Nothing tastes as good as skinny feels

[snakey1]

but i bet she tastes real goooood

Just like chicken

Edited November 21, 2009 by snakey1

[John S]

Yep. On a forum a friend of mine moderates, they had a thread where one of the members decided to chip in with the usual rant about 'freedom of speech'. The very next post read, simply:

 

You're a paedophile.

 

Funny how quickly the original poster forgot about freedom of speech and asked for it to be removed

 

I'll remember that next time someone on here starts banging on about freedom of speech

[captain cojones]

theres a diference though between freedom of speech and making libelous statements. calling someone a paedophile, unless it was true, would probally not be regarded by a court as "just freedom of speech"..most definatly straightforward libel, with hefty fines and costs to suit.

perhaps not the best statement to make to demonstrate "freedom of speech"

[captain cojones]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article743741.ece

 

here is a good example of what i mean. a woman accusing somebody, (without reason) of sexual deviancy on an internet forum, in the uk. it cost her 10,000 pounds.

[Elton]

Exactly, Captain. You seem to have missed my point somewhat. What you have demonstrated is that there is no such thing as 'freedom of speech' in the UK, or most countries, come to that. The example I used was somebody proving just why that is.

[captain cojones]

Exactly, Captain. You seem to have missed my point somewhat. What you have demonstrated is that there is no such thing as 'freedom of speech' in the UK, or most countries, come to that. The example I used was somebody proving just why that is.

 

Hi Elton, freedom of speech can be difficult to define.

i think you probally do have less of it in the uk , than we have here!

 

What i was trying to point out, was that particular example, (of not being able to call someone a paedophile,without proof), possibly doesnt mean you have no freedom of speech.

Making defatory statements about someone, without basis, has always been punishable. possibly for centuries!

 

It does seem to be though, in the uk, from what i have heard from friends, that certain things cant be said, IN CASE they offend someone.

Rather than if they actually have. Almost as if people get offended on behalf of others!

 

Im involved work wise, with all sorts of things, but a lot of the time, with different media stuff, lots of live radio, and written media.

So i am very keen on "freedom of speech". but with that comes a legal responsibility, not to try, to use that as an excuse to break laws, especially those of libel and slander.

[ColinW]

Kate Moss has made millions. Are her critics saying she would have made the same amount if she was fat? Obviously she wouldn't.

Models have to be thin, whatever the feminists and health fascists would have us believe. For a model, thin means work and work means money! It therefore makes sense for her to adopt a motto like "nothing tastes as good as being thin feels".

It's not her "duty" to be a role model for young kids. Her duty is to the magazine editors etc who pay her; to paraphrase the saying, "She who pays the pipe calls the tune." They are the people who dictate who gets work and they DO have a duty to their readers.

Kate Moss isn't anorexic in any case. She often describes herself as skinny. No anorexic would say that. If she is thin and knows it, she can always choose not to be. True anorexics like Karen Carpenter die tragically convinced that they are fat.

[yorkio]

Models have to be thin, whatever the feminists and health fascists would have us believe.

Why do they have to be thin?

[corydoras]

Why do they have to be thin?

Because that is what the market demands.

[chesters1]

Why do they have to be thin?

 

because they are clothes hangers ,anyone with a curve would spoil the cut of the cloth

they dont have to be stick thin theres plenty of "normal" thin models and some plump ones but the skinnies get the jobs because they dont get in the way of the clothes

Edited November 24, 2009 by chesters1