Colossal boobs not welcome: San Diego Hooters will not serve Filthy Filner [pic]

If Mayor Bob Filner wants to nibble on Hooters hot wings, he’ll have to take his sticky fingers someplace else.

San Diego Republican Party director Francis Barrazza noticed an interesting sign in the window of a Rancho Bernardo Hooters restaurant:

Bam! And what makes it even more awesome is that apparently, this was a city-wide decision.



From a Hooters in San Diego’s Gaslamp Quarter:



Last week, Glenn Beck urged San Diego business owners to condemn Filner’s behavior and download signs to post in their windows. San Diego Hooters proprietors took him up on it!



The official word from Hooters is that the Filner ban didn’t come from the top, but the signs can stay.


Ace illustrates Democrat mayor’s war on women with #BobFilnerPickUpLines

Shudder: Filthy Filner will cling to his mayorship, remain skeezy while doing so [pics]

Pervs in paradise: Ace previews Filthy Filner and Anthony Weiner’s image makeovers

War on women: Feinstein calls on Filner to resign; Ladies’ man Paul Begala praises her with insult?

Bob Filner’s attorney asks city to pay mayor’s legal fees in harassment suit

Bad news, ladies: Mayor Filner will not meet privately with you in August

Politico assists Mayor Bob Filner with (image) rehabilitation effort

Gloria Allred unveils ‘Proceed at your own risk’ sign for Bob Filner’s office

Snark-attack! Lucianne Goldberg on why CNN didn’t identify Filthy Filner as a Dem (plus, bonus Ace tweets)

Bob Filner’s former colleague Nancy Pelosi wants sick ‘Slap Hillary’ game taken down

Mayor Bob Filner finishes sex harassment therapy early, but not before locks changed

‘Let him put his recovery in you’: Andy Levy, Allahpundit and Ace shred Filner’s ‘magical’ recovery

Last year, Planned Parenthood praised Bob Filner for defending women

  • The Masked Avatar

    When you’ve lost Hooters …

    • BlueGood

      No doubt Bob Filner will NOT get the Point(s) at Hooters…………….

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “No doubt Bob Filner will NOT get the Point(s) at Hooters.”

        He’ll no doubt try to get it.

    • Teddi

      Going to Hooters tonight to give them my business !
      Great decision.

      • King Leer

        Love their wings. My 6 year-old grandson (before his uptight father nixed our visits) referred to them as, the “Tickle-Tickle Girls.”

    • 2ifbyT

      Wonder if they’ll do the same thing for Willie and his cigars…

    • mike_in_kosovo

      When you’ve lost Hooters…

      ….you’ve gone a bit *too* far with your dieting?


  • Maxx

    “Not worried,” said Mayor Bob. “If I want to grab a breast or thigh, there’s always the office, errr, I mean KFC.”

  • Matthew Koch

    Colossal boobs not welcome!!!!

    Oh wait, theyre talking about Filner! I thought they were talking about the employees!


  • WhoMeToo

    “We believe women should be treated with respect” -Hooters

    • Tre

      Almost, but not quite, as bad as Hugh Hefner saying it.

    • King Leer

      All women, not just mustachioed, pudgy, chinless, bitter gals with Womyns Studies credits (degree? Ha!) with a surplus of cats.

    • Richo

      As shocking as this might be to some, there is a difference in level of respect between a consenting adult showing her body (and other people enjoying it) versus harassing women

      • Blake Waymire

        Yep. If a woman wants to show off her body in a relatively tasteful way for others to enjoy, it’s fine by me. Hooters outfits are actually quite tasteful considering some of the other things you see women wearing. Not as tasteful or sexy as a plain white t-shirt, but still not bad.

    • John Thomas “Jack” Ward III

      Respect, plus a nice tip, for prompt service. Jawamax 8<{D}

  • MarcusFenix

    Because people go there for the food…pfft, yeah right.

    • Markward

      Actually, they do have good hot wings, and I was shocked to find it is true when I tried some that a roommate brought home.

      • Garrett Gripling

        Wait, they serve food?!

      • MarcusFenix

        I’ve had the wings before, they’re not bad…sometimes they slather on the sauce a bit thick, but i’ve had worse.

        But clearly…as Tre mentioned…’s the scenery. :)

        • John Thomas “Jack” Ward III

          I guess Filthner will have to make wings at home, like my Big Brother does…. BTW, anyone smell burning grease? XD Jawamax 8<{D}

    • Tre

      I went to a Hooters around here once and ordered a hamburger. It wasn’t bad, but I can tell people go there for the scenery.

      • King Leer

        Get the wings.

  • Tre

    Well DUH! Him in there where lots of pretty women are running around in tight shorts and shirts! He’d be like a small child turned loose in a candy store!

  • Pablo
    • Kimihiro Watanuki

      I’m hoping a lot of business shun him.

  • atx1

    wow, so now Hooters is teaming up with Glenn Beck

    • John Thomas “Jack” Ward III

      Politics DOES make strange bedfellows… Jawamax 8<{D}

  • NRPax

    “I’m still cleared to come in, right ladies?” -Bill Clinton.

