

- Navigation
- Hot
- New
- Recent Comments
- Activity Feed
- Marketplace
- Members Directory
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
I pledge to take action to defend people being assaulted in this way. Who's with me?
But you do bring up a legitimate point about how other people might not always know which terms are considered offensive or not, which is why I personally think it's best not to worry about it too much, and instead judge people by their actions, attitude, and intentions, rather than by the words they happen to choose.
George Orwell's Newspeak concept was about LIMITING speech, not about changing speech.
He's not a young girl, surgery and drug therapy notwithstanding.
There's no rational comparison of cause and effect.
We've gone over this again, and again, Humpty. The human reproductive organs exist to procreate the species. They do not exist for the purpose of pleasure; rather they provide addictive pleasure (on the order of heroin) in order to encourage animals to engage in the reproductive process.
The bonding of romantic feelings exists to ensure the survival of the offspring until they, in turn, are able to reproduce.
The imperfection of reproduction (that is, that every sexual encounter doesn't result in offspring) is an effect of evolution in action. If every time she were mounted, a female produced offspring, that would actually be detrimental to the species, particularly in the wild.
Any sexual attraction or romantic feeling that is not aligned with this evolutionary imperative is, to one degree or another, an illness.
This is obvious to people who recognize sex as reproduction, and seems impossible to recognize for people who can only think of sex as a means of pleasure.
I also find her very attractive, physically. Considering that her next project was where she portrayed half of a lesbian pair... not so much mentally (or maybe I should say "philosophically").
Taking your agenda to its ultimate destination, "Him" and "her" will one day be replaced in the Newspeak dictionary by either "them" or "it". I'm betting on "them", since that fits the collectivist mindset so well... Shades of "Anthem"...
Snooping the emails of law-abiding citizens? Taking a doughnut break? Going out on strike for more pay & higher retirement benefits? Where were they?
I know some may find it offensive but...if a man looks at Sofia Vergara and feels nothing, I feel concern for that man. And, I'm not being sarcastic. I just "don't understand it". But, I respect my gay friends, and appreciate that they respect me and my family.
I even know some women who will admit that they find Sofia attractive. It must be that the curves and softness has some sort of biological trigger. When I stop liking that you can put me in a pine box...
The actress who played Dagny Taggart in ASII?...Yep. No complaints here.
http://lexiecannes.com/2014/06/01/two-ar...
Load more comments...