Posts made by bi4smooth

I have known 3 men who were circumcised as adults.

ALL THREE regret having the procedure.

Here in the US, it used to be nearly unheard of for male children to not be circumcised shortly after birth... I WAS!

Today (2021), in this country, it's about 50/50 - the times, they are a changing! Still, most parents who choose TO circumcise say they want their child to "be like their father" or "be like the other children"... to which I say HOGWASH

For one, as the father of 4 boys I can attest that as babies they're not equating that tiny little pee-pee with my much larger, hairy penis... and then, as pre-teens, teens, and certainly as adults, I'm not wagging my dick in front of my children! I honestly don't think any of my children has any idea that I am circumcised! (NONE of them are!)

As for young boys comparing penises, little Johnny is far more likely to care about whether his growing manhood is BIGGER or SMALLER than the others than he is about what the TIP looks like!

There are FEW legitimate medical reasons for circumcision, and some religious ones... but barring one of those, leave your pleasure palace the way God crated it! He did it right the first time, he doesn't need a touch-up!

Finally - the point about the 3 friends (well, 1 friend and 2 ex's): all three reported that sex (especially masturbation) felt VERY DIFFERENT after they were "cut"... not better, not worse, just DIFFERENT. (Again, all 3 regretted their decision to get circumcised as adults.)

YOUR MILEAGE MAY VARY but remember this: once you're circumcised, there's no going back!

@raphjd
... and you moved this conversation here because?????

So I followed the link, and yeah! Twitter totally fucked this up! Not just in the policy enforcement, but also in the public relations part! I would assume they'll have their asses handed to them in court, and they'll start re-training some of their content evaluators....

If Twitter was a single person, this would be OUTRAGEOUS!!!
But Twitter is a rather large corporation... so this ain't that...

If Twitter went to court to allow this shit, it would be OUTRAGEOUS!!!
But Twitter didn't - once "higher ups" in Twitter were alerted, the shit got cleaned up... pronto! ... so this ain't that, either...

Corporations are made up of people. People (all people - even you and me) make mistakes. We (sometimes corporations, but always individual people) have to pay for their mistakes. Not fair that corporations often get "let off the hook", but hey: life ain't fair (Did ya catch the hyperbole in there? did ya? really? it's in there!)

The issue in the other forum, @raphjd, is that you EXTENDED Twitter's mistake to assert that their Terms of Service did not outlaw what you termed kiddie porn. And Twitter's own statements - in the article you linked us to - makes it clear that this is a false assertion.

A) It seems this was an error made by an employee, and not (at any time) someone in any leadership position in the company, and
B) You cannot claim that selective enforcement invalidates the entire ToS (or even that little part of the ToS)! Even if they chose to only enforce the "kiddie porn" rules on female victims, it wouldn't invalidate the ToS! Neither would it stop them from re-evaluating those "enforcement" decisions.

Honestly, I think the idiot who reviewed the case initially had a gender bias and didn't think guys could be victims in "kiddie porn"... I'd venture to say, if they still have that job at Twitter, they're better informed now!

That is, admittedly, my own pure and unadulterated conjecture!

@raphjd said in Liberals are too dumb to see the irony in this.:

SanFransico Unified School District Art Department changed its name from VAPA (Visual and Performing Arts) to SFUSD Art Department because acronyms are "white supremacy".

OK, you've got me fooled on this one.

I'm supposed to be a liberal (your label for me, not mine! I think I'm a Conservative who just doesn't agree with (or like) Donald Trump or QAnon!)...

... and yet, I have no idea what this is talking about!

So, all acronyms are white supremacist? or VAPA was?

I did a Google search on VAPA - no sign of White Supremacy, save for the article you referenced yourself... Lots of cases of "Visual and Performing Arts" in lots of other districts though!

...and folks in CA wonder why we call Northern California the "Land of fruits and nuts"!!

@raphjd said in The Lincoln Project and sexual harassment:

Twitter told the family that they would not remove the kiddie porn because it did not violate their TOS. Twitter only removed it because Homeland Security got involved.

I am admittedly not familiar with this specific case, but in general, Twitter's finding that an instance that you (and, presumably others) found offensive and labeled kiddie porn did not violate their ToS does not follow that they therefore allow kiddie porn.

When the officer sitting on the side of the road lets 100 cars go by - all of whom are speeding - and he then chooses to pull YOU over for speeding, the fact that he chose to ignore the other speeders does not mean the speeding was legal. Nor is he required to ticket every speeder to validate your speeding ticket.