    • TocksNedlog

      Well, THERE’S a visual that absolutely no one needed!

      • NRPax

        It seems to be my duty to provide someone with nightmare fuel.

  • TJ

    That is what is called guerrilla marketing. Get a message across without anyone knowing where the sign came from as if they knew the messenger was Glenn Beck they would not want anything to do with it and take Filner.

    • RLEE

      Ok I’ll speak real slow they sent for the sign from a Glenn Beck web site

      • TJ

        Yes but those that see it do not know that. If there was a logo in the corner they would go in and rip that sign down and protest Hooters for using a Beck made sign. Some dislike Beck more than Filner and would have dinner with Filner before they allow Beck in the same restaurant.

    • TocksNedlog

      Not quite getting how things work over here on the other side of the pond, are you?

    • Jill

      Why would that be, Trevor? Are you implying that the message is ill conceived and that, for some reason, one should allows take a stance opposing Beck?

      • TJ

        Some would rip that sign down and turn a blind eye to Filner and any crimes he has committed if then knew it came from Beck because they hate Beck more.

        guerrilla marketing does not have to always be for bad reasons. It is to get a message across at the local level with no direct control from the creator of that message.

        • MarcusFenix

          Sadly, this is correct. People get consumed more, at times, with the messenger than the message.

  • jacksonjay

    Do they serve Weiners?

    • WhoMeToo

      Every day.

  • Arnold Townsend

    Well, that’s it for Filner. When Hooters bans you, your political career is over. Dead and starting to smell over.

  • right_on

    So, Hooters Corporate is saying that the food is not the big draw? LOL

    Good for them: No shoes, no shirts, no class, no service!

  • Garrett Gripling

    Not that I needed more motivation, but Hooters definitely will get my business.

  • Richard Jefferies

    I find this hilarious in a sad sort of way. So Hooters, the restaurant chain that has traded on titillation for more than two decades is saying no to Filner, what, this is a family restaurant? Laughable. Hooters hasn’t gotten my business in a while, and this political stunt isn’t going to change that.

    • TocksNedlog

      Feeling a little sour today?

      • Richard Jefferies

        Not a bit, I’m just befuddled watching people fall all over themselves to praise Hooters, a restaurant one step below a strip club, that pretends to be a women’s empowerment center. Yes, they’ve done their level best to distance themselves, sans the uniforms, from the sexist past, but there was a time when Filner would have been their target demographic.

        • Jen

          Actually, Hooters are nowhere near the same class as a strip club. They’re clean, the women are wearing more clothes than most 15 year old girls on the street, the food is excellent and the atmosphere is fun without being frat-boy obnoxious. Go, don’t go…that’s up to you. But be honest about the place. It’s not as bad as you’re making it out to be.

          • odie11

            Aww c’mon. Where did you find the horse sh*t to shovel? Are you actually telling me that an organization that consciously sought a name to promote T& A and then build a restaurant around it to give it “legitimacy,” is not in the same class as a strip club? Why not? They are both promoting the same thing–T & A? In my opinion neither is “bad.” But they are certainly different sides of the same coin. The fact that one serves booze and the other food does not make it demonstratively different–get a clue. Only a woman can make talking out of both sides of her mouth sound reasonable–nice try. You must be a government employee.

          • MarcusFenix

            Not trying to split hairs, but last time I was at Hooters, I couldn’t give the waitress 50 bucks to grind on my crotch. Pretty big difference there.

            Selling T & A is one thing, but full nudity and lap dances can make these things very distinct. You’re once again trying to split hairs, but you’re using the wrong set of facts.

            Are strip clubs and Hooters alike? In the very broad stroke you’re using, they would have to be. Using your same stroke though, we could lump in the Sears Spring Fashion Catalog, because there are pretty women there modeling clothes, much less the section with bra sets, or even the swimsuit area for spring/summer wear. Next time a commercial for a movie comes on, we’re right back to it when a pretty woman shows up in some shorts and a t-shirt. You’re making it such a broad range, that most anything with a pretty woman and anything less than full Amish dress code could qualify.

            The distinction between the two is pretty clear cut, and I don’t think that people are talking out of both sides of their mouth when they articulate the difference.

          • Jen

            Well, had I known you were going to be debating like an ass I would have started out that way to begin with.

            First off, I can tell by your parting shot that the fact that you’re an obvious misogynist means you will never be able to separate an establishment like Hooters and a strip club. Women, clearly, are interchangeable in your mind.

            Secondly, Hooters and strip clubs are different in one major way. Hooters uses “T&A” (A phrase I despise) to draw in customers for their food, a strip club uses it to draw customers period. No other motivation. “Come for the boobs, stay for the boobs.”

            And by “boobs” I mean breasts, not you.

            And finally, for the record, we do agree on one thing. I don’t find strip clubs or Hooters bad, either. However you (legally) make your money, I am all for free enterprise and entrepreneurship.

