1. Rapidgator has been added to our approved mandatory hosts while Uploaded as been removed. These hosts are not to be used in combination with each other unless a second approved mandatory is used. See our file host rules for more information.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Guest - Remember that Thread Prefixes are a search tool! Click on a Thread Prefix and all threads with the same Prefix in that forum will be offered to you. To dismiss click on X >>>
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Our gif only content threads have a rule where all thumbs must be posted as a static thumbnail that does not play. Currently imagebam made a change where they no longer produce static thumbs. Therefore, please do not use imagebam, or any host, that provides live playing gifs in those specific threads. If you see your gif playing once you post, try to use a smaller thumbnail and if that does not work use a different approved host.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Can't Log-in?. If your password is no longer accepted but the email address registered in your profile is working, use the "Forgot Your Password?" routine. However, if your registered email address is unusable, create a new temporary phun account and contact S-type.
    Dismiss Notice
  5. ATTN: Imagehost picpie is infected with the "internet security warning" redirect that tries to take users hostage with an inescapable redirect. Avoid using picpie as an imagehost.
    Dismiss Notice
  6. Too many Alerts? Why not adjust your "Alert Preferences" in your Profile Page?
    Dismiss Notice

Miley Cyrus at Hublot Haute Living Party in Miami Beach 12/5/14 tag

Discussion in 'Celebrity Photos' started by Crazy25, Dec 6, 2014.

  1. Crazy25

    Crazy25 ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2014
    Messages:
    507
    Likes Received:
    13,432
    [video=youtube_share;ymvmWQCY8xk]http://youtu.be/ymvmWQCY8xk[/video]

    .. :confused: (lol)
     
    1 person likes this.
  2. FappeningDude

    FappeningDude BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2014
    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    36
    What effect, exactly? Being in control of one's sexuality? Not being ashamed of one's sexuality? Shunning impossible ideals of beauty? Promoting individuality?

    Oh, right, she smokes pot, therefore she is evil and must be stopped!
     
    1 person likes this.
  3. J3scribe

    J3scribe we are devo BANNED ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ Ten Years of Phun

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2008
    Messages:
    117,175
    Likes Received:
    129,784
    Seems to me you answered yourself here:
    Or am I missing something? :thinks1:
     
  4. Sennsational

    Sennsational BANNED ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2007
    Messages:
    20,867
    Likes Received:
    11,139
    I don't fuck like cheeto?
     
    1 person likes this.
  5. stp52x

    stp52x

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2008
    Messages:
    2,602
    Likes Received:
    3,853
    I admitted that I smoked weed in one of my previous comments, so, no I'm not concerned about her drug use or that she might lead others to use drugs.

    She does absolutely none of those things.

    1) Sucking a dildo on a stage isn't representative of sexual control.
    2) People who're ashamed of their sexuality aren't going to be watching this. And if they did, this would give them all the more reason to be ashamed, as they would form false associations between moderation and extremist forms of sexuality like this. You shouldn't assume that a person who has been sexually repressed for most of his/her life is going to look at this favorably and perceive her as some sort of liberating force, these people are often terrified of sex and would be traumatized at this sort of behavior.
    3) Why the hell is this so remarkable? If she went out of her way and spoke out against the established conventions of beauty -- then, yes, that would be worthy of some accolade. But you're praising a person for being unattractive, while singing. Wow...how impressive.
    4) .... by being a corporate tool? What is it that you think individuality is? Doing whatever makes you feel good? So any douchbag that can afford to drive a Bentley is a bastion of individuality because the asshat can afford to have fun?

    You're trying very desperately here to find something that doesn't exist.

    Because she isn't motivated by any great ideal or value system, and I'm not saying that she should be. That wasn't my concern.

    She, and the dozens of pop figures like herself, have carved out an entire generation of people who are absolutely devoid of any capacity for critical thought or reflection. They have fostered an atmosphere that is akin to a religion. Where the faithful are measured by their degree of self-absorption and materialism. This is apparent throughout the industry: in the very lyrics they sing, the countless product placements, the absurd theatrics on the stage, and the behaviors of the pop icons themselves -- all of which the hordes of followers seek to replicate. A moments time to question the behavior and the entire illusion falls apart. Instead we find a culture has formed where success is a product of prestige, reputation and wealth--not happiness; where we seek to adjust to a set of circumstances which we know will not provide happiness and will cost us our identity, yet we continue out of fear of ostracization and isolation.

