Conquer Club

Gisele Bundchen, super-model and wife of the NFL's best Quarterback (Tom Brady), is demostrating the typical Liberal mindset.


1) Nanny State - She believes there 'should be a worldwide law' requiring mothers to breastfeed their babies for at least six months.

2) Hypocritical -It's been reported that she breastfed her own baby, Benjamin, for less than a month... because she was (paraphrasing) 'afraid of being seen/photographed in public breastfeeding.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... ds-newsxml



As an aside, I would be happy to breastfeed with Gisele.

If it were practical a law that forced breast feeding for the first year or two would be a good idea. It makes the kids much healthier. Then again it's not too far from an "Everyone must eat healthy, more veggies and less bacon." Forcing people is no good.

They have a zero transfat deep frier oil bylaw here and KFC is now nearly flavour free. I guess it's even better at promoting my health because who wants to bother eating it and therefore I'm eating way less/nearly none of it.

Sure you made the mistake of risking wieght gain and stretch marks to have the kid but you probably don't want to be forced to fill your breasts with milk and have the little monster gum at them for a year. Oh well, life's full of tough decisions.

Jimboston - Typical hypocrite

comic boy wrote:Jimboston - Typical hypocrite

I like to think that jimboston posted this so that he could post a picture of Gisele. And that does not make him a hypocrit; rather, it makes him a genius.

comic boy wrote:Jimboston - Typical hypocrite

Please explain how I am being a hypocrit?

thegreekdog wrote:
I like to think that jimboston posted this so that he could post a picture of Gisele. And that does not make him a hypocrit; rather, it makes him a genius.

The picture was an afterthought.

I heard this on the radio during my morning drive and was amazed that Gisele was so stupid as to preach to everyother woman... and so hypocritical that she wouldn't even practice what she preached.

jimboston wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:
I like to think that jimboston posted this so that he could post a picture of Gisele. And that does not make him a hypocrit; rather, it makes him a genius.

The picture was an afterthought.

I heard this on the radio during my morning drive and was amazed that Gisele was so stupid as to preach to everyother woman... and so hypocritical that she wouldn't even practice what she preached.

I don't care what she says because (1) I won't listen to her and (2) she's hot.

2dimes wrote:If it were practical a law that forced breast feeding for the first year or two would be a good idea. It makes the kids much healthier.

There is no debating that Breat Feeding is better... that is a scientifically proven fact.

It's also proven that reading to babies/toddlers is good for them... and that listening to classical music is good for them... etc. etc. etc.

Shall we legislate that parents must read to their children for two hours each night... no more and no less... without exception?

Shall we mandate that expactant mothers may only listen to classical music... and must listen to at least 3.45 hours per day during the 3rd tri-mester?

Even if the law is practical... which it ain't... but even if it is... it would be a stoopid law.

jimboston wrote:

comic boy wrote:Jimboston - Typical hypocrite

Please explain how I am being a hypocrit?

Did I type that , how absurd of me . Your implication that a particular political slant , in this instance Liberalism , influences ones level of stupidity or hypocrisy, is clearly a brilliant piece of impartial analysis and constitutes the highest form of intelectual honesty.

comic boy wrote:

jimboston wrote:

comic boy wrote:Jimboston - Typical hypocrite

Please explain how I am being a hypocrit?

Did I type that , how absurd of me . Your implication that a particular political slant , in this instance Liberalism , influences ones level of stupidity or hypocrisy, is clearly a brilliant piece of impartial analysis and constitutes the highest form of intelectual honesty.

--- and the fact that you almost never offer an positive alternative to whomever you're disagreeing with is proof of the bankruptcy of your own ability to add to discussions here. I fully expect daddy frog to come in here once again and offer a host of half-baked excuses for why his son is such a brilliant debater.

Please show where jimboston ever implied impartial analysis. He's pretty well known as a conservative on many issues and posts accordingly.

jimboston wrote:

2dimes wrote:If it were practical a law that forced breast feeding for the first year or two would be a good idea. It makes the kids much healthier.

There is no debating that Breat Feeding is better... that is a scientifically proven fact.

It's also proven that reading to babies/toddlers is good for them... and that listening to classical music is good for them... etc. etc. etc.

