Clicking Follow Back will add user to your friends list and may allow access to your Social News timeline..

HuffPost Social News

Badges:
Your Badges and the Badge Module will be removed from your profile

CatDeville Llewellyn's Comments

View Comments:   Sort:
Madelyn Sheaffer's Bikini Gets Her Banned From Missouri Water Park

Madelyn Sheaffer's Bikini Gets Her Banned From Missouri Water Park

Commented Jul 7, 2013 at 16:35:52 in Weird News

“Yes. It is clearly discrimination. The water park, *and* the city need to have clear, and clearly *posted* guidelines as to what is acceptable and what is not acceptable if they are going to require patrons to adhere to a dress code, otherwise they open themselves up to a discrimination suit. If any other woman, regardless of age or fitness level, was wearing a similar bikini, then they have just lost. And looking at the bikini that the woman who was evicted is wearing, I can guarantee you that some "hot young things" were likely wearing more revealing suits. And the fact that they might have indeed been "hot young things" while she is an older woman who may be less fit, is irrelevant. Aesthetics are a matter of taste, they cannot be used to discriminate. So the important thing is this... if there's a dress code, it must be clearly set out, not a matter of the judgment of a couple of teen age employees, it must be posted, and it must be equally applied. Otherwise, yes, it can be considered discrimination.”

Shelia Powers on Jul 8, 2013 at 02:30:05

“May this FL woman point one thing out to all of you who think "hot young things" look so great in their bikinis? NO!! They don't! Believe me, maybe one out of 10 look great in their bikinis.But, due to the out of shape, overweight & just plain dumpy looking young people that we have in this country now very, very few look good. You might see some on t.v.or photoshopped, and a few in reality, but for the most part they do NOT look like young people did 20 years ago. In fact, we see many more women in their 30s, 40's and up who have much nicer figures than these "curvy" girls out there today. They've convinced themselves that huge butts & "curves" are sexy, but um... actually they're not. So, you guys should really leave the age issue out of it. She probably looked better than more than half of the "hot young thangs" who were at the park that day. LOL Seriously.”

Delphi Omally on Jul 7, 2013 at 20:45:13

“agreed....I would add a strike-through here "...can be considered".....and add "is"....”

Brenda82 on Jul 7, 2013 at 19:43:18

“Most parks of this type do indeed have posted dress codes. And I'm just guessing if she, and a fit, "hot young thing", were wearing the same suit, the "hot young thing's" parts would be better covered than this 43 year old woman.”
Obama Newtown Speech: President Addresses Vigil For Sandy Hook Shooting Victims (FULL TEXT)

Obama Newtown Speech: President Addresses Vigil For Sandy Hook Shooting Victims (FULL TEXT)

Commented Dec 17, 2012 at 16:08:14 in Politics

“We are *NOT*... We have never been a "Christian Nation" (you're not only taking historical documents out of context, you're also ignoring that most of us were not "equal" when the declaration of independence was written)... any more than we have ever been "One Nation Under God", which is why so many of us will not say that.

Whose God? Your God? My God? My Heathen neighbor's god, Thor? My Hindu neighbor's god(s)? My Buddhist neighbor's "God" (Buddhist's don't have one, nor do Atheists, Humanists, or Agnostics.)

In other words, what *you* are saying is that you want to indoctrinate *our*/*their* children with *YOUR* Christian god, and turn this into a theocracy. No, *THANK YOU*!

We don't have to try that for fifty years... we did it for 150 already... I grew up in the days when we were lead in Protestant prayer even if we were Jewish, Atheist, Catholic, Hindu, Buddhist, or "other"... I remember what it was like for those children to be disenfranchised and harassed because they weren't one of *YOU*... and the SCOTUS put an end to that for a very good reason.

NO... we *WILL NOT GO BACK*... and you are not really much of a Christian if you believe that the fact that you cannot bully other children into being part of your religion is why this insane young man committed this atrocity.”

ChimericalOne on Dec 18, 2012 at 02:19:16

“Do you know what the irony of it all is? While Jesus encouraged his disciples to go and spread his word, he never judged another person based on their beliefs. In fact, as far as he was concerned, it was a person's actions that determined if they were good and decent, not their words or public standing.

