News Stories

[Seitsuki]

Is it a recent thing due to Westernisation/liberalisation and all that? I was sure promiscuity etc had always been rather frowned upon.

[Sumeragi]

Originally Posted by Seitsuki

Is it a recent thing due to Westernisation/liberalisation and all that? I was sure promiscuity etc had always been rather frowned upon.

Reread what I wrote:

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

Well, I wouldn't say all of them were sluts. In Japan it was sort of expected that sex is an option if you were at least semi-serious about a relationship.

Promiscuity is having casual sex frequently with different partners or being indiscriminate in the choice of sexual partners. Making love with someone you are in a relationship with would not be and should not be considered promiscuity.

[Seitsuki]

Hey, plenty of people would say that sort of thing is still slutty regardless how much you argue you're committed and everything! Don't quote me on that.

Although fine, point. How about unchastity?

[Sumeragi]

Originally Posted by Seitsuki

Although fine, point. How about unchastity?

Unless you happened to be nobles or merchants, never was a big issue. In fact, "virtues" tightened up after opening of the gates, and is now going back to what it originally was after WW2.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Seitsuki

Ha. See? I went to an all boys school (with like one female teacher who was 60 y/o) and no one did anything! We got a proper education!



At least, I'm fairly sure no one did anything.

Reminded me of another incident in my school in which a male teacher was asked to transfer to another school because a student leader reported that one of her best friends was molested by him.

And guess what? The best friend, was a guy. It was a closed case so little details got out.

Originally Posted by ArchmageXin

Well, that explain a lot about SH.

Hey! Step out here and say it out loud so I can sue you for slander!

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

Reread what I wrote:



Promiscuity is having casual sex frequently with different partners or being indiscriminate in the choice of sexual partners. Making love with someone you are in a relationship with would not be and should not be considered promiscuity.

I am neutral on this, while I do support sex only after marriage, I believe that any boy/girl should have the freedom of choice in their relationship to have sex or not. But at least use contraceptives; shotgun wedding and teen pregnancy is no joke.

What I do want to see is that the freedom is extended to all ages for females *IS TASERED*

[0utf0xZer0]

One of my friends apparently thought I was dating a sixteen year old (legal in Canada but generally looked on unfavourably when you're an adult, I was 22 at the time) for a year before she asked me how old she actually was.

Yes, my girlfriend is asian but so was the friend.

[Cosmic Eagle]

Originally Posted by Ridwan

TBH, girls who were born in 1993 or later kind of scare me.

Pfft....era discrimination :P

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Seitsuki

What happened to 'no sex before marriage'? Thought that was still a thing in Asia?

That was aided by the absence of sex education. Most boys don't get to find out how to impregnate someone until entering adult society. And women may never find out until the night before the wedding. Now the information is out in the open and everyone goes nuts.

Essentially sex was simply a taboo topic in Asia. Even if if there was anything unusual that is happening, you are not suppose to know about it. So I am not claiming old school Asia supports no sex before marriage, but rather no one ever talk about sex at all. Hence a absence of evidence, but not evidence of absence.

That's the old days though. Now people are far less ignorant.

[Sumeragi]

I hate it when people try to string Japan into "Asia". Old Japanese values were often at odds with "Asian" values (of which there was no such thing).

[Ridwan]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

Well, I wouldn't say all of them were sluts. In Japan it was sort of expected that sex is an option if you were at least semi-serious about a relationship.

Well of course not. I was just saying that half of my highschool was about that life. Sex videos weren't uncommon, and since our headmaster was comically corrupt it was rather easy to get by.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Eagle

Pfft....era discrimination :P

Contrary to popular beliefs, having your sister propose to you is a SCARY and TRAUMATIC experience. Thanks to that, any girl resembling her age is now a no go for me.

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

I hate it when people try to string Japan into "Asia". Old Japanese values were often at odds with "Asian" values (of which there was no such thing).

IIRC Japan outlawed homosexuality only after Meiji Restoration, to look western.

[ganbaru]

Yellen is Obama choice to succeed Bernanke at Fed
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...10-09-07-23-04

Attack on Jerusalem graves unnerves Christians
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...10-09-07-16-35

[NoemiChan]

Originally Posted by Ridwan

IIRC Japan outlawed homosexuality only after Meiji Restoration, to look western.

Bisexuality....

[Cosmic Eagle]

Originally Posted by Ridwan

Contrary to popular beliefs, having your sister propose to you is a SCARY and TRAUMATIC experience. Thanks to that, any girl resembling her age is now a no go for me.

