Is0tope

For what do we need to support sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic etc. biggots anyway in 2022. The world can do just fine without. My right not to spend money supporting fuckers like that and share my views about it too if I feel like it.

As for completely "cancelling" someone for their opinions though, I don't like the idea in principle. Can't really feel for the "victims", so far it's been mostly shutting up people trying to infect others with their ridiculous hate.

Is there really any decent person claiming to be a victim of "cancel culture"?

Anyway, whens someone gonna show me a feminist porno, i didn't make this thread for nothing y'know!

Shouldn't be hard to find. They've been doing it consciously since the 70's if not earlier. Definitions of what it means will vary of course tho so....

I read an article about that, 70's feminist porn of some film makers. Their idea was to have sex shown unlike the typical porn where the woman's usually submitted in some way. . Basically just people fucking without the woman being submitted in any way.. no ass to mouth, no cumshots, no "suck my big fat cock dirty whore" lines etc.. Counter statement to the standard I guess.

Not that there isn't porn like that without it being titled or designed especially to be "feminist".

I really don't understand the revenge attitude by people not directly affected. Death penalty in 2015, seriously? Personal feelings by the affected and an emotional response escalating to murder; understandable at the heat of the moment but not right. Revenge all the way up to murder by state/government.. just plain wrong. Logical and humane response by society in such case would be to prevent the person from doing such ever again by putting him in a quarantine, nothing more.

Sounds more like satisfying sick individuals' needs.. torture, make him suffer, good riddance... are you masturbating there?

Yeah... let's put him in quarantine, never see or Interact with another human being, raped by other inmates... Bubba. That definetely doesn't sound like a torture to me. Totally humane. Why not just kill him? It's not like he's gonna have his life back anyways. That's what life in jail means.

Just spare me of your PC sermon, kid. Have you ever faced real violence? you know, having a gun pointed at ya? Seeing the guy on the other side doesn't give a damn about what's gonna happen? Just curious.

You say murder, I call it justice, Murder is what he did, you know killing innocent people and stuff, he's not innocent, therefore he's not being murdered he's being executed and he brought that upon himself. period.

You see, I've used this example a many times before but... here in Brazil we have this guy, Fernandinho Beira-mar he's a murder, drug dealer... well, a lot of stuff and he was sent to prison and guess what? he's still giving orders from them, sending his partners to kill people. In order words a quarantine that is not working and we've tried sending him to every high security prison in here. Don't you think it would have been more simple if we just killed him back when he was caught? He wouldn't have ordered as many murders as he did.

BTW, you were making fun of "good riddance", but then asks me if am masturbating? Grow the hell up. Seriously.

Dear Chewbacca,

What I meant by by putting him quarantine was to lock him up away from being able to do what he did. If he wants to die he can do that himself you know..

You're calling me kid cause I don't agree with your "just kill him" mentality, really? PC sermon . What I said has nothing to do with what's politically correct, it was about humanity.. there's a difference between those two you know (do you?).

As for your question if I have faced real violence the answer is: yes. My personal feelings in such situations have been really below the moral code I except a body of a government to have.. Do you want government to act emotionally?

I wasn't talking about you masturbating, it was a comment about everyone who still thinks that way, "good riddance", "booyah", kill him!!", "torture!", "bring Bubba!!". There was a point to it too you know.. Why do you want to have someone killed who poses or ever did any threat to you? Other than some kind of sick satisfaction from knowing someone's getting killed.. what's in it for you? It's funny and sad that you were so offended by that. Maybe that comment really hit home?

He's not innocent?! Really? Whoah, I totally didn't know that .

The problems Brazil is dealing with aren't something that can be solved with killing people.. Harsher punishments don't lead to lesser crime you know .

I really don't understand the revenge attitude by people not directly affected. Death penalty in 2015, seriously? Personal feelings by the affected and an emotional response escalating to murder; understandable at the heat of the moment but not right. Revenge all the way up to murder by state/government.. just plain wrong. Logical and humane response by society in such case would be to prevent the person from doing such ever again by putting him in a quarantine, nothing more.

Sounds more like satisfying sick individuals' needs.. torture, make him suffer, good riddance... are you masturbating there?

