Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Sydney Morning Herald)   William and Kate, with boobies covered, greeted by women and young girls, with boobies uncovered, in Solomon Islands tour. Boobies   (news.smh.com.au) divider line 178
    More: Amusing, Solomon Islands, British Royal Family, God Save the Queen  
•       •       •

21983 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Sep 2012 at 9:45 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



178 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-17 12:52:29 PM  

MoronLessOff: After yesterday's disaster of bewbies threads, all I can say is...

OhPleaseOhPleaseOhPleaseOhPlease.

I'll be checking back after work. Don't let me down!


You are aware that there are other sites on the internet devoted solely to boobies....
 
2012-09-17 12:57:10 PM  

gerbilpox: catson: Topless dancers (NSFW):

Link

Priceless

[i50.tinypic.com image 458x305]


Kate looks stiff and standoffish. There's no warmth there.
 
2012-09-17 12:57:54 PM  
Damn, way too late on the draw to get Tamarian memes up here.

static.quickmeme.com
 
2012-09-17 12:58:58 PM  

KierzanDax: Wait until they get to New Guinea and they're greeting by men wearing kotekas...


Kotekas are just male bikinis.
 
2012-09-17 01:01:26 PM  
Can't believe no one has commented on the awesome shark costume/caption.
 
2012-09-17 01:04:23 PM  

Silly Jesus: MoronLessOff: After yesterday's disaster of bewbies threads, all I can say is...

OhPleaseOhPleaseOhPleaseOhPlease.

I'll be checking back after work. Don't let me down!

You are aware that there are other sites on the internet devoted solely to boobies....


www.thewholefreakinginternet.com

But some farkers have provided excellent examples and links. It's all good fun.
 
2012-09-17 01:04:35 PM  

Carth: Silly Jesus: Carth: Silly Jesus: cryinoutloud: Silly Jesus: Protect her from what?
I understand his feelings due to what happened to his mother...but if it wasn't just about the boobies, then he'd throw a shiat fit every time the paparazzi took pictures...and he doesn't, from what I can tell.
Laws against people with cameras actually actively CHASING you, fine. Laws against people with camera aided super-duper eyesight seeing you standing around outside...boobs out or not....yeah, no law for that.

There's these things called "photo ops" and then there's intrusive paparazzi photos. The British press made a pinky swear when William and kate got married that they'd stop doing the Princess Di guerrilla photos and let these guys live their lives without a camera following them around 24 hours a day.

I don't know why I bother to explain anything to you anyway, since you're obnoxious just for the sake of being obnoxious. You'd probably be the first person to try to sell up-skirts of Kate, and then defend it on free speech grounds or something.

It comes down to should there be a law that says that if you're on a public road you can't look in a certain direction if certain special people happen to be outside. That's nuts. They have great benefit from being who they are, and that benefit comes with a downside. They have to take the good with the bad. It's not as though the photographers were peeking in their windows (trespassing on their property). They were visible from a public road. I can't go stand out in my yard and get pissed if someone takes a picture of me.

So in your mind do people ever has a reasonable expectation of privacy when outside?

If someone can see you from publicly accessible land / air....no.

What if it is the government doing the monitoring? You'd have no problem with CCTV cameras recording your every move outside?


Reductio ad absurdum
 
2012-09-17 01:06:06 PM  
Seriously. Google Anna Song images.Wow!
 
2012-09-17 01:08:12 PM  

Silly Jesus:

So in your mind do people ever has a reasonable expectation of privacy when outside?

If someone can see you from publicly accessible land / air....no.

What if it is the government doing the monitoring? You'd have no problem with CCTV cameras recording your every move outside?

Reductio ad absurdum


You just said people have no reasonable expectation of privacy when they can be seen from publicly accessible land / air.

What difference does it make if it is a paparazzi doing it for money or the local PD doing it to stop crime? If you're ok with one why aren't you ok with the other?
 
2012-09-17 01:15:37 PM  

Electromax: Can't believe no one has commented on the awesome shark costume/caption.


seriously, that was the best part of the article.
 
