|
| |||
|
|
How did we get from tattoos to this? Over on childfree_debate Beginning with the quite succinct view that the whole notion is rather silly at which No one has the right to be not-offended! The family in question has no right to ask to be seated away from something they find objectionable, nor to try and re-arrange seating so their kids aren't exposed. Behold the power of capitalism at work! If you don't like it just leave! If you do this often enough the owners of the establishment will ban people with tattoos! Behold! The first of many discussions of how this word does not mean what you think it means! This comes complete with a side order of "What do you mean this idea is classist? Obviously it bears no relation to classism! It's just capitalism at work! I have no problems with rich people being able to unilaterally dictate how businesses function while poor people don't have the money power to do anything about it!" But wait, There's more! Again with that word! I do not think it means what you think it means! -- Really, why not? -- This is my definition! -- Your definition sucks and I reject it -- No, your defintion sucks and I reject it. Let us pause for a brief moment of agreement. Oh! And another with a side order of Oh, Edited to add: CF_debate is a comm for CF and parents debate/discuss issues involving children, parents, and society -- at least that's what usually shows up. In the main it doesn't generally stir up much wank. The current spoogefest is fairly unusual as the comm goes, overall. I'd love to say that this is really funny, but mostly it's just chock full of WTF?!? ETA the second: The original post that sparked the discussion in question thank you ETA the third: Post a comment in response: |
||||||||||||||
|
Privacy Policy -
COPPA Legal Disclaimer - Site Map |