What ever happened to the pregnancy smock? Today all you see is mainly the baby bump almost covered up with a t-shirt. A woman while carrying a baby is a sacred, private and special moment in her life. It is so very beautiful to see an expecting mother wearing lovely maternity clothes, not a regular t-shirt and a mini skirt. It is not a pleasant site to see the baby bump sticking out at you in public especially if the baby bump is full of stretch marks. Yes, you can call me old-fashioned but one of the best experiences in life is when a mother is carrying her child in her womb and wearing the proper maternity clothes makes her look well groomed and proud. Wearing regular clothes when carrying a child, in my opinion, is losing out on the whole aspect of being an expectant mom. —Comfy in a Pregnancy Smock
This article appears in Aug 9-15, 2012.
hmmmm… while I do think you should probably just mind your own business, perhaps you’re on to something.
Why draw the line at covering up a pregnant belly? Let’s bust this market open. We could mass manufacture a versatile “smock” that could cover:
– beer bellies
– ugly faces
– breasts and other feminine characteristics
– fat rolls
– skinny people
This way, we could all be protected from having to look at such horribly offensive physical features that should really be kept private so as not to negatively impact the sensitivities of others.
gag.
Really? You think that the whole “aspect” of pregnancy is to wear overpriced clothing from Thyme? Why wouldnt you continue to wear regular clothing until you couldnt anymore? And for someone who feels pregnancy and the “aspect” is so sacred, you shouldnt judge a bump for having stretch marks. Dumbass.
It only goes downhill from there OP. From the sartorial splendour of the Baby -T, you progress to the Stroller-the-Size-Of-a-Tiger-Tank conveniently blocking the aisles of the Dollar Store, the Liquor Commission and the Route #52 artics. Then come the toddler years,which run, these days, from age 2 to Whenever the Youth Justice Act ceases to apply. At some point the Orange Jumpsuit will put in an appearance. Bonus points if you get to see a Mother & Child Reunion, doing simultaneous perp-walks while the family studiously refuse to co-operate with the po-po.
At least when I squeeze out a big ‘un, it goes straight to the harbour where it belongs and my neighbors don’t have to worry about the safety of their car windows, electronic equipment or household pets.
you know what OP? times change. I covered my bumps in my day, with billowing yards of cotton, and would have been mortified to expose the true shape of my belly. It was the times. Now it ain’t. Some changes aren’t for the better, this def is. Pregnancy is not shameful, and that’s the real intent behind the coverup brigade, not sacredness.
Fuck off, OB. Just… fuck off.
also:
“Wearing regular clothes when carrying a child, in my opinion, is losing out on the whole aspect of being an expectant mom.”
If, to you, that’s the “whole aspect” of being pregnant, then you probably shouldn’t have children.
You probly shouldn’t google ‘pregnant porn’, OB.
Thanks for setting women back about fifty years OP. There isn’t anything I can wear these days that isn’t “shameful” to somebody out there, whether it’s showing too much of my neck and arms or is sooooo two years ago, so seriously, fuck off and go back to raising your kids to feel ashamed about their bodies instead of people you have no business criticizing.
I have a feeling they do it on a regular basis, FS.
STOP CALLING A PREGNANT WOMAN’S BELLY A FUCKING “BABY BUMP”.
Baby bump:
http://chztotsandgiggles.files.wordpress.c…
I BELIEVE THE SMOCK THINGS WENT OUT WITH THE HORSE AND BUGGIES. OR THAT NO ONE GIVES A SHIT ANYMORE, AS TO THEIR LOOKS.
FS You mentioned “pregnancy porn”.I loved being pregnant,the orgasm’s I had while sleeping were mind blowing.
I feel like I just read a Home Ec text book from 1953.
I’d much rather see a pregnant womant in a t-shirt than have someone make reference to a ‘baby bump’.
Silly people. It’s only a “baby bump” when it’s clinging to the thorax of someone attractive and famous. You folks are all referring to the thing that welfare slags filter their menthols and malt liquor through.
ah ah ah Ivanovitch, I just wet my pants!!!
I’ll go right ahead and call you judgmental with a side of prude. I bet wearing those lovely maternity tents in this weather would be so great for those women too.
I tend to have that effect on ladies, Molly’s Mom. I’ve also been known to provoke bulimia, shingles and in rare cases, lesbianism >: (
I think it’s nice that women don’t hide their bodies during pregnancy anymore or feel like their changing body is unsightly. It IS a beautiful and sacred time and I love seeing pregnant women who are still wearing beautiful and stylish clothes looking good and feeling good. So many women think of motherhood as giving things up and most start with their outward appearance. Good on them to the moms to be who know motherhood is about gaining and that you don’t have to sacrifice everything that makes you feel good about yourself to be a good mom. You never see a well groomed pleasant looking woman barking at her misbehaving children do you? Nope it’s the unkempt worn out mothers in their stained sweatpants and husbands t shirt with a greasy bun on their head and dead dreams in their eyes.
