Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Win Smith who wrote (13405)	5/11/2001 12:13:07 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Restaurants, not any public place. Restaurants, not any public place. Restaurants, not any public place.......Plus, I expressed an idea I was toying with with exaggerated force, intending to provoke discussion, which is not uncommon where I come from........

To: Win Smith who wrote (13405)	5/11/2001 12:59:15 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

No, we ought to pass laws enjoining discretion...They ought not to be allowed to breast feed in a common dining area, for example... I missed that the first time around. An odd notion. I would grant some credence to a decision by the owner of a restaurant to prohibit breastfeeding, though I would think it rude and slightly uncivilized. The notion of deciding that breastfeeding in a restaurant ought not to be allowed, or of passing a law enjoing it, seems way over the top, and more than a bit bizarre. It would suggest the possibility that restaurant owners could not allow breastfeeding even if they wanted to. Can you imagine Aunt Agatha suing the management of a restaurant for failing to ban breastfeeding, and thus inflicting upon her the immeasurable pain of a fleeting look at a swollen tit? My personal inclination is to treat pregnant women and nursing mothers as somewhat privileged individuals, and to expect others to accommodate them. But it seems to me that there are solutions far simpler than passing laws. If a restaurant is really worried that the spectacle of a breastfeeding woman might put some shriveled prudes off their cutlets, they should simply acquire and hold in reserve a supply of elegant silk shawls. If a shriveled prude complains of having caught a glimpse of bosom, an apologetic person would approach the woman, apologize, and politely ask her to please use the shawl for the sake of the geriatric prudes at table 12. If the woman refuses to use the shawl, she is an ungracious twit and deserves to be asked to leave. If she accepts, covers up, and the shriveled prudes still complain, then they are slobbering Philistines and deserve to be told to f&%k off. Problem solved. No law needed.

To: Win Smith who wrote (13405)	5/11/2001 1:29:25 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

>An infant does not need breast milk for very long after it ingests the initial colostrum. Depending on the health of the mother a balanced formula might actually be better soon after ingestion of colostrum.< The above is very strange. Of course infants "survive" on formula. So depending on your definition of "need" you could say infants don't "need" breast milk (they don't even "need" colostrum- so I don't know what that had to do with anything). And in rare cases women are taking drugs or have diseases that make nursing unhealthy for a baby- but this is very unusual. Nursing is better nutritionally, and it promotes mother infant bonding. All the studies support this.