My favorite parable: the Good Samaritan. Of the three people who saw the man lying hurt and broken in the road, it was the non-believer who was righteous in the eyes of God.

Prayer's not needed in schools. If children want to pray, let them. If not, don't force them. If people want to teach religion in schools, teach them all and not just the ones they want. Most of all, however, teach what's important: compassion, understanding and the desire to help others when they need help. We need these vaules before tragedies like this occur, not after.”
Pulpit Freedom Sunday: Pastors Challenge IRS Ban On Political Endorsements

Pulpit Freedom Sunday: Pastors Challenge IRS Ban On Political Endorsements

Commented Oct 5, 2012 at 21:56:35 in Religion

“"There should be a separation between church and state," he said. "The government does not control what happens inside a church." says Stanley of the Alliance Defending Freedom in the article. Conversely, Mr. Stanley, the Church should not participate directly in controlling the government.

I know that a lot of my friends oppose Churches having tax exempt status, partly based on the problem of the few Churches who *VIOLATE* 501(c)3 rules and take too direct a part in the political process, *WHICH VIOLATES THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE*. This is not only harmful to our religious freedom, but also is unfair to those Churches which play the game by the rules. So, my advise to those friends - this is your opportunity to actually *DO SOMETHING* about those Churches violating the policy willfully. If you know of any of these 1,400 pastors, if any of them are in your area - attend their Church on October 7th and record their sermons, take videos if possible, pick up any pamphlets or materials that they hand out... and then *FILE A COMPLAINT*. The IRS cannot investigate any Church without a *CREDIBLE, WRITTEN* complaint, but if you provide them with that credible, written complaint, they should investigate, and if these pastors are *documented* as participating in this act of civil disobedience, then they should reap the consequences.”

wjs27skeet on Oct 6, 2012 at 17:34:12

“Read the writings of our founding fathers. They allowed religious services in the Capitol Building while churches were being built in DC, they never intended religious to be gaged in matters of politics but were opposed to government dictating religion. This idea seperation of church and state is a made up proposition, derived from a letter of Pres Jefferson, and misrepresented.”

Mary Handy Moore on Oct 6, 2012 at 15:01:36

“I agree, but I think it would be more than civil disobedience. AWS was civil disobedience; the Civil Rights Movement is civil disobedience; notice they are all non-violent and broke no laws (except those maybe imposed upon them for underhanded purposes; thus, only those laws would be illegal). But this imposition would not be non-violent and it would not be civil. It is a crime to do it. It is blatant disregard for the rules or laws and is therefore criminal to some degree. Lawlessness is violence. Nary a gun needs to be fired.”
huffingtonpost entry

Rich People More Likely To Take Candy From Children: Real Report

Commented Feb 29, 2012 at 01:31:00 in Business

“"Rich people are more likely to take candy from children, lie, cheat, endorse unethical behavior at work, and cut off pedestrians while driving, a study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found. "

This really doesn't surprise me. There are only a few ways to become "rich", and most of them require that the person prioritize money over people and ethics, and many of them require that a person lie, cheat, steal and/or exploit others, so there seems to me to be a natural corollary here. It is possible to become rich by creating something, but it's much more rare than the other ways to do so.”

ActaNonVerbaNow on Feb 29, 2012 at 14:33:52

“I concur and will throw in that the same callousness that serves one well in becoming rich also serves them well in they and their children staying rich. A lot of elite preparatory schools are partially designed to whip the empathy out of those rich kids.”

PenGoddess on Feb 29, 2012 at 13:20:11

“And those who have been poor at some point in their lives, tend to be more empathetic than those who have always been rich, it seems to me.”
huffingtonpost entry

Christians, Stop Fearing Obama

Commented Sep 21, 2012 at 11:50:50 in Religion

“"God is not going to be erased from America if Obama is re-elected. God is bigger than politics, America and the Earth. But when we forget that, and say and do things like burn Qurans and criticize a religion that has millions of peaceful adherents, we're showing that we've forgotten the sovereignty and power of God. By elevating America -- just one out of the many countries filled with people God sent Christ to die for -- we're missing the point. That all people, American or not, are people worthy of love, dignity and respect. "

Emily Timbol, a Christian, explains why Conservative Christians should have faith and not give in to their irrational fears and transfer them to Obama and Muslims. I agree with her, except on her last line - I have to admit that I *DO* fear Romney, and the Republicans because of their platform. But then I'm not Christian, and they teach hate and fear which they direct towards anyone who is not part of their little club. But Ms. Timbol's words are much wiser than my fear.”