        • MarcusFenix

          Well, lets be honest. Sex sells. Women running around in tight shorts and their chests popping out of their tshirts brings in business. They’ve got some ok food, but people go to watch the game at the bar and stare at some cleavage, mostly. But…it works.

          • Richard Jefferies

            Oh, I agree, and honestly I don’t have a problem with it. What I find funny is pretentious stance of Hooters, a restaurant that caters to the Filners of the world suddenly getting indignant and wanting the praise for their “anti-sexism”. I normally like Undercover Boss, but I found the CEO to be laughably naive, or at least obfuscatory for the camera, about the franchises’ image.

          • odie11

            Okay, but isn’t that objectifying women? You can’t have it both ways. You cannot accuse Filner of sexual harrassment in that he objectifies women and than praise an organization that makes its living by objectifying women.
            This obvious double standard is why so many of us cannot stand today’s new morality which is completely relative. Either you believe women showing T & A is good or you believe it is bad. To equivocate like so many male metrosexuals do is the reason we are having so many ugly gender politics. Male metros buy into feminist inspired victimology while those proponents of feminism sell the very thing they whine about. You can demonstrate that you have an ounce of testosterone by just saying no to both.

          • MarcusFenix

            You actually can have it both ways. One of those situations is not mutually contingent upon the other. Allow me to explain.

            Women working at Hooters and using their bodies to sell food and get tips is an objectification of women. But just like porn stars or models, it’s their own objectification. The morality of the situation, under that facet, is irrelevant. A woman takes her clothes off for Playboy, and she’s paid for it. A woman works at Hooters, knowing full well what the program is there, and shows up to work 5 days a week.


            Because she’s objectifying herself. She has no problem with it, and there’s a line around the proverbial block where attractive women use their bodies to sell things now, knowing full well that men are staring at their chests and rear. The internet is full of women who take pictures of themselves for personal gain and profit, and who want modeling agencies and professional outfits to see them. Whether it’s their own self image or a product, it’s their choice to use their physique for their own gain.

            On the other hand, Filner’s objectification of women didn’t stop with just internet girls. Women in their professional capacity around him, in a political arena, were not specifically using their bodies for that. Had they shown up to work in a bikini after their lastest boob job…maybe that would be valid. But that’s not the case.

            In basic terms…the first set of women are doing what they choose and are being paid. In Filner’s case, it was pure sexual harassment because he objectified women, regardless of how they presented themselves.

            I outright reject your notion of equivocation, based on this concept. A man can go to a strip bar, and pay money to watch a girl dance. Is he objectifying her? 99% likely. But she is there under her own volition, and with 100% certainly objectifying herself. She chooses to do so, in this situation, as a way to generate revenue. Both the man and the dancer, in this case, can choose to not partake in those activities. But there’s nothing that says on equal and legal terms, they have to stop. Now, if the same guy at the club puts his hands on one of the girls…the bouncer tosses him out, because that’s not part of the deal.

            Filner, on the other hand, groped and sexually harassed over a dozen women who neither wanted his advances, or to have him put hands on them.

            The two are just not alike.

          • odie11

            That is the most metrosexually effeminate thing I have ever heard of in my life. It is bad enough that you attempt to rationalize bad behavior, but you ad in sult to in jury by pretending this is somehow okay because “the woman is doing it of her own volition. Genius, that train has looong left the track. We have all kinds of scenarios in society in which we do not allow this kind of false rationalization. We do not allow it in drug usage, or suicide decisions or any other kind of decision making. Why should we allow it in this kind of scenario? The problem is that we DO allow it for women. That is the problem–and while I am not interested in in sulting you, you do sound just like a wo man in wanting it both ways. So if a fe male wants to objectify herself–that is okay–until of course she decides to stop objectifying herself–in which case it is not okay–or, she decides the person she is trying to objectify herself to is receiving the right “objectification transmission,” in which case she is happy, or, on the other hand, if she is objectifying, and someone other than the person she is attempting to reach tunes into her message–then it becomes sexual harrassment. And keep in mind, during all this objectification, she is whining that “people are objectifying her!!!!
            It’s bad enough when women do it, but when men enable them, then it becomes intolerable. There are numerous men charged with se x assault because they bought into your double standard and miscalculated. These are innocent people. I don’t want to live in your kind of world in which the ebbs and flows of a va gina is allowed to dictate my reality. And, if for some reason she is ticked off, she can change the definitions at will.
            Men like you are the reason this kind of misunderstanding is even taking place–and even more egregious, the fact that the courts seem inclined to go along with your bizarre schizo phrenic kind of thinking. You need to turn in your man card and move to the other side.

          • MarcusFenix

            Since you don’t want to be polite…

            Your rantings and ravings are about the most intellectual vapid, retarded, blindly ignorant on the thread, if not most of Twitchy. You really have no idea how many contradictions, fallacies, and blatant misstatements you’ve made, and yet you think you’re making a valid point. You’re not. The only bizarre, poorly worded, mentally unstable, morally unfounded, and schitzophrenic response here has been yours. Mine was well worded, polite, and structured to be easily interpreted. Whatever your problem is, you managed to not notice that and went straight to full retard. Never go full retard. Hell, you couldn’t stick to making comments about me with regard to whether I was a guy or not, so…immediately the rest of this crap becomes suspect.

