Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 5/6/2004 7:14:40 AM EST
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 7:31:37 AM EST
who cares
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 7:37:10 AM EST

Originally Posted By jadams951:
who cares



Agreed. This is not what I would call tragic.
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 7:38:44 AM EST
I think its kind of funny personally. people who play with fire usually get burned. and people who get paid to fornicate for a living get diseases.
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 7:40:34 AM EST
I'm not going too celebrate people having had this happen to them, but neither am I going to grieve.

Welcome to reality, folks. Mess with the bull and you run a very good risk of getting the horns.
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 7:43:21 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/6/2004 7:43:38 AM EST by FLAL1A]
And in other news, Jack Thompson, an auto mechanic in suburban Spring Glen, Maryland, reported today that his hands are absolutely filthy.
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 7:44:54 AM EST
If it's not Judy Starr, I dont care. She was one the second generation list, and the only one I liked.
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 7:45:51 AM EST

The actress had unprotected sex with HIV-positive actor Darren James, officials with the Adult Industry Medical Health Care Foundation said yesterday


What more is there to say?
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 7:48:08 AM EST


Actually, I expect most of them have HIV Dz.
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 7:48:42 AM EST
Do you also not offer sympathy for a family who just lost a loved one to a motorcycle accident? After all, he knew the risks...screw'him!

Because someone draws the short straw and gets impacted by a known risk of their profession, or activity doesn't mean that they are unworthy of sympathy. I guess they should have let those PA miners that were trapped a few years ago die!? Gee, miners trapped in a cave in, who'd have thunk...

Your beef with this is specific to your moral outrage...
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 8:18:54 AM EST

Originally Posted By DriftPunch:
Do you also not offer sympathy for a family who just lost a loved one to a motorcycle accident? After all, he knew the risks...screw'him!

Because someone draws the short straw and gets impacted by a known risk of their profession, or activity doesn't mean that they are unworthy of sympathy. I guess they should have let those PA miners that were trapped a few years ago die!? Gee, miners trapped in a cave in, who'd have thunk...

Your beef with this is specific to your moral outrage...



some of these girls are just dumb kids with a troubled past. do they deserve to die for making a stupid mistake? let him without sin cast the first stone.
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 8:19:50 AM EST
I dont really care either, what the hell to they expect.
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 8:29:20 AM EST

Originally Posted By DriftPunch: Your beef with this is specific to your moral outrage...

By George, I think you got it!
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 8:29:53 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/6/2004 8:31:31 AM EST by markm]

Originally Posted By DriftPunch:
Do you also not offer sympathy for a family who just lost a loved one to a motorcycle accident? After all, he knew the risks...screw'him!



Absolutely YES! Anyone who rides a M/C where I live is fucking crazy.
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 8:36:45 AM EST

Originally Posted By Older_Crow:

Originally Posted By DriftPunch: Your beef with this is specific to your moral outrage...

By George, I think you got it!



Then it's a bit dishonest to frame it as a 'risk of employment'. Just come out and say "I want that industry to die, and welcome any problem it faces."
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 8:37:43 AM EST

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
And in other news, Jack Thompson, an auto mechanic in suburban Spring Glen, Maryland, reported today that his hands are absolutely filthy.



So true. What did they expect to happen.
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 8:46:17 AM EST

Originally Posted By livefreeordieNH:
Let him without sin cast the first stone.



I couldn't agree more.
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 8:57:31 AM EST

Originally Posted By DriftPunch:
Do you also not offer sympathy for a family who just lost a loved one to a motorcycle accident? After all, he knew the risks...screw'him!

Because someone draws the short straw and gets impacted by a known risk of their profession, or activity doesn't mean that they are unworthy of sympathy. I guess they should have let those PA miners that were trapped a few years ago die!? Gee, miners trapped in a cave in, who'd have thunk...

Your beef with this is specific to your moral outrage...