Pastapharian on Sep 22, 2012 at 16:58:00

“Excellent post! F & F!”

Jan Bird on Sep 21, 2012 at 12:38:17

“Very nicely put, as was the article. I'm not Christian either, and I'm not American. I watch from the UK and I see bitterness and anger and a great deal of fear. I wonder how a country so divided right now can heal itself, whoever wins the election. I hope very much it will be President Obama. I don't agree with everything he's done but I look at the Republican agenda, dictated as it is by those who seem to think that the Bible should dictate government policies, and it scares me. America has phenomenal fire power, wealth and influence. I want those to be used wisely, for Americans and the wider world.”
What Do You Say to

What Do You Say to "I Don't Believe in Monogamy"?

Commented Sep 3, 2011 at 20:04:48 in Canada

“Thanks for the compliment. Hope I'm able to entertain, and maybe even occasionally enlighten. :)

But I can't take full credit for it. I think that Heinlein actually said it best. "Love shared is love multiplied." (From Time Enough for Love) But you kinda have to have the background for that to speak the volumes that is intended.”
What Do You Say to

What Do You Say to "I Don't Believe in Monogamy"?

Commented Aug 27, 2011 at 20:39:48 in Canada

“I'm sorry... I'm trying hard to take you seriously, really I am. You do understand that some things don't reduce to mathematical analysis, right? You simply can't quantify "human imperfection" the way that you have, it's far too subjective. Things have to be *objective* to be able to convert them to math... emotions, relationships - those are too subjective for math to apply.

But if they were objective, what's to say that instead of the calculation being a reduction (each combo becomes progressively more imperfect)? What's to say that what you learn from each relationship doesn't improve your relationship skills, so that each relationship actually *compounds* your "percentage"? Your assumption that "it can *only* get worse" is faulty, because it's based on no data, no observations. People aren't math. Life isn't math. And emotions don't reduce to mathematical equations

Some people use conflict resolution as opportunities for growth. The more opportunities, the more growth.”
What Do You Say to

What Do You Say to "I Don't Believe in Monogamy"?

Commented Aug 26, 2011 at 19:20:39 in Canada

“Not all religions require (or even advocate) monogamy. Non-monogamy is not a "sin" in all religions (there are even those in which sex is a sacrament, not a sin.) People forget when they start tossing around the word "religion" that there's more than one religion. Just as religiously biased people forget (or ignore) that there's more than one "god", more than one scripture ("word of God"? Which God?") Monotheists are particularly rude about this, because their *believe* that there is only One God - *THEIR* God (above all the other "false" gods) gives them an arrogance that leads them to treat other religions as though they are not religions at all, because *their* religion teaches them that no other religion is valid.

This makes for an ongoing source of conflict in a country which is *NOT* a Theocracy, but a democratic republic (or a constitutional monarchy) in which freedom of religion is a constitutionally protected right. The rest of your false assumptions have been addressed by others.”
What Do You Say to

What Do You Say to "I Don't Believe in Monogamy"?

Commented Aug 26, 2011 at 19:05:37 in Canada

“I'm sorry... which is it - a "swinger" relationship (you have recreational sex with other people) or is it a polyamorous relationship (you are allowed to have loving relationships with other people, which may or may not include sex)? They're two different things. You can be a swinger and be in a poly relationship, or you can be poly and swing some times, but if you say it's one thing *or* the other, you've told us nothing, really, beyond the fact that it's not-monogamous. Polyamory is about having multiple *loving relationships*... swinging is about having recreational sex with others, and sometimes even has rules specifically against emotional involvement. It's a significant difference for many people, not because they judge one as being more "moral" than the other, but because it'simportant to understand the difference to prevent misunderstandings and conflicting expectations.

From what you've said, it sounds like you started out swinging, but have discovered you're secure enough in your "primary" relationship to feel comfortable exploring polyamory. But I'm interested in how you identify.”
What Do You Say to

What Do You Say to "I Don't Believe in Monogamy"?

