[mwm1331]

[Nick Lancaster]

Activate Fundie Emulation Mode w/ Sarcasm Chip Enabled ...

In the United States, it would seem the objection is 'wasted space'. Heaven forbid that we should have to assign and furnish a room, let alone maintain it, and thus have a space which does not produce income. (Restrooms differ, as they are often the minimum space needed to accomodate this instance, and they are necessary for the employees as well as the patrons.)

Then there's the whole security issue, I mean, how do we make sure ONLY nursing mothers use this room? We can't use security cameras, because then these breast-feeding valkyries will accuse us of invading their privacy, but they don't mind exposing themselves in public.

I mean, next we'll have rooms for couples who want to shag each other. If we allow this, the moral fabric of society will crumble, the End Times will arrive and we'll all be swept up in the Rapture ... hey, wait a minute, I'm a fundie, I *want* the End Times to come ...

[/i]Terminate Fundie Emulation Mode. CPU says it hurts.[/i]

====

As for 'being contrary to be contrary,' cognition is not required to say, "No, it isn't."

What MWM failed to note is that the responses were not 'me too' (certainly, as a man, I'm not a particularly credible advocate for breast-feeding in public), but explained each member's objections and/or reasons for agreeing.

Bringing up the diaper changing argument did several things:

- Equated excretory/sanitary functions to the feeding process.
- Failed to explain why it's wrong to change baby's diapers on the lunch table, but it's acceptable to send mom into a room designed for excretory functions to feed the baby.
- Demonstrated a complete inability to parse a logical argument.

May I humbly suggest that if you want to hone your debating skills, you actually engage in thinking, rather than point-and-shoot babbling?

[General Zod]

May I humbly suggest that if you want to hone your debating skills, you actually engage in thinking, rather than point-and-shoot babbling?

bit slow on the draw there. he's already been banned.

[Frank Hipper]

Did this new troll have that stupid sig before this thread or just add it to try to act morally superior?

I'd recomend you to be a little more careful in the criticism of the Lord Wong's works.

[Darth Servo]

Did this new troll have that stupid sig before this thread or just add it to try to act morally superior?

I'd recomend you to be a little more careful in the criticism of the Lord Wong's works.

So the answer to Mayabird's question is 'no' and 'no'

[Nick Lancaster]

May I humbly suggest that if you want to hone your debating skills, you actually engage in thinking, rather than point-and-shoot babbling?

bit slow on the draw there. he's already been banned.

Preventative discourse, sometimes you have to flush twice.

[Lord Zentei]

Did this new troll have that stupid sig before this thread or just add it to try to act morally superior?

I'd recomend you to be a little more careful in the criticism of the Lord Wong's works.

So the answer to Mayabird's question is 'no' and 'no'

If memory serves, the troll's sig changed somewhat since I answered the question earlier.

[Mayabird]

I'd recomend you to be a little more careful in the criticism of the Lord Wong's works.

So the answer to Mayabird's question is 'no' and 'no'

If memory serves, the troll's sig changed somewhat since I answered the question earlier.

Yeah, my post is kinda obsolete now. Previously the sig had been something along the lines of "u can't brek my self esteem cuz ur all imatur nerds bean meenieheads anonimusly." It was pretty obvious we'd all gotten to him before the "Terminate him!" pic got exercised.