    So I found it tremendously ironic that you said individualism, because that is precisely what they are destroying. There are no individuals in this world. Thoughts and desires are handed to this generation on a platter through television sets and social networks. And Miley Cyrus is just one cog in an elaborate machine.
     
  6. Herb Tarlek

    Herb Tarlek The 'H' is Silent

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    Messages:
    13,176
    Likes Received:
    9,690
    I just don't have the attention span to read all these words. :shrug:


    So all I see is "She should do Playboy. :tongue:
     
    3 people like this.
  7. FappeningDude

    FappeningDude BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2014
    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    36
    It wasn't a dildo, it was a blow-up doll. A gulf divides the social mores regarding these two items. And I didn't mean control as in restraint. I never suggested she was a model for sexual conservatism. I simply said she was someone who owned her sexuality. Which she does. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Actually, society is better off when sexuality is celebrated rather than condemned or criticized. There's certainly less sexual crime in those places. I mean, look at nations where sexuality is repressed. They had to cordon off female-only subway cars to cut down on groping and sexual assault. Look at the rate of gangrapes in India. Hell, look at rape and sexual violence in the US.

    That's retarded. She's a paragon of sexual freedom. By flaunting herself she flouts the notion that women should be demur or in any way shameful of their bodies. People who have been traumatized by the slut-shaming perpetrated by people like you will see her as the antidote. She's wildly popular, hugely successful, and gets to be herself the whole way. That's a boon not only for people who have issues with their bodies or their sexuality, but to society as a whole. It teaches us to fight back against conservatist dickbags who insist that a woman's body is something that needs to be hidden, or that sexuality is dangerous.

    Look, you can't have it both ways. You can't be concerned about her impact on a large number of people on the one hand and then when it suits you pretend that you don't think she's all that big of a deal. Obviously you think she's remarkable, because you're talking about her. Constantly.

    Weak strawman. She's promoting individuality by skewering societal and social mores. If you're not beholden to outmoded ways of thinking, you're free to do whatever it is that makes you feel good, or whatever you think is right. That is what individuality is.

    The only one desperate here is you. I'm not constantly posting in threads about a person I hate. I'm not the one worried that a pop star is going to destroy the western world.

    More like she's motivated by a value system that differs from yours. Just because someone behaves in a way you wouldn't doesn't mean they're aimless or amoral. It just means they have a different worldview. And I think most right-thinking people find hers quite a bit more noble than yours.

    This is downright silly. Not only is it inaccurate (there are countless people of this generation who are capable of quite a bit more critical thought and reflection than you are, obviously) but also ironic (your "critical thought" amounts to an unoriginal, fearmongering, "Kids these days" rant that has no basis in reality. You don't actually know anything about this generation, yet you're judging it. You decry consumerism and materialism as if A) that has anything to do with Miley Cyrus, and B) as if it Miley's generation invented it. Product placement has been around as long as there have been products and forms of entertainment to place them in.

    And for all your arm-waving, you haven't actually said what's wrong with the behavior. Okay, sure, you don't like materialism. Fine. But what does that have to do with Miley grinding on the hood of a car? And what's wrong with Miley grinding on the hood of a car in the first place? No, seriously, what's wrong with it?

    Yet here you are genuflecting to an antiquated way of thinking that squelches individuality in favor of dogmatic conservatism. Your "kids these days" rant is older than your grandparents.
     
    1 person likes this.
  8. Sennsational

    Sennsational BANNED ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2007
    Messages:
    20,867
    Likes Received:
    11,139
    :popcorn:
     
  9. stp52x

    stp52x

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2008
    Messages:
    2,602
    Likes Received:
    3,853
    Except that's not what you said. You said "Being in control of one's sexuality?"

    I never said there was anything wrong with that.

