The great breastfeeding debate, Part XVII
11-21-2011
, 12:39 PM
I wonder if farts are officially medically classified as bodily gases or not? Not having any luck finding the answer from Google.
11-21-2011
, 12:47 PM
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,996
I appreciate what you are saying, and obviously I can't prove it, but i am quite sure that an alternate discussion of an otherwise inconsequential event would spawn a thread this long, even if OP was twice as confrontational. I mean there really is alot of nonsense here, even by twoplustwo standards (farting on the bus?).
11-21-2011
, 12:51 PM
Quote:
Breastfeeding is all about the law of supply and demand. A breastfeeding mum needs to empty her breast regularly in order to increase supply. If not then she will always have a low supply and can lead to all sorts of problems such as blocked ducts and mastitis as well as a hungry baby. So yeah sometimes they just have to do it wherever, whenever.
I get offended when I see a mum artificially feeding her baby in public.
I get offended when I see a mum artificially feeding her baby in public.
11-21-2011
, 12:51 PM
Quote:
You look at a few things:
* How much work is required by me
* How much benefit other people get from it
* What are the alternatives
* How much work is required by me
* How much benefit other people get from it
* What are the alternatives
The feeder:
- Some work to leave or cover. If cover is chosen, some further work to assess and deploy the different levels of covering, in keeping with the baby's cooperation with same. If departure, then some work not to get too deep into any place from which a quick escape is not possible.
- Hypothetically 15% of people "benefit" from this. But I can't say I'm enjoying any benefit from not having a breastfeeder in my office, and the presumed benefit from non-exposure is dubious. No harm, certainly, but not sure about presence of a benefit.
- Alternatives, again largely determined by the mother's values, practical abilities, and the baby's cooperation.
The observer:
- Look elsewhere. No work at all, regardless of how the observer feels. I can just as easily turn my head as can one of the bros in the thread; what's being asked of them isn't an undue hardship. In both cases looking away is more easily accomplished than the corresponding solution that the mother would have to deploy.
- Benefit goes directly to the person who feels they are suffering.
- Alternatives to looking away: Make things worse for oneself by staring.
11-21-2011
, 12:53 PM
Quote:
But everyone objects to other people's farts, while only a minority of people object to breastfeeding. This is why arguing from analogies doesn't really work for this -- it is possible to argue the merits and demerits of breastfeeding on its own.
Still, floating along with this leaky metaphor for a moment, an element of discretion is minimizing the exposure of other people. Everyone understands farting in public but the expectation (out of consideration and pride) is that you'll limit the number of people who come to know about this -- you'll fart discreetly, by removing yourself from the group, walking down the hall, whatever. Everyone knows that you're farting but at least you're not forcing them to live with it.
Likewise breastfeeding discreetly does take into account the overall comfort of everyone and minimizing the impact on people around you. It is an imperfect solution, but it's as close to perfect as you can get while still upholding individuals' rights. Not much to be done about the fact that some of these individuals hold without justification that their personal comfort (narrowly defined) is the most important consideration to weigh against all others.
Still, floating along with this leaky metaphor for a moment, an element of discretion is minimizing the exposure of other people. Everyone understands farting in public but the expectation (out of consideration and pride) is that you'll limit the number of people who come to know about this -- you'll fart discreetly, by removing yourself from the group, walking down the hall, whatever. Everyone knows that you're farting but at least you're not forcing them to live with it.
Likewise breastfeeding discreetly does take into account the overall comfort of everyone and minimizing the impact on people around you. It is an imperfect solution, but it's as close to perfect as you can get while still upholding individuals' rights. Not much to be done about the fact that some of these individuals hold without justification that their personal comfort (narrowly defined) is the most important consideration to weigh against all others.
The only thing to consider is that some people don't enjoy them. The fact that that some is "almost all" in this case is irrelevant. It might affect how much discretion might be needed or how much effort should be made.
I'm also curious of this question- are there any places or times where it is inappropriate to breastfeed? Suppose the baby is perfectly behaved otherwise and would otherwise be allowed (even if the real situation is the baby is not allowed, such as a very nice restaurant or the opera or something). Or should anywhere a mother is allowed to go be an acceptable place to breastfeed?