Selective enforcement does not invalidate the law (or, in this case, the ToS of Twitter).

If that doesn't sound FAIR, let me tell you the same thing I taught my children as they were growing up:

Life isn't fair - and anyone who tells you it is, should be, or could be, is flat-out lying to you!

@raphjd said in The Lincoln Project and sexual harassment:

@bi4smooth

Twitter requires that your posts follow liberal ideological rules or face banning.

hyperbole, anyone?
Beuler?

That isn't the purpose/intent of 230.

No, the purpose of Section 230 is to shield the owners of "public forums" and other kinds of social media from being sued or harassed - as the owner of the forum - for the postings (actions) of its subscribers.

For what its worth, Section 230 has absolutely nothing to do with censorship!

I do love that you are, in your own eye at least, more of an expert in Section 230 than lawyers, politicians, and others.

Again, no - just (apparently) more than you

@raphjd said in The Lincoln Project and sexual harassment:

Are you saying I would be totally within my right to ban you and the rest of the swamp monster?

YES! This is a "private" server! You actually DO ban people on this site - regularly! For violating your terms of service (e.g.: not having multiple accounts). If you want to ban me (or delete my posts), you are within your rights to do so! (If I understand the ownership of this site, @joker is the actual owner, although you are an administrator. If you are not a paid employee of the site owner (person or corporation), you may not be protected -- I'd want to look that up! LOL)

Twitter has set rules for what is allowed and what is not allowed, as a publisher would do.

No, publishers EDIT and CHOOSE content BEFORE it is published.
That was my example earlier:

• IF Twitter required that you submit your tweets for their approval, THEN they would become a publisher.
• Fox News is responsible (liable) for anything that they publish on their website, FoxNews.com... FYI: Fox News is being sued by Dominion Voting Systems for libel because they posted falsehoods about them on their site. They have no Section 230 protection for the edited (e.g.: published) parts of their site! They are claiming other protections, but that is another discussion...
• Fox News is not responsible for anything that readers post in the comment section of their website (I don't know if you can comment on FoxNews.com, but you get the idea). That content is protected under Section 230! The posters are "3rd parties")
• However, the actual people who post content are themselves potentially liable: Section 230 only provides legal coverage for the site-owner! (So, if Rudy Giuliani posted falsehoods about Dominion Voting Systems on the Fox News site - as a "reader comment" - he could be held liable, but FoxNews.com would be protected by Section 230. *That may be a bad example, because I don't know if Rudy is paid by Fox News - if he is, then both he AND FoxNews.com share liability for libel claims against them.)

Ironically enough, Twitter says kiddie porn doesn't violate their TOS, but saying "but they aren't women, though" does violate their TOS.

I honestly don't know anything about Twitter's TOS - I'm not a subscriber.

What does it say about you that you are defending them.

It says I understand the protections of Section 230 better than you do? LOL

@raphjd
Sorry - removing some posts (and protection against suits because of that) is covered under Section 230

You are not guaranteed unfettered free speech - ANYWHERE!!
Even the Government can limit speech in certain circumstances - but Twitter isn't the Government - and neither are they a monopoly (or even a regulated provider, like your local TV Station! Twitter is not broadcast over public airwaves)...

Your (falsely) perceived 1st Amendment right to post your political views on their (privately owned) platform is running head first into their actual right to do whatever they want with their property!

NOTE: IF Twitter were to require their editorial approval BEFORE allowing content on their site, THEN they would be a publisher....

This ain't that!

@raphjd
There is no "choice" under Section 230...

If you publish a libelous post about someone, you are responsible! No Section 230 protection!

If you provide a platform, and a 3rd party posts libelous content on that platform, you can sue the person who authored the post, but you cannot sue the platform!

If you provide a platform, and you post content that is libelous, you have no protection under Section 230 - because you're not a 3rd party!

@andergarcia
I love JAZZ - especially the old-time stuff.
Right now, I'm listening to Riverwalk Jazz featuring the Jim Cullum Jazz Band.

What's playing is a rendition of the Tiger Rag

I should point out: Jim Cullum, Jr passed away in 2019 (age 77)

@bc22
I live in near the Strawberry Capitol of the World (not sure that's true, but they claim it) here in Florida (Plant City)... so that's STRAWBERRY for sure!

Peanut Butter: Crunchy or Smooth?

@raphjd
Agreed that the National Government changes slowly... but it certainly does change, and the pace of that change has been getting faster and faster. Especially with each ensuing administration since Nixon seemingly expanding the powers of the Presidency (and Congress all too often complicit in the usurpation of powers not provided for in the Constitution!).