    So this is entirely pointless. Because I never said there was anything wrong with expressing sexuality. It's obvious that you have formed some half-assed opinion about me right off the bat. Which is amusing, and very revealing, since I'm a 6 year member of a website that distributes pornography.

    You watch a young woman grind her pussy on a pole and you're impressed that she has the confidence to express her sexuality. I imagine that if someone paid half the women in this country several million dollars to do the same thing, they wouldn't hesitate. And we'd find a group of people just like you to label them all paragons of sexual freedom.

    The point I'm making is that she doesn't this in order to express the value of sexual liberation. She does it because she gets paid, and because she enjoys it. There is no virtue in this, there is nothing remarkable about this. Because she has nothing to lose, and everything to gain by behaving in this fashion.

    In case you still can't think clearly: I'm not saying that what she is doing is wrong in it's essence.

    What I am saying is that it isn't meaningful, since you can find several hundred women in every city doing the same goddamn thing and they don't receive the attention that this woman does.

    Oh boy, well you've figured me out haven't you? Yes, I'm a slut-shaming sex addict.

    ....you are an awfully ignorant person, aren't you? If I don't find Neil Armstrong's tie remarkable, this doesn't mean that I don't find Neil Armstrong remarkable. Now, I definitely don't find Miley Cyrus remarkable. You do. I think she's a problem--not a particularly remarkable one, but a grave and serious one. And that's why I delved into this 4 point argument with you, because you seem to think she's a social activist fighting for women's rights by pushing the limits of tolerable sexual activity on a public stage.

    I think she's a horny woman who makes a lot of money. This isn't remarkable in my book.

    Huh... Before I provoke you any further, I should probably state at this point that I'm a socialist (apparently I left the impression that I was some theocratic conservative pig, so imagine how hard I was laughing.)

    I'm saying this so I can make the next point without having to argue with you anymore than I absolutely must.

    So, in your opinion, a person can't be an individual and simultaneously have "outmoded ways of thinking?"

    I think an individual is a person who forms thoughts and perceptions about him or herself and the world around free from coercion, manipulation, free from external forces. With this definition, there is no such thing as a true individual, since we're being molded and carved at nearly every moment of our lives. What we have is the illusion of individuality because we think we make choices and we can't remember what distant experience or series of experiences it was that led us to make this choice now.

    So Miley Cyrus has a profound effect on people and is therefore a hindrance to true individuality. Regardless of whether or not she is a positive force.

    Having said that: Figures that promote individuality are figures that tell people not to listen to them, to think for themselves, to reflect on their beliefs and choices. I don't think she does this.

    No, I think the western world destroyed our pop stars. Not the other way around.

    I'd be very surprised if she was motivated by any value system. I imagine that she has very little in the manner of character that drives her, but is rather a carnal machine that just bulldozes through sensual experience after sensual experience (sarcasm.) I know we're talking about Miley Cyrus here, but you must have noticed that I often use the term "pop stars" I don't know enough about this woman to make the claim that I know what her value systems are. It is what she represents that is at the cusp of the problem here.

    Yes, I am the fool here, yet you are the one making erroneous claim after erroneous claim on my character and passing judgment as though you've known me for years, when you've read only a handful of posts from me. I am from this generation, so I think I'm pretty well suited to make comments about my peers. I have experienced first hand the extent of their self-absorption, narcissism and wholly deprived ability to think critically. Maybe you could tell me what a person who knows something about this generation, looks like?

    A) It has a monumental amount to do with her, since she is essentially a means of profit. She is a commercial icon that sells millions of records, has her face plastered all over the place, that is her primary function in the public realm. Not as a creator of music. But as an instrument to sell albums. And other objects through endorsements and advertising campaigns.
    B) ...and when did I say this? And why the hell would that even matter? Since genocide wasn't invented yesterday, does this make it acceptable? And you're the one accusing me of logical fallacies? Fucking priceless. I should've kept track of all of these. Probably used 15 Ad Hominem attacks.

    Nothing. I jerked off to it like everyone else. My problem isn't with the sexuality, as you keep bringing to the surface over and over again. I honestly don't give the remotest shit about it (regardless of my past vehement attacks against her.)