11-21-2011
, 01:01 PM
Quote:
I agree. The issue, as far as I can see it, is that the antis are holding their subjective judgments to be superior or more compelling than the subjective judgments of other people. My position is that they are not more compelling, since a peaceful and free society is founded upon reasonable accommodation and reasonable freedoms. No one has the right to a perfectly agreeable field of vision, so to hold that someone doing something disagreeable within your field of vision is an infringement on this non-right that the "perpetrator" must correct by any means necessary (rather than simply adjust that field of vision to exclude that which you don't like) sounds pretty childish.
Who is "me" in this list?
The feeder:
- Some work to leave or cover. If cover is chosen, some further work to assess and deploy the different levels of covering, in keeping with the baby's cooperation with same. If departure, then some work not to get too deep into any place from which a quick escape is not possible.
- Hypothetically 15% of people "benefit" from this. But I can't say I'm enjoying any benefit from not having a breastfeeder in my office, and the presumed benefit from non-exposure is dubious. No harm, certainly, but not sure about presence of a benefit.
- Alternatives, again largely determined by the mother's values, practical abilities, and the baby's cooperation.
The observer:
- Look elsewhere. No work at all, regardless of how the observer feels. I can just as easily turn my head as can one of the bros in the thread; what's being asked of them isn't an undue hardship. In both cases looking away is more easily accomplished than the corresponding solution that the mother would have to deploy.
- Benefit goes directly to the person who feels they are suffering.
- Alternatives to looking away: Make things worse for oneself by staring.
Who is "me" in this list?
The feeder:
- Some work to leave or cover. If cover is chosen, some further work to assess and deploy the different levels of covering, in keeping with the baby's cooperation with same. If departure, then some work not to get too deep into any place from which a quick escape is not possible.
- Hypothetically 15% of people "benefit" from this. But I can't say I'm enjoying any benefit from not having a breastfeeder in my office, and the presumed benefit from non-exposure is dubious. No harm, certainly, but not sure about presence of a benefit.
- Alternatives, again largely determined by the mother's values, practical abilities, and the baby's cooperation.
The observer:
- Look elsewhere. No work at all, regardless of how the observer feels. I can just as easily turn my head as can one of the bros in the thread; what's being asked of them isn't an undue hardship. In both cases looking away is more easily accomplished than the corresponding solution that the mother would have to deploy.
- Benefit goes directly to the person who feels they are suffering.
- Alternatives to looking away: Make things worse for oneself by staring.
The look elsewhere argument fails because the only way to know to look elsewhere is to already have seen it. There's a reason why offensive images are not permitted to be shown here. You could just "look away" but once you see it, it's too late. A reasonable precaution for a woman breastfeeding in close proximity might be to warn people she's going to do it. Obviously in a public place like the subway might be odd to do this, but if you are with some friends somewhere, warning them you are going to feed the baby would be a reasonable way to make the "look away" argument valid. Since no one would ever see anything without intentionally looking for it. If I am in public, I might see a woman doing something that might mean she is about to feed, but I might not see that part or I might not know.
I also wonder if pongo would use a cover if her baby tolerated it and fed well with one on. If this were the case, would she use one since using one would no longer inconvenience her?
11-21-2011
, 01:12 PM
Quote:
The mistake I feel you are making is comparing 15% to 85%, when that isn't the case. If something I do has the potential to make 15% of folks I encounter uncomfortable, vs. 0% if I make reasonable concessions, 15% is bigger so I'll probably just modify my behavior slightly to make other people potentially happier. That's all I'm saying.
The 15/85 figure comes into to play because of your definition of "more people." I can't think of any circumstance under which the 15% could honestly be considered "more people": Definitely not overall-- they don't care-- and if it were a 15-percenter alone in an elevator with a mother/child pair he is still outnumbered. Any more passengers and the odds are with the 85ers.
That doesn't mean the 15s should be ignored. As much as it pleased me to learn that outside of OOT public breastfeeding is widely supported, it actually doesn't matter what the ratios are because the disagreement is over who is responsible for reasonable accommodation.
Quote:
Many people will opt not to modify their behavior to make some percentage of strangers happy, regardless of how impactful the modifications might be, or how reasonable the sensibilities of others.
Quote:
I am in the camp of people that think that folks who don't consider the feelings of others and perform ANY behavior just because "the law says I can so **** all ya'll" is a blight on society.
On that point, my concession: I don't like these feed-ins that spring up from time to time. Given the sentiment in this thread that being seen feeding is an aggressive, imposing act, it seems like it's going to eventually backfire politically if these mobs continually conduct an actual aggressive, imposing protest asserting their right to do so. I'm a big believer is distinguishing rights from license and they cross that line to their own detriment.
