I am awestruck!

[rubberwilli]

I cannot believe the judgmental attitude on display. By your definition, any transaction in an open marketplace is exploitation and unethical. One person is always offering another what he or she wants in order to get what they want. And to clarify - there is no coercion at all. All are free to walk away from the transaction.

But then here you come, all high and mighty, and condemn a free , uncoerced transaction among consenting adults as "unethical?" Sheesh. OK, let me see if I've got it. A guy calls sticking a traffic cone up his ass disgusting, and you've got all kinds of platitudes about the beauty of the diversity of human sexuality, and a bunch of high talk about how no one is in a position to judge, blah, blah, blah. But then on the subject of bumfights, all of a sudden you can't find any subjectivity or relativism - it's simply unethical, period. Where's the love and understanding, man? Where do you get off calling anything wrong or unethical?

I guess it's like Snoop says - you can't call black women hos or nappy-headed. But HE can, 'cause it's all different when he does it.

Must be nice to be so special. We'll try to keep in mind that you get to make the absolute calls, and we're supposed to be all relativist and accepting and shit.

Taking advanatge of homeless men is not an open marketplace. It's a one-sided transaction, especially when you stand to make millions while the homeless man goes to the hospital or gets sent back to prison for violating his parole.

A guy sticking a traffic cone up his own ass of his own free will is entirely different from a homeless man being paid $50 to mutilate another homeless person so the millionaire can profit off the situation of the homeless.

How about we look at what the courts take on all of this was, since they are the ones who pass legal judgements?

Homeless Men in Bumfights Get Settlements
Bumfight Producers Throw In The Towel
Bumfight Participants to get Thousands - Producers Agree to Settle

Bumfights is over. Their last video came out in 2006 and was mostly a comilation of suburban skateboard kids doing tricks off stairs, which was stuff they were doing anyway. As part of the settlement the producers of bumfights are not allowed to market or produce any more bumfight videos. The producers plead guilty to criminal misdemeanors and had pay fines, go on probation and do community work. Then they lied about their community work and got hauled into court AGAIN.

I'm not the only one who thought it was unethical, coercive and wrong. The producers plead guilty to get a lower charge, they knew what was up and they knew it was wrong all along.

 

[ssnead]

Characterizing the Bumfights business in unflattering terms doesn't prove your point. That it was a millionare offering the $50 doesn't change the analysis - would it have made any difference if the money was offered by someone who had only that $50 to his name? Your arguments would be more persuasive if you left your personal biases out of them.

Also - again, there was nothing coercive about the transaction - they did, in fact, occur on the open market. Saying otherwise doesn't change the facts.

Moving on, you make your appeal to the courts and settlements to defend your assertion that Bumfights is wrong. First, understand that settlements prove nothing other than one side's estimate of an insufficient likelihood of prevailing on the merits of their case, for any number of reasons. They need not necessarily mean anything at all about said merits. But more importantly, you've proved my point. Something tells me that you would not trust the courts, let's say the Supreme Court for instance (with Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts) to be the arbiter of what's wrong when it came to behaviors you consider acceptable - such as sticking traffic cones up one's ass. But when it's something you don't happen to care for, all of a sudden you've got no problem laying down some clear markers as to what's right and wrong, and speaking sufficiently loud and clear so that you may be heard from the pedestal you've placed yourself on. Typical.

And so to quote myself: "Must be nice to be so special. We'll try to keep in mind that you get to make the absolute calls, and we're supposed to be all relativist and accepting and shit."

 

[B_Think_Kink]

Characterizing the Bumfights business in unflattering terms doesn't prove your point. That it was a millionaire offering the $50 doesn't change the analysis - would it have made any difference if the money was offered by someone who had only that $50 to his name? Your arguments would be more persuasive if you left your personal biases out of them.

Also - again, there was nothing coercive about the transaction - they did, in fact, occur on the open market. Saying otherwise doesn't change the facts.

Moving on, you make your appeal to the courts and settlements to defend your assertion that Bumfights is wrong. First, understand that settlements prove nothing other than one side's estimate of an insufficient likelihood of prevailing on the merits of their case, for any number of reasons. They need not necessarily mean anything at all about said merits. But more importantly, you've proved my point. Something tells me that you would not trust the courts, let's say the Supreme Court for instance (with Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts) to be the arbiter of what's wrong when it came to behaviors you consider acceptable - such as sticking traffic cones up one's ass. But when it's something you don't happen to care for, all of a sudden you've got no problem laying down some clear markers as to what's right and wrong, and speaking sufficiently loud and clear so that you may be heard from the pedestal you've placed yourself on. Typical.

And so to quote myself: "Must be nice to be so special. We'll try to keep in mind that you get to make the absolute calls, and we're supposed to be all relativist and accepting and shit."

