As a person, my decisions regarding reproduction are mine.

[MineralMan]

Decisions by others about reproduction are theirs, and theirs alone.

My decision, at age 19, was not to reproduce, and I've maintained that throughout my life. It's a decision I've discussed with everyone with whom a relationship that involved sex might occur, and before any such relationship began. I've not had such a relationship with anyone who did not accept my decision not to reproduce and have been in two long-term relationships (over 20 years) with two people who made the same decision for themselves.

Very careful use of contraceptive measures has meant that I've not been involved in any conceptions.

My decision is my own, but involved others, so it has always been my responsibility to make my decision known.

For everyone but myself, my decision means nothing. I have no opinion regarding what others should do with regard to their own reproductive decisions. I'm 100% pro-choice in all circumstances. I fully support everyone's own personal decisions with regard to reproduction. Period.

For me, it would be the height of arrogance to believe that I should have any role in such decisions for others. So, I do not have any opinion about what others should do or not do in that regard. I believe that nobody should have any input into other's reproductive decisions. Those belong to each individual.

[Electric Monk]

1. I'm in favor of you having as many abortions as you personally choose to, MineralMan

(first?)

[MineralMan]

2. That's impossible, actually.

That choice could not be made.

[NoOneMan]

3. I don't share that view

8 billion planet fuckers exploiting our earth, bringing on the 6th extinction, and you think we should just allow everyone to make up their own unfettered minds about popping out more parasitic, exponentially growing humans to destroy our ecosystem? No, its about time we start taking responsibility for our plight and implementing policies (including education) that stop this shit

[MineralMan]

5. OK. You have your own unique viewpoint.

However, if I am to be consistent, I cannot decide that people should not have offspring, anymore than I can decide that they should. Being 100% pro-choice is just that.

My choice not to reproduce was based on population increase, and was made in 1964. That was my choice. Others made different choices, and it's not my business to make others' decisions for them about such things.

So, if you believe that humans are reproducing too much, what would you do to change that, other than not to reproduce, yourself? I'd be very interested in your answer.

[NoOneMan]

14. First, reduce the incidence of pregnancies. Unwanted or otherwise

For unwanted, the state should work on education and accessible birth control to reduce the "accidents". As for wanted pregnancies, the first thing the state can try is to induce a large social change by creating a campaign (PSAs, education, etc) on the dangers of population, resource scarcity and the implications of climate change. Further, you can implement tax implications (perhaps major bonuses) for those who have no child, and less for those who choose to have just 1. I would go so far as suggest that a 1 child policy isn't a terrible idea, with a target quota that allowed wildcard drafts (for families with 1 child already) for when the birth rate is too low

Aside from just preventing pregnancies, vastly promote abortion as the chosen way to end a pregancy over giving birth (its ecnomic toll and even risk is minimal compared to actual birthing). Ensure abortion is accessible everywhere and free, whereas, perhaps do not subsidize birthing with public funds (yes, that sounds harsh, but I don't give a fuck anymore).

This isn't a personal matter anymore. The planet is dying. Its not up to us to choose to fuck out 20 children and arm them all with 5 shiny AR-15s. Sometimes stupid choices need to be regulated. At some point, the state is going to have to get realistic about our catastrophic situation and take extreme steps to ensure humanity lasts past another century or two.

[MineralMan]

15. I'm afraid that I can't go along with your authoritarian ideas.

Not in any way. My concern with overpopulation led to my decision not to reproduce, but I cannot find it in my to control what others do. Education is good. The rest of what you describe, however, would require a system so authoritarian that it would result in control of many other things at the same time.

Finally, for any one nation to implement such policies would have little effect on a global basis. The United States, for example, already has a fertility rate that is very close to zero growth, and that is without any authoritarian control of reproduction.

China, on the other hand, has implemented some of your proposed measures. I can't agree with those measures.

[NoOneMan]

16. "Freedom" is a funny thing

We after all have a freedom to destroy our entire ecosystem and cause millions of species to go extinct. We are exercising that freedom now it would seem.

The interesting thing is that the freedom to fuck ourselves into oblivion most certainly hampers everyone's freedom to pursue happiness (or even survive). Therefore, I would suggest an intervention--even if its more extreme than tax implications--is not without precedence and even congruent with a Democracy

[MineralMan]

18. The road you're suggesting leads to a bad place.

Sorry. I'm going to stop discussing this with you.

