rather more oblique. I guess I better explain myself better. My point is that historically, in between the law and individual acts of disapproval there were social rules that carried a kind of intermediate weight. Now there are really no effective sanctions in between making something illegal or telling someone that you personally don't like it. Formerly, you could express your personal disapproval and it would be backed by the societal disapproval which gave your criticism weight. The intermediate sanctions were provided by social rules and the attendant shame that people garnered by breaking them. Their withering is why we have a more or less shameless society.

In former times such social disapproval would have carried much more weight than it now does. The social context of disapproval has changed and made it virtually ineffective. This is the main reason that press photographers can now get away with jamming cameras up starlets' skirts as they get out of cars.

So sure, we can disapprove, but it won't bear any real weight. We can't make acting like this illegal, and so our society fills up with boneheads like this which ruins everyone else's day.

Wait. WTF?

If this isn't a generally conservative opinion, I don't know what is.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by aneeshm





Wait. WTF?

If this isn't a generally conservative opinion, I don't know what is.

Not really. The real argument is about what the social rules should be. Conservatives disagree would disagree with me about those (particularly the compulsory gay rape for fundies thing, but other aspects as well no doubt).

More seriously, my set of social rules would be profoundly egalitarian. Historically, such rules have been profoundly inegalitarian. Liberals make the mistake of thinking that to abolish the rules is to abolish the inequality. As we all know, this didn't work out so well.

But liberals are idiots, as we all know. Long live the revolution and all that.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

The real argument is about what the social rules should be

I hate the word "should". "Should" dictates a correct path and an incorrect path. I have found, through my travels, that there is no "should" path, only "could" paths.

[Dr Strangelove]

But what if de Lesseps is right?