Your life is now officially as colorful as SH's

[Ridwan]

I have natural affinity to older girls to begin with anyway.

[ArchmageXin]

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

While the imminent destruction of the United States (and the rest of the world) is still a thing, there have been a number of very interesting updates on that new York Biker incident.

-Interview of good samaritan who shielded the SUV driver from attack

-Family of Paralyzed biker hires celebrity Attorney Gloria Allred

-Biker Claims he did not intentionally start off incident

-Undercover Cop Biker who attacked the Lien SUV has been arrested


...I think we can officially refer to this entire incident as a 3-ring circus now.

Yea pretty much. You missed one part though, that the Biker who organize the whole event is a 29 years old guy living in Mom's basement.

[Domonkazu]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Now the information is out in the open and everyone goes nuts.

It's not now it has been like this since 90's, I remember in 1997 during my first year in mid school, we got sex ed for the first time. 3 years later, in senior high school we had some pregnants students who is then arranged to marry their lover by their parents .

[Ithekro]

Meanwhile, in Washington D.C.

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/lo...226481851.html

The closure of D.C.'s war memorials continues to be a source of contention for tourists and law enforcement officials.

Like the hundreds of World War II veterans who came to National Mall to pay their respects this week, a group of Vietnam veterans found a barricade blocking the way to their memorial Friday. News4's Mark Segraves said two U.S. Park Service Rangers manning the gate asked that the group respect the government's shutdown but moved aside.

Segraves described the exchange as pleasant and respectful.

The veterans then moved the barricade and walked down to the wall to pay their respects. But a flood of tourists followed even though the memorial is closed to the general public.

"The consensus among the group of Vietnam veterans was we're going to go anyway. We'll go through the barricade," North Carolina resident Reid Mendenhall said.

U.S. Park Police arrive to the scene, asked everyone to leave and put the barricade back into place.

Conflict over the closure of D.C.'s war memorials has drawn a lot of controversy this week.

Congressman Randy Neugebauer, a Republican representing Texas, confronted a U.S. Park Service Ranger Wednesday over access to the World War II Memorial. But tourists in the crowd soon chastised the congressman for what they perceived as his role in the shut down.

Earlier in the week, hundreds of vets on Honor Flights from Kansas, Missouri, Illinois and other locations poured into the site after members of Congress, led by Rep. Michele Bachmann, removed the barriers.

Since then, tourists and veterans alike have gained access to the World War II memorial by parting the barriers -- the Park Rangers cannot stop individuals from going in.

These are open air memorials. They have never had a reason to close becaues there is nothing to close. They had to move in fences, and barrackades to block these off.

Reports have that the Veteran's hospital is shut down expect for emergencies. Private Businesses that are on government lands have had to close and people who live on government lands have been evicted until the shutdown ends.

The claim I'm hearing is that the blame is put on the Democratic Party (The Senate) for not passing the budget. And President Obama for (supposedly) going around the Constitution to get things done that are not his job as President, or even his branch of the government.


EDIT:

And from the Tea Party...

http://www.tpnn.com/despicable-after...-gets-his-way/

Despicable: After Senate Dems Block Funding Veteran Benefits, Obama Regime Threatens to Withhold Payments Unless Obama Gets His Way

Veterans who have served their country, who once waged war against America’s enemies, have, seemingly, encountered a new enemy: the federal government that seeks to withhold money these warriors earned. Americans everywhere are enduring the wrath of government as the Obama Administration seeks to make the government shutdown as painful as possible for the American people. While the Obama Administration shutters open-air memorials that otherwise remain open on holidays and weekends, the federal government continues to spend money on such “essential” services as keeping Congress’ gym open for members of Congress.

Meanwhile, the Obama Administration issued a stern warning to America on Wednesday as Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki threatened that if the government shutdown doesn’t end by the end of this month, veterans will not receive their checks. Shinseki testified before the House Veterans Affairs Committee on Wednesday to discuss the budget and asserted that he would be unable to send out the 5.18 million checks, totally roughly $6.25 billion, unless a budget was passed by November 1st. Shinseki further claimed that he would stop payments to the roughly 364,000 survivor benefit recipients as well as the half-million pension payments to veterans and dependents. While Shinseki clarified that his hands were tied, the battle over the government shutdown has served as an experiment that reveals political parties’ true motivations. While the GOP continues to fight against runaway spending that, by every estimation, can be seen as truly unsustainable, the Democrats have charged the Republicans with being everything from “extortionists” to “terrorists” and “anarchists.” The President, however, has maintained that he has kept his rhetoric calm during this crisis.