Shut the hell up. Its just a baby bump. Boohoo you can see some belly sticking out. Do you realize how hot a prego woman gets? The extra heat is great in winter but not in the summer. Those maternity tops are overpriced. If you don’t like the look of a prego belly better not have kids then.
Holy fuck, who cares about what poppin’ mamas wear? It’s after the kid arrives that you should start worrying: http://chzparentingfails.files.wordpress.c…
“FS You mentioned “pregnancy porn”.I loved being pregnant,the orgasm’s I had while sleeping were mind blowing.”
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-t_qDjzMTyEI/T_4n…
Why do you care OB? Mind your own business! I’m 4 months pregnant and I’m wearing whatever makes me comfortable and makes me feel good.
——–
Yes, you can call me old-fashioned
——–
You are old-fashioned.
——– but one of the best experiences in life is when a mother is carrying her child in her womb and wearing the proper maternity clothes makes her look well groomed and proud.
———
In your fucking opinion. Why don’t you mind your own business. You dress like a spaz when you’re knocked up, and let others dress how they want to when they are.
I don’t understand why this affects you at all, unless you can’t abide people doing what they want.
Either way, this Bitch is all about you, Butterball.
———-
Wearing regular clothes when carrying a child, in my opinion, is losing out on the whole aspect of being an expectant mom.
——-
In my opinion, how other people dress is of no concern to you.
What are you, fucking five years old?
Dipschitt.
Wp
And pregnant women can be as sexy as hell. Dressing them up like they are sick or “delicate” is a 50 year step back in time.
I suppose you like to be barefoot in the kitchen too?
Wp
it’s not a bump it’s a big sac of amniotic fluid with a human inside, it’s tough being pregnant in the heat. go shit a watermelon, op
i wish i had poked out my eyes with a turkey baster before reading this post, now I have visions of Lucy in maternity regalia frozen in my brain.
i must confess i do like to go barefoot but only at home
Just to help perpetuate that lovely image for ya, GDM:
http://maternal-instincts.com.au/blog/wp-c…
(hee hee! Ain’t Oi a stinka?)
umm all that phlegm on the sidewalks, wouldn’t want to be barefoot. but on my own clover? oh yeah!
arghhhhhhhhhh where’s my turkey baster??? ya rucky bastid
( I know I am the only person on earth who can’t stand her, that voice. gawd)
I wanted to strangle her with a Slinky whenever that big red yap howled WWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!
i am not alone!!!! gee, maybe i am part of the human race after all, all those years of wondering ‘what spawned me’. my fav shut-up fantasy, TTFN was to use a block of concrete as a loofah on her face. i know she was brilliant and successful, but her ‘Lucy’ was a monster. You know who else I wanted to send to the moon? Ralph Cramden.
Barefoot by choice, Painey?
Rawwwrrrrr.
By choice, tere are a lot of things that tickle my whiskers.
Wp
The only thing worse than “baby bump” is “baby daddy”. Language is getting more moronic every day.
You know why preggos wore tents and pastel overalls while pregnant back in the day? BECAUSE THEY HAD NO OTHER OPTIONS.
Annnnd now they do, so go eat a mucus plug, OB.
I think this is buddy who was going all muslim on his posts a few days ago, next stop burkas and unshaven minges.
We should be like that looney muslim sect in Russia that have held kids underground, some haven’t seen daylight in over 10 years.
“I loved being pregnant,the orgasm’s I had while sleeping were mind blowing.”
The mysteries of the female never end.
Back to the topic, I don’t know, if you’ve got it, flaunt it I guess. You’ve been having sex, show the world the results.
Did you notice this on your weekly trip to the ‘wall mart’, Ethel? This younger generation is just a bunch of pregnant sluts and dirty hippies.
This is one of the weirdest posts I’ve ever read…
Women shouldn’t feel uncomfortable no matter what they wear… or don’t wear. It’s their bodies, and their choice, the human body is nothing to turn away or be ashamed of. It is only sexual if YOU sexualize it, and then you are objectifying that person. It’s too bad that so many women DO have to feel uncomfortable for that very reason. When I was younger I know that sort of “attention” used to make me want to crawl out of my skin and hide my body. Now I’m comfortable enough with myself to ignore it, but… No one should have to feel like that!