But I question whether you actually understand what Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 really does!

At its core, Section 230 generally provides immunity for website publishers from third-party content. For God's Sake man, this is a torrenting site! Take away Section 230, and the content producers will shut this baby down faster than you can say howdy!

It's BECAUSE of Section 230 that content owners have to send the site a request to remove copyrighted content, and cannot sue the site owners over the fact that the lion's share of content shared here is copyrighted somewhere else.

(For those who care, a modification to Section 230 that was made in 2018 is the cause for the demise of the Craigslist personals - once a treasure-trove of prostitution, sex trafficking, and a ton of horny guys just looking to get off! -- in other words: a "den of iniquity with some good and some bad actors).

Anyway, without Section 230, the Internet would not even closely resemble what we know it as. Facebook couldn't exist. Nor Twitter (too much risk someone would publish "illegal" content, for which the ISP & website owner could be held legally and civilly liable!) OOOMMMPPPHHHH!

The issue some people have arising from Section 230 is the misguided (well, I think it's misguided) belief that large Internet content providers (Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc) are filtering Conservative viewpoints. They want to tie "free speech" rights to private companies (no-go there, the 1st Amendment only applies to the Government!). Conspiracy theorists and their followers believe there is a concerted effort on the part of these Internet companies to squelch Conservative voices on their platforms. The companies, naturally deny any bias.

Aside: As a Conservative (a non-conspiracy-theory-believing one), I don't see evidence of bias. But I do see extremists on both ends of the spectrum getting better and better at organizing and leveraging social media; and I see these tech companies trying (albeit imperfectly) to avoid being the tool by which these groups cause real harm.

As Parler & IONOS have shown, there is little-to-no barrier to entry for creating competitive platforms to Facebook, Twitter, etc... and there is already large-scale competition in the Google marketplace.

Thus, and in no small part because I like to download porn, I stand strongly in favor of keeping Section 230, if not re-strengthening it!

(That out to light a fire under @raphjd's pants!)

@raphjd
Are you implying that there were no objections when Obama... or Clinton... or Carter were elected?

You don't Google very well, do you! As I said earlier: it's harder (since the law was changed post-Civil War) to find an Electoral College count that DIDN'T have a house member object to something... (nearly always without a Senatorial co-sponsor).

Again, the purpose of those objections was never to change the outcome of the election, rather than to draw attention to some perceived grievance - nearly always in their home state. What made things different this time:

• multiple state's electors were challenged
• the intended purpose was to change the result
• the objectors were mostly (though not entirely) from other states

My most intense orgasms come when I've already cum inside my partner and we've flipped... I've got him inside of me... I can often time my SECOND orgasm with his... to he's pumping deep into me while I'm spewing all in between us!

That second shot is always more intense than the first!

@raphjd
You got that backwards.... he rose to the rank of Captain all by himself.

QEII advanced his rank to Major when she knighted him last year. In the Army, Major outranks Captain. In the US Army (patterned after the British one in many ways), a Captain is an O3-grade. A major is O-4. Lt. Colonel an O-5 and so forth. (In the US Navy, a Captain is an O-6!)

WRT Major Sir Thomas Moore:
He vociferously requested that people continue to call him Captain, even after the Queen's promotion. He was quite (and reasonably well so) proud of his rank.
He also eschewed the attempts to call him "Sir" (as a Knight should be entitled), unless it was in a military fashion (as you would address an Army Captain).

He was quite a man, and the world mourns the loss of "Captain Tom" with the UK today.
Peace be with you, Sir!

@raphjd
Thanks for the personal inventory, but you're not very good at reading me.
I thrive on change! In my job (a computer consultant), I couldn't survive without change.
But that doesn't mean chaos! Change has to be managed, and change has to have a goal of improving things, not just change for change's sake.

My older brother is an avowed anarchist. He thinks the whole idea of government is inherently and irretrievably corrupt. (A child of his times: he grew up in the late 60's LOL)

No, you've got me all wrong. I'm a systems guy! I think you reform the system best when you reform it from within!

Just as in the case of election issues, if the only acceptable goal is perfection, you'll never achieve it, and you'll drive yourself batty trying to achieve the unachievable. (Not to mention: your idea of perfection likely will not jive with everyone else's!)

Instead of perfection, I seek improvement. We don't have to dismantle the election system in America to make it better. Indeed, ours is a better, more resilient system than any other in the world! But it still needs improving!

