FabSwingers.com > Forums > Swingers Chat > Swinging
Swinging
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
 | |||
| |||
| |||
"no bloody way think more of my family than to put them at risk" Bravo! | |||
| |||
| |||
"Only selfish, nasty, evil people who think it's okay for people to die so they can ejaculate would meet during a pandemic, so of course not." Was that aimed at me? You've blocked me I notice  | |||
"Only selfish, nasty, evil people who think it's okay for people to die so they can ejaculate would meet during a pandemic, so of course not." What if people have been meeting within there bubble? Or outside of lockdown? Are they still nasty and evil? | |||
"Only selfish, nasty, evil people who think it's okay for people to die so they can ejaculate would meet during a pandemic, so of course not. What if people have been meeting within there bubble? Or outside of lockdown? Are they still nasty and evil?" Oh yes the mystical "bubble" of safety that in no way merely enables the facilitation of excusing dangerous behaviour. It doesn't matter if you're only meeting in..."your bubble". You are not magically protected from having, getting or spreading the virus just because you have given the people you have socialised with a special title. If you mingle with ANY people for any non-essential reason and, by extension, put lives/health in danger all for your pleasure/impatience/convenience etc then that is wrong and my statement stands. Really not sure why this even needed to be asked/stated. It is emminently obvious. | |||
"Only selfish, nasty, evil people who think it's okay for people to die so they can ejaculate would meet during a pandemic, so of course not. What if people have been meeting within there bubble? Or outside of lockdown? Are they still nasty and evil? Oh yes the mystical "bubble" of safety that in no way merely enables the facilitation of excusing dangerous behaviour. It doesn't matter if you're only meeting in..."your bubble". You are not magically protected from having, getting or spreading the virus just because you have given the people you have socialised with a special title. If you mingle with ANY people for any non-essential reason and, by extension, put lives/health in danger all for your pleasure/impatience/convenience etc then that is wrong and my statement stands. Really not sure why this even needed to be asked/stated. It is emminently obvious." While you're correct in what you're saying here, and you are correct that the 'bubble' concept is flawed - people are also free to make their own informed decisions on who they mix with. This is especially important for single people who, in my case, have been home alone for 10 months and some form of physical contact is extremely important to them both mentally and physically. It is NOT just about getting laid, as you point out. Personally I have been completely socially distanced from all my friends, family and loved ones that entire time, and the toll that takes on a person cannot be underestimated. You are a couple, so I can only assume you have had contact with each other in that time. Some of us have not had that luxury, so for you to say all of this, while true, it's not realistic, nor is it particularly empathic. The pandemic has affected people very differently, and your experience does not reflect that of others. I agree with you we all have a responsibility, and that DOES extend to spending time with other people in as safe a manner as possible. | |||
"Only selfish, nasty, evil people who think it's okay for people to die so they can ejaculate would meet during a pandemic, so of course not. What if people have been meeting within there bubble? Or outside of lockdown? Are they still nasty and evil? Oh yes the mystical "bubble" of safety that in no way merely enables the facilitation of excusing dangerous behaviour. It doesn't matter if you're only meeting in..."your bubble". You are not magically protected from having, getting or spreading the virus just because you have given the people you have socialised with a special title. If you mingle with ANY people for any non-essential reason and, by extension, put lives/health in danger all for your pleasure/impatience/convenience etc then that is wrong and my statement stands. Really not sure why this even needed to be asked/stated. It is emminently obvious." Well that’s not true, since March restrictions have been lifted and tightened to various levels, if as a single male you have a FB who has been in your bubble since the start then you can’t really say your spreading anything, and who’s to say what’s essential to who. No one said anything about magic protection so I know not of what you speak. | |||