The government make it far too easy for young mother’s to get Welfare.Perhaps the government should tighten up the purse strings after the first baby,so it’s harder to get more money.Young mother’s think of popping out kid’s as a way out of having to wash dishes and make her bed at her parent’s house.
Some teenage girls think a real baby is like having a baby doll,but unfortunately a real baby shit’s,pisses and cries a lot(some do anyway).**Don’t want to generalise**.
I’m 7 months pregnant and don’t own any maternity clothes. I’ve been wearing nothing but maxi dresses since I started showing. I have lots; I love them, as it looks like I made an effort, but feels like I’m in pajamas, and I stay nice and cool. I can also keep wearing them after I’ve had the baby. Once it get cooler I’ll just throw on a long tshirt, a long cardigan and some leggings. No thanks to maternity clothes.
I got a baby bump and I wear regular clothes. Sure, it may be a food-baby, but that’s ok. The word “Smock” is not in my vocabulary.
What’s all this barefoot talk? I am often barefoot!
OB, could it possibly be they just can’t afford a whole new wardrobe for a 5 month period of their life ?
Besides, if a little pot belly offends you…what does 10 pouds of shit in a 5 pound lycra outfit do for yer sense of fashion faux pas.
Careful Mel! You’re playing with fire. Walking around barefoot is like one of the top causes of pregnancy…That, and french kissing. 😛
…and if you’re barefoot stay away from tony robbins^^
Thats just a good all around rule to follow, no matter what you cover your hooves with. >: )
Oh dear… I often kiss a french boy WHILE barefoot!
I had no choice but to wear maternity clothes. I had gestational diabetes. With my first ten pounder, 20 years ago, my waist went from a 27 to a size 46 pants (were very tight)…and then I had twins. @ 7 months pregnant with them, I got stuck in the bathtub. I was huge, and not very comfortable.
My mom got married in a maternity jumper!
Kinda like the one on the left:
http://cdn102.iofferphoto.com/img/item/318…
🙂
“My mom got married in a maternity jumper”
Wasn’t that way back when, they marched the groom to the Alter with a shotgun shoved up his ass ?
But they are still married right ?
So that obviously put the fear of god into him ~:)
When people ask me where I was born, I tell them “Just outside of Wedlock”.
(sigh) FML
THE OTHER BUMP
I think we’ve heard enough about “The Baby Bump,” the bump on the stomach of the pregnant female. But what about the “Other Bump,” the one often referred to as the “mons veneris”? What about that bump? Does it change during pregnancy? Does it disappear totally as The Baby Bump swells or does it try to hold its own? And what about the labia? Do they spread? Do they change colour? Does the “Other Bump” require special support?
I suppose that one has to be a certain weight (or less) to have the “Other Bump” in the first place so any changes in its shape will occur primarily among these females. Knowledgeable input would be appreciated. Links to photos wpould also be appreciated.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
ya’ll, are we positive that MM is over 12 years of age? He displays a morbid curiosity about females that most males have answered within 10 years of passing puberty.
He’s been known to write some pretty lurid “Stalag Porn”, too.
Just type the word “Boobies” repeatedly, GDM. He’ll be too busy tittering and giggling like a school girl to post anything else.
say it ain’t so! a baby solzhenytsin? wait! thats Gulag with a Gee Whiz, not SS as in so-sad. I prefer my porn in Persian Ghazals. His are so, ummmmmm how can I put it kindly… furtive, with a whiff of 12 year old boy-farts under the covers with a flashlight and Uncle Bob’s sticky playboy
Pun intended, BTW.
He also has a spanking fetish, but if you play with him long enough, you’ll learn that for yourself. His Socratic method manages to leach the joy out of just about everything he turns his hand to (Giggity); Even divine Aphrodite would wither away to a dessicated old hag in his presence.
I bet you think it’s wrong for women to shave their wahoos too…silly wench
Silly (but true) story: back in the day when women wore “pregnancy smocks,” hospitals shaved their hoo haws before giving birth (apparently it was more ‘sanitary’) AND gave them an enema so they didn’t crap all over themselves while pushing that watermelon out.
Hopefully the OPTION of the enema is still there because the alternative is… blech.