Commented Aug 26, 2011 at 18:49:13 in Canada

“You know - as the gestalt prayer goes - "I am not in this world to live up to your expectations..." It's certainly your right to choose not to believe me. . It's not my job to convince you of my reality, especially when you're stubbornly determined to retain your POV and to assume bad faith if that's what's necessary to do so. You can't conceive of it, so it can't be so. That's OK, really. You're opinion isn't really relevant to my happiness. Your refusal (or inability) to accept a paradigm outside of your own experience doesn't change my reality - it doesn't "make it not so."

As to being "more advanced." Reality check- people are fallible, but people have different "talents". I sing well-that's one of my talents. I'm good with languages. Organization, communication and group dynamics, are also skills I excel at. Critical thinking is another, and I'm also well "above average" when it comes to "customer service" (which includes skills such as asking good fact finding questions, empathizing with another person, problem solving and negotiating until you reach a "win-win" solution.) Beyond that I'm considerate, conscientious and compassionate. It says so on my employee reviews regularly.

All of these are skills which help me in navigating relationships. That doesn't mean I've ever had a perfect relationship. People are flawed. I'm sure I'm better than some people at these things, not as good as others. C'est la vie.”

jf12 on Aug 26, 2011 at 23:37:41

“Exactly, imperfect is just the way life is, and relationships are. Suppose a typical decision to be committed is some imperfect fraction, what, 80% maybe? of what it should be or intended to be. Ok, that's between two, i.e. between X and Y. With three, say XYY, there's three such imperfect realtionships between pairs, times some combo with all three, plus all those far more imperfect (right?) others. What are we down to now, just because of example 80% pair imperfections - down to like 30%? 20%? The point is it can *only* get worse.

If you can't be committed to just one exclusively, you are less able to be committed vaguely to two and others. Sorry, that's life, and that's math.”
What Do You Say to

What Do You Say to "I Don't Believe in Monogamy"?

Commented Aug 25, 2011 at 16:40:03 in Canada

“@jf12... yes, words have meanings. They have "denotative" meanings and "connotative" meanings. The fact that other people don't accept your personal connotations does not mean that the word has no meaning to them.

The word "commit" means (in this context) "to pledge (oneself) to a position on an issue or question; express (one's intention, feeling, etc.)" ... "to bind or obligate, as by pledge or assurance; pledge:"

In both of those meaning we were committed to our family, to each other's well being. No where in any of those definitions is there any reference to "exclusivity". That's a connotation imposed upon the definition by individuals in specific contexts.

So yes - words have meaning - but they aren't always clear meanings, and they don't always mean the same thing to any two different people. There are lots of words like that. Love, freedom, justice, patriotism... in fact, any word with any semantic load tends to be rife with connotations which occur with some people, but not with others.

I'm sorry that the fact that my personal choice not to bow to your connotations is so distressing to you - but that's one of my personal ideas of "freedom". And part of my personal definition of "love" is that it is more expressive when open, and less expressive when limited by unnecessary constraints. And for me, arbitrarily assuming "sexual exclusivity" in a relationship is unnecessary constraints.”

jf12 on Aug 26, 2011 at 16:12:50

“So so say you're all solidly bonded together, kind of like epoxy. Can't do one without the other, you might say. Oh wait, except, yes, yes you can: you can do the one, and leave out the other, and probably frequently do so. So it's kind of a fluidly bonded, uh, wait.

I simply don't believe you. Anyone can say anything, pretend anything, but it doesn't make it so. It is difficult enough for two people to be committed "you said you'd call at 3, and it's already 3:05"; why pretend you're so much more advanced that you get extra points for the extra difficulty of three, plus various others wandering in and out, and in, and out. All so committed to each other,and everyone else too.”
What Do You Say to

What Do You Say to "I Don't Believe in Monogamy"?

Commented Aug 25, 2011 at 16:26:27 in Canada

“The "what if" conversation-what if I got pregnant and it wasn't yours, or you got another woman pregnant-was part of the discussion I had with my 1st husband before we got married. It's a discussion that *ALL* poly couples *MUST* have. Unplanned pregnancies *DO* occur, no matter how careful you might be. A poly family often has different options and perceptions, so we get different results.

