Not that hot
I mean he is better looking than your regular felon.
shareHe's more of a model type, I agree not all that hot, but still hot.
What's interesting about his features, and the reaction to them, is that he has a really even mix of "tough-as-nails gang member" and "pretty metrosexual male model who probably isn't straight."
It's like good race mixtures, they can capture the best features of the two. A few weeks ago I saw a clearly latina girl with olive skin, but definitely half white, and nose/cheek freckles darker than her skin.
Just stunning. I couldn't stop looking.
Just stunning. I couldn't stop looking.Why don't you give him your number?
Then maybe he can impregnate and dump you like he did with his first wife.
Maybe, if you're lucky, he'll beat the crap out of your child like he did to that sixteen-year-old kid he assaulted.
PS: In case it wasn't obvious, I think you're a moron. share
That comment was about a female:
"A few weeks ago I saw a clearly latina girl with olive skin, but definitely half white, and nose/cheek freckles darker than her skin.
Just stunning. I couldn't stop looking."
Did you only read the last line or something? Good Lord.
What about this part: 'He's more of a model type, I agree not all that hot, but still hot.
What's interesting about his features, and the reaction to them, is that he has a really even mix of "tough-as-nails gang member" and "pretty metrosexual male model who probably isn't straight."'
It was an analysis of his features and an estimate of possibly why he became popular.
It also wasn't what you quoted, obviously.
Damn Malko. Looks like you owe Froggy an apology. You clearly didn't read his OP right.
shareI'm pretty sure Frog is a woman with at least some "sapphic" leanings & I'm %100 sure she is a devout feminist. She's alright on ideologically neutral topics.
Malko is being disingenuous though as i have previously noticed.
Shouldn't We All Try to Get Along?
In everything we do?
Why would anyone try to act otherwise?
I just don't get it
Another example of your inconsistency; contrast your above comments to Frogarama with your recent post quoted here saying you don't get it when people don't try to get along. Calling someone a moron isn't trying to get along. If you're going to be preaching around here you may want to at least practice what you preach.
share
Calling someone a 'moron' is not ideal, but neither is singing the praises of a violent criminal simply because they have great cheekbones. Do I lie?
shareYes, you do lie because Frog wasn't "singing his praises" simply commenting on what makes the man physically attractive. He is someone considered good looking by a large segment of the population and Frog was trying to explain what physical characteristics he possesses that makes that the case. You have to see the hypocrisy in calling him a moron while calling on others to try to get along even if you won't acknowledge it. Likewise you criticized me in another thread for "sanctimonious bullshit" while seemingly having no problem shoveling plenty of it yourself.
As far as him being a violent criminal, unless I'm mistaken he served over 2 years in prison. He doesn't really sound like someone I would like and since I don't follow professional modeling I have no dog in this fight. That said, as far as I'm concerned he served his time and once released was free to pursue whatever he wants (within the confines of the law) to make a living. Many people make mistakes but if they're not given a chance to be better they never will be.
That said, as far as I'm concerned he served his time and once released was free to pursue whatever he wants (within the confines of the law) to make a living. Many people make mistakes but if they're not given a chance to be better they never will be.Hogwash!
There is no bigger advocate for rehabilitation and second chances than me, BUT, there are millions of good, law-abiding, decent people, like me, who have never assaulted anyone and yet have never been given any opportunities to fulfil any of their dreams. Why should a VIOLENT criminal who assaulted a CHILD, be given preference over decent and moral people?
I don't begrudge giving opportunities to lowlifes and fuck-ups. What I do begrudge is giving opportunities to lowlifes and fuck-ups ahead of good people. That ain't right.
Am I wrong?!? share
Hogwash!
There is no bigger advocate for rehabilitation and second chances than me, BUT, there are millions of good, law-abiding, decent people, like me, who have never assaulted anyone and yet have never been given any opportunities to fulfil any of their dreams. Why should a VIOLENT criminal who assaulted a CHILD, be given preference over decent and moral people?
I don't begrudge giving opportunities to lowlifes and fuck-ups. What I do begrudge is giving opportunities to lowlifes and fuck-ups ahead of good people. That ain't right.
Am I wrong?!?
Yes, you are wrong since there clearly are bigger advocates for rehabilitation and second chances than yourself. WTF like seriously, you're in favor of rehabilitation and second chances yet you throw around terms like "lowlifes" and "fuck-ups" freely. In other words, regardless of what time they may have already served you still wish to label them and begrudge them opportunities based on their crimes. That's fine that you feel that way but kindly shut the fuck up about you being the world's biggest advocate for second chances when that is obviously not the case.