@PK…yep, hell of a way to get the ol’ hoo-haw manicured! Lol! They didn’t offer me an enema…but I’ll tell u, I could have buried the entire delivery room at that moment & wouldn’t have given a flying fuck lol! They told me I didn’t poopsie, but my guess is that they spared me the embarrassment. I’ve delivered babies, & it’s almost always a shit show lol
they shaved with a straight edge, if I had been in my right mind I would have been afraid, very afraid.
luckily i avoided the shaved hoohaw, there wasn’t much to poop cause i hadn’t eaten in days. it was the boy’s shoulders that did me in *ouch*
Ivan, I can just imagine the scene, MM manages to get Aphrodite, Marilyn Monroe and Sophia Loren in his bed, all together in their alltogethers, he grasps his sweaty, trembling hands together (instead of on any piece of that fabulous female flesh) and asks them to “please describe what functions your labia entertain at the thought of possible coitus. Please describe in great detail, leaving nothing to the imagination as I have none of my own dear ladies”. Then shoos them off the bed, into their waiting limos (chariot for ‘Dite) and takes his safe, solitary pleasure.
RSVPs
: Good dog Molly (08/10, 12:18PM)
Well Good dog, I wouldn’t say that my curiosity is “morbid” but maybe all that time in multiple university libraries did put me behind a bit.
: Old Cranky Ivan (1:24PM)
No “Stalag porn” for me, Ivan. That’s more your line.
: Avasto (1:31PM)
Avasto, schoolgirls don’t giggle at the word “boobies.” They giggle at the word “ERECTIONS!” I’m not certain about that but then I’m not as familiar with habits of schoolgirls as you seem to be. Now, get back to your position behind the schoolyard fence and keep your hands out of your pockets.
: Good dog Molly (1:33PM)
Hmm, I seem to have struck a nerve. But tell us Good dog, how is it that you are familiar with the whiff of 12 year old boy farts under the covers? What, exactly, were you doing there? And that wouldn’t have been Uncle Bob’s sticky Playboy Magazine. That would have been Old Cranky Ivan’s, taking a break from his “Stalag porn.”
: Cranky Old Ivan (1:56PMM)
Oh, I don’t know Ivan, what about my recently published “Female Sexual Arousal?” Instead of the sauna the setting could easily be transferred to Treblinka which, as I know, does it for you.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
I always have this mental image of MM in Public School blazer and short pants sitting on a stool in the corner of a classroom with a duncecap on his brow complaining to his dominatrix/teacher “When I told you that I lacked discipline, this is not what I had in mind”
RSVP
: Good dog Molly (08/10, 3:20PM)
Good dog is back again, fantasizing about Montrealman’s sex life. It seems that I have come to live in her sexual imagination. Actually, Good dog, the ladies you mentioned are a bit too stereotypical for my tastes. To be honest, your posts have generated my (reactive) sexual arousal for you. Do you frequent saunas?
Write back soon.
A (reactive) pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
RSVP
: Old Cranky Ivan (4:12PM)
But it was Ivan, it was!
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
LOL – If memory serves, were you not educated by papists? My scenario begins to make sense.
http://chzhistoriclols.files.wordpress.com…
Please god someone find a pic of Ivan’s description. Lil Stinker with a dunce cap. Love it.
Oy Vey – hopefully this will end the discussion…….
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-…
RSVP
:Old Cranky Ivan (08/1, 5:16PM)
You are right about the papists Ivan, but that does not affect my relationship with my dominatrix/teacher. She was young and brimming with vitality. Unable to restrain herself, she ran her hands up my legs, under my short pants, and then under my underpants where she gently cradled my penis and testicules. I groaned with pleasure.
As recompense, I lifted up her voluminous black habit. To my delight, I discovered that she was wearing lace-lined panties. With that familiar ache at the base of my stomach, I grasped her panties at each hip and tugged them down. Her magnificent labia lay before me in all their glory!
With full extension of my tongue I began an initial timorous and then a bolder exploration of the delicious opening of her inviting vagina. At first clockwise and then counter-clockwise, I brought her to a full and thunderous orgasm. I was her willing little man and was brought immediately to the head of the class.
And all of this was before recess!
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You were all that brutal towards me! Who the fuck is this guy!
God’s Holy Trousers! Montrealman, you’ve achieved the impossible. You’ve actually managed to engender sympathy for the Catholic Church. I implore you, use your formidable powers for good, not for evil. It’s not too late.
RSVP
: Old, Cranky Ivan (08/11, 7:46AM)
Yes Ivan, I shall, I shall. But were you aroused? Were you (reactively) aroused by the schoolboy’s (and the nun’s) arousal? I know I was.
I was suprised you didn’t pick up on my reference to my “testicules.” As you probably know, this is an authorial device to draw the reader into the story. He, or preferably she, might say something like, “Oi! He can’t fucking spell the word ‘testicles’!” In the case that my interlocutor was a female, I could then proceed to explore the role of testicles in her fantasies of sexual arousal. If anything captures the essence of the male it is his testicles and I am sure she would react to this. Perhaps it might be their size – is bigger better? Or it might be the arousing thought of them rythmically slapping against her peritoneum in the act of intercourse itself. But we will never know. No one, including yourself, has cried out, “Oi! He can’t fucking spell the word ‘testicles’!”