2012-09-17 01:16:50 PM  

Carth: Silly Jesus:

So in your mind do people ever has a reasonable expectation of privacy when outside?

If someone can see you from publicly accessible land / air....no.

What if it is the government doing the monitoring? You'd have no problem with CCTV cameras recording your every move outside?

Reductio ad absurdum

You just said people have no reasonable expectation of privacy when they can be seen from publicly accessible land / air.

What difference does it make if it is a paparazzi doing it for money or the local PD doing it to stop crime? If you're ok with one why aren't you ok with the other?


Wait, where we talking about something?
 
2012-09-17 01:17:18 PM  

Silly Jesus:

Reductio ad absurdum


Also, just so you don't misuse the term again reductio ad absurdum is a technique used to highlight fallacious points in another person's argument, not a fallacy in itself. (unless you meant to imply you were wrong but i don't think you did)

If you meant to imply that my reasoning wasn't a logical progression from your statements the fallacy you should have referred to was a strawman.
 
2012-09-17 01:19:38 PM  

Carth: Silly Jesus:

So in your mind do people ever has a reasonable expectation of privacy when outside?

If someone can see you from publicly accessible land / air....no.

What if it is the government doing the monitoring? You'd have no problem with CCTV cameras recording your every move outside?

Reductio ad absurdum

You just said people have no reasonable expectation of privacy when they can be seen from publicly accessible land / air.

What difference does it make if it is a paparazzi doing it for money or the local PD doing it to stop crime? If you're ok with one why aren't you ok with the other?


The local PD are going to plant a camera on public property in front of and behind every single house in town in order to monitor them 24/7 to prevent crime?

I don't have a problem with it in the same way that I don't have a problem with the paparazzi...I just think that it's an absurd notion.
 
2012-09-17 01:20:19 PM  
Always interesting when a socially backward country comes across a more progressive one.
 
2012-09-17 01:21:51 PM  

Carth: Silly Jesus:

Reductio ad absurdum

Also, just so you don't misuse the term again reductio ad absurdum is a technique used to highlight fallacious points in another person's argument, not a fallacy in itself. (unless you meant to imply you were wrong but i don't think you did)

If you meant to imply that my reasoning wasn't a logical progression from your statements the fallacy you should have referred to was a strawman.


Stop trolling. This thread is about tits.

www.zgeek.com
 
2012-09-17 01:25:28 PM  
Always having to put the retards back in their place. What is wrong with you people?
 
2012-09-17 01:25:49 PM  

Silly Jesus: Carth: Silly Jesus:

So in your mind do people ever has a reasonable expectation of privacy when outside?

If someone can see you from publicly accessible land / air....no.

What if it is the government doing the monitoring? You'd have no problem with CCTV cameras recording your every move outside?

Reductio ad absurdum

You just said people have no reasonable expectation of privacy when they can be seen from publicly accessible land / air.

What difference does it make if it is a paparazzi doing it for money or the local PD doing it to stop crime? If you're ok with one why aren't you ok with the other?

The local PD are going to plant a camera on public property in front of and behind every single house in town in order to monitor them 24/7 to prevent crime?

I don't have a problem with it in the same way that I don't have a problem with the paparazzi...I just think that it's an absurd notion.


You've never been to London or (increasingly) Washington DC have you? London already has 2 million CCTV cameras and DC refuses to admit how many they use. If you're fine with always being recorded in public at least your consistent. I just disagree.
 
2012-09-17 01:25:58 PM  
Who's yer' boobie?
 
2012-09-17 01:26:09 PM  

Carth: Silly Jesus:

Reductio ad absurdum

Also, just so you don't misuse the term again reductio ad absurdum is a technique used to highlight fallacious points in another person's argument, not a fallacy in itself. (unless you meant to imply you were wrong but i don't think you did)

If you meant to imply that my reasoning wasn't a logical progression from your statements the fallacy you should have referred to was a strawman.


The two are very similar...perhaps I was wrong, but here's my line of reasoning...

Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to absurdity") is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial[1][2], or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance.

I said that it's OK for cameras to view people in public and you countered with the government monitoring houses 24/7. 

In my mind you were trying to invalidate my viewpoint by showing that an absurd result would follow from its acceptance.
 
2012-09-17 01:28:26 PM  

Carth:
You've never been to London or (increasingly) Washington DC have you? London already has 2 million CCTV cameras and DC refuses to admit how many they use. If you're fine with always being recorded in public at least your consistent. I just disagree.


sorry, in the UK not London specifically. The best number I could find for London specifically was 400,000 cameras.
 
2012-09-17 01:29:37 PM  

Carth: Silly Jesus: Carth: Silly Jesus:

So in your mind do people ever has a reasonable expectation of privacy when outside?

If someone can see you from publicly accessible land / air....no.

What if it is the government doing the monitoring? You'd have no problem with CCTV cameras recording your every move outside?

Reductio ad absurdum

You just said people have no reasonable expectation of privacy when they can be seen from publicly accessible land / air.

What difference does it make if it is a paparazzi doing it for money or the local PD doing it to stop crime? If you're ok with one why aren't you ok with the other?

The local PD are going to plant a camera on public property in front of and behind every single house in town in order to monitor them 24/7 to prevent crime?

I don't have a problem with it in the same way that I don't have a problem with the paparazzi...I just think that it's an absurd notion.

You've never been to London or (increasingly) Washington DC have you? London already has 2 million CCTV cameras and DC refuses to admit how many they use. If you're fine with always being recorded in public at least your consistent. I just disagree.


I've been to both several times. I almost used them as an example in my last post, but I got the impression that you were proposing the idea of the local PD monitoring individual houses around the clock with cameras, so I left that point out.

But, yeah, I don't have a problem with them. If a cop can stand on the corner and stare at me or a cop can sit in a chair somewhere in a computer room and stare at me through the camera, what's the difference really?

Speaking of consistency, are you also opposed to people following the police around with cameras?
 
2012-09-17 01:29:47 PM  

Carth: Silly Jesus: Carth: Silly Jesus:

So in your mind do people ever has a reasonable expectation of privacy when outside?

If someone can see you from publicly accessible land / air....no.

What if it is the government doing the monitoring? You'd have no problem with CCTV cameras recording your every move outside?

Reductio ad absurdum

You just said people have no reasonable expectation of privacy when they can be seen from publicly accessible land / air.

What difference does it make if it is a paparazzi doing it for money or the local PD doing it to stop crime? If you're ok with one why aren't you ok with the other?

The local PD are going to plant a camera on public property in front of and behind every single house in town in order to monitor them 24/7 to prevent crime?

I don't have a problem with it in the same way that I don't have a problem with the paparazzi...I just think that it's an absurd notion.

You've never been to London or (increasingly) Washington DC have you? London already has 2 million CCTV cameras and DC refuses to admit how many they use. If you're fine with always being recorded in public at least your consistent. I just disagree.


Silly Jesus: Carth: Silly Jesus:

Reductio ad absurdum

Also, just so you don't misuse the term again reductio ad absurdum is a technique used to highlight fallacious points in another person's argument, not a fallacy in itself. (unless you meant to imply you were wrong but i don't think you did)

If you meant to imply that my reasoning wasn't a logical progression from your statements the fallacy you should have referred to was a strawman.

The two are very similar...perhaps I was wrong, but here's my line of reasoning...

Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to absurdity") is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial[1][2], or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance.

I said that it's OK for cameras to view people in public and you countered with the government monitoring houses 24/7. 

In my mind you were trying to invalidate my viewpoint by showing that an absurd result would follow from its acceptance.


Shut up! Both of you! Post boobies or GTFO!
 
2012-09-17 01:50:08 PM  

i upped my meds-up yours: muck4doo: wambu: [i.imgur.com image 270x270]

If only Kate had some boobies worth viewing . . .

Okay, I've seen this girl on the internet before. What is her name?