"Only selfish, nasty, evil people who think it's okay for people to die so they can ejaculate would meet during a pandemic, so of course not. What if people have been meeting within there bubble? Or outside of lockdown? Are they still nasty and evil? Oh yes the mystical "bubble" of safety that in no way merely enables the facilitation of excusing dangerous behaviour. It doesn't matter if you're only meeting in..."your bubble". You are not magically protected from having, getting or spreading the virus just because you have given the people you have socialised with a special title. If you mingle with ANY people for any non-essential reason and, by extension, put lives/health in danger all for your pleasure/impatience/convenience etc then that is wrong and my statement stands. Really not sure why this even needed to be asked/stated. It is emminently obvious. While you're correct in what you're saying here, and you are correct that the 'bubble' concept is flawed - people are also free to make their own informed decisions on who they mix with. This is especially important for single people who, in my case, have been home alone for 10 months and some form of physical contact is extremely important to them both mentally and physically. It is NOT just about getting laid, as you point out. Personally I have been completely socially distanced from all my friends, family and loved ones that entire time, and the toll that takes on a person cannot be underestimated. You are a couple, so I can only assume you have had contact with each other in that time. Some of us have not had that luxury, so for you to say all of this, while true, it's not realistic, nor is it particularly empathic. The pandemic has affected people very differently, and your experience does not reflect that of others. I agree with you we all have a responsibility, and that DOES extend to spending time with other people in as safe a manner as possible. " It's not particularly "empathic" to endanger other people's lives because you feel lonely, either. We've both been incredibly alone in our lives, never would have put others at risk to assuage that misery  | |||
"Only selfish, nasty, evil people who think it's okay for people to die so they can ejaculate would meet during a pandemic, so of course not. What if people have been meeting within there bubble? Or outside of lockdown? Are they still nasty and evil? Oh yes the mystical "bubble" of safety that in no way merely enables the facilitation of excusing dangerous behaviour. It doesn't matter if you're only meeting in..."your bubble". You are not magically protected from having, getting or spreading the virus just because you have given the people you have socialised with a special title. If you mingle with ANY people for any non-essential reason and, by extension, put lives/health in danger all for your pleasure/impatience/convenience etc then that is wrong and my statement stands. Really not sure why this even needed to be asked/stated. It is emminently obvious. Well that’s not true, since March restrictions have been lifted and tightened to various levels, if as a single male you have a FB who has been in your bubble since the start then you can’t really say your spreading anything, and who’s to say what’s essential to who. No one said anything about magic protection so I know not of what you speak." You talking of "bubbles" like it means anything. That is the "magic protection" referred to. Unless the two of you NEVER go outside except to go straight in a car to each others house and have no contact with anyone else, ever, then "bubbles" are meaningless. The only "essential" things are things that you need to live. Everything else needs put aside until you are not endangering others to get it. Simple. | |||
"Only selfish, nasty, evil people who think it's okay for people to die so they can ejaculate would meet during a pandemic, so of course not. What if people have been meeting within there bubble? Or outside of lockdown? Are they still nasty and evil? Oh yes the mystical "bubble" of safety that in no way merely enables the facilitation of excusing dangerous behaviour. It doesn't matter if you're only meeting in..."your bubble". You are not magically protected from having, getting or spreading the virus just because you have given the people you have socialised with a special title. If you mingle with ANY people for any non-essential reason and, by extension, put lives/health in danger all for your pleasure/impatience/convenience etc then that is wrong and my statement stands. Really not sure why this even needed to be asked/stated. It is emminently obvious. While you're correct in what you're saying here, and you are correct that the 'bubble' concept is flawed - people are also free to make their own informed decisions on who they mix with. This is especially important for single people who, in my case, have been home alone for 10 months and some form of physical contact is extremely important to them both mentally and physically. It is NOT just about getting laid, as you point out. Personally I have been completely socially distanced from all my friends, family and loved ones that entire time, and the toll that takes on a person cannot be underestimated. You are a couple, so I can only assume you have had contact with each other in that time. Some of us have not had that luxury, so for you to say all of this, while true, it's not realistic, nor is it particularly empathic. The pandemic has affected people very differently, and your experience does not reflect that of others. I agree with you we all have a responsibility, and that DOES extend to spending time with other people in as safe a manner as possible. It's not particularly "empathic" to endanger other people's lives because you feel lonely, either. We've both been incredibly alone in our lives, never would have put others at risk to assuage that misery "So in your view I'm selfish, nasty and evil. Thank you. None of this is black & white, and you do have some valid points. I would just like people to have a bit more understanding of other people's lives & viewpoints. Something you appear to struggle with, as outlined by your responses and blocking (of me) for no reason. I've met people under controlled conditions (not that it's any of your business). Two adults with no symptoms, or outside contact with others, both single, both living alone. Going to the supermarket is way more risky in my view - mixing with strangers in a closed environment. Meeting one on one as described above does not pose any risk to you or the general public but you fail to see other people's opinions as in any way valid. Again, thank you for your judgement of us, strangers, and thank you for making us feel worse than we already do. I'll keep them in mind: Selfish. Nasty. Evil. | |||