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
MM, most likely because it’s getting very stale. we all noticed but just didn’t care. and you’re clamouring just a bit too loud for attention. there are sweaty stains in your underpits and a slight dribble from the left nostril. hit the restart button and go back to amusingly indifferent intellectual debater. you are intelligent enough to pull it off for a good 5-6 comments in one posting. after that there’s a nasty smelling slippage.
Excellent Montrealman. I can sleep well tonight secure in the knowledge that this New Jerusalem which we have labored, like Brunel, to erect amongst The Coast’s, dark satanic mills is in no danger of falling to a horde of post silicon chip Visigoths.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Us5kf1QQGvg/Toul…
As far as your “testicules” are concerned, despite my English degree and interest in a certain period of 20th Century German history, I am no Spelling Nazi. Typos are passed off as either spelling mistakes in the heat of verbal combat or deliberate malapropellorisms, deployed for comic effect.
and it worked Ivan!
RSVPs
: Good dog Molly (08/11, 9:20AM & 9:44AM)
“MM, most likely because it’s getting very stale. We all noticed but just didn’t care.”
An interesting point Good dog but not in the sense you suppose. You see Good dog, some like the Greeks have called assertions like that “doxa” or simple unsupported opinion or belief which they (the Greeks) maintain, is the quintessence of stupidity. The reason they maintained this is that such assertions assume that they (the asserters) are making objective claims about the world. Such is the case about your assertion to the effect that my posts are getting very stale. In other words, you maintain it is a knowledge claim but, of course, it is not. It is simply an unsupported opinion which is a philosophical blunder of the first magnitude. Indeed, the first lesson of philosophy is that one must always – always – have reasons for what one asserts if one is not to wear the epistemological horns. This is a very common blunder Good dog, so you are not alone. Indeed it is the most common instance of philosophical stupidity on this site and one I have been at pains to point out but, it appears, with little effect. Of course, you may be right about my posts being stale but, and you must understand this Good dog, that does not alter the epistemological status of the asssertion itself. You do understand that, don’t you Good dog?
In the same way your unsupported assertion to the effect that, in respect to me going back to my “amusingly indifferent intellectual debates” – whatever that might mean – on the grounds that I am “intelligent enough to bring it off” fails since you have given no reasons for us to suppose that you yourself have the intelligence to support your claim about my intelligence. You may, of course, be right again but that does not alter the epistemological status of your assertion. You do understand that, don’t you Good dog?
Finally, the only “nasty smelling slippage” I detect is your continuing sucking up to Ivan. It is bad form, Good dog. While you may feel what is clearly a canine devotion to him for reasons best known to yourself, you shouldn’t publicly proclaim it.
I hope you won’t think these comments chirlish, Good dog. I see some potential in you and I wouldn’t want to discourage it.
: Old Angry Ivan (9:31AM)
Well Ivan, you got that one right about Montrealman reconstructing a New Jerusalem on the stoney soil of Bitch and I can tell you it hasn’t been easy. But I must take issue with your reflections on my “testicules.” It wasn’t just a typo – I did look at it briefly and it didn’t look right but I wasn’t sure why – it might have something to do with my being sexually aroused – and it wasn’t a “deliberate malopropellorism” either (good one that, Ivan). The question therefore arises as to just what it is. What, in other words, is its ontlogical status? In my view Ivan, and this is as far as my thinking has taken me, it is, as they say in Latin, a “tertium quid,” or, if you prefer, a “THIRD THING”. The phrase appears to gesture toward the transcendental but, at the moment, it unclear just how. Perhaps, after lengthy reflection and Good dog notwithstanding, I shall post an extended (and probably stale) comment on it.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
*churlish*
I bet GDM is cradling her laptop to her chest and twirling around while swooning about your “I see some potential in you” comment. I find it profoundly sad that your poor self esteem won’t allow you become a person seperated from your profession, MM. Perhaps some of those years spent burried under mountains of books in university libraries would have been better spent making friends and learning how to socially interact without assuming an authoratative role. It’s tiresome to trudge through your posts, where demands of proof (when answered) are dismissed and your little game of “I know you are but what am I?” is flopped out, or you “take your toys and go home”. I guess you haven’t grown past that akward little boy that masturbates to the underwear clad pubic bumps in the Sears catalogue, and gets picked on by the so called “underclass”.