            So, allow for me to dispel that pathetic illusion of your position being correct right here and right now, using your own argument. I’d be happy to dismantle this crap, one step at a time.

            First, you can keep your faux moral outrage to yourself. It doesn’t get you anywhere and makes you seem shrill and spastic, which follows the context of your posts. You’re all over the place, and cant consistently or coherently debate anything.

            Second, it’s hardly equivocation…but your repeated nonsense about strip clubs and Hooters being one and the same is nothing *but* equivocation. I pointed out that they had similar attributes with regards to using pretty girls to bring in business, but that were quite clearly different in terms of context, business model, what actually happens there, and so on. You do know what the word “equivocate” means, right? Do you need someone to use smaller words to show you that you’re doing the very same thing you’re claiming someone who isn’t has done previously? Maybe some finger puppets? Do you believe if you keep saying the same thing over and over, that magically you’ll be correct? Because you wont. You practice equivocation during the entirety of your postings, and yet you can’t even see it. Sad.

            Quote: “We have all kinds of scenarios in society in which we do not allow this
            kind of false rationalization. We do not allow it in drug usage, or
            suicide decisions”

            Yes, dipsh!t, but drugs -are- illegal. Working at hooters isn’t illegal. Do you see how stupid that is? As far as suicide, suicide isn’t illegal anymore either, and is not treated as a crime. There are four states currently that allow PAD (Physician Aid in Dying), which are Oregon, Washington, Montana, and Vermont. So apparently, YOUR train has already left the station, and you missed it by about a decade or more. Did you not know those things about suicide. or did 1982 call and ask you about your feelings on people who choose to end their own suffering by varying means?

            Quote: “The problem is that we DO allow it for women. That is the problem–and
            while I am not interested in in sulting you, you do sound just like a wo
            man in wanting it both ways.”

            That, along with whatever that paragraph or three of sewage about people wanting it one way or the other…was just incredibly sloppy, poorly worded, and borderline childish. Not to mention wrong in most places.

            You hit it right on the head with one point though….women ARE allowed to do those things. Whether you think it’s right or wrong is your personal moral decision, and absolutely f**king irrelevant with respect to the law, unless you’re the one making policy. Despite your (really hard to follow) insinuation that women are doing these horrible things to themselves, and that men are to blame…they both are to blame if you want to focus on who is doing what in the example. The woman objectifies herself for money. The man objectifies her and pays. Your moral outrage has no bearing. As a matter of law and social contract, you’re so far into the wrong that you couldn’t take a bus to get back into the realm of being right and make it by the end of the week. With the strip club example, the man is going there to look at a naked woman, get some lap dances, and go home. There’s nothing legal or proper if he decides to grab up on her and molest her past what the social contract, the law, and the policy of the club allows. Many clubs have a “hands off” policy…touching one of the dancers, at all and on any part of their body, is enough to get you thrown out if not arrested. The law, and common sense, disagree with your entire crappy assessment.

            Quote: “someone other than the person she is attempting to reach tunes into her
            message–then it becomes sexual harrassment. And keep in mind, during
            all this objectification, she is whining that “people are objectifying

            How effing stupid are you? Using our same club example…the woman doesn’t scream about being objectified while she’s having the man removed from the club for trying to grab her chest. Your entire rant there about that shows you clearly don’t even have a handle on what that situation would entail, much less understand why the guy would be thrown out or arrested as a result. When Filner decided he was going to grab women in various places, coherce them into spending time with him or asking for sexual favors…you think those women felt not only objectified (and rightly so) but they were proper to report it. But when a woman in a club does that, you make it sound as though she asked for it. That’s incredibly classy right there….how about blaming some rape victims for it, while you’re at it, because that’s the next “logical” step for you.

            Let’s make this easy, and i’ll use small words. Woman at club dancing is doing so legally. Man at club watching her is doing so legally.

            Man grabbing her boobs and putting his hands on her is sexual harrassment.

            Very cut and dry. Do you see how easy it is when you just look to the fact that one set of those actions is legal, where the other is not. If you’re afraid that men are being dragged into litigation over false claims…that’s how people are. The facts, however, exonerate people who fall into this catagory, more often than not. The fact you won’t want to “live in that kind of world” is another train you missed, sometime since the dawn of man, where people have presented false testimony against another to get what they want or just be vindictive. You won’t be able to catch that train. Those definitions, despite your statement, don’t change “at will”. The law is in place to deal with those situations. Should either of them be at the club, with consideration to moral ideals? You and I can say we believe they shouldn’t be, but that doesn’t make it *fact*. Should women objectify themselves? In a perfect world, they wouldn’t have to, and I’d be fine with that. But it’s not, and it’s also not my place to inflict my moral standards on others. Christians have the right to state their beliefs…but not to enforce it on others as if we’re superior in some sense. Pointing the way to better moral ideals is one thing…but forcing them at sword point isn’t the way.