11-21-2011
, 01:18 PM
Quote:
This thread is pretty painful, but actually kinda fascinating and somewhat enlightening. I really have never seen such bull****tery:
1: Breastfeeding is the essence of normal behavior, and has been always, everywhere people have ever been, since the dawn of man.
2. Anyone who is squicked out by breastfeeding, especially a grown man (snicker), is a pathetic, laughable prude and deserves social derision. And here's the thing - that's exactly what they would get in these forums in any context other then this one.
3. Likewise, anyone here who says that they are perfectly OK with public breastfeeding, but demand discretion for the protection of said pathetic, laughable prudes is absolutely full of ****. Period. I have been on these forums for a long time and can't quite think of any circumstances where pathetic, laughable prudes have received anything less then derision, much less sympathy. That they do here is simply an artifact of OP being a woman discussing a wimmins' issue.
4. Further, there is nothing the least bit exceptional about the tone or attitude that OP strikes here. At the very least it is well within the standard set elsewhere in these forums (including, notably, this very thread). If OP were male, using the same tone, and discussing any other issue, it would go unnoticed (and certainly wouldn't spawn an 800 post thread). If this strikes you as wrong, you are self-delusional and might benefit from a couple of minutes of reflection, because - and again, here's the thing - LOL at you.
1: Breastfeeding is the essence of normal behavior, and has been always, everywhere people have ever been, since the dawn of man.
2. Anyone who is squicked out by breastfeeding, especially a grown man (snicker), is a pathetic, laughable prude and deserves social derision. And here's the thing - that's exactly what they would get in these forums in any context other then this one.
3. Likewise, anyone here who says that they are perfectly OK with public breastfeeding, but demand discretion for the protection of said pathetic, laughable prudes is absolutely full of ****. Period. I have been on these forums for a long time and can't quite think of any circumstances where pathetic, laughable prudes have received anything less then derision, much less sympathy. That they do here is simply an artifact of OP being a woman discussing a wimmins' issue.
4. Further, there is nothing the least bit exceptional about the tone or attitude that OP strikes here. At the very least it is well within the standard set elsewhere in these forums (including, notably, this very thread). If OP were male, using the same tone, and discussing any other issue, it would go unnoticed (and certainly wouldn't spawn an 800 post thread). If this strikes you as wrong, you are self-delusional and might benefit from a couple of minutes of reflection, because - and again, here's the thing - LOL at you.
11-21-2011
, 01:28 PM
This seems largely premised on the expectation-- dashed-- that this won't happen. Is the expectation not to see it a reasonable one? I would argue mostly not, especially in family-friendly or family-tolerant venues where you know going in there's going to be a certain population of infants, and that a certain number within that group will be breastfeeding. That's not to imply, well too bad, but to say that it's a surprise in most cases is kind of a stretch.
Men's night at the golf club would be a circumstance in which I would hope for more deference from the moms than usual. The club's objection would get destroyed in court and they're cruisin' for a feed-in but there are places where more consideration is due from one party than another just based on common sense.
Quote:
A reasonable precaution for a woman breastfeeding in close proximity might be to warn people she's going to do it. Obviously in a public place like the subway might be odd to do this, but if you are with some friends somewhere, warning them you are going to feed the baby would be a reasonable way to make the "look away" argument valid.
11-21-2011
, 01:42 PM
Thank god my wife doesn't read this forum.
A lot of people in this thread greatly underestimate how frequently babies eat (minimum of every two hours when they are little), and how pissed off they get when they are hungry (uncontrollable wailing is the norm). If you are on a plane next to a woman and her baby, you want her to breastfeed that kid as much as possible because it is waaaaaaaaaaay better than the alternative for you.
Also, if a breastfeeding woman looks like she is at Mardi Gras, then she is doing it wrong, but that doesn't happen very often. You are a huge nit if you can't handle the minimal amount of nudity you typically encounter when a woman breastfeeds in public. Blanket is worth a try, but sometimes the kid habitually bats it away, you forget, etc.
A lot of people in this thread greatly underestimate how frequently babies eat (minimum of every two hours when they are little), and how pissed off they get when they are hungry (uncontrollable wailing is the norm). If you are on a plane next to a woman and her baby, you want her to breastfeed that kid as much as possible because it is waaaaaaaaaaay better than the alternative for you.