Dammit, “awkward”, not akward.
be still my beating heart! it has been my fondest desire since i was but a sprite of a gel, to receive a morsel, a pittance of interest from such an icon of the ivory tower. to be raised so far from my unworthy grovelling at his august feet to the dizzying heights of perhaps, his ankles? for my potential? indeed i swoon (but not too deeply as laptops are breakable) and find myself gasping for breath at the dizzying breadth of the vista before me, to whit, the chasm between what he purports to be and is.
(and in the real world, just got back from watching Total Recall at the theatre. WOOT WOOT! whatta rush! )
RSVPs
: Stephen Harper (08/11, 8:00PM)
“I find it profoundly sad that your poor self esteem won’t allow you (sic) become a person seperated (sic) from your profession, MM.”
Good morning, Stephen. I must say that I found it profoundly sad, in spite of my lengthy advice to Good dog yesterday, that you are still unable to grasp the distinction between an unsuported opinion as with your assertion above – some crudely call them “brain farts” – and a knowledge claim about the world which, by definition, is supported by reasons. You see Stephen, as with so many others on this site, you have confounded your rank opinion about my supposed lack of self-esteeem with the objective truth of the matter which, in any case, is false. While I have many faults Stephen – well, maybe one or two – a lack of self-esteem is not one of them. In any case Stephen, my self-esteem is irrelevant to the issue at hand so, in effect you have made a double blunder. Not only have you confounded the distinction between your unsupported opinion with a knowledge claim about the world but you have introduced an irrelevant criterion into the discussion about that distinction. You do understand that, don’t you Stephen?
In the same way, Stephen, your claim that you find it becomng tiresome trudging through my posts confounds the source of that tedium. You simply but incorrectly assume that your tedium relates to the content of the posts themselves but – and I know you will find this claim incredible, Stephen – your tedium is rather the outcome of your inability to grasp their contents. But the solution is simple. Rather than endure what is clearly a torment and a burden for you, why not just scroll on by? In any case Stephen, unlike the case with Good dog, I’m afraid I can’t see any promise in you.
: Good dog Molly (10:59PM)
Excellent Good dog, excellent. I see that you have taken my advice to heart and my hopes for your potential have not been misplaced. However, your reference to “the chasm between what he purports to be and is” I found to be troubling. It appears that, once again, you have confounded your unsupported opinion about that “chasm” on the one hand with a reasoned epistemological claim about its real-world existence on the other. In other words Good dog, you have repeated your initial egregious blunder about my so-called
“stale” posts. You do understand this, don’t you Good dog? You must stay focused, reflect on your assertions, and most importantly bring reasons to support them. Otherwise, they are just “brain farts.”
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Actually your lack of self esteem has everything to do with your assuming an authoratative role in conversations. You overcompensate, afraid that you won’t be taken seriously if you aren’t somehow in control of any and all interactions. As we all know, control, is an overcompensation due to a self perceived shortcoming in the self esteem department. Your passive aggressive, snide comments may as well be a window to your tortured soul. Don’t worry lil buddy, your not in high school any more, we’re not going to give you noogies, snap your suspenders, or give you a dreaded ‘swirlie’. We’re all adults now, and there is no need for you to carry on like a slighted child.
I’d bet big money that MM wanted to be a philosophy professor and the snobby university establishment rejected him. You can talk about it MM, I’m actually one of the least judgmental people.
Speak for yourself SHITty. If MM ever attends a summit he’s getting the Mother of all Titty Twisters, definitely an Atomic Wedgie and quite possibly the dreaded Rear Admiral.
RSVPs
: Stephen Harper (08/12, 12:15PM)
“Actually your lack of self-esteem has everything to do with your assuming an authoratative (sic) role in conversations.”
Good afternoon Stephen. Well Stephen, I see that you are a fan – possibly a letter-writer to “Annie’s Mailbox” or its equivalent. I’m not suprised, really, since you touch all the bases of pop psychology including its fatuous workhorse, that of the concept of “self-esteem,” or, more properly, the lack of it. In the vacuous world of psychology generally there is no rational explanation of human behaviour, only omnibus “explanations” which come and go with the seasons like repressed subconscious desires – repressed homosexuality, the desire to kill the authoritative figure of the father and mate with the mother, and so on. But Stephen, ask yourself this question: Is there any human behaviour that a lack of self-esteem WOULDN’T “explain”? Of course not. A lack of self-esteem, like psychological “explanation” generally, can “explain” ANYTHING which, of course, means that it can “explain” NOTHING”. It is, in effect, a pseudo-explanation. The next time you happen to encounter a psychologist, Stephen, ask him what his conception of the “concept of truth” might be. He’ll look at you like you have two heads. The reason for this is because he doesn’t have one. But, of course, he has no compunction about palming off his pseudo-concept of the lack of self-esteem as the “truth”.