Serial killers have an urge to kill people based on fantasies that is insatiable. They abuse animals as children, and have a fascination with fire (a good chunk do anyway), they are also sociopaths. I have no interest in killing anybody; too much time and effort to begin with and I've never physically hurt anyone anyway. Just not my thing. I never hurt animals as a kid and I'd be too afraid of fire to be fascinated by it. I'm also a Narcissist, different disorder. So how I have "all the makings of a serial killer", I don't see your logic. As for "utter nutjob", more like, deeply depressed.

Fuck that shit.. you ain't no serial killer, ignore that shit. Deeply depressed though, do you or do you not have a therapist? If you do, visit him/her more frequently. If you don't, get one.

We can't help with mental issues here, none of us. The way I see it this thread is for "normal problems", when it gets more serious, there are people out there who help other people with those problems for a living.

I'm gonna repeat this as many times as you try to seek help from this forum and I do it because I'm wishing all the best for you.

fail to see how Bodie or Doyle will help here.

Had to google that but

Can you guys help me with an actual serious issue I'm having?

I've had numerous opportunities at having girls, dates, relationships in the last 4 months. Not even "serious relationships", even just dating. But every time I feel someone getting close and starting to like me, I push them away or back off and become distant. I've never been like that; only after what my last ex did. Why am I being like this, shutting down as soon as someone becomes truly interested? I feel bad. I'm not trying to be mean or confusing. I just, someone being close emotionally actually makes me uncomfortable and it never did before what Erica did.

To be honest I think the only way anyone can help you is telling you to get professional help. And this goes to everyone else with SERIOUS ISSUES.

We can't help you here, I'm sorry. We can give minor advice and share our experiences, that's it. You need a PROFESSIONAL (psychologist, therapist..).

on the other hand, i don't drink vodka, and if you completely uninterested in something, it disappears from your subjective reality at some point :lol:do they ever serve vodka on board? to my observation, it's mostly shitty wine and beer.

I don't know to be honest . I can't even crack a racial joke correctly . And you not drinking it doesn't help me with that either . I'll stop being racist then... thanks a lot .

The outcome of this is that when a pilot has to use the restroom, an air stewart will have to stay in the cockpit with the other pilot.

So that a 19 year old air Stewardess can rugby tackle the fully grown male co-pilot in an emergency?

I suppose the idea is that a depressed pilot who considers crashing a plane is much less likely to do it if he can't do it in solitude or has to brawl someone else in the process.

Well this and.. why can't there be trained security personnel? Either way how do you kill someone silently while flying a plane unarmed?!

These days it is popular to be a metrosexual man, a modern man. A modern man will be in touch with his feminine side. He will not like sports. He will eat raw carrots and vote green peace. He will have a string of gadgets on him, and will be reduced to tears if any of these gadgets are found missing or broken. He will wear skinny jeans and a man bag.

You had to like sports, could't eat raw carrots nor wear skinny jeans to be a man before?

most of the international flights in here are alcohol free, no idea why. and it's ok when you fly couple of hours across Europe but when you got to fly for 10 hours it's a torture. but you can always buy a bottle of something good in duty-free and drink it from a plastic cup while nobody's watching

Everyone knows it would be a terrible idea serve vodka to plain full of Slavs .

Since we got into stereotypical jokes in this thread .

-------

On topic: I think they should have the 2 person rule and I really don't see why people think it'd be that easy to kill someone while seated and flying.. They can't bring arms in there I suppose.. And also why would the second person have to be someone who's easy to kill?

This is awful really.

Also makes me wonder how there aren't better safety arrangement.. As someone said previously, possibility to control it from the ground (I bet terrorists won't get in on the flight towers now when presidents are flying so it isn't impossible?).

Also, I wonder if it would be possible stopping planes from falling with some kind of technology.. They've been the same in that since.. always? Look at cars 30 years ago, they didn't have 20 airbags, ABS, ESC, all kinds of radars. I wonder if it's simply impossible to build something to stop planes from falling or more a matter of €€€€€€€££££££$$$$$$$$?

A matter of €€€€€€€$$$$$$$$$$$$£££££££££££ as I was guessing.. Apparently the technology has been there for some time for whole plane parachutes carrying a falling plane and a designs such as separating passenger cabin from other parts first.. It's "too costly" (well say that to a plane crash victim's family ) now but I'm sure if safety had been a bigger concern the technology would have advanced beyond that..