Also, if a breastfeeding woman looks like she is at Mardi Gras, then she is doing it wrong, but that doesn't happen very often. You are a huge nit if you can't handle the minimal amount of nudity you typically encounter when a woman breastfeeds in public. Blanket is worth a try, but sometimes the kid habitually bats it away, you forget, etc.
11-21-2011
, 01:46 PM
I can't unsee it. This is the same reason why people object to people pleasuring themselves in public, even though you can look away.
This of course depends on social norms and situations. I'm not terribly surprised if I see it, but if one gets offended or grossed out in such a situation, expecting it doesn't really help if you accidentally see it, but then look away.
Probably a reasonable assumption. If you go to a mommy and me yoga class, it would be much less reasonable to object to seeing even blatant breastfeeding than somewhere like a golf club. Time and place for everything, and it would be perfectly reasonable for the level of discretion to change based on certain circumstances.
I think a lot of this depends on the situation. My wife is not going to breastfeed in front of friends without kids. She definitely will not feed in front of male family members like her brothers or step-dad without a cover. In front of my sister or mother or her own mother, she'll just whip-em out and start going and not think twice. I think she warned my sister she was about to do it since she is somewhat of a prude.
I agree that a warning wouldn't make sense in a public situation with strangers. But it would also invalidate the "don't look" argument, since the only way to know to look away is to see it. It's the same argument to use against showing nasty wounds in this forum without a spoil tag and warning. You can't really argue "don't look" on inline images, since you wouldn't know til it's too late. But you can put things in spoil tags that might bother some people, but there are no rules against it, so that it requires them to take action to be exposed to it.
The more I think of it, the spoil tag analogy is reasonable. There is a policy on spoilers in the TV forum that is quite similar. A spoiler would be considered a problem for some percentage of the people, but some other people might even enjoy them or be neutral to them. You can't unsee a spoiler, so if you are offended by spoilers, you either don't read the thread, or you require those posting spoilers to use the spoil tag and provide fair warning for them.
pongo seems to be taking the position that no one should ever be offended by reading a spoiler, and if you don't want to see a spoiler, either stay out of the thread or look away if you happen to come across one. The effort to type the extra spoil tag is too much for her when posting, so too bad for anyone who doesn't want to see it.
Quote:
This seems largely premised on the expectation-- dashed-- that this won't happen. Is the expectation not to see it a reasonable one? I would argue mostly not, especially in family-friendly or family-tolerant venues where you know going in there's going to be a certain population of infants, and that a certain number within that group will be breastfeeding. That's not to imply, well too bad, but to say that it's a surprise in most cases is kind of a stretch.
Quote:
Men's night at the golf club would be a circumstance in which I would hope for more deference from the moms than usual. The club's objection would get destroyed in court and they're cruisin' for a feed-in but there are places where more consideration is due from one party than another just based on common sense.
Quote:
With strangers a warning would run counter the discretion aspect. Agree with the oddness of such a warning regardless, and wonder if issuing such a warning would mean crossing over into militantism. With friends/family I've had all kinds -- I'd say 75% are already holding their baby and just do it totally unbeknownst to me, 10% duck out, and 15% ask if anyone minds.
I agree that a warning wouldn't make sense in a public situation with strangers. But it would also invalidate the "don't look" argument, since the only way to know to look away is to see it. It's the same argument to use against showing nasty wounds in this forum without a spoil tag and warning. You can't really argue "don't look" on inline images, since you wouldn't know til it's too late. But you can put things in spoil tags that might bother some people, but there are no rules against it, so that it requires them to take action to be exposed to it.
The more I think of it, the spoil tag analogy is reasonable. There is a policy on spoilers in the TV forum that is quite similar. A spoiler would be considered a problem for some percentage of the people, but some other people might even enjoy them or be neutral to them. You can't unsee a spoiler, so if you are offended by spoilers, you either don't read the thread, or you require those posting spoilers to use the spoil tag and provide fair warning for them.
pongo seems to be taking the position that no one should ever be offended by reading a spoiler, and if you don't want to see a spoiler, either stay out of the thread or look away if you happen to come across one. The effort to type the extra spoil tag is too much for her when posting, so too bad for anyone who doesn't want to see it.
11-21-2011
, 02:06 PM
Quote:
I appreciate what you are saying, and obviously I can't prove it, but i am quite sure that an alternate discussion of an otherwise inconsequential event would spawn a thread this long, even if OP was twice as confrontational. I mean there really is alot of nonsense here, even by twoplustwo standards (farting on the bus?).