The Obama Administration has shuttered national parks and memorials and has even removed private citizens from their own homes due to the federal government shutdown. The government has shuttered private businesses that sit on federal land and they have even cracked down on visitors to the Grand Canyon and the building of sandcastles on beaches that are federally owned. However, most pronounced during the government shutdown has been the efforts to target veterans. After the WWII memorial was shut down at the first of this month, 90-year-old WWII veterans, aided by Tea Party congressmen, broke through the barricades to gain access to the memorial purchased with the blood of so many young men. While Democrats charge the Republicans with being stubborn in their refusal to fund Obamacare, the Democrats have continually worked to prohibit the funding of veteran benefits. On Thursday, the Democrat-controlled Senate voted to block four resolutions that would have funded government programs, which included paying the National Guard and opening national parks.

For whatever that is worth.

[Irenicus]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

The claim I'm hearing is that the blame is put on the Democratic Party (The Senate) for not passing the budget. And President Obama for (supposedly) going around the Constitution to get things done that are not his job as President, or even his branch of the government.

I'm pretty sure there are legal provisions as to why the government cannot be open when it is not supposed to be open, even when it costs more to close down.

For example, what if instead of Loyal Patriotic Veterans (tm) who just want to kiss the big phallic white stone, the memorials' visitors happen to be a bunch of vandals who did damage to the monuments while the security guards of these nonessential institutions are furloughed? The government will be, rightly, considered responsible for neglect, and the likes of Fox will burn the Muslim Socialist Atheist Black Monkey for the crime of not defending Murrica's greatest national treasures...even more than they already try to do on a by-the-minute basis.

Ergo, legal regulations and counter-intuitive policies required to make a society approximately three hundred millions time larger than a human's intuitive grasp function.

[Ithekro]

And to continue what I'm getting from the conservatives:

DEMOCRATS TO AMERICA: WE OWN THE GOVERNMENT!

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2013-10-09.html

In the current fight over the government shutdown, Republicans are simply representing the views of the American people.

Americans didn't ask for Obamacare, they don't want it, but now their insurance premiums are going through the roof, their doctors aren't accepting it, and their employers are moving them into part-time work -- or firing them -- to avoid the law's mandates.

Contrary to Obama's promises, it turns out: You can't keep your doctor, you can't keep your insurance -- you can't even keep your job. In other words, it's a typical government program, but this one wrecks your health care.

Also, the president did raise taxes on the middle class in defiance of his well-worn campaign promise not to. Indeed, Obamacare is the largest tax hike in U.S. history.

Among the other changes effected by this law are:

-- Obamacare will allow insurers to charge 50 percent higher premiums for smokers, but prohibits insurers from increasing premiums for those with HIV/AIDS.

-- Nationally, Obamacare will increase men's individual insurance premiums by an average of 99 percent and women's by 62 percent. In North Carolina, for example, individual insurance premiums will triple for women and quadruple for men.

-- Health plans valued at $27,500 or more for a family of four will be taxed at a rate of 40 percent.

-- No doctors who went to an American medical school will be accepting Obamacare.

-- A 62-year-old man earning $46,000 a year is entitled to a $7,836 government tax credit to buy health insurance. But if he earns an extra $22 in income, he loses the entire $7,836 credit. He will have more take-home pay by earning $46,000 than if he earns $55,000. (If he's lucky, he already works for one of the companies forced by Obamacare to reduce employees' hours!)

-- Merely to be eligible for millions of dollars in grants from the federal government under Obamacare, education and training programs are required to meet racial, ethnic, gender, linguistic and sexual orientation quotas. That's going to make health care MUCH better!


-- Obamacare is turning America into a part-time nation. According to a recent report by economist John Lott, 97 percent of all jobs added to the economy so far this year have been part-time jobs. Ninety-seven percent!

-- Obamacare is such a disaster that the people who wrote it refuse to live under it themselves. That's right, Congress won a waiver from Obamacare.

Responding to the people's will, House Republicans first voted to fund all of government -- except Obamacare. Obama refused to negotiate and Senate Democrats refused to pass it.

Then the Republicans voted to fully fund the government, but merely delay the implementation of Obamacare for one year. Obama refused to negotiate and Senate Democrats refused to pass it.

Finally, the Republicans voted to fully fund the government, but added a requirement that everyone live under Obamacare. No more special waivers for Congress and their staff, and no waivers for big business without the same waivers for individuals.

Obama refused to negotiate and Senate Democrats refused to pass it. So as you can see, Republicans are the big holdup here.