[NoOneMan]

20. We're in a bad place

We're in a catastrophic place. The involuntary cull won't be any prettier

[notadmblnd]

49. Ever consider abortion for yourself?

Really, why do you merit existence- while advocating controlling the existence of others? You consume this planets resources too.

[NoOneMan]

52. There is that fatal human flaw that we don't know when enough is enough

while advocating controlling the existence of others

I don't. Until someone is born they do not exist. Insisting otherwise is a right-wing, anti-abortion viewpoint.

[notadmblnd]

65. You are advocating the control of the potential existence of others. Is that better?

You know, another right wing tactic is deflection from the question asked. You never answered my question.

[NoOneMan]

67. Potential existence has no value, or otherwise, abortion would be immoral

Anything that impeded upon to potential to exist would follow suite as well. That line of argument is settled as far as I am concerned.

[notadmblnd]

77. To you. Potential life has no value to you. It doesn't mean potential life doesn't have value

to others. I support their right to choose. I even support your right to choose to reproduce or not. In fact, I'm really happy that you have chosen not to.

[NoOneMan]

79. If potential life has value, abortion destroys something of value

Abortion is a medical procedure. This is settled.

There is no reasonable reason to want there to be less abortions beyond costs and risk management, all of which birthing makes worse. If you have reasons, they are not reasonable.

[notadmblnd]

83. There is a medical procedure that can be performed to terminate a potential life that is

commonly called abortion. It is not the most common type of abortion. You would like it be very common. In fact, you would advocate requiring it.

You're just another man who wants to have control over woman's reproductive systems and choice. And that my dear NoOne- is very right wing.

[NoOneMan]

86. LOL

who said anything about mandating abortion. God. Where do these people come from?

[notadmblnd]

87. Your words implied

"its about time we start taking responsibility for our plight and implementing policies (including education) that stop this shit

[NoOneMan]

88. Hey, you know who liked dogs? Hitler liked dogs!

[notadmblnd]

89. Ridicule? Is that all you got left?

[Skidmore]

42. So who is worthy to reproduce and what

is thecselection criteria for those allowed on the ark?

[NoOneMan]

46. Well, lets say sensible tax policies and social messaging didn't work

People wanted to keep fucking....

And lets say making births more expensive and abortions more accessible still didn't work...

And lets say all the education in the world happened and guys still wont put their condoms on...

Then we would be needing pretty extreme measures. But instead of saying only certain people get babies, how about 1 baby for each couple? And if the target birth rate drops low, allow people with 1 child to apply to have a second one (selected at random from applicants).

Yeah, I just don't care about how that sounds anymore. I also think we ought to limit smart phones an McMansions in an authoritarian manner, but yeah, people love those more than babies. Sometimes I just don't think people understand just how serious climate change is.

[Skidmore]

55. You definitely don't value

freedom or democracy and I fail to see how playing god makes you a progressive or enlightened. I definitely can't get on the samevpage withvyou.

[NoOneMan]

58. Freedoms that impede upon others are not congruent with democracy or progressive values

We do not tolerate a freedom to own slaves. We do not tolerate freedoms to dump toxic sludge in people's neighborhoods. Why should the people of Bangladesh value our freedom to flood their nation? Why should the Inuits value our freedom to destroy their food supply?

People's homelands will be destroyed in the coming decades. People's ways of life will be obliterated. Billions are predicted to starve. And all you can whine about is your freedom to produce another redundant soul? I'm not buying that either.

[notadmblnd]

78. This guy seems to really hate fucking.

Me, I kinda like it. I've done it probably hundreds of times. It doesn't mean I have hundreds of children.

[NoOneMan]

80. I love fucking. Its an integral part of the human experience

Having children is too. These things I understand.

But fucking ourselves into oblivion is still immensely stupid. And when I use that phrase, please understand I am not being literal. It isn't the rabbit fucking I don't like, but the duplication of redundant humans that results more than necessary to prolong our species

[Niceguy1]

90. I thought that the govt

Wasn't supposed to be in the bedroom?

[dionysus]

45. any questions i had regarding your credibility on anything have now been answered. proceed.

what's next, eugenics?

[NoOneMan]

50. No. Just fucking. Fucking and dying. Fucking dying.

And projections of our food situation, based on IPCC reports, are more terrifying than that.

Hilarious.

[chervilant]

74. Earth is not dying.

Our species is in imminent danger of extinction, due largely to our own hubris. This planet will continue, likely without us, for millions of years.

[NoOneMan]

75. Heh. Excuse me.

I meant our ecosystem is destabilizing, thereby reducing our viability (along with millions of other species).