"Only selfish, nasty, evil people who think it's okay for people to die so they can ejaculate would meet during a pandemic, so of course not. What if people have been meeting within there bubble? Or outside of lockdown? Are they still nasty and evil? Oh yes the mystical "bubble" of safety that in no way merely enables the facilitation of excusing dangerous behaviour. It doesn't matter if you're only meeting in..."your bubble". You are not magically protected from having, getting or spreading the virus just because you have given the people you have socialised with a special title. If you mingle with ANY people for any non-essential reason and, by extension, put lives/health in danger all for your pleasure/impatience/convenience etc then that is wrong and my statement stands. Really not sure why this even needed to be asked/stated. It is emminently obvious. While you're correct in what you're saying here, and you are correct that the 'bubble' concept is flawed - people are also free to make their own informed decisions on who they mix with. This is especially important for single people who, in my case, have been home alone for 10 months and some form of physical contact is extremely important to them both mentally and physically. It is NOT just about getting laid, as you point out. Personally I have been completely socially distanced from all my friends, family and loved ones that entire time, and the toll that takes on a person cannot be underestimated. You are a couple, so I can only assume you have had contact with each other in that time. Some of us have not had that luxury, so for you to say all of this, while true, it's not realistic, nor is it particularly empathic. The pandemic has affected people very differently, and your experience does not reflect that of others. I agree with you we all have a responsibility, and that DOES extend to spending time with other people in as safe a manner as possible. It's not particularly "empathic" to endanger other people's lives because you feel lonely, either. We've both been incredibly alone in our lives, never would have put others at risk to assuage that misery
So in your view I'm selfish, nasty and evil. Thank you.
None of this is black & white, and you do have some valid points. I would just like people to have a bit more understanding of other people's lives & viewpoints. Something you appear to struggle with, as outlined by your responses and blocking (of me) for no reason.
I've met people under controlled conditions (not that it's any of your business). Two adults with no symptoms, or outside contact with others, both single, both living alone. Going to the supermarket is way more risky in my view - mixing with strangers in a closed environment. Meeting one on one as described above does not pose any risk to you or the general public but you fail to see other people's opinions as in any way valid.
Again, thank you for your judgement of us, strangers, and thank you for making us feel worse than we already do. I'll keep them in mind: Selfish. Nasty. Evil."The only thing I judge is any non-essential contact with people you don't live with as it could lead to disability and death for a lot of people. If you have an issue with that, then that's something you need to think about/deal with. Have a nice day | |||
| |||
"You don't get to decide what other people believe is non-essential contact. I only have an issue with strangers making snap judgements about other people choices & behaviours. At every turn you ignore what I've explained. Goodbye." No, I don't. The word "essential" defines "essential" quite nicely as it is. Also I have "ignored" nothing. There is a difference between you being unable to change my mind and me not listening. Anyone that considers sex/feeling less lonely to be "more essential" than the lives and health of others is a terrible person. Pretty hard to dispute that. Have a nice day, I think all that needs to be said has been said | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"So this is my opinion and if you want to judge me for it please keep it to yourself. The government told us it was safe to go back to work and we did, they said it was safe to mix with others and we did...now there's limitations to what we can do or see such as the bubble - people are using it as instructed. Yes some CHOOSE to ignore guidelines set out but surely that's their perogative to do so, I personally don't agree with their choice but I'm not going to judge or attack it because here's the kicker, you'll always be around someone who could potentially have covid by going to work, shop or the like! " | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