WRT: MoC's raising objections to Electoral College votes: it is not illegal, indeed, not even improper for a MoC to raise an objection to Electoral College delegations. What's rare (virtually unheard of) is doing so to attempt to change the result of the election.

If you read your history, most Presidential elections have had objections raised about one state or another. They are usually objections over some kind of voter suppression or local issue of one kind or another. They seldom have the requisite member of the House and Senate needed to move the objection into a full-on debate, but this isn't a first for that, either.

What happened this time that was a first was that the intent of the objections wasn't so much to highlight some kind of voter suppression or voting irregularity, as to attempt to change the outcome of the election itself!

Still, what has (thus far) NEVER occurred is the successful rejection of a slate of delegates from a state.

@bc22
Congrats to "Mayor Pete" (maybe he can take over the tag "America's Mayor" from Rudy, who's been a total embarrassment to the Republican Party for several years now!)

There are those (@raphjd in particular) who think he got the appointment because he's a "token gay" - a check-box to satisfy a constituency. Personally, I think he did well in the Democratic primaries, and earned a cabinet-level position.

More importantly, I decline the offer to buy into the false dichotomy that one cannot be chosen because you are gay and because you are qualified!

Finally: about the beard. I'm sorry, I know its fashionable these days, but I'm just not a beard fan. Then again, his beard is so heavy when he shaves, he almost always looks like he's got a 5 o'clock shadow! LOL.

If we're talking "tastes" here, let me also say the current sway towards men with lots of body hair and tattoos are not for me either. (Not that anyone cares - just thought I'd share). I'm a "man of my time" and I'm into the "preppy" look (clean-cut, clean, and cut!) ROFL

@bi4smooth
Hmmmm you think I am hyporitical (of course you do!)

I see things in a myriad of colors, and few, if any, sharp lines of differentiation... a little of this, a little of that. Almost nothing is pure good, or pure evil. Almost nothing is "pure" anything!

Whereas you see most everything as black and white. This or that. Good or Bad.

Looking at it from your perspective, I can see your point. I don't agree with it, but I see where my "green" becomes your grey and then becomes black.

@raphjd
I gave Trump a chance. I cannot, and do not, speak for others.

Let's not forget that this polarization didn't start with Trump, it just got worse with him.

It STARTED (ok, re-started) in the Clinton administration and the "revolution" of Newt Gingrich. It got markedly worse with Obama (remember the Republicans' statement that their sole agenda item in 2009 was to ensure that Obama was a 1-term President?)

But it's not fair to pin the early years of this on Republicans... Democrats did it too, doing everything in their power to make Bush 43 look bad. The only "saving grace" for Bush was the 9/11 attack in 2001 - which "called off the dogs", at least for a while.

Compromise is what made this country great! (Curious? ask a historian!)
Today, thanks to extremists in both parties, compromise is a curse-word!

@raphjd

You also pointed out in your post that Asia Argento "also knowingly got Jimmy Bennet (a minor at the time) drunk and raped him."

The fact that you're a victim does not exclude you from the possibility of also being a perpetrator. Come on.

Geez... I'd sure love to live a few hours in your world, where everything is black and white: you're a victim OR a perp. You're 100% right, or 100% wrong. Liberal or Trumpite.

Life would be so easy for you if we realists would just stop interfering!

@raphjd

You said: "Asia Argento knowing had sex with Harvey Weinstein to advance her career."

Improper grammar aside, are you saying that this, in any way, makes Harvey Weinstein any less of a monster??

Back to the point: John Weaver's victims weren't solely adults - some were teens as young as 14. So far, we only know of 21 victims - but I'm pretty sure there are more... MANY more... many (most?) sexual abuse victims carry a lot of shame... there are most likely others who are too ashamed to come forward.

One doesn't have to be pure to be a victim! A prostitute - who voluntarily takes money for sex - can still be raped! And the fact that the rapist threw a benjamin her way when he was done does NOT change the fact!

NOTE: I do NOT HAVE AN ISSUE with John Weaver wanting to have sex with younger men. I DO have an issue with him doing so with a promise of getting advancement in exchange for sexual favors.

Guys 18 and over can have sex with anyone they choose to (sigh: for you, I have to say it: providing its consensual)... I don't even object to prostitution! If you'll suck on an old-man's cock for $50, and he wants to get off that way, then you're consenting adults. There are also younger men who prefer older men as companions (partners, pick your label).

THIS AIN'T THAT!

When you say "I'll hire you if you'll bend over and take one for the team", you're way over the line!

One is a simple transaction, the other is an invitation to ongoing abuse and intimidation.