The blue little planet will be here. It just wont be a super place to be for a long while. Which is fine in itself. I mean, we wont be here to have much of a say in it.

[chervilant]

93. The cockroaches should be copacetic... n/t

[Boom Sound 416]

17. Somebody Popped you out

Good thing they didn't feel all you'd be is a planet fucker.

[NoOneMan]

19. That's about all I am

Every bit of money I earn to keep myself alive has carbon debt. Every hour I work at my job, a piece of the earth must be destroyed to compensate me (or must be at some time in the future when I redeem my debt notes). We are all born into and are part of a system that generates wealth by dominating and destroying nature, and seems to accelerate in its ability to do so yearly. Do not fool yourself; despite the art, the love, the laughter, etc, our job as humans in the modern economy is to accelerate the destruction of the wilds, such that the machine we are building can more aptly and more easily destroy those wilds in future in the name of infinite growth (aka "progress&quot . This is why we need less, not more, redundant not-so-special consumers of energy

[Boom Sound 416]

23. "We need less not more, but my ticket got punched

So screw the ones behind me. But if it's any consolation I feel pretty guilty about being here and you would too if, you know, you existed."

Spare me.

[NoOneMan]

26. Im not sure if you are attempting an Ad Hominem Tu Quoque or not

IOW, I am a hypocrite to suggest that there needs to be less people and yet exist as a person at the same time.

Whether or not I exist to make the argument that we have an over-population problem, this has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that we have a catastrophic over-population problem that needs to be addressed. If everyone who recognized this problem didn't exist, the problem wouldn't go away; you just wouldn't have anyone to let you know about it.

So screw the ones behind me

I'm not saying screw anyone, unless you think that sperm and eggs should be granted personhood. There is no one to screw by preventing babies from popping out. Until babies are popped out, no one exists yet to be deprived of life.

[Boom Sound 416]

38. Yes, I was

Thanks for recognizing it.

I'd like to know how you know we are over populated? Their are certainly atrocities all over the globe born from greed, envy and the like. But the lack of food or water for millions is due to those injustices not their mere existence.

You're argument is over population as a threat to the planet, which I presume is a long game threat to ourselves because the planet sustains us? Yes?

So reduce the number of people and reduce planetary destruction (as if the planet doesn't regenerate) and therefore increase the amount of time people can destroy the planet which will happen anyway because it's a forever diminishing time line.

So we're left with the old clean habitat for me bit. But I don't think you really mean that, although that seems to be you're argument.

As for rights to sperm and eggs. Well, in a sense yes, because the rights are to the bearers of those genes like your parents and the future that is their right to have. A future with a child or 10 children.

Why do you think the planet, which spawned us, views humans as a threat?

[NoOneMan]

43. The planet doesn't need to "view" us as a threat for us to be destroying the ecosystem

I'd like to know how you know we are over populated?

The terms is somewhat abstract, because we all might be comfortable living in mudhuts, eating locally grown food and working in a very primitive gift economy. But thats not the case. So the idea of overpopulation actually goes hand in hand with per capita energy usage (assuming some carbon intensity of such energy). The higher the per capita energy usage is, the less people that can be supported. A quick measure is to simply observe if the carbon output of any area (due to exploitation and energy consumption) exceeds its capacity to capture carbon, thereby creating a surplus that threatens climate stability (in otherwords, are we--living according to our standard--kicking up more than nature can absorb in to feed every mouth and fulfill our needs & desires, to the point that it is dangerous). And objectively, while you may not agree with that definition, it could damn well be proven we are there. Then there's the freshwater problem...

[MineralMan]

25. Nihilism is an ugly philosophy.

Sorry, but that is simply so. A dismal and meaningless way of looking at the world.

I have nothing further to say to you. You have defined yourself quite clearly. A pity.

[NoOneMan]

27. I wouldn't know

But Ill remember to label people I disagree with as such if this technique is effective

[Bay Boy]

30. Just a quick question...

...Do you believe in God?

[NoOneMan]

31. No. Do you?

I guess if you believed in God you would assume the He wouldn't let climate change, overpopulation and scarcity wreak havoc upon humanity, and thereby, not regard the problem as serious (providence afterall). Right (and I'm not trying to make a strawman, just trying to see why its relevant to advocating action in the face of impending catastrophe)?

[Bay Boy]

34. Nope, me either...

...since you don't believe in an after life why give a crap about the environment? What ever damage we do now won't show it's effects until after we are dead and gone, so why care?