    I'm concerned with the forces and intentions that brought that woman onto the hood of that car and made millions of people watch it. And I'm sorry to disappoint you, but it had absolutely nothing to do with the sexual liberation of women. It has everything to do with impressing onto a generation an attitude of fervid materialism, self-absorption, and thoughtlessness. Because a population obsessing about themselves is a population not thinking particularly hard about everything else that is going on in the world. It is a vastly more effective form of control than anything humanity has experienced in the past because people don't perceive it as a form of control but as a choice they are making for themselves between genres of music. But it isn't much of a choice when all of your friends listen to it, when you're surrounded by it and the consequence on the other hand is isolation and ostracization.
     
  10. Sennsational

    Sennsational BANNED ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2007
    Messages:
    20,867
    Likes Received:
    11,139
    I'm sure this thread would have been closed now if it wasn't so amusing and informative.
     
  11. FappeningDude

    FappeningDude BANNED

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2014
    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    36
    My apologies. I assumed you were capable of understanding context and the fact that "control" has more than one meaning. Fear not, I won't overestimate you again.

    But you did say there was something wrong with expressing sexuality. You called her an attention-whore and later in this post you compare her to a stripper. (I'm guessing stripper. You might have meant prostitute)

    And this website is flush with guys who morally judge women every day. You wouldn't be the first hypocrite.

    Interesting. Which half are you talking about, I wonder?

    The half you hold in contempt, no doubt.

    Except she did have something to lose. Most people who leave the safety of a big organization like Disney or Nick fail. I mean, look at Britney. Once the MTV machine stopped backing her, it was a wrap. Now she's in Vegas on the strength of her gay following, but she's not famous anymore. Not in any relevant sense. Why not? Because she didn't have the talent to back it up.

    Yes you are. You've repeatedly condemned her for being sexual, and you've stated you're concerned about the effect she'll have on young people. What effect are you talking about, if not more liberal sexual expression?

    So you're comparing her to...strippers?

    And I'm supposed to take you seriously? C'mon. And way to miss the mark. I mean, no shit other people don't get the attention Miley does. The whole point of the uproar, whether in support of or against, is precisely because it's her doing it. She's famous, she's relevant, that's the whole point.

    I don't know about sex addict. (Not sure someone with your attitude could get laid enough to qualify) But yes, you are sex-shaming her, and you seem quite afraid that other women will become as open as she is.

    Now that's irony.

    Yes, you do find Miley remarkable. Remarkable means worthy of attention. You clearly think she's worthy of attention, because you're giving her a lot of your own. Classifying her as a problem, you seem to think she's worthy of others' attention as well. For whatever reason, you seem to think remarkable means amazing, or awesome, or great. It doesn't.

    She's obviously pushing the limits. That's what her act is about. That you think she's doing it because she's "horny" is ridiculous, and without merit. You can't even support it, except to say that she's a woman and woman do this sort of thing all the time (presumably you're referring to strippers and whores here, again drawing the parallel between a sex-positive woman and a prostitution, thereby demeaning any woman who shares Miley's openness). Occam's Razor, bro.

    See? You reduce her act to mere sexual gratification. Which leads to the corollary, "What's wrong with that?" And to answer that question in a germane to your objection, the answer can be nothing other than "sexual liberation in women is wrong." So I ask again: What's wrong with it?

    ...am I supposed to be impressed? Or am I supposed to take your bait and pretend that a socialist can't also be a misogynist? Are socialism and social conservatism mutually exclusive? I think you'd have a hard time explaining that one to Marx.

    You mean you're pretending you can't be a sexist so the next sexist thing you say can't be construed as sexist.

    I didn't say that at all, Captain Strawman. I said that when you are divested of such mores, you're free to think and act for yourself. That isn't to say that a person can't be an individual without having some of those attachments, but in general the less of them you have the more you'll form opinions based on your own virtues instead of someone else's.

    I disagree with the idea that one cannot be an individual unless they've never been influenced by society, but let's set that aside. What you're proposing here is a definition of "individual" that is useless, because it's impossible to achieve. If that's how you feel, then your criticism of Miley for not being an individual is retarded.

    But then so does anybody. So does everybody. And therefore it's not even worth discussing.