I won’t pursue the question of your confounding your unsupported opinion about my lack of self-esteem with a reasoned knowledge claim about the world (i.e. its actual existence) Stephen, as I have covered that ground before.
: Daniel Abraham (3:34PM)
No Daniel, the “snooty universities” didn’t “reject me.” There were no vacancies in my field (Philosophy of Education) when I received my Ph.D. In any case, a teacher always teaches philosophy whether that is his explicit subject or not.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
That’s good to hear MM. I know exactly what you mean about the limitations in the very nature of the field of psychology. Knowledge claims in that area are impossible. One of the more interesting arguments for the “truth” validity of “knowing” the causes of another persons behavior is that EVERYTHING is based on reports anyways. The problems with that are obvious.
My criticism towards you is that you seem snobbish in that you make no attempt to ween people into what you say, or explain things thoroughly enough in LAYMEN terms. It’s as if every good response you have is a little badge on your jacket. Having a focus in philosophy of education should mean that you have the skills required to at least sometimes meet someone in the middle ground and ween them back into your contentions. I do get the impression that philosophy is you hobby though.
Cause philosophy is all based on fact? LOL!!! Ass!!
Cause philosophy is all based on fact? LOL…Ass!!!
RSVPs
: Daniel Abraham (08/12, 5:02PM)
Well Daniel, your criticism about me rests on your perception that I am “snobbish,” that I make “no attempt to ween (sic) people into (sic) what you say or explain things thoroughly in Laymen (sic) terms.”
Well Daniel, your perception of me as being “snobbish” is simply that, your perception. In spite of what you might think, it is not simply an unarguable truth about the world about which nothing more need be said. As is so often the case on this site you have confounded your unsupported opinion about me with an immutable truth about the world, i.e., my snobbishness in the present case. In addition to your confusion between opinion and fact, it is, on its own grounds, factually false.
As far as making no attempt to wean people away from their preconceived beliefs, I am not sure what your “Laymens'” terms would look like. Do you have a transcription dictionary, Daniel, one which renders non-Laymens’ terms into Laymens’ terms, and if you do what would your transcription look like? In any case Daniel, I do detect a degree of intellectual curiosity in you which, sadly, I find lacking in my next corresponsent.
:Stephen Harper (2:28PM)
As is ordinarily the case one realizes that once again you have totally misconceived the question at issue. As usual Stephen, you misguidedly equate “fact” with its scientific manifestation – i.e. water = H2O. The difficulty, Stephen, is that your own statement itself is not a “scientific fact” in that sense but rather your unsupported opinion which you have the effrontery to advance as a “fact.” As such it fails your own criterion. You do understand that Stephen, don’t you? No, I suppose you don’t.
Stephen, Stephen, is there no hope for you at all?
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
What I meant by Laymen terms is quite simply writing in a style that doesn’t involve holding 2 or 3 abstract thoughts to get the next abstract thought in the same sentence. You do what intro to philosophy professors DON’T do; throw multiple philosophical ideas in one sentence. You have criticized me for not using subjects and predicates well (I have since starting proofreading my stuff) but why do you say bad “interlocutor” to explain that. It’s just not necessary. Do what you want, but if you’re here to educate people and not philosophically beat yourself off you’d be using more common language and explaining things a bit more thorough. In your case making your writing longer and less concept heavily immediate wouldn’t be being condescending because you wouldn’t be holding people so much to your intellectual standard. They win and you win.
Meh, that’s your unsupported opinion, or ‘brain fart”. Sounds like you’re just going in circles here. MM. Perhaps it’s time you said goodbye.
I’m breaking old wounds here but I should mention that I got invited out to cheers tonight and had a scary conversation with a girl. I was minding my own business ordering a drink and she looked over at me starred with a dry smile and said “are you from around here” and I replied that yes I grew up close and she said “your parents are from Iran aren’t they. Are you Islamic?” He body language and tone was scary. she was drunk but I’m not lying to you. The guy who she seemed to be with glared at me and I talked to him explaining and defusing he bought me a drink.
I’m sorry to have rocked the boat but I get this almost every weekend and I’m not even middle eastern so I could only imagine. Guess I’m just looking for someone who could relate.
Hmmm – Drunken Nova Scotian chippie looking for muslims in a bar. Hate crime? Hatred of logic, definitely. Well Daniel, if you can’t beat their prejudices, you might as well play to them.