[NoOneMan]

36. By not believing in God, I see myself as a part of nature

Not as nature's steward that is separate and exceptional. Therefore, civilization's destruction of nature destroys my habitat and a piece of who we are (something we humans, in a natural setting, repeatedly hold in reverence). And yes, dead is dead, but I have a biological instinct to maximize pleasure and avoid pain. While I am here, I am utterly urged instinctively to promote an environment that ensures we are healthy and happy. Living a life in a toxic, dying cesspool is most definitely not what I naturally want for myself or anyone else.

[lumberjack_jeff]

33. Misanthropic, even by community standards.

Kind of tragic, really.

Do you know what the US fertility rate is? Americans are essentially at zero growth - 1.89 births per woman. Were it not for immigration, the population wouldn't be growing at all - as it is, the population growth rate is less than 1%.

[NoOneMan]

39. I know that birthrates have leveled of in first world nations

But our per capita energy usage is off the charts. If we want to live like this, we need much less of us than there are today. Now, if were willing to give up living like this......

[msanthrope]

84. Misanthropic, by my standards, too. nt

[Scootaloo]

35. It's not population.

Really, it's not. it's resource use. Rightnow, 360 million Unitedstatsians have roughly equal environmental impact to the combined populations of India and China, a total of 2.5 BILLION people. This is because we consume way, way more.

Similarly, local overpopulation can cause local environmental destruction - see Niger - but not irreversably so. However, overconsumption - as per most "western" nations - can lead to irreversible harm, even in states that are not "overpopulated" - Japan for instance is losing population steadily, but its consumption of petroleum, metals, and timber is still wildly excessive and leads to more lasting harm than the needs of just a dense population would cause.

Even that damage caused by overpopulation is usually highly localized, rather than global. Niger's population might have collapsed the ecology of the Sahel in that nation, but that's it - they're not causing Greenland to turn into a freshwater lake in the upper Atlantic.

The problem is consumption levels. One Unitedstatsian consumes enough food and resources to equal, I dunno, fifty-seven Malians. The planet can safely support a VERY large number of humans - upward estimate of fourteen billion - but that's if those people are engaging in minimal consumption.

If it's any consolation to you, the petroleum industry will collapse way before the planet does, leading to both a sharp knock-down of both consumption and population. ...Actually i guess that's probably not very consoling at all, especially if you're young enough to be an inheritor of the wasteland like I am... But, it's a notion you get used to, I guess.

[NoOneMan]

44. I've commented this somewhat up above

That its more about per capita energy usage and the carbon intensity of that energy. Typically, first world nations have high usage, and therefore, it takes far less of them to make drastic climate impacts. Yes, not having a baby in the US is like not having a 10 in China (though that's changing).

But what's the other alternative? Restrict per capita emissions? LOL. Hey, hows about we have a middle-ground?

If it's any consolation to you, the petroleum industry will collapse way before the planet does

Its possible that they only need another 25 years. Things are bad. Methane is now getting release in the tundra. Your take is optimistic. We will likely see massive climate problems (causing massive famines) at just the same time a lot of these dirty fuels get phased out. Yes, fun for younger people.

[Boom Sound 416]

48. does the per capita argument hold up when factoring globalization

ie

we make it here and export it to there, but we get still get billed the destructive credit

[NoOneMan]

56. Well, globalization most certainly muddies the entire waters

But what I can damn well tell you is that in aggregate, we humans are popping out far more carbon than our damaged environment has the ability to absorb, creating vast surpluses in the atmosphere and ocean that are affecting the entire globe. So either we all need to make the global birth rate go down fast, or we need to drop the carbon emissions per capita, or a combination of both, or we are all screwed. Unfortunately, it makes it pretty difficult to come to a consensus when were all in this together but ruled by different sovereign nations. So in any case, I'm not hopeful.

[stuntcat]

70. ty

all that.

And the sick sick evil of giving new little babies the next 8 to 9 decades is almost as bad as so actively contributing to the mass-extinction.

[RKP5637]

81. Earth is finite, we have finite space and resources to support life, and some quality

of life. We can not overrun a finite space with an unlimited exponential population, it makes absolutely no sense.

[OregonBlue]

4. Agree 100%. My decisions are right for me and no one else. My decisions are also no one else's

business. We are each responsible for our choices and only our choices.

[MineralMan]

6. Thank you. Recognizing the importance of invidual

choice in such matters is crucial.

[Ranchemp.]