Anna Song. GIS is delightfully NSFW.


See also, Yulia Nova
d.yimg.com
 
2012-09-17 01:54:57 PM  

halfpastnvr: i upped my meds-up yours: muck4doo: wambu: [i.imgur.com image 270x270]

If only Kate had some boobies worth viewing . . .

Okay, I've seen this girl on the internet before. What is her name?

Anna Song. GIS is delightfully NSFW.

See also, Yulia Nova
[d.yimg.com image 340x480]


I always thought she had a butterface.

See also, Maria Swan. Rachel Aldana (not sure about the last name, but you'll find it.)
 
2012-09-17 01:57:42 PM  

halfpastnvr: i upped my meds-up yours: muck4doo: wambu: [i.imgur.com image 270x270]

If only Kate had some boobies worth viewing . . .

Okay, I've seen this girl on the internet before. What is her name?

Anna Song. GIS is delightfully NSFW.

See also, Yulia Nova
[d.yimg.com image 340x480]


Oh my lord...Thank you
 
2012-09-17 01:58:56 PM  
imageshack.us
 
2012-09-17 02:14:54 PM  

MoronLessOff: halfpastnvr: i upped my meds-up yours: muck4doo: wambu: [i.imgur.com image 270x270]

If only Kate had some boobies worth viewing . . .

Okay, I've seen this girl on the internet before. What is her name?

Anna Song. GIS is delightfully NSFW.

See also, Yulia Nova
[d.yimg.com image 340x480]

I always thought she had a butterface.

See also, Maria Swan. Rachel Aldana (not sure about the last name, but you'll find it.)


True, but the rest looks pretty good to me...Beauty is just a light switch away.

Oh, early Kay Parker, there's a lovely set there as well. 

May be slightly NSFW
NSFW
 
2012-09-17 02:16:11 PM  

MajorTubeSteak: [imageshack.us image 500x604]


There's a turkey in that picture?? Oh, wait, now i see it...
 
2012-09-17 02:16:47 PM  

fireclown: [t0.gstatic.com image 257x196]
"william and kate, with boobies covered!"


I was going to make sure this episode was mentioned; glad I'm not the only one who thought it read like a story recited by Dathon.

Also all you Farkers posting awesomely great racks are doing us all a public service, keep it up :)
 
2012-09-17 02:17:27 PM  

jfivealive: Pretty sure that the titties we'd see would be national geographic type boobies


Came to make a national geographic comment.

I can see I'm no longer needed here.

/Carry on.
 
2012-09-17 02:19:14 PM  

muck4doo: Carth: Silly Jesus:

Reductio ad absurdum

Also, just so you don't misuse the term again reductio ad absurdum is a technique used to highlight fallacious points in another person's argument, not a fallacy in itself. (unless you meant to imply you were wrong but i don't think you did)

If you meant to imply that my reasoning wasn't a logical progression from your statements the fallacy you should have referred to was a strawman.

Stop trolling. This thread is about tits.

www.zgeek.com


Anyone know who this fine specimen of womanhood is BTW? I know she's a staple in boobies threads...
 
2012-09-17 02:22:30 PM  

halfpastnvr: MajorTubeSteak: [imageshack.us image 500x604]

There's a turkey in that picture?? Oh, wait, now i see it...


You do? Can you point it out to me?
 
2012-09-17 02:25:54 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: muck4doo: Carth: Silly Jesus:

Reductio ad absurdum

Also, just so you don't misuse the term again reductio ad absurdum is a technique used to highlight fallacious points in another person's argument, not a fallacy in itself. (unless you meant to imply you were wrong but i don't think you did)

If you meant to imply that my reasoning wasn't a logical progression from your statements the fallacy you should have referred to was a strawman.

Stop trolling. This thread is about tits.

[www.zgeek.com image 536x768]

Anyone know who this fine specimen of womanhood is BTW? I know she's a staple in boobies threads...


her name is boobies. Okay, hold on, her name is Anna Song, and i am discovering she has videos on the net. :)
 
2012-09-17 02:26:37 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: fireclown: [t0.gstatic.com image 257x196]
"william and kate, with boobies covered!"