Here are some snappy comebacks to stupid questions you might want to memorize.
http://www.boreme.com/posting.php?id=6688
See, I’m not all Harry Hatemonger or Conrad Conservative or Tommy Intolerant.
May the blessings of Supreme Allah be upon you.
RSVPs
: Daniel Abraham (08/12, 8:44PM)
Well Daniel, thanks for your thoughts but you seem to be suffering from the same malaise, not supporting your assertions with reasons or, in the present case, with examples. For example, you rebuke me for “throwing multiple philosophical concepts in one sentence” but, since you provide no examples, I am left in the dark. I was also left in the dark by your reference to an “interlocutor” which you seem to think relates to the proper use of subjects and predicates when all it does relate to is the person with whom one is having a conversation.
Finally Daniel, I am not on this site to “educate” anyone – see my next interlocutor as proof of that – but simply to see what makes people on this site tick. What do they think and, more importantly, why do they think it? Do they know why then think as they do or are they totally unreflective? As recent comments on this site have shown Daniel, many think that their bald opinion, their unsupported assertion in respect to which no weight whatsoever must be given is equivalent to a reasoned knowledge claim in respect to which a great deal of weight must be given. A lot can be learned about the quality of the minds of those who do, and those who do not, operate on the basis of that distinction.
I couldn’t understand what you meant by my “writing longer and less concept heavily immediate wouldn’t be condescending…” so I won’t pursue it here.
: Stephen Harper (9:05PM)
Well no Stephen, it’s not me who is going around in circles but I can see its pretty pointless to try and “educate” you to think otherwise. So yes Stephen, as far as you are concerned, it is time I said goodbye. Goodbye.
A pleasure as always,
Cheerio!
Ivan,
Well done.
Oh look, another unsupported opinion by our top resident hypocrite, MM. Why is the word educate in quotations, MM? Is ther some ironic misappropriation of the word when you’re the “teacher”? How would your university feel if they found you were giving their intellectual property away for free? Ass!!!
RSVP
: Stephen Harper (08/13, 11:35AM)
“Unsupported” Stephen? Anyone who’s interested can scroll back through my comments on this thread for complete evidential support.
“Educate” was in quotation marks Stephen – are you ready for this? – because it meant that I wasn’t trying to educate (note the absence of quotation marks, Stephen) anyone, only trying to listen to their minds at work in their words to discover if, in fact, they had one. In your case Stephen, I’m still listening.
I wouldn’t know how “my university” would feel about me giving away their intellectual property for free Stephen, since I have no idea what you might mean by their “intellectual property.” Do you?
Stephen, I hope all these quotation marks will not unduly baffle you. Now Stephen, say goodbye.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Monsieur, the Nowhere Man reminds me of you 🙂
http://youtu.be/CdvWMvbg2bs
Maybe you can try to compile a list of examples which led me to that conclusion, as a fun little game. I do love the Nowhere Man. He reminds me of my cat.
RVSP
: Depeche Mel (08/13, 5:11PM)
Well Mel (a little rhyming there), if the Nowhere Man reminds you of me and he also reminds you of your cat then, by logical extension, the question must then, without circularity, be reduced to what your cat reminds you of. Note the phrase “without circularity,” Mel. It is very important.
Write back when you think you have an answer, but not before.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
The late, great Tommy Makem sang the perfect tribute to Montrealman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIoxdFqPdfs
Lol, you’re such an ass, MM. People can scroll back through both of our comments and interpret them any way they please. Cause, guess what, MM? Your evidence is just, well…just your interpretation of my hypothesis, not a fact. Just because you “believe” that psychology is just mumbo-jumbo, and psychologists are just “snake oil salesmen” is an opinion, not a fact. So I guess you spent the entire weekend trying to “prove” my opinion wrong with your opinion, using “my opinion is right, so yours has to be wrong” as your “evidence”, and came off looking like an even bigger tool than everyone already thought you were. Not to mention a giant sized hypocrite, so say “goodbye” now lil fella *pats MM on the head, and gives him a toonie for some candy*.
MM
I’m a thief, I’m a liar, there’s my church I sing in the choir.
What difference would it make?
RSVPs
: Stephen Harper (08/13, 8:35PM)
Reasons Stephen, reasons are what separates my knowledge claim from your bald, unsupported opinion. Some interpretations are better than others, Stephen. For the answer as to why this is so, look at my first sentence.
: Daniel Abraham (08/14, 538AM)
What difference would WHAT make?
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Congratulations MM i gave you something completely cryptic and un precise and you never even asked a question. Guess you’re really feeling some sort of heat here.
RSVP
: Daniel Abraham (08/14. 3:18PM)
Yes I did. But I received no answer.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!