Am I missing something about this assault...exactly how old was the "CHILD" he assaualted? How old was Meeks at the time? What year did this take place?
share
From Wikipedia: "In 2002, Meeks was charged with robbery and corporal injury to a child. Meeks had violently assaulted a 16-year-old boy when he was 18. After taking a plea deal, he was sentenced to serve two years in a California prison, during which he admitted to being a member of the North Side Gangster Crips"
And yes, just because I call people what they are, 'lowlifes' and 'scumbags' (how would you describe this vile human-being?), it doesn't mean I'm against them being integrated back into society.
Still, you have yet to justify why people with a record for serious acts of violent crime should be given preference over law-abiding citizens like myself who, despite having done nothing to harm anyone else, have nevertheless suffered (I for instance was punished as a mere 14-year-old simply for having a mental illness, despite never having abused or assaulted anyone - then again, I guess I wasn't 'pretty' enough to deserve better, right?)
From Wikipedia: "In 2002, Meeks was charged with robbery and corporal injury to a child. Meeks had violently assaulted a 16-year-old boy when he was 18. After taking a plea deal, he was sentenced to serve two years in a California prison, during which he admitted to being a member of the North Side Gangster Crips"
And yes, just because I call people what they are, 'lowlifes' and 'scumbags' (how would you describe this vile human-being?), it doesn't mean I'm against them being integrated back into society.
Still, you have yet to justify why people with a record for serious acts of violent crime should be given preference over law-abiding citizens like myself who, despite having done nothing to harm anyone else, have nevertheless suffered (I for instance was punished as a mere 14-year-old simply for having a mental illness, despite never having abused or assaulted anyone - then again, I guess I wasn't 'pretty' enough to deserve better, right?)
So an 18 year old beat up a 16 year old over 15 years ago after which he served over 2 years in prison and you feel this should continue to deny him opportunities? Yup, you sure are in favor of second chances lol.
I don't have to justify anything beyond my statement that if someone has served their court ordered sentence they are free to earn a living however they may be capable of. If that means a beautiful person is awarded an opportunity not available to the majority of us, so be it. People who own businesses can decide who they want to hire and if they choose to give someone a second chance, that is their right. When you hire for your own business you are likewise free to hire who you like.
Also, I have no idea what happened to you when you were 14 but I'm not going to get drawn into your straw man argument that you should've been denied something for not being pretty enough since I clearly never said anything of the sort.
share
I have no problem in principle with second chances. On the contrary, I 100% support them, for everyone, including former gang members, former rapists, former terrorists, former white supremacists, and so on.
I know very few people who would share my willingness to give all those types of people second chances, assuming they have served their time.
What I staunchly object to is giving such people preferential treatment and opportunities ahead of the vast millions of people who have been screwed over by society despite having done nothing wrong.
I'm not saying 'don't give chances to ex-criminals'. I'm simply saying that there are millions of decent people who have been denied first chances. Why aren't we putting those people first?
This is why the free market needs to be dismantled. It is fundamentally amoral. Only through state interference can it be moulded into an instrument of fairness that rewards virtue and decency ahead of materialistic bullshit.
And frankly your complacency, even apparent approval, towards the market's amorality is concerning.
If the market was more moral, society would, as a consequence, be forced to become more moral (i.e. The Golden Rule - if you want to be treated well, treat others well).
You really have to stop saying things like "I know very few people who would share my willingness to give all those types of people second chances, assuming they have served their time" when the rest of your post shows this isn't true. With millions in line ahead of them, you are effectively shutting them down from getting the second chance you claim to be in favor of. Again, they have paid their price and if a company wants to take a chance on them at that point, that is their right.
As for you being concerned about my complacency or apparent approval toward the market's amorality, honestly just stop dude. You know NOTHING about me. Maybe I'm one of those people that needed someone to take a second chance on them who'd be in a very different and far worse place than I would had someone not been willing to do that. Or maybe I'm one of the millions of the decent people who you'd deem is deserving of opportunities ahead of former criminals. The point is either way I'm very comfortable with my moral compass and don't need any guidance from you regarding that.
Maybe I'm one of those people that needed someone to take a second chance on them who'd be in a very different and far worse place than I would had someone not been willing to do that. Or maybe I'm one of the millions of the decent people who you'd deem is deserving of opportunities ahead of former criminals. The point is either way I'm very comfortable with my moral compass and don't need any guidance from you regarding that.That's nice.
Good for you.
Shame about the rest of us who have played by the rules and perhaps are a tad fed-up with being put at the back of the queue behind the people who have done wrong.
You display pity for the people who I am 'effectively shutting down from getting the second chance you claim to be in favour of', yet once again you miss the point. Let's flip what you're saying for a moment. If those criminals and felons are not at the back of the line, who is? Good people. Decent people. People who have done the right thing all there lives and are still being effectively told, by people like you, that it's 'okay' for criminals and felons to go ahead of them.