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20131223-should-planes-have-parachutes

“A lot of people keep asking: ‘Why can’t I have a parachute system on a Boeing 737 when I fly to see grandma?’ Well, if enough people ask for that, it’ll force the aircraft manufacturers and the governments to make these revolutionary changes.”

This is awful really.

Also makes me wonder how there aren't better safety arrangement.. As someone said previously, possibility to control it from the ground (I bet terrorists won't get in on the flight towers now when presidents are flying so it isn't impossible?).

Also, I wonder if it would be possible stopping planes from falling with some kind of technology.. They've been the same in that since.. always? Look at cars 30 years ago, they didn't have 20 airbags, ABS, ESC, all kinds of radars. I wonder if it's simply impossible to build something to stop planes from falling or more a matter of €€€€€€€££££££$$$$$$$$?

They call it being a cunt

An intelligent cunt. Major difference.

No, really though, if you're not being offensive and try pick up and understand others' points of views and can carry on conversation using them for conversation (not arguing) it's pretty amazing .. you'll force yourself to have some sympathy with foreign ideas at least for a brief moment and it develops you as a person as well..

They are though, its been called creepy, sinister, all sorts. And to add to your comment about not really caring about the issue, me too actually, i jus find myself arguing about shit cuz im bored at work maybe i should do some work!

The best.. or perhaps creepiest ( ) thing about YOU is that you could pick up any discussion, pick any point of view you don't even agree with and argue with that convincingly..

Happy to see isOtope getting the hang on quoting

Hey, I tried, really.. *feels like an idiot*

really i don't know how to separate the quotes.. when i try to do something it just deletes or moves some text to a wrong place.. I got one post done with the quotes looking alright and then it said "too many quotations" or something like that so I just said fuck it. I gotta learn how to do it properly though..

Oh i understand it too, i just don't subscribe to it...or can't afford to. Thats what i meant by like 'if i started letting that shit happen i would just go nuts', meaning like...OK, I'm good like i am, I'm sure what i want and I'm sure about the intent behind what I'm doing...but then if you start acting like 'OK, stop now, somethings wrong here' then that shit just puts me off, if you don't want it then i don't want it neither. But then i do want it but you behaving that way makes me not want it. See what I mean by confusion? And i don't wanna fuck up sex for me, thats like the one thing I'm totally sure and comfortable and I've got straight in my head, that i fancy birds, does THAT of all things have to be complicated too? It'd get to a point where life isn't worth the effort is that too, as well as everything else, was suddenly this great complex thing. I guess that makes me slightly insensitive but like...when you've really been through this whole song and dance with an 'insecure' girl, it's just exhausting, i don't have that much fuckin' emotional mileage in me, if shit is wrong to that degree for you then hey, maybe it's me, maybe it's us, maybe we need to look for what we need somewhere else. Maybe I'm just an insecure as the girls and their acting weird makes me feel insecure about shit myself and the way i deal with that is to be emotionally reductive. Thats how i work shit out in life, in relationships, in work, i take a thing...then reduce it to its simplest terms...and function on that basis.

Or maybe I'm just a guy and i can't be bothered with al that emotional bullshit Probably a reciepe for loneliness but nyaaaaah, bollocks

It puts me a bit off too, to be honest I'm not sure how I would deal with all that in relationship if it was a constant issue.. I probably wouldn't. I guess we're insensitive assholes then, what can we do?

As a one/few times occasion though, first times with her? I wouldn't care at that point.. I mean I would but I wouldn't stop either. I mean, maybe she hadn't had a shower, maybe it's just after her periods when she's not still bleeding but there might be something.. whatever, let's skip that then, I wouldn't let that get on the way right away.

My response was meant to be more like tongue in cheek style in response to all the "bitches be crazy" comments than it appeared to be .

I can really, honestly, relate to that frustrating feeling when someone's emotional status interferes with sex though.. and it's really frustrating. Drama and sex just don't mix well... I agree if that was your point.

All the wording around this subject is kinda hilarious btw.. "I don't wanna fuck up sex", "maybe her exes sucked dick at eating pussy".. etc.

It's a super intimate act, in a way even more so than intercourse. I mean it's someone's face down there, there is no room for 'mystery' or pretence It takes me a lot longer to be comfortable with someone going down on me than pretty much any other act (within reason ).