            Quote: “Men like you are the reason this kind of misunderstanding is even taking
            place–and even more egregious, the fact that the courts seem inclined
            to go along with your bizarre schizo phrenic kind of thinking. You need
            to turn in your man card and move to the other side.”

            So far, the entire problem has been your superior sense of morality and the hubris involved in believing you’re correct while having zero grasp of the discussion or its finer points. It’s almost pathetic, and I -almost- feel bad for you. But, I don’t feel bad when I step on an ant, and this hasn’t been any different. Could have been more polite, but you kind of threw that out the door, and I personally don’t care about civility with you.

            “Men” like you (if you even are, but i’d use the term loosely) aren’t so much of a problem, as just a shrill voice of emotional refuse with no real factual base to support your view. You equivocate actions, then can’t understand why someone would point out that they are different by details. Until you can get that part of the discussion right, and rationalize it without acting like a little b!7ch, we have nothing left to say and I won’t bother responding unless you can get back to being civil and clear about your point.

            And I’ll keep my man card…because it’s clear you were never issued one and don’t even know what they look like.


  • Thomas, Snarkmaster General

    When Hooters is classier than you are, it’s time to pack it in.

  • tops116

    Guess that means more room for Carlos Danger and Bubba, huh?

    • liberalssuck


    • John W.

      Hooters doesn’t appeal to Carlos because the servers have to be over a certain age. And Bubba, as we have seen, isn’t very choosy when it comes to women. Anyone short of Helen Thomas will do.

  • Republicanvet


    • John Thomas “Jack” Ward III

      “HOOTERS!….Wipe that smile off your face!”
      “You’re blushing…”
      “I’m used to it…”
      #Unstoppable Jawamax 8<{D}

  • Derek Lockhart

    Okay, credit where it’s due and all that, yes, but honestly? To me, Hooters saying they won’t serve the pervo-mayor because they respect women would be like Playboy cancelling Filner’s subscription and saying the same thing. I find it hard to take anyone seriously on the subject of respecting women when their main advertising agent tends to be large breasts. Still, kudos for taking ANY stand at all, I still do believe in credit where it’s due.

  • radicallyalyssa

    Nothing to do with politics. Everything to do with harassment and sexual predators.

  • Bruce

    Please add a (D) after Filthy Finer in the heading.

  • rambler

    Don’t stop with Filner. Every elected official who ignores the restraints of the Constitution and votes to curb liberty and freedom should receive the same treatment. They feed off of their power to go where they want and do what they want while stomping all over the public in the process.

  • John Thomas “Jack” Ward III

    I’ve applied for jobs at HOOTER’S a couple of times (never ate or drank there, tho…) The ladies (not “Girls” or “Chicks”) at HOOTERS Deserve respect, while helping their customers have a good time. I’m sure Filthner (and anyone who still supports him) will want to file a Lawsuit against the Restaurant chain, but it’s their RIGHT to refuse service to perverts, and it’s no excuse for his lecherous behavior! Jawamax 8<{D}

  • odie11

    Okay…how many of you posting metrosexuals do NOT understand that this is a blatant marketing/advertising gimmick. As numerous people have mentioned, the target audience for Hooters is young and old Filners. I don’t have a problem with the company pandering to get free publicity. What I have a problem with is the disingenuous male effeminate tools that can not readily see thru this blatant ruse. If you cannot see what is clearly before your eyes, how are you going to make value judgments on policies that directly and indirectly affect your citizen rights?

    Americans have to be the most stupidly ignorant voters on the face of the earth. No one can be this painfully clueless. It is almost as if the entire country was in some form of mass induced cluelessness. The fact that so many cannot see the shameless self promotion of a company doing EXACTLY what it says it is not doing is the real problem. This lack of awareness is the fundamental problem with our politics and our society. The average american has been so anesthetized by television and mass media that they are literally comatose. Wake up!

  • JustLikeAnimals

    Note to Bob Filner: When your boorish behavior makes Hooters look like an women’s advocacy group, well, you gots problems.

  • Third News

    The party will not attract women with this self-delusion.

    Politically partisan blindness is why Filner kept his tongue and fingers in city hall.

  • Benjamin Dover

    Your steady beacon in the ever-shifting fog of illusions conjured up by today’s liberals and progressives:

  • MarcusFenix

    I read this, and literally laughed out loud.

    I didn’t talk about equivocation, you did…or don’t you remember? You plainly talked about equivocation, even used the word several times…yet, you seem to have forgotten that fact, or what it even means. No sense in arguing with you when you’re completely unable to even keep up with your own bullcrap, is there? I know these posts aren’t instantaneous, but the least you could do is not be a complete moron and actually look at what you posted first.