I empathize with your experience, but I have a different perspective. You see... *my* father was a *cheater* - big time. I have 1/2 brothers and sisters all across the country. I was blessed, just last week, to meet my 1/2 sister and her family for the first time. I now have a sister, niece, nephews and brother-in-law that I never had before. That's a blessing from my perspective. And it's unfair to her that she never had my father or his resources to draw upon.

But that's not polyamory - that's cheating. If it had been polyamory she would not have been hidden from us. Had we been a poly household she, and her mother, would have been part of our family, would have shared our resources. And we might both have grown up with three (or more) parents, and the added resources that can provide, rather than with single mothers. We wouldn't be hunting down siblings.

Life is not simple-if we oversimplify it, we're left without resources and options we might otherwise have.”
What Do You Say to

What Do You Say to "I Don't Believe in Monogamy"?

Commented Aug 25, 2011 at 16:09:50 in Canada

“OK... apologies... you're dealing with an entirely different set of moral absolutes and biases than I thought you were.

What if, then, the marriage is three way or four way or more way? What if *ALL* children are welcome in the marriage, regardless of who the father is? What if *ALL* children are treated with an equal right to exist and as though they all have an equal right to the "resources" of the *family* as a whole (and with more adults, there are more resources!)? What if *ALL* the children, regardless of who the progenitors are, are treated with love by *ALL* adults in the family.

Again... while you create an argument that for you seems to be a moral imperative ("it's just not fair"), my perspective is very different - and my experience is very different as well.

You see, I had the legal husband, and the spiritual husband, and the unplanned pregnancy "scare", and so we confronted these questions, and the answer for us was that if we had children, they would ALL be *OUR* children. *Both* of the men would be "the father", and they would not look to divisive questions of who the genetic contributor was. I've also seen families who handle it differently, but poly families do often consider pregnancies, and the commitments involved. In our case, there was no "inside the marriage" or "outside the marriage", there was the simple fact that any child born of our bodies was *OUR* child.”
What Do You Say to

What Do You Say to "I Don't Believe in Monogamy"?

Commented Aug 25, 2011 at 15:53:48 in Canada

“"Your triad commitment was still exclusive," Actually, it wasn't. That's an unwarranted assumption on your part. Both my husbands and I had other relationships. At one point we even shared a "girlfriend" among the three of us. We had rules that we worked out that worked for us, but sexual exclusivity wasn't one of those rules.

Neither, just FYI, was emotional exclusivity. We were always open to having other people added to the family, but we were an open triad, so there were indeed "other temporary girlfriends and boyfriends being met in other houses" as well as other potential lovers met at our house (and out to dinner, etc.)

And as for "Mr. Frenchlike Dude" since you've got the same data I got to begin with, I am going to assume that you're 101% percent certainty level is just as likely to be wrong about him as you were about us. That happens when you start out with a false assumption, and then build upon it.

That simply doesn't work when you're talking cultures and lifestyles that you have no experience with or knowledge of, which seems to be the case here.”

jf12 on Aug 25, 2011 at 15:58:21

“I.e. not really committed at all then. Glad to have settled the issue of "words have meanings".”
What Do You Say to

What Do You Say to "I Don't Believe in Monogamy"?

Commented Aug 25, 2011 at 10:43:20 in Canada

“Why would you demand that couples planning to have children commit to monogamy? I know of many polyamorous families where children benefit by having more than two adults to depend upon as parents. These children have an extended support system of adult role models to look to, rather than being left with one, or even none to rely upon. I've been one of those extended adult members.

Again, as far as I can see the problem is that you are imposing your own beliefs and probably your own sense of morality on the issue. You assume that having sexual-loving relationships with more than one person is immoral and thus you can't expose your children to it. But what if it's not? What if modeling love without sexual jealousy is actually a good thing (as I believe)? What if showing your children that they have options when it comes to forming relationships is *healthier* for them and provides them with a stronger sense of self? What if teaching them to communicate honestly and to negotiate for their needs responsibly helps them grow up to have healthier, more responsible relationships regardless of which path they choose?

This has been my experience at least. And polyamory isn't just for men. And polyamory is not about sex, it's about *relationships*. It's about freedom to be honest when you love more than one person at the same time.