7. Personally, I am opposed to abortion, except for things like rape, incest,

life threatening issues due to a pregnancy, now, that said, far be it from me to tell ANYONE else how to live their lives or the choices they make with their bodies.

[MineralMan]

8. I guess I don't understand that position.

Being opposed to something would seem to indicate that you'd be in favor of measures aimed at preventing that thing.

That is in contrast with your saying that you wouldn't tell anyone what to do or not to do. If you truly would not tell anyone what not to do, then your opposition is meaningless, since you don't actually oppose it. You just have a personal belief about it. I don't get that position at all.

[Ranchemp.]

9. No, not really.

It's settled law that a woman has the right to have an abortion, I don't favor any restrictions now, I did way back when, but I've mellowed over the years.
I really don't see any conflict on being personally against abortion and respecting the right of people to make their own choice.

[CTyankee]

29. If you are a female, being against abortion means something.

It means taking a real chance with any sexual encounter you may have, perhaps even if you are raped. So there are some tough choices to be made.

If you are male, being personally opposed to abortion doesn't have the consequences for you as it would if you were female. So what would that mean?

[Ranchemp.]

32. But my being personally opposed but refusing to tell any woman what she

should do doesn't have any impact on women, I'm not active in the anti abortion movement, I don't give money to any org. that advocates restricting a womens right to chose, I'm just personally opposed while respecting a woman's right to chose what to do with her body.

[CTyankee]

37. My guess is that you mean you would conduct yourself in such a way not to cause an

unplanned pregnancy to occur in the first place, like MineralMan has explained he has done. And that would make sense.

[Ranchemp.]

41. Yes.

Also, I would never condemn any woman for an unplanned pregnancy, how someone conducts their sexual life is none of my business.
I guess I'm anti abortion while realizing that I have no right to tell anyone how they treat their body.
Hope that makes sense.

[CTyankee]

59. Yes, I get that your being "anti-abortion" is in the philosophical sense.

And since one's personal philosophy informs the way they live their lives, you are doing what you can to not be responsible for any woman's abortion. But at the same time, you seem to be pro-choice because what you are saying is that you are a moral agent who can make these decisions. It is precisely what the pro-choice movement says about women's moral agency. It is a choice. It isn't "pro-abortion" since no one is forcing them to have an abortion, but many are trying to force them NOT to. At the end of the day, "choice" is exactly what you are believing and living.

[Ranchemp.]

62. Wow, great post.

I guess in the physical sense I am pro-choice in that I don't attempt to restrict or hinder in any way, a woman's right to chose, while at the same time, I'm anti abortion because of my personal philosophy.

[CTyankee]

69. thanks. I'm glad for the chance to clarify the "moral choice" argument for the "pro-choice"

movement! I have some deeply religious friends who espouse this belief, one of whom is a deacon in her Episcopalian Church and a graduate of Yale Divinity School. I also have a stepdaughter who is a strongly pro-choice Reform rabbi, who espouses much the same philosophy. Both are strongly religiious women of different faiths who are part of an ecumenical women's network that is pro-choice. My ideas come largely from what I have learned from these wise, but younger, women of the clergy. They are deeply involved in both their religious faith and their philosophical views.

Thanks for hearing this out.

[Ranchemp.]

71. Thank you for defining this for me,

and thank you for the well thought out conversation, which isn't an easy thing to do on this highly charged subject.

Back in the day when I was still a young idealistic man, I attended a couple of anti abortion protests, I quit participating because those people were just, well, fucking bomb throwing nuts and after seeing the look of horror on some of those women's faces that were harassed while entering a clinic, it had a deep effect on me and I have since then never attended nor advocated against a woman's right to choice.

[CTyankee]

82. And you have had a life-changing experience that has led you to your present status.

It is interesting, isn't it? The pro-choice movement is animated by the very thought that women, after a milennia of not being considered moral beings, are now flowering into women who write and advocate freely about moral choice. And it is within the framework of the pro-choice movement in this country. My friend and my stepdaughter are exciting people to know, because their minds are lit with thinking about such moral issues and how we, as humans, deal with those issues.

Exciting times, indeed.

[idwiyo]

85. +1

[REP]

24. Why the exceptions for rape and incest?

The precious preborn poppet didn't have anything to do with how it came into being. Is it because the woman was not of 'easy virtue' in those circumstances?

[Ranchemp.]