    Of course, this is ludicrous.

    The basis for your conclusion seems to be based on nothing other than the fact that she's a sexually-provocative woman, so I don't see why I should give your opinion and credence.

    No, you think pop stars are destroying the western world. Otherwise you wouldn't blame Miley for being a negative influence, since it wasn't her fault to begin with, and she's not really doing any harm anyway, as she's just shouting back into the world that made her. But we all know that's not what you're saying.

    Again, you're basing this opinion of her on the fact that you've seen pictures of her fellating a blowup doll on stage. Literally nothing else. I doubt you've ever seen an interview with her or even cared to. You don't know anything about her outside of the images you've seen here, most likely. And you're not even consistent in your condemnations. So why should anyone give a shit what you think?

    Okay, okay, no,--Now that's irony!

    This is an utterly vapid statement. I don't know what any of it is supposed to mean. You've witnessed it first-hand? In what sense? Could you for once provide something other than a vague insinuation?

    So this person you don't find remarkable is a "monumental" force in pop culture? Odd, that.

    You speak of these problems as if they're new. You speak of "this generation" specifically. Your whole argument contrasts today with the past, one with the other. Don't try to run away from your own claims. You made them, claim them.

    Also, Ad Hominem is not a logical fallacy. They can be used fallaciously, but nothing I've said about you here stands by itself as an argument. I've dismantled your arguments on their merits, and made sure you also know I think you suck.

    As I've pointed out, yes you very much do have a problem with her sexuality. You've shown nothing but disdain for female sexuality.

    She didn't make anyone do anything.

    Boy, for someone you don't find remarkable, you certainly find her remarkable!

    You still haven't explained how her act is fervently materialistic, self-absorbed, or thoughtless. You've only made the claims. That's all you've ever done. I think it's time you backed up some of these assertions with arguments, don't you? I mean, aside from your vague "I've seen it for muhself!" rants, we'd all like to hear you explain what it is about Miley Cyrus that makes her all that you say she is.
     
    2 people like this.
  12. ratfink

    ratfink

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2009
    Messages:
    321
    Likes Received:
    817
    I think she said "I don't fuck with chew."

    Which makes sense. Chew is a nasty habit.
     
    1 person likes this.
  13. stp52x

    stp52x

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2008
    Messages:
    2,602
    Likes Received:
    3,853
    I'm just going to highlight everything you've pulled out of your ass so you can take a good long look at it. Just in case you ever look back at this in about a week and wonder why you accomplished absolutely nothing.

    That seems to be a very common problem you have....assuming things. It's essentially all you've done since we started this discussion.

    Oh yeah? And where the hell did I say that?

    Yes, I called her an attention-whore and I don't have a problem with either strippers or prostitutes. Perhaps you're the one who has a subconscious contempt for female sexual expression? Since you're the one who seems to think that there is something wrong with prostitutes and strippers. Otherwise why would you think that I was denigrating her by saying that?

    I mentioned strippers to provide a contrast between her and people who behave like her but are not social icons.

    The half who can be bought.


    ...yeah...she was going to lose her social status. What a fucking rebel. Compared to true social and civil activists who, I don't know, risk their lives, freedom, health, their families lives.

    If you truly give a shit about women's rights, this is a true activist who is risking life and limb for a meaningful cause:Malala Yousafzai

    No...You've repeatedly claimed that I've condemned her, and I've repeatedly denied it. You can pick any moron off the street and call him a bum, repeat it several hundred times, it's not going to make them a bum. Your inability to pierce through your own arrogance and your delusion has left you with the impression that I'm something that I'm not, and if I had any sense I would stop wasting my time here. But I have a habit of getting myself into situations like this and I seem to enjoy it.

    Yes. Is this bad? Is it wrong to strip?

    No....the point is, and you just admitted this, that it isn't her ability to express her sexuality that has earned her the attention that she has, since there are many other people who do this, it is something else. I'm assuming it's the fact that she has money and her face is plastered on the media. But her sexuality is nothing noteworthy in itself.

    Unless you think it is precisely because of her sexuality that she has become so popular.