Explain this to me though, how do you cut it off midway? Because, OK, it's super intimate etc but like, presumably in Lith's case he was on his way down the stairs and she stopped him, now how the in the name of 57 varieties of fuck do you do that? I mean like, I'm not a bird (relevation of the century!) so it's a presumption that birds feel for sex just as much or in the same way that we do but like...if a girl was on her way down there with me it's almost impossible to stop that. And so, with girls, if its a case of you want it but insecurity halts it that must be some powerful insecurity cuz nothing overrides my biological propulsion like that, it's flabbergasting how that can happen.

Womens sexuality is generally a little more complex than mens?

Like, for men generally physical +/- visual stimulation is enough to get (and keep) them going, whereas the journey from arousal to climax can be a lot more fragile for women. It's not as simple as just being turned on is enough for us to lose all sense of everything else going on, it's that state of arousal can be interrupted fairly easily. I know for myself if a bit of insecurity creeps in or something doesn't feel good or even the mood isn't right, it doesn't put me back to square one but it's certainly enough to dampen my arousal enough to stop something happening that I'm not comfortable with.

In shorter terms- if male arousal is a light switch, female sexuality is more akin to a just-lit flame

Is it wrong in some way that I can completely understand this?

I mean I wouldn't ever turn down a bj (unless I had just came back from a hiking trip of two weeks without showering maybe?) but.. I get it. I'm your "average male" in terms of how our sexuality is commonly viewed but it doesn't mean I can't understand something like this as well .

I think if you can't teach your kids mainly by putting up an example and/or actually explaining your own reasoning there's a big chance you're teaching them stuff that really don't know the reasons yourself either and that's when an individual is to reconsider their "opinions", no? And no I'm not saying you should start calmly explain to your kid while he's running towards the highway why it might not be a good idea . For most values values and morals, they'll pick them up if you can show why and how.. and if you can't then how can you explain it to yourself? And if you can't do that you can probably see where/why the second guessing comes in?

------------------------------------------------------------

Now if a parent were to raise their child making them salute them every morning at 6 am and say "I respect my father and my mother..", wouldn't you consider that creepy at all?

Yes but thats just strange behaviour according to whats regular in our society...but school assemblys or doing things in unison like singing hymns or pledges of allegiance or a class repeating some shit like that, it's different, plus a schools an institution and a structure and within those you have like...protocol, formal things you have to do, they have uniforms, it's not weird in that context. Is it weird when boy scouts do pledges? Or fraternitys and sororities or clubs like the Masons or whatever? Should that be outlawed? A country or a government, amongst other things is a fuckin'...structure and thats what this is attached to. But its more than that in America, it's tradition. It's outdated, yes but thats kinda the point with tradition, affection to it is to do with the fact that it's part of your history in a sense and as long as it doesn't harm anybody and it's espousing positive things then i don't have no problem with it. It's insensitive and presumptuous, we all have traditions and like...you only really understand what they mean to a country in terms of sentiment, or maybe something even more high minded, to its citizens unless you are them so i tend to err on the side of like, yeah, if they wanna pledge an allegiance, go for it. And upon scrutiny, knowing what it is i don't find anything sinister or obscene in it. Comparing it to like waking up one morning and finding your parents have turned into Sgt Slaughter isn't really applicable as an analogy.

This is very interesting in so many ways and even though we're both European and all this really opens up to how different kind of cultures we really live in. School uniforms would be considered weird and perhaps creepy by most people here.

Most importantly, I'm in no way saying any of that should be outlawed! Americans have culture they wish to preserve, good on them. I think making kids pledge to something they've clueless about is kind of.. anti-American really. At least the way I see what America was supposed to be all about. I see a lot of beauty in all of that you know.. Right to bear arms and such? I really see the purpose and reason for that too.

"If they wanna pledge allegiance, go for it." Exactly, that's precisely my point... If they want to! 'They' shouldn't be an external part (school etc.) dictating what PLEDGES anyone make. Stating a pledge is a personal choice in my opinion and some institution MAKING one say is the institution essentially intending to violate the individual's rights. Pledge is very much different and much more a serious thing than singing a hymn or whatever (I bet you weren't singing btw, lip syncing at the most ).

Is is weird when boy scouts do pledges? Yes. I was actually a fuckin' boy scout myself and I didn't open my mouth during the ceremony 'cause it felt weird.. Can't remember if I had any other reasoning at that age.. I wouldn't put my own kids into that..