28. Bedause those are crimes against a person and the person should have the choice

on whether to terminate the pregnancy or to carry the child to birth.
I'm getting the feeling that I'm kinda in the minority that I'm personally opposed to abortion with exceptions, but I don't have the right to tell someone else what to do with their body.

[LanternWaste]

47. What then, is the precise and relevant difference between this outcome and one predicated not on cri

" Bedause those are crimes against a person and the person should have the choice..."

So the decision on whether to ethically terminate the pregnancy is predicated only on whether a crime was committed against this person or not?

What then, is the precise and relevant difference between this outcome and one predicated not on crime, but simply on choice?

[Ranchemp.]

54. The difference is that one is not forceable while the other is.

Look, I have stated that I'm personally opposed but I certainly don't have any right to tell anyone what to do with their body.
That's just the way I feel, I don't dwell on the abortion issue, I just made a comment on this thread to let people know what my thoughts were.
I thank you and others for not hammering me for my opinions and it is enlightening to hear different opinions on this still contentious issue, even after 40 years of abortion being legal.

[MH1]

10. I agree, but people facing the decision should have access to accurate facts.

For example,

* risks of different types of abortion at what stage, vs. carrying child to term, vs. risks of not being able to carry child to term due to birth defects or other issues
* if not ready to raise the child: what adoption means to future privacy, vs the same for abortion.

and probably several other things, but those are a couple that pop into mind right away.

Everyone should be prepped with good sex ed in school so as to avoid unplanned pregnancies in the first place, and to know what to do if they happen anyway.

[MineralMan]

12. I can agree with having excellent education regarding sexuality and

reproduction in schools. I think that's essential. That should begin at an early enough age that no child enters puberty without having had a thorough education on the subject.

However, I oppose any mandatory education requirements beyond that. A woman who is pregnant is an independent person, and has the right to make any decisions regarding that pregnancy without mandatory instruction or any other influence. It is HER decision, entirely.

[Niceguy1]

91. I think it should be an informed decision

And thrat good comprehensive sex ed should cover all of it.

[Mass]

11. Agree - Choice means choice. Whether it would be the choice I would make or not.

This decision belongs to the woman.

[MineralMan]

13. Absolutely. And the decisions are solely those of the individual.

No other person should have the power to interfere with any such decision, either way. Complete freedom of choice with regard to one's own body with regard to reproduction is an absolute right.

[panader0]

21. My kids have been the best part of my life.

I got a vasectomy after the twins were born. (They just turned 21)

[MineralMan]

22. I'm glad to hear it.

I'm glad your children have enriched your life. Truly.

[tkmorris]

40. "I'm 100% pro-choice in all circumstances"

I have never met a person who could say that honestly. Carefully consider what "all circumstances" really means.

[MineralMan]

53. I have considered that. With regard to reproductive rights,

I am 100% pro-choice.

[idwiyo]

63. Let me introduce myself - I am a female, commie, and I support Equal Human Rights.

No exceptions.

I asupport woman's Right to Chose without any exceptions. What I personally feel about the matter is irrelevant. To me Right to Bodily Integrity is sacrosanct and is a part of Universal Human Rights.

[Coyotl]

51. What about those who think it is good to have a dozen children?

How many such opinions can be sustained?

[MineralMan]

57. What about them?

Why should that be something for me to decide? Or you?

Think about it. I do not meddle in other people's reproductive decisions. Period.

[rug]

60. I find the topic of MineralMan reproduction offputting.

[dionysus]

61. you just ooze class, don't you.

[rug]

66. Not as well as you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4028093

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

64. I find insulting other DUers offputting.

[rug]

68. I find insulting other DUers to be quite common.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

72. So is littering.

And pickpocketing, and farting in elevators, and stealing from collection plates, and blowing one's nose at the dinner table, and parking in handicapped parking spots by people who aren't handicapped, and not washing your hands after using the bathroom, and getting drunk at a party and puking on the host's feet.

All of those things are off-putting; the fact that they're common doesn't mean they're OK.

[rug]

73. There is nothing wrong with blowing one's nose at the dinner table.

I assume a handkerchief is involved.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

76. I was taught that it was rude and that you should excuse yourself

rather than making nasty honking, mucusy sounds while people are eating - even if you use a handkerchief. Using your napkin is, of course, beyond the pale.

[MineralMan]

92. How rude...

Last edited Wed Nov 13, 2013, 09:15 PM - Edit history (1)

Truly. In fact, as I said in my OP, I have not done that, which I suppose will be a great relief to you.

I am appalled that you would post such a thing, frankly.