    Tell me what the weather is like in your universe. Where up is down, and sex-shaming is synonymous with criticizing corporate tools.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/remarkable

    What is the most common definition of remarkable? (Hint: look at #1.) Not the literal one: worthy of making a remark. Since...fucking anything on the face of this planet is remarkable, according to that definition.

    But this also beside the point. We were originally talking about "Shunning impossible ideals of beauty?"

    I said that the fact the she isn't attractive and sings, isn't remarkable. You, in your ignorance (why I called you ignorant), construed this as though I was making a claim that she wasn't remarkable (the Armstrong reference.) I called you out on that, and said that one doesn't imply the other. But I gave you pleasure of saying that, regardless of that fact, I don't find her remarkable. So now we're talking about whether she's remarkable or not. I honestly don't give a shit either way. I'm interested in what she represents, not in her as an individual. As you had accurately pointed out, I know nothing about her.


    I wouldn't say that, since women don't do this all the time. I would think she's horny since she's basically rubbing and grinding on stage. If she isn't horny in the beginning, I would imagine that she would get there pretty damn fucking soon.


    Nothing. You seem to think that whenever I make these associations, that I'm doing it because I think it's wrong. I'm doing it for exactly the opposite reason, because it is nothing extraordinary.

    I'm trying to figure what makes her so damn important here.

    I don't know, but I do know that it doesn't seem to take much to impress you. So for all I know you could frame this discussion and hang it on your wall. But, no, I stated that for two reasons: the first being that I got exhausted of being called a conservative, and the second to convey a value system. One which is rooted in equality and dignity and has, historically and ideologically, fought against misogynistic behavior.

    But you raise a good point, so I'll redirect your argument back at you: Are all conservatives misogynistic? If not, why have you only associated my thought processes with conservatism? Why wouldn't you call me a liberal?

    ...

    But...when you're not divested of those mores, you're not free to think for yourself and therefore you're not an individual and therefore that is precisely what you were saying. That a person who chooses to have outmoded ways of thinking is not an individual. You can't be a partial individual. You're either an individual or you're not; your choices are either effected or they are not.


    Whether or not it's impossible is irrelevant, because it is true. What bloated ego you have doesn't trump the fact that your experiences mold you from birth to become the person you are now. And I wasn't talking about her sense of individuality, but how she effects other peoples individuality.

    She has a greater and more negative effect than most people. This is why it is worth discussing.


    You're absolutely right, for all I know she could be a Rwandan civil rights activist. There is so much I don't know about her. Shit, for all I know, my mother could be a Rwandan civil rights activist.

    But I could wager a limb, that if she had made even a remotely intelligent remark at any point in her life about fucking anything, that would have been the cusp of your argument, and we wouldn't be going back and forth here talking about how she appears to be fighting for sexual liberation.

    You would have presented that point, I would have said something along the lines of "holy shit I didn't know she had such strong and meaningful convictions, I'm sorry for being a judgmental ass" and this conversation would've been over 24 hours ago.

    1) I don't care about the western world. I care about the world
    2) I don't think a 20 something year old pop star is a danger to international plutocratic capitalism

    No, I meant what I said, I wasn't being witty. She's a product (lack of individuality.) I guess in a figurative sense, I'm arguing about the colors of the American flag, what they stand for and represent, the effects that it has on people. Miley is symbol, a revolting and vain one, one that has profound psychological effects on many people. So I do and, yet, I don't blame her.

    Absolutely correct. Since you have so much respect for her, I imagine you would have a better idea of how socially conscious she is, so why don't you try to convince me otherwise? I swear to god, you give me so much as an inkling that she has strong thoughtful social convictions (which haven't been fed to her) and I will renounce everything I have said about her.

    I honestly have no clue. I imagine you would be more suited to answer that question. I don't think you would. I mean, I don't give a shit what you think; in a sociological sense I care what people in general think, yes. But in a practical, immediate sense, I couldn't give less of a shit what you think.

    I mean I've met quite a few of them. I lived in a dorm surrounded by several thousand of them. I know that it is irrational to take the behaviors of a handful of people and extend them onto millions, but I'm speaking about generalities here. I'm not making absolutist statements.