And how is honesty not a good thing to model for your children?”

LangstonA on Aug 25, 2011 at 13:02:21

“But imagine if that couple had been in an open marriage (which I don't think is immoral as long as both partners understand and agree) and the woman had gotten pregnant with one of her lovers instead of her husband. Now her husband is stuck with a child in his home that is not his and her lover is stuck paying child support for a baby neither he nor the woman expected. That is a recipe for tension and resentment. Birth control TYPICALLY works if used consistently and doctors are TYPICALLY right when they diagnose infertility but not always.

When people decide to become parents they are making a gargantuan, long term financial and emotional commitment. It is not fair to the children IN the marriage if, totally by accident, the parents create children outside of the marriage who they then are obligated to emotionally and financially support. I'm talking about something I know from personal experience. When my half brother and sister were younger than 18 money started being garnished from my stepfather's paycheck for a child he'd created outside of the marriage to my mom. Believe me, that money certainly could have benefited my brother and sister who were created in the marriage.

IMO it is just not fair to the children in the marriage for the parents to take ANY chances on creating children outside of the marriage who might take resources away from the children in the marriage.”

LangstonA on Aug 25, 2011 at 12:58:54

“Why didn't you ASK me the reasons behind my opinion instead of assuming you KNEW the reasons? Please quote for me the part of my post which indicated that I thought having more than one sexual partner at a time was some how an immoral situation? Where?

My reasoning has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with pregnancy. I've met more than two married couples who ended up having another child more than four years after their supposedly "last child" was born. In one couple the woman had had a stroke before 40 and stopped having her menstrual cycle. The doctors told her she could not get pregnant. So she and her husband stopped using birth control and when their youngest child was 11 she got pregnant. It was a blessing for them.”
What Do You Say to

What Do You Say to "I Don't Believe in Monogamy"?

Commented Aug 25, 2011 at 10:29:38 in Canada

“I'm sorry, but your concept of "committed" is simply limited. The idea that "Commitment's definition implies exclusivity" is not true for everyone. It's true for you because you're using your own personal connotations, which are also admittedly shared by a large segment of society. But society changes, and so do connotations. At one time society's definition of "wife" meant someone who stayed home with the children full time, and "husband" meant someone who went out and worked. This is no longer strictly true. Society has changed, and many families have more balanced care-giving of the children. Some families even have completely different structures, and thus have different dynamics to work with.

The bottom line is that the question of "commitment to what?" is always a personal definition. The person who cheats obviously has a higher "commitment" to their own pleasure than they do to their monogamous partner's well being. Whereas someone who is polyamorous, who communicates and *negotiates* for the needs and desires of their partner(s), can have a *commitment* to the health and well being of multiple partners, and a commitment to working out conflicts between those needs and desires. When I was in a triad marriage that's what we asked of our family members, that they be fully committed to the well being of those in the family, and that we do what was necessary to work out things so that everyone's well being was tended to.”

jf12 on Aug 25, 2011 at 12:29:47

“Your triad commitment was still exclusive, and not coincidentally stayed in-house, so to speak, because there weren't other temporary girlfriends and boyfriends being met in other houses.

I'm 101% percent certain that Mr. Frenchlike Dude merely meant "you will have to let me have other girlfriends when I feel like", and he didn't mean "oh, by the way, there is this other chick that will move in with us".”
What Do You Say to

What Do You Say to "I Don't Believe in Monogamy"?

Commented Aug 23, 2011 at 20:34:20 in Canada

“What I think is that it sounds like your date was "polyamorous", not that he was a "cheater". Polyamory, or ethical sexual-loving relationships with more than one person. That's what "I believe in commitment, but I don't believe in monogamy" sounds like to me. A "cheater" isn't honest with his/her partners, doesn't give them a choice as to whether or not to be involved in an open relationship. Assuming that your choices are "monogamy" or "cheating" is staying within the abusive dichotomy that you describe. To truly think outside the box you have to understand that there is a third choice. Polyamory is that third choice. And since polyamory is not a "predefined" choice, like "monogamy" or "cheating", there are multiple options within that choice. Individuals within polyamorous relationships have the ability to *negotiate* for the specific relationship rules that they need. So if you're truly trying to (to use your own words) mature and evolve, you might want to consider whether or not an open, *HONEST* option such as polyamory might work for you. Polyamory is *not* for everyone. There are, IME, people who are truly monogamous, and who are only happy in a monogamous relationship. If that's you, then you just need to find someone who is also *honestly* happier in a monogamous relationship. Those people *do* exist. But I do sincerely believe that polyamory works better for people for whom monogamy is not the best choice, than either monogamy or cheating.”