It's not a beef, and it's not a matter of moral outrage. It's a judgment about the results of a truly retarded cost-benefit analysis which leads someone to say "Hmmm, even people who don't believe that sex outside marriage is per se wrong think that there is something disgusting and immoral about fucking multiple strangers on command for money. OTOH, I can make more money doing that than I can working for a living, so I will reject the moral judgment of my entire civilization, ignore the health risks involved, and fuck whomever I'm hired to fuck, on camera, for the entertainment of others." By all accounts, there is little or no pleasure involved in porn acting - at least for the women - and the social utility of the activity consists entirely of creating wank fodder. In other words, it is a high-risk activity generally acknowledged to be immoral, and it produces nothing of significant value. OTOH, an enlightened soul such as yourself will doubtless be thrilled when your little princess comes home one day at age 18 to announce "Daddy! Guess what! I'm making a movie where I'll be drilled in all three holes by 7 actors portraying a squad of Nigerian rebels! Guess how much they're gonna pay me!"
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 9:00:24 AM EST

Originally Posted By livefreeordieNH:

Originally Posted By DriftPunch:
Do you also not offer sympathy for a family who just lost a loved one to a motorcycle accident? After all, he knew the risks...screw'him!

Because someone draws the short straw and gets impacted by a known risk of their profession, or activity doesn't mean that they are unworthy of sympathy. I guess they should have let those PA miners that were trapped a few years ago die!? Gee, miners trapped in a cave in, who'd have thunk...

Your beef with this is specific to your moral outrage...



some of these girls are just dumb kids with a troubled past. do they deserve to die for making a stupid mistake? let him without sin cast the first stone.



Who threw stones? The comments I've seen amount to "That's what happens when you fuck multiple strangers. It isn't news. " And there is no reason that sympathy should be dissociated from the value of the activity causing injury. Do you think a porn "actor" with HIV should be regarded in the same way as a fireman with occupationally acquired emphysema?
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 9:01:33 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/6/2004 9:01:48 AM EST by M4arc]
I'm completely shocked that a porn star has tested positive for HIV...SHOCKED!
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 9:13:56 AM EST

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:

Who threw stones? The comments I've seen amount to "That's what happens when you fuck multiple strangers. It isn't news. " And there is no reason that sympathy should be dissociated from the value of the activity causing injury. Do you think a porn "actor" with HIV should be regarded in the same way as a fireman with occupationally acquired emphysema?



I understand that what you are saying is that you are unable to have sympathy for your fellow human being because you are morally superior to her. I find that rather sad.
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 9:16:18 AM EST

Originally Posted By livefreeordieNH:
some of these girls are just dumb kids with a troubled past. do they deserve to die for making a stupid mistake? let him without sin cast the first stone.



Having personally been IN the porn industry I can tell you that most if not all these girls are looking for the money. Some are looking for father figures to take care of them, but for the majority, they are looking at the cash they make. Coming from a rich or poor family has zero to do with it.
I'll cast the first stone because I have a clue. They don't deserve Aids, but you if you play with fire, you will eventually get burned.
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 9:20:00 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/6/2004 9:21:19 AM EST by DriftPunch]

OTOH, an enlightened soul such as yourself will doubtless be thrilled when your little princess comes home one day at age 18 to announce "Daddy! Guess what! I'm making a movie where I'll be drilled in all three holes by 7 actors portraying a squad of Nigerian rebels! Guess how much they're gonna pay me!"
Then I will have failed. You see, in society, there are winners and losers. The porn industry draws opportunists and losers, and you can imagine who actually makes the money. It may suprise you but I'm not a big porn guy.

My self appointed job here is to be the hypocracy police. I'm as sympathetic to people who are physically/mentally damaged and spit out of the end of the porn industry, as I am toward those who are physically/mentally damaged after being spit out of the football mill. They volunteered to play the game, very few won, most lost. Their different types of damage were all acknowledged risks. Their problems while not unexpected or textbook tragic, are not necessarily 'deserved' in the 'fuck'em' sense.
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 9:30:47 AM EST
As Ice Cube once said, "Big dicks in ya ass is bad fo' ya health!"

Link Posted: 5/6/2004 9:48:09 AM EST

Originally Posted By livefreeordieNH:

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:

Who threw stones? The comments I've seen amount to "That's what happens when you fuck multiple strangers. It isn't news. " And there is no reason that sympathy should be dissociated from the value of the activity causing injury. Do you think a porn "actor" with HIV should be regarded in the same way as a fireman with occupationally acquired emphysema?



I understand that what you are saying is that you are unable to have sympathy for your fellow human being because you are morally superior to her. I find that rather sad.