A longtime Democratic operative, Karen Finney, explained the Democrats' intransigence on MSNBC to a delighted Joan Walsh (aka the most easily fooled person on TV) by comparing House Republicans to a teenager trying to borrow his mother's car. "No, I'm not negotiating!" Mother says. "It's MY CAR!"

This wasn't a stupid slip of the tongue that other Democrats quickly rejected. Finney had used the exact same metaphor to a panel of highly agreeable MSNBC guests the day before. (MSNBC books no other kind of guest.)

The left thinks the government is their car and the people's representatives are obstreperous teenagers trying to borrow the government. Which belongs to Democrats.

That's not how the Constitution views the House of Representatives. To the contrary, the House is considered most reflective of the people's will because its members are elected every two years.

As a matter of fact, the Republicans who mistakenly assume they have something to do with running the government represent most of the people who pay taxes to run it. So it's more like a teenager who is making the car payments, maintaining the car insurance and taking responsibility for registering the car being told: "It's not your car."

But the Democrats refuse to even negotiate. It's their government -- and if you Republicans think you're going out dressed like that, you've got another thing coming! Needless to say, they absolutely will not consider the Republicans' demand that Democrats merely live under Obamacare themselves.

Instead, Democrats say "the Koch brothers" are behind the effort to defund Obamacare.

They say Republicans are trying to "burn the whole house down" (Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz); "have lost their minds" (Sen. Harry Reid); are trying to negotiate "with a bomb strapped to their chest" (senior White House adviser Dan Pfeiffer); are "legislative arsonists" (Rep. Nancy Pelosi); and are engaging in "blatant extortion" (White House press secretary Jay Carney).

The MSNBC crowd calls Republicans "arsonists" every 15 minutes. They ought to check with fellow MSNBC host Al Sharpton. He knows his arsonists! In 1995, Sharpton whipped up a mob outside the Jewish-owned Freddy's Fashion Mart with an anti-Semitic speech. Sometime later, a member of the mob torched the store, killing seven Hispanic employees.

Every single Democrat in the country uses the exact same talking point: We "refuse to negotiate with a gun being held to our head."

Which means the Democrats will not negotiate at all -- not now, not ever. House Republicans have already passed three-dozen bills defunding, or otherwise modifying, Obamacare. Senate Democrats and liberal commentators had a good laugh at Republicans for passing them.

Now they're paying attention!

If you are in the minority of Americans not already unalterably opposed to Obamacare, keep in mind that the only reason the government is shut down right now is that Democrats refuse to fund the government if they are required to live under Obamacare.

That's how good it is!

I get sent stuff sometimes from my father after we argue about stuff. mostly because I don't pay all that much attention to the news anymore. I just have to track down the source at times.

[SeijiSensei]

Ah yes, the inimitable Ms. Coulter. I believe it is a requirement for being a female commentator on Fox News that you be white and blond.

Irenicus presents the perfectly valid reasons why monuments cannot be opened unless there is sufficient staff to monitor the behavior of visitors, clean up after them, etc., etc. Members of Congress like Bachmann and Neugebauer look like self-interested fools, especially after the latter berated some poor young Park Ranger for doing her job, a job which his vote to shut down the government required.

None of this is the President's doing. Until the Republicans are willing to pass a "clean" continuing resolution to restore the government's funding and agree to raise the debt ceiling the President is duty-bound not to capitulate. To do otherwise would put his Administration, and every future President's Administration, at risk of extortion using the budget and the debt ceiling as, to use Speaker Boehner's term for it, "leverage."

Moreover the right-wing "Tea Party" contingent in the Republican Party are not really interested in obtaining concessions on the part of the Administration. For them, closing down the government is the goal. Notice how none of them ever really explains what it is about the Affordable Care Act that makes it so egregious that blocking it rationalizes a government shutdown. Boehner, for instance, repeats over and over again the meme that he and his colleagues are providing "fairness" for the American people by stopping the ACA. What on earth does that mean? How is the current disaster that constitutes American healthcare "fair" to the American people, particularly those with pre-existing conditions or other obstacles to obtaining health care at a reasonable price? Watch this dialogue between the Daily Show's Jason Jones and right-wing commentator Noelle Nikpour. Do you hear any specific policy concerns in her comments? Of course not. It's just assumed everyone thinks "Obamacare" is the beginning of the end times. (While you're there stick around for Stewart's interview with the remarkable Malala Yousafzai. If only our politicians were half as eloquent as that sixteen-year-old girl.)

This whole strategy has been months, if not years, in the making. I recommend both this story in last Sunday's NY Times and this piece by Rachel Maddow from last week.