11-21-2011
, 02:44 PM
Years of therapy imo.
11-21-2011
, 03:01 PM
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,996
Bad example. From what I've seen, h17 threads don't go on forever because he has an "overly confrontational acerbic tone" (usually he is pretty articulate and straightforward), but because his opinions are bizarro, and at odds with 99% of the people here, and he never gives up. Saying that women can breastfeed in public at their own discretion is not equivalent to saying that it is inappropriate to have guests stay at your place; the former was settled universally about a million years ago and the latter is just abnormal.
11-21-2011
, 03:11 PM
So? Then what happens? What harm do you suffer for being unable to unsee something?
Is this breastfeeding-specific or could we also count people who wear colostomy bags or have Cerebral palsy? Plenty of unsettling things to see out in the world and it's weird how this thread has zeroed in on breastfeeding like it's uniquely disquieting to witness and therefore uniquely exempt from general rules of reasonable response.
Again, what's to be helped, exactly? Does this observer have a more legitimate claim to "help" than the mother/child's claim to feed? I have argued that if you walk around family-tolerant establishments expecting not to see it then do, you've really created your own false reliance and it's not the responsibility of outsiders to accommodate that through their own conduct.
Certainly they can assume this responsibility willingly and go sit in the car, but it has still gone unexplained why this voluntary assumption should instead be a mandatory one for the comfort of a group which
- is the clear and distant minority
- has other, more readily deployed options at its disposal
- makes no allowance for reasonable discretion if it doesn't meet their personal definition of discretion
- exaggerates the sight of breastfeeding and harm done to bystanders.
If the disturbing pic is just dropped into a thread, then a spoiler tag makes sense. What you are asking for is a spoiler tag on every picture in "Pics that say 1000 words, some pretty disturbing" because common courtesy dictates that all disturbing pics be spoilered.
The way you've focused on "don't look" as objectionable, you would think that anything important followed as a result of looking. As an end in itself, it's far too weak to hold up the request that the mom/child do all the heavy lifting.
Christ on a hot tin roof. I'm not arguing from this analogy anymore. <spoil></spoil> is not the same as trekking through an arena, not even close, and while the principle of looking out for other people's ocular wellbeing is an admirable one, it's answered by the discretion we've been discussing.
Pongo used a spoiler!
Is this breastfeeding-specific or could we also count people who wear colostomy bags or have Cerebral palsy? Plenty of unsettling things to see out in the world and it's weird how this thread has zeroed in on breastfeeding like it's uniquely disquieting to witness and therefore uniquely exempt from general rules of reasonable response.
Quote:
This of course depends on social norms and situations. I'm not terribly surprised if I see it, but if one gets offended or grossed out in such a situation, expecting it doesn't really help if you accidentally see it, but then look away.
Certainly they can assume this responsibility willingly and go sit in the car, but it has still gone unexplained why this voluntary assumption should instead be a mandatory one for the comfort of a group which
- is the clear and distant minority
- has other, more readily deployed options at its disposal
- makes no allowance for reasonable discretion if it doesn't meet their personal definition of discretion
- exaggerates the sight of breastfeeding and harm done to bystanders.
Quote:
I agree that a warning wouldn't make sense in a public situation with strangers. But it would also invalidate the "don't look" argument, since the only way to know to look away is to see it. It's the same argument to use against showing nasty wounds in this forum without a spoil tag and warning. You can't really argue "don't look" on inline images, since you wouldn't know til it's too late. But you can put things in spoil tags that might bother some people, but there are no rules against it, so that it requires them to take action to be exposed to it.
The way you've focused on "don't look" as objectionable, you would think that anything important followed as a result of looking. As an end in itself, it's far too weak to hold up the request that the mom/child do all the heavy lifting.
Christ on a hot tin roof. I'm not arguing from this analogy anymore. <spoil></spoil> is not the same as trekking through an arena, not even close, and while the principle of looking out for other people's ocular wellbeing is an admirable one, it's answered by the discretion we've been discussing.
Quote:
pongo seems to be taking the position that no one should ever be offended by reading a spoiler, and if you don't want to see a spoiler, either stay out of the thread or look away if you happen to come across one. The effort to type the extra spoil tag is too much for her when posting, so too bad for anyone who doesn't want to see it.