Actually I'll back up RW... someone mutilating their own body for their pleasure... is soooooooo different than someone who has money paying someone who is desperate, and has nothing... that is imorral... the value of life... cannot be compared to someone pleasure attempts

 

[ssnead]

In your opinion, think_kink.

Looks like folks are on the same page here, joining in with the absolutes. Having no problem calling something definitively immoral despite the fact that it cannot be demonstrated to be so. I don't understand why the acceptance and relativism goes out the window when it's something that offends your particular sensibilities. Or maybe I do ... it's called hypocrisy.

I know, I know - it's soooooooo different when it serves your purposes.

 

[Bryan_Lyte2]

Let me shorten it and make it simple to understand. Kicking a man while he is down and has nothing while it's being recorded by people provocating the situation with bribery, is immoral. Even more so is the fact that they sold those dvd's for profit, at the homeless expense. Don't dare try to defend the situation it's wron on all levels.

​

 

[B_Think_Kink]

Let me shorten it and make it simple to understand. Kicking a man while he is down and has nothing while it's being recorded by people provocating the situation with bribery, is immoral. Even more so is the fact that they sold those dvd's for profit, at the homeless expense. Don't dare try to defend the situation it's wron on all levels.

​

Thank you dear.

 

[ssnead]

It was understood before you shortened and clarified it - it wasn't difficult. You offered a heavily-biased characterization of the bumfights phenomenon, one that is incredibly patronizing of and condescending toward the "bums" in question. I'm sure that doesn't bother the patrician leftist or liberal, but it bothers me. Somehow, I suspect if I were to offer a similarly skewed characterization of the guy who likes traffic cones up his ass, perhaps making some assumptions about his psychology, everyone would jump down my throat for it.

But no matter. Let me make it shorter still and even easier to understand by reiterating: HYPOCRISY.

 

[B_Think_Kink]

It was understood before you shortened and clarified it - it wasn't difficult. You offered a heavily-biased characterization of the bumfights phenomenon, one that is incredibly patronizing of and condescending toward the "bums" in question. I'm sure that doesn't bother the patrician leftist or liberal, but it bothers me. Somehow, I suspect if I were to offer a similarly skewed characterization of the guy who likes traffic cones up his ass, perhaps making some assumptions about his psychology, everyone would jump down my throat for it.

But no matter. Let me make it shorter still and even easier to understand by reiterating: HYPOCRISY.

*clicks the mute button on my controller* shut it would you.. you're seriously in need of some professional help..thanks for clarifying that to everything tho..

 

[ssnead]

Hypocrites would always prefer to censor others rather than be called out.

 

[B_Think_Kink]

Hypocrites would always prefer to censor others rather than be called out.

Try and call me out if it would make you feel better...

 

[ssnead]

I think I just did, honey.

 

[B_Think_Kink]

I think I just did, honey.

Thinking, and doing are two different things...

 

[rubberwilli]

Can someone call the vet...I think the horse is dead.

In the meantime...perhaps a recipe for a F-ab-ulous recipe for Lemon Meringue Tartlettes until the vet calls the time of death!

Lemon Curd filling recipe
200g Butter,
125g sugar
150g eggs
125ml lemon juice (approx 3 whole lemons)
zest of1 lemon
Half melt 100g butter, sugar and zest in a pan or bain marie. Add lemon juice and eggs. Whisk till 85 C (to pasteurize the eggs) It should start bubbling abit and the consistency should be somewhat thick. Then add the rest of the butter and whisk till melted. Transfer to a bowl and chill.
Pour the lemon curd into the cooled tart cases and leave in the fridge to cool further.

 

[elchiple]

How long do I beat my eggs if I want a little meringue with that?

 

[ssnead]

Thinking, and doing are two different things...

OK. I did in fact call you out as the rotten hypocrite you are. Simple enough?

 

[B_Think_Kink]

OK. I did in fact call you out as the rotten hypocrite you are. Simple enough?

I don't see how I'm a hypocrite? pretty sure I believe in human rights... I wouldn't be a SSW if I didn't... but whatever you say fucktard.

 

[Bryan_Lyte2]

O.k. you both are great people but understand that when a recipe joins a board that sqaubling must end. Otherwise moderators step in. As much as I'd like to continue, and rectify my last statement or the comment therefore following, even I know when the flaming must end, and we go back to being dignified people. We might not agree on each others views, so let's just agree to dissagree, and go about our randomnes o.k.

​

 

[B_cigarbabe]

Well said RubberWilli, Brian_Lyte2, and T.K.!
And why are you here ssnead?
C.B.
Great photo Brian!:biggrin1:

 

[Bryan_Lyte2]

Just glad to see you back around the boards Cigarbabe.

​

 

[B_Think_Kink]

TK steps away from the topic, drops the shovel and runs away...