    Red Herring, right? Regardless, I've already addressed this.

    ...That's your defense? So you're basically admitting that was an entirely empty argument on your part. When the hell did I mention the past? Or state that I was speaking specifically of the present?

    I use the present tense, and this somehow implies that I'm forming a contrast with the past.

    Look up the definition.

    You haven't pointed shit out.

    People are often controlled using mechanisms a bit more sophisticated than violence and fear.

    If I wasn't making arguments, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I think you want me to support my claims with evidence.

    And I'll do that when you provide some evidence to support the four claims you made about her here. But I doubt we can do either one of those things.

    We're looking at the same image, but we see two entirely different things.

    You don't find her behavior nearly as disturbing as I do. And because I do, you assume right off the bat that it's because of her sexuality, which is a considerable testament to your capacity to reason.

    So the only way I can explain this is through a metaphor. It's like looking at a battlefield strewn with rotting corpses and festering limbs, and seeing a mother holding her dead child in her hands and asking her "What is wrong?"

    It is abundantly clear to me what is wrong here, to the point that I find it challenging to explain it to someone who doesn't, because our conflict here doesn't stem from a misunderstanding, but rather from a lack of common perception.

    You see a woman expressing her individuality with confidence and self-esteem; given this conventional perception, you then think that I'm also conventional and assume that if I disagree with you, then I must be a common conservative ass-hat belittling her because I think her behavior is immoral. You cannot imagine a disagreement coming from any oother source.

    But what I see is an intentional product of a corporate mechanism. A person who functions to impose a set of values and principles that promote self-indulgence and ego. Values that render it difficult for people to perceive the world around them in any capacity outside of themselves. So we have a generation that is very self-absorbed in it's understanding of the world. Who find it difficult to think about any subject that doesn't concern them immediately.
     
    1 person likes this.
  14. Sennsational

    Sennsational BANNED ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2007
    Messages:
    20,867
    Likes Received:
    11,139
    LOL! These responses must be taking you guys significant amounts of time to process, brainstorm and then respond! I've stopped reading them entirely and instead am awarding points on length and word count!

    :dance:
     
    7 people like this.
  15. Goatmaster6

    Goatmaster6 15 Year Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2008
    Messages:
    3,447
    Likes Received:
    2,060
    This place has more words that any of Homer's works.
     
    1 person likes this.
  16. robo99

    robo99 passing thru ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Messages:
    10,718
    Likes Received:
    15,086
    what kind of person spends this much time commenting on miley, then commenting on comments about himself

    a very strange and insecure individual indeed
     
    2 people like this.
  17. Sennsational

    Sennsational BANNED ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2007
    Messages:
    20,867
    Likes Received:
    11,139
    Hmmm. Firstly, I'm not exactly sure if I understand how you worded your comment and if it applies directly to me, but I can say that it's off-topic to the discussion at hand. Secondly, I'd probably agree with you in some part, but it would be more polite of you to send a PM rather than smash my fragile ego all over the thread.

    Also, now that you've forced this response, the thread is officially derailed beyond repair and will most assuredly be closed, just when the length of the responses was approaching record levels.
     
    1 person likes this.
  18. Herb Tarlek

    Herb Tarlek The 'H' is Silent

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    Messages:
    13,176
    Likes Received:
    9,690
    I really don't think the comment was directed to you personally, Senn. It was in agreement with your comment about the other responses.

    But now you mention it, you are a self-centred egotist for thinking it was about you. :lol2:

    I hear a Carly Simon song in my head ... "You're so vain, you probably thought this <comment> is about you...". :lol: :beerchug:
     
    1 person likes this.
  19. Sennsational

    Sennsational BANNED ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2007
    Messages:
    20,867
    Likes Received:
    11,139
    Haha, yeah... I wasn't sure after my first reading of it, so I figured I'd just attack to be on the safe side :lol: Poor Robo.

    EDIT: I thanked his post to smooth things over :D
     
    1 person likes this.
  20. stp52x

    stp52x

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2008
    Messages:
    2,602
    Likes Received:
    3,853
    I'm at work. So I have nothing better to do.
     
    2 people like this.

Share This Page