Dan Bianchi on Sep 2, 2011 at 13:35:41

“You put that much better than I could've. Fanned and faved.”

CatDeville Llewellyn on Aug 25, 2011 at 16:40:03

“@jf12... yes, words have meanings. They have "denotative" meanings and "connotative" meanings. The fact that other people don't accept your personal connotations does not mean that the word has no meaning to them.

The word "commit" means (in this context) "to pledge (oneself) to a position on an issue or question; express (one's intention, feeling, etc.)" ... "to bind or obligate, as by pledge or assurance; pledge:"

In both of those meaning we were committed to our family, to each other's well being. No where in any of those definitions is there any reference to "exclusivity". That's a connotation imposed upon the definition by individuals in specific contexts.

So yes - words have meaning - but they aren't always clear meanings, and they don't always mean the same thing to any two different people. There are lots of words like that. Love, freedom, justice, patriotism... in fact, any word with any semantic load tends to be rife with connotations which occur with some people, but not with others.

I'm sorry that the fact that my personal choice not to bow to your connotations is so distressing to you - but that's one of my personal ideas of "freedom". And part of my personal definition of "love" is that it is more expressive when open, and less expressive when limited by unnecessary constraints. And for me, arbitrarily assuming "sexual exclusivity" in a relationship is unnecessary constraints.”

jf12 on Aug 24, 2011 at 10:46:04

“Commitment to what? Commitment's definition implies exclusivity. Yes, it does: for example you can't be committed to work and to vacation simultaneously; you can only be partially committed, or committed part of the time to one, part to another. So, in a non-monogamous relationship, what precisely is exclusive? What is committed?”
Tea Party Patriots Release Personal Phone Numbers, Emails Of Almost 100 Incoming GOP Reps

Tea Party Patriots Release Personal Phone Numbers, Emails Of Almost 100 Incoming GOP Reps

Commented Nov 12, 2010 at 22:54:33 in Politics

“Let's see... Doublespeak, violation of privacy, harassment and threats to achieve their political goals. Now, who does that sound like? I know *you* know... don't you? Now aren't you glad you hitched your wagon to theirs?”
Debt Commission Report Targets Social Security, Medicare

Debt Commission Report Targets Social Security, Medicare

Commented Nov 11, 2010 at 09:25:31 in Politics

“I hear you. I'm in a similar position... was laid off due to an office closing in 2001, and then my industry (travel) took a dive, literally, immediately after (9/11), and was unable to "re-purpose" myself even though I have a list of "transferable skills" three miles long, because the industries I'm most suited to... Customer Service (call center) and Help Desk were by that time being outsourced to India. Because of that I've spent a good part of the last decade unemployed, and expect that I *will* be eating cat food if I make it to retirement age if things keep going as they are.”
huffingtonpost entry

The Reverse Tsunami in California

Commented Nov 10, 2010 at 12:02:35 in Los Angeles

“AMEN! Our biggest economic issue, IMNSHO, is that we've outsourced so many of our jobs to other countries. How insane was that!?! And the only resolution will be to "stop the insanity!"

Of course, returning those jobs to the US will send prices soaring unless some sort of regulation is instituted to ensure that those dollars go back into the companies to pay salaries, rather than into the pockets of the fat cats who made the decision to outsource in the first place. A prime example of that is Meg Whitman (thank the gods she lost!) who as CEO took millions out of ebay while laying off people, and as a BoD member voted for "lavish golden parachutes" for executives while laying off 10% of it's 15,000 employees. That's the way these modern day robber barons think, and unless we find some way to stop *that*, we aren't going to recover... we're just going to continue devolving until the food riots, class war violence and "revolution" come round. If we don't figure it out, the US capitalist autocracy will go the way of the Tsarist autocracy and the Ancien Régime. I still have hope that we'll figure out a non-violent resolution, but that hope is fading fast.”
First Salvo In Social Security Fight: OweNo, A $20 Million Campaign Launched With Bayh, Conrad As Allies