Pongo used a spoiler!
Last edited by Poker Reference; 11-21-2011 at 03:17 PM.
11-21-2011
, 03:18 PM
Quote:
Bad example. From what I've seen, h17 threads don't go on forever because he has an "overly confrontational acerbic tone" (usually he is pretty articulate and straightforward), but because his opinions are bizarro, and at odds with 99% of the people here, and he never gives up. Saying that women can breastfeed in public at their own discretion is not equivalent to saying that it is inappropriate to have guests stay at your place; the former was settled universally about a million years ago and the latter is just abnormal.
11-21-2011
, 03:18 PM
As I have said at least three times ITT, I like to be able to see my baby when he is eating. But really, it doesn't matter why a breastfeeding mother doesn't want to use a cover. If she is more comfortable without one, for whatever reason, why should she value you comfort over her own, and possibly also her child's? Will you please answer that question, plainly, without any idiotic farting analogies?
11-21-2011
, 03:21 PM
im grunching, but just wanted to thank you wackjobs for finally putting this in its own thread and not making me read through 850 (!?!?!?!) posts in the facebook thread. i cant even imagine what you guys have said for 9 pages and im so happy ill never know.
11-21-2011
, 03:28 PM
Quote:
As I have said at least three times ITT, I like to be able to see my baby when he is eating. But really, it doesn't matter why a breastfeeding mother doesn't want to use a cover. If she is more comfortable without one, for whatever reason, why should she value you comfort over her own, and possibly also her child's? Will you please answer that question, plainly, without any idiotic farting analogies?
In this case, the argument is simply what effort or concessions is each person willing to make to reduce the uncomfort in others. You are clearly in the camp that you will make no effort or concessions. I'm in the camp that I would make some effort and concessions. Knowing, as I do, that the concessions in this case are very minimal, I'm quite sure you're wrong, and kinda being a d-bag about the whole thing.
11-21-2011
, 04:02 PM
Quote:
Hi Pongo, interesting topic! I completely agree with you in this regard. I feel its the right of any woman to breastfeed her child in public without the burden of putting a ponderous cover over her and anyone who is arguing against you is pretty much a complete prude.
I could definitely use some advice from you though. As you may or may not know, as long as you're on public property (roads/sidewalks/anything built by tax dollars), you can be legally photographed by anyone in the United States. I am a photographer and I feel breastfeeding is a natural and wonderful experience to behold, so much so I've created a website dedicated to this beautiful act. Unfortunately, many of the times I've seen a lady breastfeeding uncovered in public, and I've taken out my DSLR to capture the event, I've received a hostile and frankly illegal reaction to me shooting it. I just don't understand it. Clearly since she's chosen to feed her child in public, she's consenting to being recorded - therefore she should have no problem with it at all! I mean, you obviously wouldn't mind if I took photographs of you feeding your child. Can you explain to me these women's attitudes?
- C, webmaster of womenbreastfeedinginpublic.tumblr.com
I could definitely use some advice from you though. As you may or may not know, as long as you're on public property (roads/sidewalks/anything built by tax dollars), you can be legally photographed by anyone in the United States. I am a photographer and I feel breastfeeding is a natural and wonderful experience to behold, so much so I've created a website dedicated to this beautiful act. Unfortunately, many of the times I've seen a lady breastfeeding uncovered in public, and I've taken out my DSLR to capture the event, I've received a hostile and frankly illegal reaction to me shooting it. I just don't understand it. Clearly since she's chosen to feed her child in public, she's consenting to being recorded - therefore she should have no problem with it at all! I mean, you obviously wouldn't mind if I took photographs of you feeding your child. Can you explain to me these women's attitudes?
- C, webmaster of womenbreastfeedinginpublic.tumblr.com
11-21-2011
, 04:04 PM
Quote:
Because we live in a society where you should be taking other people's feelings into account. I like to decrease any uncomfort that others feel around me because I would like to think that others will do the same. Treat others the way I would like to be treated. I don't like to be uncomfortable so I don't want to make others uncomfortable either. Pretty simple.
In this case, the argument is simply what effort or concessions is each person willing to make to reduce the uncomfort in others. You are clearly in the camp that you will make no effort or concessions. I'm in the camp that I would make some effort and concessions. Knowing, as I do, that the concessions in this case are very minimal, I'm quite sure you're wrong, and kinda being a d-bag about the whole thing.