------------------------------------------------------------------

I think one should know what a pledge actually means before making one anyhow.. If this pledge isn't binding anyway, is any pledge really?

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Now if I may ask, why isn't it your cup of tea as you stated previously?

Well, it's nice to see you can sympathize with all that. And yes, it's funny, we do in some level agree to a certain point, I could tell from.. everything you've said before. I also kind of just assumed a point of view and kept on carrying the conversation from there but that's what we do isn't it.. for the sake of conversation.

I guess I see a devil in the details.. I don't disagree that what's in the pledge is right and good. I solely disagree that no one, anywhere, ever, should be MADE to make a pledge. Again what perhaps makes it a bit different is that I come from a culture with mandatory military service for young men (yes, civil service is an option and so on but anyway..).. They have to make a pledge and even at 18 they think it's pretty much of a "whatever, let's get over with it" whereas it's during possible war time BINDING. They could actually refer to that during a war; the pledge puts them under a different legal status.

You know I really, really admire the America withing the America where liberty is truly valued. The fact that some Americans would consider compulsory military service anti-American just makes me really admire them.

I suppose you're right again that I should take this kind of stuff more seriously, as in being more careful saying what I say as not every is really interested into my reasoning before resorting to violence but I can't live my life stepping on my toes being afraid of everyone wanting to kill me for anything slightly inflammatory.. I don't want to hurt anyone's feeling either though but you know, it ain't easy? I know you know that .

What do you think was the intent of making you sing said hymns though? It didn't work for you but I don't think that's proof that repeating something over and over again doesn't influence at least some of the people doing so in some way.

The purpose is that it's just tradition. Back in the day when it was first put in place it was probably because of religion but by the late 80s early 90s was just tradition really, no religion was propagated, when stories were told in assembley they were everything from Sikh guru Nanak to biblical parables. And honestly, i seriously doubt that the population of my classrooms were hugely influenced into Christianity by it, they just kinda carried on as is.

Sure, why not teach kids what you believe to be right and wrong and why.. Just not in a "now repeat after me.." manner .

So your objection is to the methodology as opposed to the content now? Why is that method worse than others?

I didn't actually mean to say that the American pledge is saying it being the best place in the world. My point was why make them pledge allegiance to something they don't yet understand?

Because its part of teaching them something, honourable principles like 'liberty and justice for all'.

What's the point of making them repeat that pledge over and over if there's no intent in making it teach them to believe in anything?

Who said there is no intent in making them believe anything?

My "objection" (I really just portrayed my feelings when I see that in movies etc.) was the same as it is now. You brought up teaching kids wrong and right and I said yes it's ok to teach them that and there, methodology does matter, as well. One should second guess their own values if they need to be passed on to the following generation by making them repeat the shit every morning. Now if a parent were to raise their child making them salute them every morning at 6 am and say "I respect my father and my mother..", wouldn't you consider that creepy at all? Wouldn't it raise a question why they'd do that?

Also, I think it matters how much the kids and their parents have the liberty not to participate. If it's voluntary.. well that's a bit different.

I think one should know what a pledge actually means before making one anyhow.. If this pledge isn't binding anyway, is any pledge really?

Now if I may ask, why isn't it your cup of tea as you stated previously?

I don't know how to properly separate text segments into quotes like that ( ) so I'll just try to answer to you without quoting at all.

What do you think was the intent of making you sing said hymns though? It didn't work for you but I don't think that's proof that repeating something over and over again doesn't influence at least some of the people doing so in some way.

Sure, why not teach kids what you believe to be right and wrong and why.. Just not in a "now repeat after me.." manner .

I didn't actually mean to say that the American pledge is saying it being the best place in the world. My point was why make them pledge allegiance to something they don't yet understand? If they find out later it's not worth the allegiance wouldn't they feel a bit silly having said it hundreds of times as a kid? Also it's kind of like making an illiterate man sign a contract.. you can refer to it later even though it wasn't done in full understanding.

I'm not saying it's an awful hindrance to kids, just unnecessary waste of 30 seconds most mornings of their childhood. I don't know what goes on in their heads, my guess is just "ok, let's get over with this"..

What's the point of making them repeat that pledge over and over if there's no intent in making it teach them to believe in anything?