Shall we legislate that parents must read to their children for two hours each night... no more and no less... without exception?

Shall we mandate that expactant mothers may only listen to classical music... and must listen to at least 3.45 hours per day during the 3rd tri-mester?

Even if the law is practical... which it ain't... but even if it is... it would be a stoopid law.

If you're going to quote like that absolutely.

One of the problems with people (and this is not unique to liberals) is that they sometimes think they need a law to go forcing people to go from point A to point B when in fact they need to repeal laws preventing people or discouraging people from going to point B or to simply eliminate obstacles that might get in the way of people going from point A to B.

That’s the best way to abstract this problem, because otherwise we are only going to get Beavis and Butthead reactions to this discussion. Breastfeeding is good (in many ways) and it needs to be encouraged. There are a lot of things in our society that encourage women not to breastfeed. Some of these things are in laws; some of these things are cultural taboos that we haven’t had the sense to repeal. Modern advances in … clothing … has made this function exceptionally discrete. I was at MOMA (Museum of Modern Art in Manhattan) a few months ago and over in the corner was a woman breastfeeding her infant with nothing really exposed whatsoever.

The only “modern” problem to breastfeeding is that in one way it is like being pregnant. The massive limitations on health care options because you are nursing is similar to those when you are pregnant, especially in medications that one normally takes without a second thought.

I would say that being breastfed is an inalienable right of any infant, but then again, I was born with a clef lip, so I would tend to fight for the rights which I myself never had.

A girl I work with is pregnant and she has decided she will not breastfeed (despite the encouragement of her doctors and nurses). Her reasons were (1) "I have to work" and (2) "I'm not going to pump milk every three hours when I'm at work because it cuts down on my productivity."

It's not empirical evidence, but I would say there are some cultural reasons that women don't breastfeed.

DangerBoy wrote:

comic boy wrote:

jimboston wrote:

comic boy wrote:Jimboston - Typical hypocrite

Please explain how I am being a hypocrit?

Did I type that , how absurd of me . Your implication that a particular political slant , in this instance Liberalism , influences ones level of stupidity or hypocrisy, is clearly a brilliant piece of impartial analysis and constitutes the highest form of intelectual honesty.

--- and the fact that you almost never offer an positive alternative to whomever you're disagreeing with is proof of the bankruptcy of your own ability to add to discussions here. I fully expect daddy frog to come in here once again and offer a host of half-baked excuses for why his son is such a brilliant debater.

Please show where jimboston ever implied impartial analysis. He's pretty well known as a conservative on many issues and posts accordingly.

Before posting again , probably best you read the biblical guidelines on sarcasm.
I am however comforted that you view a game site forum as a vehicle for serious debate , clearly being saved has done wonders for the clarity of your thought,

comic boy wrote:

jimboston wrote:

comic boy wrote:Jimboston - Typical hypocrite

Please explain how I am being a hypocrit?

Did I type that , how absurd of me . Your implication that a particular political slant , in this instance Liberalism , influences ones level of stupidity or hypocrisy, is clearly a brilliant piece of impartial analysis and constitutes the highest form of intelectual honesty.

In this instance Gisele is both espousing her liberal views... AND doing so in a hypocritical manner.

I DO believe this is typical of Liberals. I don't say that no Conservatives or Republicans are hypocritical. I believe in fact many are. However, here I am pointing out one case where it's a Liberal and she's a Hypocrit.

Another was noted in an earlier thread from last week... Tax Raising John Kerry... parking his multi-million-dollar yacht in Rhode Island to avoid Massachusetts State Sales tax. Another Liberal Hypocrit. You want more???

comic boy wrote:Before posting again , probably best you read the biblical guidelines on sarcasm. I am however comforted that you view a game site forum as a vehicle for serious debate , clearly being saved has done wonders for the clarity of your thought,

Biblical guidelines on sarcasm! Wow, you must be an expert on the proper use of language within the Christian faith. Please do expound. I notice that instead of offering a positive alternative to jimboston's post, you have instead chosen to deflect attention away from your personal attack of 'hypocrite' and changed the subject to whether this site is a vehicle for serious debate. Interesting, because you seemed to be bothered that he wasn't offering impartial analysis. So, can you show a positive alternative to JB's statement, or are we left to follow your newly created rabbit trails on Biblical standards of conversation?