You don't understand much, apparently. Answer the question: Do you think a porn "actor" with HIV should be regarded in the same way as a fireman with occupationally acquired emphysema?
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 9:54:53 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/6/2004 9:56:25 AM EST by livefreeordieNH]

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:

You don't understand much, apparently. Answer the question: Do you think a porn "actor" with HIV should be regarded in the same way as a fireman with occupationally acquired emphysema?



On the contrary my assessment appears to be quite accurate. Witness that you have not attempted to deny it. With respect to your rhetorical question about firemen and porn stars, short of a lame attempt at manipulating the argument I see no relevance.

edited - dropped an endquote
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 9:58:21 AM EST

Originally Posted By DriftPunch:
My self appointed job here is to be the hypocracy police. I'm as sympathetic to people who are physically/mentally damaged and spit out of the end of the porn industry, as I am toward those who are physically/mentally damaged after being spit out of the football mill. They volunteered to play the game, very few won, most lost. Their different types of damage were all acknowledged risks. Their problems while not unexpected or textbook tragic, are not necessarily 'deserved' in the 'fuck'em' sense.



Do you have the same type and amount of sympathy for those guys who get stuck in ventilation shafts while burglarizing businesses? Do you have the same type and amount of sympathy for policemen injured on the job in shootouts or car wrecks? As I have asked a different sanctimonious poster, do you regard HIV positive porn "actors" in precisely the same way you regard a fireman with occupationally acquired emphysema?
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 10:01:29 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/6/2004 10:08:15 AM EST by FLAL1A]

Originally Posted By livefreeordieNH:

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:

You don't understand much, apparently. Answer the question: Do you think a porn "actor" with HIV should be regarded in the same way as a fireman with occupationally acquired emphysema?



On the contrary my assessment appears to be quite accurate. Witness that you have not attempted to deny it. With respect to your rhetorical question about firemen and porn stars, short of a lame attempt at manipulating the argument I see no relevance.

edited - dropped an endquote



I believe you do see the relevance, and are afraid to answer the question because any answer will puncture the balloon of your sanctimony. If you do not regard HIV positive porn stars and firemen with occupationally acquired emphysema in precisely the same way, then you are subject to the same sort of "judgmentalism" you condemn in others. If you do regard them in precisely the same way, you are a knucklehead. Which is it?

ETA: I do not regard myself as morally superior to porn stars or anyone else. Relative worth is not part of the analysis. The consequences at issue in this thread were well-known, horrific, and attendant upon an activity generally regarded as immoral and of little or no value. Sympathy for a porn star with AIDS is akin to saying "Poor Joe. It's so sad. He was just running a meth lab in his trailer and BLAMMO! Up in flames. How awful. I really feel for him." I don't care whether people make porn films, or meth, or anything else. It's bad when people are hurt. Sympathy, however (as your answer to the question you dodge will make plain) is largely a function of the victim's innocence, or the worthiness of the occasion of injury, or both.
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 10:09:13 AM EST


So when porn actors start to die of their disease, do they get to make a wish with the Make a Wish Foundation? They pretty much ruined it for me... because before all this happened, if I were dying of a terminal disease my wish would have been to fuck a porn star... now I have lost all hope.

Maybe if they had bigger aspirations they would have been a productive part of society instead of paid/glorified gutter trash.

You know what this is?

The world's smallest violin playing just for the HIV porn fuckers!
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 10:11:16 AM EST

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:

Originally Posted By DriftPunch:
My self appointed job here is to be the hypocracy police. I'm as sympathetic to people who are physically/mentally damaged and spit out of the end of the porn industry, as I am toward those who are physically/mentally damaged after being spit out of the football mill. They volunteered to play the game, very few won, most lost. Their different types of damage were all acknowledged risks. Their problems while not unexpected or textbook tragic, are not necessarily 'deserved' in the 'fuck'em' sense.



Do you have the same type and amount of sympathy for those guys who get stuck in ventilation shafts while burglarizing businesses? Do you have the same type and amount of sympathy for policemen injured on the job in shootouts or car wrecks? As I have asked a different sanctimonious poster, do you regard HIV positive porn "actors" in precisely the same way you regard a fireman with occupationally acquired emphysema?