I'm all for kids learning about the history and culture of the country they live in, but why pledge allegiance before they fully understand it?

Whys it that big a deal? When they grow up and they find out to the contrary they live in a free country and are free to disregard to tenets of the pledge if they wish

Also isn't respecting/liking/loving your country/leader/whatever/parents/dogs/the planet etc. mean much more when it's a conclusion of your observations rather than something you've brought up to believe by methods like that?

Yeah but why are the two things indivisible? I mean have a little respect for the power of the human mind here, just cuz they say a 5 second statement every morning it's SOOOOOOO powerful an act that it'll totally drown out any kind of information that shows them a bad side to their country that might turn them off an allegiance? Because of that statement suddenly all the books, all the media, all the shit out there that shows them the other side of the coin is just completely nullified by the fact that they had to read this statement as kids?

Why make them believe in one thing and find out the contrary (if it exists) later? Why not just let them find out how it is from neutral ground instead of finding contraries to this or that?

If it doesn't serve someones's interest affecting them for the rest of their life instead of just for their childhood, why would they do it in the first place?

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Pledging allegiance to a flag or nation or whatever every day when you're 6 years old when you can barely if at all understand either concept and what they represent.. just doesn't sound right.

What troubles you about it?

The said method. Making kids repeat something so many times they'll start believing in it before understanding what it's even about.

A kid will grow respect for their parents if (usually when) they give them a reason to, they don't need to wake up every morning saluting to their parents and repeating something like "I promise to every day respect my parents and honor them in everything I do".

Also, most people don't think every country is great so why should the individual come to their own conclusions about their own place of residence?

I'm not sure what you meant here, could you explain it for me please?

I meant to type why shouldn't they, whoops. If you're North Korean you'll likely to believe it's the best place in the World although most people would disagree and I suppose wish for them to have that option too. Why try to manipulate a young mind to believe such even when it's not necessary?

I think making kids pledge allegiance to anything, be it world peace or whatever, is creepy. Let kids be kids.. childhood doesn't last for long.

I fail to see the correlation between making a brief statement of allegiance to your country every morning before school and hindering ones childhood

Brief or not, why make kids spend any time pledging allegiance to something they can't nor need to understand yet? I just don't believe that kind belongs to anyone's childhood.

Also isn't respecting/liking/loving your country/leader/whatever/parents/dogs/the planet etc. mean much more when it's a conclusion of your observations rather than something you've brought up to believe by methods like that?

Pledging allegiance to a flag or nation or whatever every day when you're 6 years old when you can barely if at all understand either concept and what they represent.. just doesn't sound right.

Why should kids be taught to be patriotic anyway.. if their country is that great they'll figure it out eventually by themselves without repeating a mantra for it daily? Also, most people don't think every country is great so why should the individual come to their own conclusions about their own place of residence?

I think making kids pledge allegiance to anything, be it world peace or whatever, is creepy. Let kids be kids.. childhood doesn't last for long.

How is the Pledge of Allegiance still a thing? How is a child supposed to swear allegiance to a country? I always find it creepy when I see it in films and such.

It's creepy as fuck! I can imagine they only do this in North Korea and China maybe but in a "civilized western country"?

How do you Americans see it?

Can you get your kid liberated from the daily brainwash session or is it mandatory?

DISCLAIMER FOR SENSITIVE PEOPLE: THAT COMMENT WAS MAINLY ABOUT HOW I FEEL WHEN WATCHING MOVIES WHERE THEY DO THAT AND SAID IN A NON SERIOUS MANNER. KEEP IN MIND THAT USUALLY IT'S PRESENTED INTENTIONALLY CREEPY IN MANY MOVIES. I DIDN'T MEAN TO OFFEND ANYONE WITH MY LATER COMMENTS IN THIS THREAD EITHER. I MADE NO COMPARISONS TO THE NAZIS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT AT ANY POINT. I ALSO LIKE AMERICANS IN GENERAL AS MUCH AS ANY OTHER PEOPLE ON THIS PLANET. ALSO, I THINK THE PLEDGE INCLUDES SOME FINE ELEMENTS IN WHAT IT'S SAYING, I JUST THINK PLEDGES SHOULD BE FOR ADULTS IN FULL AWARENESS, THIS ONE INCLUDED, AS I CONSIDER THEM BINDING.