Here's the main point that jimboston, in my opinion, was trying to raise: to try and convince other people that there should be a certain standard on an issue that everyone should abide by, but yet they themselves don't live up to what they want others to do.

Does that make someone liberal? I would say not

Does that make someone a hypocrite? Certainly

The human condition is that we are all hypocrites on some level. I used to get ticked off at people who illegally rode their bicycles through the shoulder downtown here where I live. I took personal delight in watching the police set up a trap to catch these offenders. Sometime later, I was out of a vehicle and started cycling to work. Of course, it would save me some time to use the shoulder in this one part of town, so I broke the law and did the same thing I criticized others for doing. For me, that's not a liberal thing. Gisele is simply being a typical hypocrite.

DangerBoy wrote:Here's the main point that jimboston, in my opinion, was trying to raise: to try and convince other people that there should be a certain standard on an issue that everyone should abide by, but yet they themselves don't live up to what they want others to do.

Does that make someone liberal? I would say not

Does that make someone a hypocrite? Certainly

The human condition is that we are all hypocrites on some level. I used to get ticked off at people who illegally rode their bicycles through the shoulder downtown here where I live. I took personal delight in watching the police set up a trap to catch these offenders. Sometime later, I was out of a vehicle and started cycling to work. Of course, it would save me some time to use the shoulder in this one part of town, so I broke the law and did the same thing I criticized others for doing. For me, that's not a liberal thing. Gisele is simply being a typical hypocrite.

Actually, what I'm saying is...

Being a hypocrit does not make one a Liberal.

However, being a Liberal doe in fact make one a Hypocrit.

Show me a Lib and I will show you a Hypocrit.

... and no... we are not all hypocrits as part of our condition. To me, IMHO, a hypocrit is one of the worst things one can be.

DangerBoy wrote:

comic boy wrote:Before posting again , probably best you read the biblical guidelines on sarcasm. I am however comforted that you view a game site forum as a vehicle for serious debate , clearly being saved has done wonders for the clarity of your thought,

Biblical guidelines on sarcasm! Wow, you must be an expert on the proper use of language within the Christian faith. Please do expound. I notice that instead of offering a positive alternative to jimboston's post, you have instead chosen to deflect attention away from your personal attack of 'hypocrite' and changed the subject to whether this site is a vehicle for serious debate. Interesting, because you seemed to be bothered that he wasn't offering impartial analysis. So, can you show a positive alternative to JB's statement, or are we left to follow your newly created rabbit trails on Biblical standards of conversation?

So far over your head, so far LOL

comic boy wrote:

DangerBoy wrote:

comic boy wrote:

jimboston wrote:

comic boy wrote:Jimboston - Typical hypocrite

Please explain how I am being a hypocrit?

Did I type that , how absurd of me . Your implication that a particular political slant , in this instance Liberalism , influences ones level of stupidity or hypocrisy, is clearly a brilliant piece of impartial analysis and constitutes the highest form of intelectual honesty.

--- and the fact that you almost never offer an positive alternative to whomever you're disagreeing with is proof of the bankruptcy of your own ability to add to discussions here. I fully expect daddy frog to come in here once again and offer a host of half-baked excuses for why his son is such a brilliant debater.

Please show where jimboston ever implied impartial analysis. He's pretty well known as a conservative on many issues and posts accordingly.

Before posting again , probably best you read the biblical guidelines on sarcasm.
I am however comforted that you view a game site forum as a vehicle for serious debate , clearly being saved has done wonders for the clarity of your thought,

Biblical guidelines on sarcasm eh? You mean like when Jesus told the Pharisees that they would strain out a gnat and swallow a camel? Or was it something else you had in mind? Didn't really have anything in mind did you?

You make a capricious accusation about someone's "hypocrisy" and then sputter inarticulately when asked to clarify such. Now you stoop to the cowardly tack of making snide, catty jabs at someone else's religion in a somewhat feeble attempt to deflect attention away from your own stoopitness.

As far as a game site forum goes, i've found it a more interesting venue to exchange ideas than most places - maybe you could enlighten us as to where you spend your time when you're in the mood for intelligent dialogue - clearly it's not here.