First Salvo In Social Security Fight: OweNo, A $20 Million Campaign Launched With Bayh, Conrad As Allies

Commented Nov 10, 2010 at 11:41:35 in Politics

“@Disdain... The article doesn't say nor does it imply that the husband would have gotten away with rape (to the contrary, it states, "...Charles ruled in June 2009 that a preponderance of the evidence showed the defendant had harassed and assaulted her...") What I got from the article (and considering it's Faux News reporting, I can't assume accuracy) is that the judge, in determining whether a restraining order after the fact was appropriate, took into consideration the defendant's state of mind and motivations - which is entirely appropriate. I don't get from the article that the husband "got away" with anything... I don't see that the judge felt a restraining order after they divorced was necessary, which appears to be accurate as "Donnelly said that, as far as she knew, her client had not had trouble with her ex-husband since they divorced."

I think that, as with many cases, reading a news analysis of the case doesn't really tell us the story, as things can easily be taken out of context by the journalists involved, and spun for their own purposes. To truly understand the judges ruling, you have to either be in the courtroom, or at least read the court documentation. Just reading how a journalist interprets and spins it is rarely helpful.”
First Salvo In Social Security Fight: OweNo, A $20 Million Campaign Launched With Bayh, Conrad As Allies

First Salvo In Social Security Fight: OweNo, A $20 Million Campaign Launched With Bayh, Conrad As Allies

Commented Nov 10, 2010 at 11:24:13 in Politics

“Actually, according to the SSA website, http://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html the percentage of people who lived to the age where they could collect has increased significantly since the 1940s. In the 1940s that percentage was 53.9% for men, 60.6% for women, and in the 1990s it was 72.3% for men and 83.6% for women. That's an increase of 18.5% for men, and of 23% for women. Those are significant increases in my book. The number of years those 18-23% of people collected (12.7 to 15.3 and 14.7 to 19.6, an increase of 2.6 and 4.9 yrs respectively) might not be considered a significant increase, I would agree (although whether an increase of ~7% of a lifespan for women is significant is debatable), but the number of people (percentage wise) who would live to collect is significantly higher.”

EggZacktly on Nov 10, 2010 at 17:31:15

“When a larger percent of citizens achieve the age of retirement it means they paid into the system in greater numbers. This offsets the difference. This increase was figured into the original bill, by the way, and they made provisions to cover the inevitability. They were very smart folks.”
First Salvo In Social Security Fight: OweNo, A $20 Million Campaign Launched With Bayh, Conrad As Allies

First Salvo In Social Security Fight: OweNo, A $20 Million Campaign Launched With Bayh, Conrad As Allies

Commented Nov 10, 2010 at 11:13:13 in Politics

“@Callah... it's not unusual for individuals to pay into insurance and never collect. That's how insurance works. We often forget that social security is a type of *insurance*, and just like any other insurance, it's a gamble. You're paying into it "betting" that you'll eventually collect, either because you will become disabled, or will live to an age where you will collect it. The "insurance provider" (the gvmt), is investing that money to increase it, while at the same time "betting, that you will *not* collect on it, or at least not as much as you put in.It's not a savings plan, where you or your survivors will collect regardless... it's insurance.

To get the answer to your question, read their FAQ. According to their tables, http://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html in the 1940s, 53.9% of men and 60.6% of women who lived to adulthood (and thus might be paying into the system-assuming they worked) could be expected to live to collect, and the number of yrs those 50-60% of people could expect to collect ran an average of 12.7 yrs and 14.7 years, respectively.

Life expectancy has increased since then. For the 1990s those statistics are that 72.3% of men and 83.6% of women who survive into adulthood can be expected to live to the age of 65, and they can expect to collect for an average of 15.3 and 19.6 yrs, respectively.”

Bebe36 on Nov 10, 2010 at 11:29:34

“I understand Callah's comments - why all the whining from Repubs - and now some Democrats - about this "entitlement" f00lishness, when it is not an entitlement program?

SS is solvent until 2037, and at least some of the money came from those who contributed and never collected.”