You are bringing the nobility of the profession into the equation, something you avoided earlier by indicating it was a simple risk/reward decision and had nothing to do with 'societal value'. Let's bring it back to apples and apples, and keep it within the entertainment industry. If asked the question, "do I feel there's a difference in F'ed up hollywood stuntmen, F'ed up football players, or and F'ed up porn stars?" The answer would be no.
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 10:12:21 AM EST

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
I believe you do see the relevance, and are afraid to answer the question because any answer will puncture the balloon of your sanctimony. If you do not regard HIV positive porn stars and firemen with occupationally acquired emphysema in precisely the same way, then you are subject to the same sort of "judgmentalism" you condemn in others. If you do regard them in precisely the same way, you are a knucklehead. Which is it?



let's see if i can put this in such a way that someone with your limited mental capabilities will be able to follow...

I said that you appear to be unable to show any sympathy to your fellow human being due to your moral superiority (speaking of sanctimony).

Rather than dispute this point, you countered in an attempt to switch the argument to one you could win, ie: is a fireman who has suffered injuries due to occupational hazards not more worthy of sympathy than a porn star.

As I said, this is a rhetorical question and one which you are using to avoid the point I am making which is that you are unable to feel a hint of sympathy for a porn starlet with aids because her choices in life are immoral. Sanctimonious? Pot, meet kettle.

Link Posted: 5/6/2004 10:17:12 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/6/2004 10:18:08 AM EST by FLAL1A]

Originally Posted By DriftPunch:


Do you have the same type and amount of sympathy for those guys who get stuck in ventilation shafts while burglarizing businesses? Do you have the same type and amount of sympathy for policemen injured on the job in shootouts or car wrecks? As I have asked a different sanctimonious poster, do you regard HIV positive porn "actors" in precisely the same way you regard a fireman with occupationally acquired emphysema?


You are bringing the nobility of the profession into the equation, something you avoided earlier by indicating it was a simple risk/reward decision and had nothing to do with 'societal value'. Let's bring it back to apples and apples, and keep it within the entertainment industry. If asked the question, "do I feel there's a difference in F'ed up hollywood stuntmen, F'ed up football players, or and F'ed up porn stars?" The answer would be no.



Let's try just a tiny, tiny bit of reading comprehension, shall we?

From my original post: "By all accounts, there is little or no pleasure involved in porn acting - at least for the women - and the social utility of the activity consists entirely of creating wank fodder. In other words, it is a high-risk activity generally acknowledged to be immoral, and it produces nothing of significant value. "


OK? Get it? I brought up the "nobility of the profession " and "societal value" in the very same post in which I mentioned the risk/reward analysis. Does actually reading the post change your comment? Care to explain how I avoided those subjects?

edited for board code.
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 10:18:34 AM EST
Is anybody really surprised?
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 10:22:57 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/6/2004 10:25:26 AM EST by FLAL1A]

Originally Posted By livefreeordieNH:

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
I believe you do see the relevance, and are afraid to answer the question because any answer will puncture the balloon of your sanctimony. If you do not regard HIV positive porn stars and firemen with occupationally acquired emphysema in precisely the same way, then you are subject to the same sort of "judgmentalism" you condemn in others. If you do regard them in precisely the same way, you are a knucklehead. Which is it?



let's see if i can put this in such a way that someone with your limited mental capabilities will be able to follow...

I said that you appear to be unable to show any sympathy to your fellow human being due to your moral superiority (speaking of sanctimony).

Rather than dispute this point, you countered in an attempt to switch the argument to one you could win, ie: is a fireman who has suffered injuries due to occupational hazards not more worthy of sympathy than a porn star.

As I said, this is a rhetorical question and one which you are using to avoid the point I am making which is that you are unable to feel a hint of sympathy for a porn starlet with aids because her choices in life are immoral. Sanctimonious? Pot, meet kettle.




I am able to feel sympathy for sick porn stars. I would be obligated top help one who asked me for help. However, I choose not feel or to encourage sympathy toward a person with a self-inflicted injury acquired in the pursuit of an activity that is morally qurestionable, and that no responsible adult would ever have advised her to pursue. The fact is that injury due to noble and/or innocent activity is more deserving of sympathy than injury due to voluntary, sleazy, pointless activity.