Honibaz

jimboston wrote:Actually, what I'm saying is...

Being a hypocrit does not make one a Liberal.

However, being a Liberal doe in fact make one a Hypocrit.

Show me a Lib and I will show you a Hypocrit.

... and no... we are not all hypocrits as part of our condition. To me, IMHO, a hypocrit is one of the worst things one can be.

Those are good points to consider. Sorry for taking liberties with your OP. I just notice that comic boy does this ad hom attack thing, and rarely adds anything of substance to counter conservative posts.

To your point though - aren't there liberals who actually live their lives according to their principles. Maybe they're not well known and famous, but they're just the average person who really is dedicated to their beliefs. Personally, I've never a met a person who hasn't been hypocritical about something. So that shows me it's more of the human condition of wanting to live up to a standard, but failing at it, no matter what political ideology we come from.

DangerBoy wrote: To your point though - aren't there liberals who actually live their lives according to their principles. Maybe they're not well known and famous, but they're just the average person who really is dedicated to their beliefs. Personally, I've never a met a person who hasn't been hypocritical about something. So that shows me it's more of the human condition of wanting to live up to a standard, but failing at it, no matter what political ideology we come from.

OK... maybe I am being extreme to try to make a point... but don't tell anyone else I admitted this... OK?!

jimboston wrote:

DangerBoy wrote:Here's the main point that jimboston, in my opinion, was trying to raise: to try and convince other people that there should be a certain standard on an issue that everyone should abide by, but yet they themselves don't live up to what they want others to do.

Does that make someone liberal? I would say not

Does that make someone a hypocrite? Certainly

The human condition is that we are all hypocrites on some level. I used to get ticked off at people who illegally rode their bicycles through the shoulder downtown here where I live. I took personal delight in watching the police set up a trap to catch these offenders. Sometime later, I was out of a vehicle and started cycling to work. Of course, it would save me some time to use the shoulder in this one part of town, so I broke the law and did the same thing I criticized others for doing. For me, that's not a liberal thing. Gisele is simply being a typical hypocrite.

Actually, what I'm saying is...

Being a hypocrit does not make one a Liberal.

However, being a Liberal doe in fact make one a Hypocrit.

Show me a Lib and I will show you a Hypocrit.

... and no... we are not all hypocrits as part of our condition. To me, IMHO, a hypocrit is one of the worst things one can be.

Jim
Seriously I could simply say that every Conservative is a hypocrite and my point would have as much validity as yours, ie very little. Almost everybody shows a degree of hypocrisy , it is not regulated by political thought , however ones strongest opinions may well serve to highlight ones apparent level of hypocrisy.
A perfect recent example is the behaviour of the Vatican in regards to the child abuse scandals , I dont think the hypocrisy they displayed was any worse than any large corporation cover up but it appeared so bad because the church deals in morality. Years ago the Vatican was found to have links to organised crime and astoundingly to have a major stake in a company producing condoms. These acts would by any standards be considered the height of hypocrisy but because they were not immoral as such caused far less of a fuss.

Obviously Gisele is hypocritical. Worthy of a sidenote only because she's hot. Hypocrites abound amongst the Conservatives and Liberals because bandwagons tend to collect hypocrites. Go figure.


Honibaz

thegreekdog wrote:A girl I work with is pregnant and she has decided she will not breastfeed (despite the encouragement of her doctors and nurses). Her reasons were (1) "I have to work" and (2) "I'm not going to pump milk every three hours when I'm at work because it cuts down on my productivity."

It's not empirical evidence, but I would say there are some cultural reasons that women don't breastfeed.

Yes, but those are, as you say "cultural reasons" and also "cultural excuses." I am pretty sure that it does not take rocket science to develop a work schedule that does not "cut down on productivity." (Believe me that those companies that are pushing their employees to stop smoking and taking smoking breaks are not doing it because they want to regain "productivity.")

On the other hand, I'be heard anecdotal evidence that the pump "sucks" (no pun intended). So I can see people making excuses not to use it.

I'm also pretty sure that with minor modifications and a genuine desire to use a superior product it could easily be made not to suck.

Let's be honest, if you (and everyone else) can read this article without getting either prudish or acting like Beavis and Butthead, the world would be one step closer to a real cultural revolution.