I was going to make sure this episode was mentioned; glad I'm not the only one who thought it read like a story recited by Dathon.

Also all you Farkers posting awesomely great racks are doing us all a public service, keep it up :)



Well ok, but only because you asked.

imageshack.us

imageshack.us
 
2012-09-17 02:27:39 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: Anyone know who this fine specimen of womanhood is BTW? I know she's a staple in boobies threads...


i upped my meds-up yours: muck4doo: wambu: [i.imgur.com image 270x270]

If only Kate had some boobies worth viewing . . .

Okay, I've seen this girl on the internet before. What is her name?

Anna Song. GIS is delightfully NSFW.

 
2012-09-17 02:44:27 PM  

Parthenogenetic: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 358x333]
"William and Kate, with boobs covered"

[media.noob.us image 300x225]
"I've seen everything."

[i.ytimg.com image 300x225]
"They're flajacks. Computer! Holographic projection of Picard Spank Bank entry Stardate 9-14-2012."

[www.bob937.com image 400x300]
*computery sounds*

[i.imgur.com image 320x240]
"Bear, with paws extended. Dog, with plate of broccoli."


???????
Racoon, with paw outstretched.

/also Brando, slowly clapping
 
2012-09-17 02:48:19 PM  
But srsly, what's with all the Kate hate?

i216.photobucket.com 

That's a nice lookin' woman.
 
2012-09-17 02:51:19 PM  

Banned on the Run: /also Brando, slowly clapping


or Orson Welles
 
2012-09-17 03:21:40 PM  
So where is the pic of just her tits? (And the rest too.)
 
2012-09-17 03:21:58 PM  

Banned on the Run: But srsly, what's with all the Kate hate?

[i216.photobucket.com image 391x500] 

That's a nice lookin' woman.


Her knees might poke a hole in that boat.

/i keed
 
2012-09-17 03:25:10 PM  

bazzanoid: Shaka

 
2012-09-17 03:28:12 PM  

brandent: bazzanoid: Shaka


What's this?
 
2012-09-17 03:46:50 PM  

devilEther: Banned on the Run: /also Brando, slowly clapping

or Orson Welles


Kane, slowly clapping, his countenance stern
 
2012-09-17 03:56:20 PM  

Stoker: So where is the pic of just her tits? (And the rest too.)


Are you aware of this little thing called google?
 
2012-09-17 03:57:58 PM  

cryinoutloud: But when scandal hijacks a royal tour, it seems there's just no escaping it.

Especially when you bring it up in the very first sentence of your "news" story and wrap the whole story around it.

wambu: [i.imgur.com image 270x270]
If only Kate had some boobies worth viewing . . .

yeah. I wish I had boobs that hung down into my lap, even at a young age. That's my dream.


Have you tried getting a lap dance?
 
2012-09-17 04:04:08 PM  

Parthenogenetic: devilEther: Banned on the Run: /also Brando, slowly clapping

or Orson Welles

Kane, slowly clapping, his countenance stern


Yes, I shouldn't nitpick, I enjoy Banned on the Run's montages very much.
 
2012-09-17 04:24:29 PM  
I hope they lose their lawsuit. She was the one who was outside topless. They are just breasts after all. The extra media coverage generated from the couple having a hissy fit about it is far more than would have happened had they issued an official statement of "Meh, whatever." - it's not like they are unflattering photos. She'll be thankful when she's an old droopy queen.
 
2012-09-17 04:33:09 PM  
Okay, I think I used up all my horniness points for the week. Whar my football thread?
 
2012-09-17 04:38:05 PM  
Okay, seriously, big boobs are nice, and much appreciated. To me though this is the most beautiful woman on the net. Enjoy:

Linkm/
 
2012-09-17 04:39:03 PM  

Stoker: So where is the pic of just her tits? (And the rest too.)


Here, now you can find them one handed
 
Displayed 50 of 178 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report