ETA: Defend your assertion that any lack of sympathy is or must be based on my moral superiority, given that I have explained that I do not believe myself to be morally superior to a porn star.
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 10:25:32 AM EST

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
OK? Get it? I brought up the "nobility of the profession " and "societal value" in the very same post in which I mentioned the risk/reward analysis. Does actually reading the post change your comment? Care to explain how I avoided those subjects?

edited for board code.



Yes, the very same post you said that it had nothing to do with 'morality". You said:

It's not a beef, and it's not a matter of moral outrage.
Thus, your contradiction in authoring the post, outweighs the fact that I ignored much of what you said... So there!
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 10:26:41 AM EST
I don't exactly think we should be a nation of mourning over this issue, but the bible thumpers and moral elites are being pretty hypocritical here. These men and women aren't bad people, they are not second class citizens. They are part of a legal profession-one that society shuns openly but can't wait to get home and beat off/fuck to.

Raise your hand if you have ever curiously viewed Pornography!

If you did, you have no moral ground to judge the HIV victims because you were an accessory to their infection. The actors would have never gotten sick if there weren't a market to cater to.

I've got a sister who titty-danced out of high school. She was a pretty good student, but lazy and didn't make a go of college-so she became a stripper. She was a pretty normal girl, I viewed it at the time as simply being a poor lifestyle choice because of the people she had to associate with, but I didn't think of her as dirty or immoral. The same goes for the drug addicts she worked with: those girls were just "people doing what people do" to get by.

Dave
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 10:27:58 AM EST

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
From my original post: "By all accounts, there is little or no pleasure involved in porn acting - at least for the women - and the social utility of the activity consists entirely of creating wank fodder. In other words, it is a high-risk activity generally acknowledged to be immoral, and it produces nothing of significant value. "



So do they gt hazard pay for their jobs?
Fuck'em. They can walk away from the job any time they want. If flipping burgers or waiting tables is more demeaning than sucking cocks and taking it in the ass then they are nothing more than functional moral retards.

And somehow I seriously doubt that they get NO pleasure from their "acting". If they didn't they probably wouldn't keep doing it... but those dollar signs wash all the inner pain away.

Personally I think porn should be the proving grounds for all up and coming actresses. If they can convince me they are enjoying being made airtight, they have a lot of potential. Not to mention that it's a serious injustice to see some of the non-porn hotties with their clothes throughout their entire careers.
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 10:32:09 AM EST

Originally Posted By DriftPunch:

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
OK? Get it? I brought up the "nobility of the profession " and "societal value" in the very same post in which I mentioned the risk/reward analysis. Does actually reading the post change your comment? Care to explain how I avoided those subjects?

edited for board code.



Yes, the very same post you said that it had nothing to do with 'morality". You said:

It's not a beef, and it's not a matter of moral outrage.
Thus, your contradiction in authoring the post, outweighs the fact that I ignored much of what you said... So there!



Nice try. "Social utility" is not a moral concept. People's lack of sympathy for these folks is not based on "moral outrage." I haven't seen any of these people express moral outrage at pronography in this or any other thread. People have simply concluded that receiving a predictable injury in a useless occupation does not qualify for sympathetic treatment. I am not morally outraged, nor do I feel in any way morally superior to Timothy Treadwell, that assclown "bearsinger" dipshit who was eaten by bears last year. He died screaming and in great pain as he was eaten by one of these creaturtes with whom he felt such a "special connection." That's bad. However, I feel no sympathy for him whatsoever. He was doing something useless and dangerous. The predictable result came to him. How are porn actors any different?
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 10:41:01 AM EST

Originally Posted By TheOtherDave:
I don't exactly think we should be a nation of mourning over this issue, but the bible thumpers and moral elites are being pretty hypocritical here. These men and women aren't bad people, they are not second class citizens. They are part of a legal profession-one that society shuns openly but can't wait to get home and beat off/fuck to.

While prosecutions are extremely rare, I have doubts about its legality. Fucking because you are being paid to do is prostitution, even if you're being paid by a third party, and that's illegal almost everywhere.

Raise your hand if you have ever curiously viewed Pornography!

I like looking at porn. I also like watching that Australian crocodile guy. My sympathy for him when a crocodile takes his leg off will be comparable to my sympathy for infected porn stars.

If you did, you have no moral ground to judge the HIV victims because you were an accessory to their infection. The actors would have never gotten sick if there weren't a market to cater to.