    First off, using the term metrosexual for a person who neither lives in an urban area, nor has any real care for fashion is kind of idiotic. You don’t even realize that it’s not even really an insult to people, but you keep using it as an if it were. Please, insult someone because they might dress nice or care about their appearance. It’s not the insult you believe it is, but you use it anyway. Just another slice of fail for you. But the fact you have no respect for anyone, yourself included, shows. I was polite to you, you acted like an a-hole. In your entire second posting, you couldn’t even keep up with your own discussions there, and can’t now. You’re like a little child in these respects. I know you might not have to dress well for your bagging job at the local grocery store, but if you did….well, then more power to you.

    You barely said moral relativism, and yet…it doesn’t apply to the example. Just another set of things you don’t understand before you open your mouth and put your foot in. I can run circles around this for you, but it’s a waste of my time and your limited capacity to understand. The issue never was about moral relativism anyway….yet you made it that way. The issue was something completely different. You never realized that fact, and still don’t. As I said before, the morality of the situation is your opinion…but has nothing to do with the legality of Filner putting his hands on other women. I even agreed that going to a strip club was morally less than sound, but you’re even arguing against that. Another instance of not remembering the conversation that’s in text above you and just running your mouth. It’s a trend with you. Or did that nuance get away from you as well? The grown ups were having a conversation, you butted in, were shot down, and then whined like a kid about it with words that didn’t work well together in an idea that wasn’t about the main point. Nice job!

    You didn’t even use ironic in it’s proper context. More fail. I used the word equivocation because it patently applies to you. To equivocate means to avoid negative or unpleasant statements by saying things that aren’t absolutely false. You’re not saying anything that’s patently false, with regard to the morals of the situation….but you ARE, on the other hand, avoiding the negative portions of the conversation that you dont like, can’t argue or get around, or clearly don’t understand. How’s that definition working for you now? The equivocation comes from your view…which ties directly into the equal sign you drew between Hooters and a strip club. Those things are not alike. Yet, you say something that’s not absolutely false (by pointing out that both use sexual overtones to draw clients)….but then avoid the very plain fact that they are not the same at all…and then get cheeky when that’s pointed out. It’s basic equivocation. That’s the best definition of equivocation, which you nailed in your statements over and over and over and over again. You really should know what words are, before you go to to try and explain them to someone who’s already 3 steps ahead. So, that’s more fail.

    The only double standard is the pile of drivel you’ve continued to spew on this page. It’s embarrassing for you, and if you don’t feel that way, you should. Or you just can’t see it for what it is.

    The part about drugs and euthanasia was particularly fascinating, after all. I was pretty sure the -nuance- of it (there’s that word again for you) was about the illegal parts of drugs, but you missed that entirely. You specifically stated ” We do not allow it in drug usage, or suicide decisions”. Street drugs…as i nuanced there…are still very much illegal. I pointed out that your statement including suicides was patently false….since it’s not a crime anywhere, and there are places that allow for it with PAD. You blew by that and took the intellectually fallacious argument that if i said it was somewhere, it must be *everywhere*. That’s beyond absurd, and yet…you went with it anyway. It’s like you’re just asking for someone tell you to screw off because you don’t even know what you argued about in the first place. Pure genius for you!!!

    Part of me genuinely feels sorry for you, because you’re out of your depth on this. At best, most of your posts are name calling and “omglol!!!” kind of comments, while not being able to address the main point, not being able to distinguish the actual meaning of words you don’t understand and try to apply to someone else in a snarky way…which blows up in your face…and your general crappy attitude with respect to something simple. You couldn’t even address the basic difference in the discussion between what Hooters does, and what happens at a strip club. It’s like you don’t even know the difference between the two. Your argument never had merit. I shut it down, in an intelligent manner. You cry like a little girl and then call names and act like you really do know what’s up, yet….it’s been demonstrated at least 6 times you don’t. I really still think you’re belief is that because you see things the way you do, your morality makes you superior. Your comments drip with it. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have had to resort to name calling and third grade discussion the moment someone challenged you on your idea.

    Now that the snarky stuff is out of the way….I can actually address the one intelligent part of your postings, that we actually do agree on.

    The world really is a screwed up place. Right, wrong…these things have (in fact) become a relative item to the public at large. Call it lack of hometraining, call it the failings of religious leaders to get a message out, or whatever else you can see is the cause. There are more causes of relativism than we could keep track of, or even want to consider. But at the end of the day, it still lies within each person to consider what’s right and what is not. One can use Christianity as an example of what people use as a system for right and wrong. But our right and wrong is not the same for someone else. We build laws around facets of morality, such as murder and rape. But the remainder of the laws which are much less offensive in nature, or even just more of moral codes and standings, is innately the right of the individual. That doesn’t make what you do right, or what someone else does wrong.

    Second to that point is the idea of right or wrong, vs the law. For instance, you and I can agree that some girl taking her clothes off for cash falls squarely into the realm of moral turpitude. It’s not, however, illegal. It is my belief that this point is paramount to understanding the moral failings of our society. The ability to look at something and say “I believe this is wrong.” isn’t exclusively tied to its legality.

