Thread and article:
Twitter Link
Even allowing for perspective bias, this is pretty fucked up. These are circumstances under which anyone might come undone.
Printable View
Thread and article:
Twitter Link
Even allowing for perspective bias, this is pretty fucked up. These are circumstances under which anyone might come undone.
I heard a good part of the statement and think it's ridiculous the situation was continued. There are uncounted numbers of people more troubled who are not under conservatorship.
My dealings with people who are experiencing mental abnormality has taught me to not believe them. Take Randblade for instance...
That seems like a lot of people with massive conflicts of interest and a legal system that actively contributed to the situation. I'm still not convinced Spears is well enough to control her own life, but she should be given an opportunity to hire an attorney to represent her interests. The fact this hasn't been done is both a testament to a broken system and a large number of people who clearly ignored their legal and fiduciary duties.
Anything sensationalized will seem 'that way'.
My dealings with them is that they have to have done a lot worse than Britney before they are put under conservatorship. But obviously the threshold became lower as she amassed more money. If she wouldn't have clawed her way out of poverty, nobody would have given a damn about what crazy shit she pulled as long as she wasn't hurting others. But appears that the butt hurt over her money in others already counted as good enough to take away her freedom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
Inverse class justice, that we came to see the day.
Not being sarcastic, but that shaving her head thing to get out of drug testing was a trailer park trash stunt. No one would have paid her a 2nd thought if it wasn't Britney.
My words.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Sane women do this for moneyQuote:
Originally Posted by Being
If you're gonna be creepy then at least post a link that works :noob:Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
Huh, conservators must have had it taken it down. Just another recent (stated as the fourth) boob shot she posted. Nothing creepy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I'm not an expert, Being, but it's my understanding that women post pictures of their breasts on the internet for free all the time. I would assume that we can't assume they're all insane.
I assume the apostrophe t is a typo.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
I have no problem with people deciding how much skin the do or do not want to share with the world... And I don't think it's a sign of insanity that some people choose to share more than others.
I would question the mental normalcy of my family members, especially immediate family, if they did. :downcast:
Okay, so your family's cultural milieu frowns on that, so what? Mine does too. That doesn't mean that those taboos are universal.
Yeah, but we are talking about her family (conservators). And they have expressed concern over those actions. So maybe her family feels the same sense of indignity that we would feel.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
1) Just because I don't think it's great doesn't mean my sister can't decide that she disagrees.
2) There are massive financial conflicts of interest with her conservators being family members, I don't trust them.
Look, I have no particular opinion in this whole mess. I haven't followed the case nor do I know (or know about) Ms. Spears or her father. Certainly this seems like a misapplication of the spirit of the relevant laws, but honestly I don't know much about the institution of conservatorship so can't intelligently comment on it.
What I can comment on is your assertion that any woman posting scantily clad photos on the internet for free must be nuts. That's so remarkably judgmental and narrow minded (and demonstrably not in keeping with mainstream cultural mores) that it can't pass without comment.
This.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
I have family that appears nude as an extra in a film, should we have him committed? It's on the internet as well. Hell, even I have appeared scantily clad in a photoshoot, does that mean I'm insane? Or does this logic only apply to women?
Well, it did take an inordinate amount of time for you to submit to vaccination so...:eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Yeah.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
Christ Being. You're taking a rather fucked up position here, and I'm thinking you don't even see why.
If we all agreed then there would be nothing to discuss or debate. And as far as this situation goes you all saying she needs to be freed are relying on innuendo from sensationalized stories meant to attract your attention to gain ad revenue. :|Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Wtf are you on about?Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
We let the homeless people all over our cities take care of themselves when many obviously are mentally ill and/or drug addicts, so what's different about Brittney Spears? Oh, right, she generates a lot of money for a lot of people. That's a legitimate reason to take away her rights? I always thought we Americans had the basic freedom to make a trainwreck of our lives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
I have not let that happen to any of my family members though I have been tempted to at times.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
You asked me a question and I replied.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
And you use the legal system to take away your family member's personal rights and grant them to yourself? How many of your adult family members have you made into slaves to your personal idea of how they should live?Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
See my comment above about innuendo from sensationalized stories. You act as though there is no legal system acting as arbiter. I can tell you there is and it is no easy feat to forcibly commit a family member for mental evaluation.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
I'm guessing the number of men in speedos, jocks, thongs, or leather harnesses in my IG feed would probably appall Being, but he would not be questioning the sanity of those people I follow (well, ok some of them probably but still, certainly not all). But the idea of a WOMAN exposing her chest, OH MY.
*makes note to never show Being grindr selfies*Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
Thank you! :haha:Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Being, you're applying an idiot's definition of sanity. You're trying to hide behind ambiguity and facetiousness—presumably because you realize you don't have a leg to stand on. Lay your argument out more clearly.
I believe the legal system more than I believe Ms. Spears. I thought I had made that quite clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Yeah, while showing off you are an idiot who doesn't know facts. I got mine at the first opportunity, actually, but I guess you're not aware people may be in a different country and age group. Shows how well you form your opinions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
I asked you about that in the other thread and you didn't answer. And no matter what you think I am no idiot. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
But that's not what you're arguing here like an idiot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
I think for that to happen he'd have to be on Grindr to start with.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
That said, it is my legal opinion that a conservatorship hearing for Being is warranted. Any of the US members up for starting proceedings? He's clearly a bit loopy, and that's more than enough reason to not trust him to make the right decisions.
Okay, but when you come looking my money is not in the mattress.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Yes it is. And why are you throwing around a term you obviously don't understand?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I know you've never been very good at keeping track of what it is you're trying to say, but, even with that in mind, you're being weirdly cagey about your asinine argument that engaging in pretty normal unobjectionable behavior on social media is evidence of an insanity so profound that the person engaging in said behavior should not have autonomy over even the most fundamental aspects of their life—to the point of being forced to remain on birth control against their will. I can only see this caginess as evidence of your own awareness of how stupid and untenable your poorly considered borderline batshit insane sexist argument actually is. Consequently, I can't support Hazir's position; if you're sane enough to know how much of an idiot you're being, you're probably too sane to be placed under a conservatorship agreement. That being said, someone who argues the way you do is obviously less fit to have children than eg. Britney Spears, and should probably not be trusted with anyone's finances either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Being