Once again, by putting the onus on me to explain my position, which I have done time and time again (i.e. I am not against giving ex-convicts second chances, as long as they are not given preferential treatment ahead of virtuous people), you are evading my challenge to you, to explain why it's acceptable for good people to be left on the scrapheap? share
You display pity for the people who I am 'effectively shutting down from getting the second chance you claim to be in favour of', yet once again you miss the point. Let's flip what you're saying for a moment. If those criminals and felons are not at the back of the line, who is? Good people. Decent people. People who have done the right thing all there lives and are still being effectively told, by people like you, that it's 'okay' for criminals and felons to go ahead of them.
Once again, by putting the onus on me to explain my position, which I have done time and time again (i.e. I am not against giving ex-convicts second chances, as long as they are not given preferential treatment ahead of virtuous people), you are evading my challenge to you, to explain why it's acceptable for good people to be left on the scrapheap?
What you're pretending not to understand is that the vast majority of those who hire people do subscribe to your theory of hiring the people you'd deem virtuous and there are far more opportunities for them than there are for people that have served time. If the "virtuous" people miss out on one opportunity, there are hundreds if not thousands of others for them to pursue. The majority of those avenues are shut down for convicted felons regardless of whether or not they have completed their sentence. It's not rocket science.
I'm not putting any onus on you regarding your position. I'm just saying you're posts are A) hypocritical and B) inconsistent. Which they are. If you want to try to explain yourself that's fine but nothing you have said has changed my view of you. share
If the "virtuous" people miss out on one opportunity, there are hundreds if not thousands of others for them to pursue. The majority of those avenues are shut down for convicted felons regardless of whether or not they have completed their sentence. It's not rocket science.Speaking from personal experience, that is not what I've observed.
Where are these opportunities?
I'm a virtuous individual and I haven't seen or encountered any.
It seems to me that it's not just those poor, hard-done-by convicted felons who are being shut out of these avenues you speak of. share
Of all the male and female models out there, how many are convicted felons? How about in other industries, what percent are convicted felons? Any actual statistics to back up your claim that all of these hiring managers are immoral and virtuous people such as yourself are being passed over in their favor? Or is this one guy who got a modeling gig enough for you to declare widespread immoral hiring practices?
Also you don't need to constantly be saying what a fine upstanding and virtuous person you are; we all get the picture already.
Also you don't need to constantly be saying what a fine upstanding and virtuous person you are; we all get the picture already.I'm not sure you do. I keep getting told what a prick I am.
Besides, my point isn't about me per se. It's a general point about fine upstanding and virtuous people.
Also, one doesn't have to be a convicted criminal to be an asshole.
But take, for example, the MeToo movement. Look at how many powerful and successful people turned out to be sex offending scumbags.
It's a fact. We reward immorality and punish virtue.
Time for the state to interfere in the market and ensure only the good, rather than the so-called 'best and the brightest', are rewarded with the best jobs and opportunities. share
Besides, my point isn't about me per se. It's a general point about fine upstanding and virtuous people.
Also, one doesn't have to be a convicted criminal to be an asshole.
You're not talking about you per se? Really? Because in the post before that one you wrote:
"Speaking from personal experience, that is not what I've observed.
Where are these opportunities?
I'm a virtuous individual and I haven't seen or encountered any."
So first you say you hadn't encountered these opportunities implying you were personally effected, but now you're saying you weren't talking about you per se.....so which is it? Do you maybe get a sense of why I call you inconsistent with your posts?
Here's what you do; start your own business, hire a bunch of virtuous sons of bitches who meet your high level of standard (make sure you require them to volunteer in their community as a condition of their employment). Grow your company nationally hiring hundreds and then thousands and then tens of thousands of pure-of-heart cocksuckers and then take your company world wide! And you can expand to every continent of the globe hiring only those who are willing to spend their weekends reading to the elderly all while never crossing on to the wrong side of Johnny Law. Meanwhile if someone with their own business wants to give someone not up to snuff with you a chance to do right by them, why not just let them?
share
The market, as it stands, is antithetical to ethical business.
Businesses that can cut corners, that can hire workers who are prepared to break rules and undercut other, more ethical, companies, are primed to thrive in a free market.
That is why, contrary to Trump and the Brexit mob, we need MORE legislation and MORE so-called 'red tape', not less. The natural implication of the UK leaving the EU and tearing up all the workers rights and environmental protections that presently govern British companies, is a race to the bottom.
We should refuse to trade with countries, like China, with shoddy human rights records, and instead improve our own workers rights and environmental protections, in cooperation with other democratic and ethically-minded states.
That is why we need a more socialist society. A society that rewards ethical practices and punishes cheats and crooks. And by refusing to trade with other cheats and crooks, and only trade with other likeminded nations, we can cripple the unethical, the greedy, and the corrupt, and allow the good and virtuous to flourish economically and laugh all the way to the bank.