    Take a minute to consider that statement…really. Not being nasty, but asking you to seriously consider your view for a moment. There are things that are reprehensible that occur around us everyday. But as a society, we have (to at least some measure) determined what is and is not socially acceptable. Consider the laws for dry counties vs those that allow the sale of alcohol. Same concept. Or places banning strip clubs, for moral reasons. It doesn’t mean that concept flies everywhere…but there are places where it does, and that the voters and/or local municipalities have decided they don’t want it there.

    I’ll leave this thread on this note, with you…because we can insult each other til the cows come home, and it won’t get you anywhere really. I could have doubled the length of this post, had i chosen to…but it’s just not worth much more than this. But consider for a moment, if you will…..morality as you define it, versus how others define it. You may find it horrible, but the ability to seperate morality from legality….the essense of what this all started as hours ago…is the point. Consider your stance for a while…give it thought and see where that part of the conclusion comes from. I promise, it’s at least worth the consideration.

    Done from this thread, moving on, nothing left to do here.

  • odie11

    It is true, I initially used the term “equivocate.” But I used it in the sense of people bouncing both ways. Wanting to have things become more than one meaning. When you replied that I was actually “equivocating,” I did not understand your argument in the context of the traditional definition of the word . I tried to actually help you by defining what I thought you meant when you used the term equivocation and asked you to look it up. The definition of equivocation a la logic: that is a fallacious argument. based on illogical reasoning. For the record, I did not talk about “equivocation,” I talked about the constant acceptance of moral relativism in wanting one’s morality to fit whatever is convenient at the time. Neither one of us needs to accuse the other under a Hesaid/she said guise–the thread is there for you and anyone else to follow. I reread it and I am comfortable with what I said.

    If the idea of calling you a metrosexual does not offe nd you–and it shouldn’t , then why do you go on and on about it? For me, calling someone a metrosexual is in direct keeping with the fact this country is imbued with two different values. If someone called someone a “muslim,” would that be an insult? I find your metrosexuality alien that’s all. You clearly demonstrated the way you think in your initial reply. I’m comfortable with it and consider it exactly what I said–completely effeminate. Since I assume that you believe what you said, what’s the problem? You call me an idiot, you call me a fool. You say I cannot logically follow an argument–that I brought up. Am I offended? Absolutely not. I’m relaxed, you’re wh ining, screa ming, accu sing me of mental inco mpetence etc, etc, etc. I’m okay with it. Really.

    And that is what I mean by eff eminate. You are all emotional because “I was not polite.” I on the other hand could not care less. I’m interested in the substance. –and I define that attitude as “masculine.”

    You say that I have no comprehension of even the arguments. You say that “you can run rings around me.”

    Good–then why don’t you do so?

    With respect to moral relativism: it is true I barely mentioned the term, but that is at the heart of my entire exchange with you–moral relativism rather than “equivocating.”

    I have no wish to get into this bizarre effeminate cat fi ght. I was merely stating my views. You’re free to criticize them and me all you want.

    You accuse of me using incorrect terms. Your definition of “to equivocate” is not the dictionary definition of the term. And the way I used it was a person “wanting if both ways.” Your way of usage:

    ” To equivocate means to avoid ne gative or unpl easant statements by saying things that aren’t absolutely false.’
    (This is such a bizarre definition, that I don’t even know what it means–even after reading it over and over.) It is not the dictionary definition. This is a double negative. What in God’s name does “avoiding negative or unpleasant statements by saying things that “are not ” absolutely false” mean? Is this your idea of “running rings around me????

    And your comment: “the issue was never about moral relativism anyway…” Uhh yeah… that is exactly what is was about for me and still continues to be for me as I write this. . That, and the double standard our society constantly imposes by metrosexuals like yourself (no insult intended).

    I do NOW understand your comment about your explanation of “equivocation” but even by your definition–which by the way is fine by me– it does not meet the criterion for a classic definition of “equivocation,” which has more to do with a specific misapplication of false logic than not wanting to discuss negative or unpl easant statements. Furthermore in your earlier initial posting– you agreed that in the larger sense, that my Filner/ Hooter/Strip Club analogy WAS an appropriate one in a more generalized context.

    I also do not understand you comment about dr ugs/sui cide etc. You were the one that brought up four states that DO allow it. You then attempted to in sult me indicating that I was “back in the 1980s” and that there were four states that did allow it. All I said was “by that logic,” everything is fine. I still don’t see your point. My point was that it is still against the law. It certainly is against the law federally.

    I’m glad you feel genuinely “sorry for me.” If you really really feel that way, could you cut down on the verbiage? I have no problem with the ongoing insults, but the ebbs and turns of your thread makes it really difficult to follow.

    As far as your comment about the main point of the Filner/Hooter/Strip Club scenario. I get your point. But my point was in a larger context of double standards. I used this as a means of drawing attention to just how disho nest and “equivocating”( your definition–lol!!!) society can be. Nothing has changed in my position, and my contention was from the beginning–and is now–that metros like yourself bring on all the negative consequences of this seemingly benign double standard. That was my original point.