To lack sympathy is not to judge - at least not on moral grounds, although an adverse moral judgment may lead to a lack of sympathy.


I've got a sister who titty-danced out of high school. She was a pretty good student, but lazy and didn't make a go of college-so she became a stripper. She was a pretty normal girl, I viewed it at the time as simply being a poor lifestyle choice because of the people she had to associate with, but I didn't think of her as dirty or immoral. The same goes for the drug addicts she worked with: those girls were just "people doing what people do" to get by.

Dave



Would you have been "sympathetic" to complaints that she was ogled and propositioned by drunk losers at work? Or would you have pointed out that being ogled and propositioned by drunk losers is what happens at titty bars?
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 10:45:23 AM EST

Originally Posted By TheOtherDave:
I've got a sister who titty-danced out of high school. She was a pretty good student, but lazy and didn't make a go of college-so she became a stripper. She was a pretty normal girl, I viewed it at the time as simply being a poor lifestyle choice because of the people she had to associate with, but I didn't think of her as dirty or immoral. The same goes for the drug addicts she worked with: those girls were just "people doing what people do" to get by.

Dave



Did you or your friends ever go see her perform?
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 11:00:15 AM EST

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:

While prosecutions are extremely rare, I have doubts about its legality. Fucking because you are being paid to do is prostitution, even if you're being paid by a third party, and that's illegal almost everywhere.

Riiight.... The Strom Thermond crowd wants to ban your porn, etc etc, do think if they could exploit a legal mechanism to do it by compelling the 'actors' to stop filming, don't you think they would hvae done it by now? I agree with you though, at it's root porn represents payment for sex. BUT, I don't think that should be illegal, and we have freedom of the press which has been the main thing keeping the sex industry alive.

I like looking at porn. I also like watching that Australian crocodile guy. My sympathy for him when a crocodile takes his leg off will be comparable to my sympathy for infected porn stars.

I'm not saying you should be openly displaying crocodile tears when a porn actor gets infected. I'm saying you shouldn't judge them or get on your high-horse and tell them they 'deserved it'. Porn is a high risk profession, they roll the dice they take their chances. I don't have ill will for anyone who is making a living honestly-so what if the actors live fast and die young, at least they aren't stealing/killing/raping to do it.

To lack sympathy is not to judge - at least not on moral grounds, although an adverse moral judgment may lead to a lack of sympathy.

Just remember that when you have a handful of lube at the ready and you pop that tape in the VCR.

Would you have been "sympathetic" to complaints that she was ogled and propositioned by drunk losers at work? Or would you have pointed out that being ogled and propositioned by drunk losers is what happens at titty bars?



Nope. Not a bit. Besides, EVERYONE knows that the dances take care of the bouncers!

Dave
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 11:04:52 AM EST
<Did you or your friends ever go see her perform?>

Yeeah,.. unintentionally.

My best friend and I turned 18 within 2 weeks of one another, so we wen out to do the titty bar thing together. I called my sister prior to that to find out when she had a day off, and made sure to ask the guy at the front if she was there before we went in. Well, turns out my sister had a stage name and decided to go in on her day of/told me the wrong day. It's bad enough to see your sis nekkid, but she was like 5 months pregnant too. Just bad and wrong. She freaked out and saw me before I saw (too much)of her and ran off stage.

My buddy digged her though
Link Posted: 5/6/2004 11:05:49 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/6/2004 11:09:26 AM EST by FLAL1A]

Originally Posted By livefreeordieNH: At 3:12:21

let's see if i can put this in such a way that someone with your limited mental capabilities will be able to follow...

I said that you appear to be unable to show any sympathy to your fellow human being due to your moral superiority (speaking of sanctimony).

Rather than dispute this point, you countered in an attempt to switch the argument to one you could win, ie: is a fireman who has suffered injuries due to occupational hazards not more worthy of sympathy than a porn star.





Posted by FLAL1A At 3:08:15

I do not regard myself as morally superior to porn stars or anyone else.



Can someone verify the inverse correlation between reading comprehension and membership in the Self-Appointed Hypocrisy Police? I get 2 for 2 so far today.

Link Posted: 5/6/2004 11:07:03 AM EST
with titles such as cornhole armageddon, ass clowns, planet of gapes and such I am not surprised they got aids.

Porn just isn't porn anymore. It's sadistic and twisted now

Top Top