In this case, the argument is simply what effort or concessions is each person willing to make to reduce the uncomfort in others. You are clearly in the camp that you will make no effort or concessions. I'm in the camp that I would make some effort and concessions. Knowing, as I do, that the concessions in this case are very minimal, I'm quite sure you're wrong, and kinda being a d-bag about the whole thing.
pongo wants to see her baby nursing for bonding reasons + the kid might be fussy / distracted with blankets (I don't know or care) + she thinks the norms of the 15% who are icked-out by public breastfeeding are blinkered = she is not a monster of arrogance for weighing those things above flawless consideration for others that none of the raving critics in this thread have come close to displaying, except for like Melkerson
plus you tards are so quick to generalize her take on breastfeeding into this universal attitude of "eff what anyone thinks, I'll do whatever I want" she supposedly has about everything she does in public
and if you think my post has too many needless epithets, it's because I'm dismayed this walking nightmare of a thread has me in its grip again
am I even awake right now?
11-21-2011
, 04:10 PM
Quote:
Because we live in a society where you should be taking other people's feelings into account. I like to decrease any uncomfort that others feel around me because I would like to think that others will do the same. Treat others the way I would like to be treated. I don't like to be uncomfortable so I don't want to make others uncomfortable either. Pretty simple.
In this case, the argument is simply what effort or concessions is each person willing to make to reduce the uncomfort in others. You are clearly in the camp that you will make no effort or concessions. I'm in the camp that I would make some effort and concessions. Knowing, as I do, that the concessions in this case are very minimal, I'm quite sure you're wrong, and kinda being a d-bag about the whole thing.
In this case, the argument is simply what effort or concessions is each person willing to make to reduce the uncomfort in others. You are clearly in the camp that you will make no effort or concessions. I'm in the camp that I would make some effort and concessions. Knowing, as I do, that the concessions in this case are very minimal, I'm quite sure you're wrong, and kinda being a d-bag about the whole thing.
11-21-2011
, 04:14 PM
P.S. Thank you lagdonk for being reasonable.
I admit that it is hard for me to not get emotional about this argument, since breastfeeding in public is something I do almost every single day, and if I wasn't able to I would essentially be shut in my house for months.
I admit that it is hard for me to not get emotional about this argument, since breastfeeding in public is something I do almost every single day, and if I wasn't able to I would essentially be shut in my house for months.
11-21-2011
, 04:15 PM
Quote:
is it that hard for you to use a less injurious term than "d-bag," like "inconsiderate" or "rude," you sanctimonious "oooh look at me I'm so into reducing discomfort in others except when I'm casually referring to them as d-bags over an etiquette disagreement" sack of smarm? what's that? you chose to say d-bag because you felt like it? oh my god, let's launch an 800-post thread about it hyper-analyzing your perceived attitude when you made that post! or we can shrug it off because we're sane adults who don't need everyone around us, nursing mothers included, to be walking on eggshells.
pongo wants to see her baby nursing for bonding reasons + the kid might be fussy / distracted with blankets (I don't know or care) + she thinks the norms of the 15% who are icked-out by public breastfeeding are blinkered = she is not a monster of arrogance for weighing those things above flawless consideration for others that none of the raving critics in this thread have come close to displaying, except for like Melkerson
plus you tards are so quick to generalize her take on breastfeeding into this universal attitude of "eff what anyone thinks, I'll do whatever I want" she supposedly has about everything she does in public
and if you think my post has too many needless epithets, it's because I'm dismayed this walking nightmare of a thread has me in its grip again
am I even awake right now?
pongo wants to see her baby nursing for bonding reasons + the kid might be fussy / distracted with blankets (I don't know or care) + she thinks the norms of the 15% who are icked-out by public breastfeeding are blinkered = she is not a monster of arrogance for weighing those things above flawless consideration for others that none of the raving critics in this thread have come close to displaying, except for like Melkerson
plus you tards are so quick to generalize her take on breastfeeding into this universal attitude of "eff what anyone thinks, I'll do whatever I want" she supposedly has about everything she does in public
and if you think my post has too many needless epithets, it's because I'm dismayed this walking nightmare of a thread has me in its grip again
am I even awake right now?
11-21-2011
, 04:19 PM
it's funny how a few people still think we care that you breastfeed in public. we absolutely don't. i think your attitude is obnoxious.
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE
Powered by:
Hand2Note
Copyright ©2008-2022, Hand2Note Interactive LTD