    And that brings us to your conclusion–congratulations for bringing it back on point!
    While I certainly respect your conclusion, feel that it was well written, logical, rational, I reluctantly have to say that I cannot agree with it.
    You keep bringing up the differences in our definitions of morality. I completely agree with you. You make the excellent point that different areas with different demographics will view morality, laws and customs in different ways. I completely agree and feel the same way. Where we depart is your comment that because people have different moralities this is perfectly okay. It is not. If we are to survive as a nation, the laws will have to be rolled back to accommodate these different realities. The whole original “discussion,” came about because your version of the Filner/HooterStrip Club scenario in your mind was a fallacious analogy(and argument) on my part (or as you stated “equivocating.”). But if what you say is true, then we would see a kinder, more understanding and more empathic society–the problem is we are seeing the opposite trend. The laws–in every sector–are becoming more abusive, less acceptable to an ever greater majority of the public. And, our society is becoming ever more shrill, strident and more two faced. And lastly, we continue to see evermore citizens in confinement. Given your comment, if this dual morality is both desirable and reasonable and rational, why do we see evermore people in prison?

    For a first hand look at what I am talking about, go to any cou rthouse–just to look around in any major city. They are literally becoming armed fortresses. If you go to a courthouse and tell the arm ed gu ards that you have no business there and you just want to “look around,” you will not be allowed in. It is your building, you paid for it thru tax dollars. What is the problem?

    When has a public place for the dispensing of “the peoples’ business” and Justice been turned into a literal fort to keep out the “barb arians?”

    Even minor infractions are considered via the double standard: for example, look at your Insurance ID Card. On the back it specifically states that it is NOT to be used for the purposes of ascertaining whether the person on named on the Insurance Card does or does not have insurance. But almost every state in the USA levies fines for not having the card with you, and almost every legislative office uses these cards for doing what?–exactly what the card says your should not do. Only one state–Georgia has the insurance cards tied into their database to ascertain auto insurance. You can and will be fined if you do not have the card with you–even though the insuror himself states that the card does NOT indicate whether the holder does or does not have insurance.
    The same goes with driving without a seat belt. Under current law, the majority of the states fine you for not wearing a seat belt–unless of course you are on a motorcycle and driving a Harley–in which case, it is perfectly acceptable to drive without a helmet, and to wear a tee shirt and shower slippers–no concern about safety and the saving of lives in this scenario. The courts have ruled this is all perfectly legal and acceptable–even though it literally violates everything we know, feel and believe in what a law should be.

    Ultimately these kinds of double standards erodes public confidence, trust, and undermines credibility in our public sectors because we know them to be corrupt to the core.
    We cannot survive as a society in which our country continues to add both population and laws to the point where the law can be all things to all people. To do so means the law loses all sense of meaning.

    You consistently state “my morality….” My morality is to live and let live within certain fundamental constructs.
    My morality requires that there be some moral compass-like thread to tie those different realities together. The reasoning that the Filner/Hooter/Strip Club scenario is in many ways similar –to me– the beginning to a more in-depth understanding of that common thread. Recognizing the many similarities opens us to the realization that we have many moral inconsistencies that require recalibration and resolution.

    The moral relativism that we have seen since the 1960s is really at the heart of the matter. It is what has been breaking down our society into ever more “special interest” types of legal maneuvering and double standards that is the new normal in today’s society.
    This double standard started with the wo men’s movement and has been corroding our entire society. Your position–in my opinion–is part of the problem. I see this as a metrosexual point of view because it is the pervading viewpoint in our urbanized society. It is the same kind of moral relativism that allows males to be a new targeted species and white males in particular. This is the type of view that allows–for example in the Ma rtin/Zim merman case–to believe that Martin was both an “inno cent chi ld,” and a victim of a unnecessary har assment while at the same time completely ignoring the object evidence.
    This is complete effeminization in the sense that it is not about how it is objectively, but rather what it looks like and how it feels. The posting of Martin as a 12 y ear ol d while he was actually 17 ye ars old is what I mean. Regardless as to how you personally feel about the case, the reality is that statements were made, accusations were hurled and false presentations were made by the news media, the Black Intelligentsia, police, the government (State of Florida thru the Special Prosecutor) and legal irregularities were manifest–as stated by Allan Dershowitiz. Now I have no bone to pick with this incident, but I just bring it up as the most recent onslaught of the double standard–in which you can present one version over and above another. The issue is not MY morality, but the implications that any society can effectively function with such divergent moral realities–they cannot.

    There is a quiet war going on. This is between metrosexuals like you and those of us that live in the hinterlands of the rest of America. That war is clearly evident by reviewing voting data from the last election. The real moral war is between rural vs urban. (and not black and white). This quiet war will in the very near future not be so quiet anymore. Ultimately it will lead to civil war. We have already picked our respective sides.

    The more we see these divergent kinds of reality, such as the Filner/Hooter/Strip Club argument, the more heated and pronounced will be the obvious dishonesty and double standards many Americans are subjected to on a daily basis. Ultimately it will lead to civil conflict.

    I see the Filner/Hooter/Strip Club incident as another nail in the coffin of a rational problem solving society. The fact that you and many people like you can not see the many similarities is what is essentially the heart of the matter.