ambrosia's past comments

  • 0

    ambrosia

    Isn't it about time one of his friends did him a favor by sewing his mouth shut and gluing his fingers together? Surely even he could then manage to stay out of trouble.

    Posted in: Ishihara advises Hashimoto to stop tweeting

  • 0

    ambrosia

    It's open from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. so, assuming it's open 365 days a year, that's an average of 17,370 (rounded up by less than one) visitors per day or 1,240 per hour or 21 per minute. Naturally, it's going to be more crowded on holidays and weekends but even so, how are those numbers even possible or enjoyable?

    Posted in: Tokyo Skytree marks first anniversary

  • 0

    ambrosia

    girlintokyo: the cars do NOT like to share the road with bicycles, and many drivers are impatient and just plain reckless.

    Yes, because the majority of cyclists in Tokyo do not consistently obey the rules of the road, the rules of logic or the rules of common courtesy. I am a nearly 20-year resident of Tokyo who rides on the roads daily, obeys the rules of the road and has never had a collision and very few encounters at all with drivers. I make myself visible with front and back lights and a reflective safety vest. I use hand signals which any idiot can understand and stop when I'm supposed to. Anyone who tries to suggest the majority of cyclists in Tokyo rides the same is simply oblivious or lying.

    When car drivers see that you are trying to share the road in a considerate manner, they generally appreciate it. Of course there are the occasional jerks but overall I have found riding on the roads to be far safer and far more predictable -- until some jerk of a cyclists comes at me from the wrong direction expecting me to move out into the road so he or she can get past. I think not!

    If, as an able-bodied adult, you're not comfortable riding your bicycle on the road then simply stay off the bike or stick to tooling around in parks.

    Posted in: Road traffic laws in Europe and the United States are simple, whereas in Japan pedestrians are always exposed to the risks of bicycles bumping into them from all directions...It is time for us to go back to the original point of the road traffic law, where bicycles and cars share the road.

  • 0

    ambrosia

    Serrano: There's nothing wrong with riding a bicycle on the sidewalk as long as you go slow, give way to pedestrians, don't ring your bell at 'em unless you've got 2 or more of 'em spread out blocking the entire sidewalk as they walk in 1 direction, and don't hit anybody.

    Poppler: I never understood why people think bicyclists should use the road instead of the sidewalk. A car hitting a bicyclist will cause much more harm than a bicyclist hitting a pedestrian.

    Besides the general annoyance of having to watch out for cyclists on the pavement, it's more dangerous for the pedestrians and for the cyclists when cyclists use the pavement. All studies have shown that bicycle / car accidents actually increase when cyclists use the pavement. You're not guaranteed of 100% safety anywhere but learn the rules of the road, have some awareness of what is going on around you and ride assuming everyone is trying to kill you and you should be fine.

    http://www.ipmba.org/newsletters/IPMBA-Sidewalks.pdf http://www.bike.cornell.edu/pdfs/SidewalkbikingFAQ.pdf http://www.bikexprt.com/bikepol/facil/sidepath/sidecrash.htm

    Posted in: Road traffic laws in Europe and the United States are simple, whereas in Japan pedestrians are always exposed to the risks of bicycles bumping into them from all directions...It is time for us to go back to the original point of the road traffic law, where bicycles and cars share the road.

  • 2

    ambrosia

    Probie: I don't agree with body checking pavement cyclists though I've certainly wanted to and, like you, I don't move for them either. I walk on the left or ride of the pavement and if that's not good enough for them, too bad!

    Posted in: Road traffic laws in Europe and the United States are simple, whereas in Japan pedestrians are always exposed to the risks of bicycles bumping into them from all directions...It is time for us to go back to the original point of the road traffic law, where bicycles and cars share the road.

  • 2

    ambrosia

    AKBfan: "....the contestants to lack any self-awareness and, in many cases, any talent and the overall concept to be lame."

    Ah, the irony of this coming from an AKB fan. Awesome!

    Posted in: U.S. soul singer Candice Glover wins 'American Idol'

  • -1

    ambrosia

    Mr. Kobayashi is correct. Yes, Japan's roads are narrow but you know what, if you can't safely and properly ride a bicycle on the road then you don't belong on a bicycle. The pavement in Japan is crowded enough without all the idiotic cyclists jamming things up more. I'm sorry to generalize but nearly two decades here have given me the right to say that by and large, cyclists in Japan are menaces and the ones on the pavement are the worst! This is coming from someone who cycles daily too, not some car-driving bicycle hater.

    Posted in: Road traffic laws in Europe and the United States are simple, whereas in Japan pedestrians are always exposed to the risks of bicycles bumping into them from all directions...It is time for us to go back to the original point of the road traffic law, where bicycles and cars share the road.

  • 5

    ambrosia

    toshiko: This is an English language site. If you want Japanese headlines why wouldn't you just go to a Japanese site?

    Posted in: U.S. soul singer Candice Glover wins 'American Idol'

  • 3

    ambrosia

    Graffiti can definitely be art but if you're painting on someone else's property without their permission it doesn't matter if it's art or not. It's still graffiti.

    Posted in: Graffiti - art or vandalism?

  • 1

    ambrosia

    Stupid, misogynistic headline. When women don't like each other they have their "knives out". Is that meant to conjure up images of "claws"? When guys don't like each other and bash each others brains out in bars, what's that, just boys being boys?

    Posted in: Women have the knives out for their celebrity sisters

  • 2

    ambrosia

    In early spring, late fall and occasionally on a tricky February day the temperatures in my hometown can vary by up to 30 degrees Celsius and I've yet to hear of anyone suffering heat stroke because of it. There are three simple things that seem to have eluded many of this week's victims; stay hydrated, avoid doing strenuous outdoor activity at the hottest time of day and dress in layers that can be removed as the day gets warmer. It's not rocket science, just basic common sense.

    Posted in: 5 suffer heatstroke as temperatures fluctuate across Japan

  • 0

    ambrosia

    Aren't third graders around 8 or 9 years old? Does the article mean third year students?

    Moderator: Yes.

    Posted in: Yamanashi high school soccer club members assault younger students in shower

  • 0

    ambrosia

    voiceofokinawa: As you say, "People having babies contributes to the perpetuity of the human race," and that I think is the biological as well as social aspect or purpose of marriage. Does gay marriage have such biological and social aspect and purpose?

    If that is well and truly what you think then you must also be arguing against the right of marriage to anyone who is infertile or unwilling to have children, that includes straight couples. If you are unwilling to do so, then the whole premise of your argument is simply couched in anti-homosexual hypocrisy. I will say it one last time - denying gays the right to marry does not in any way affect the institution of marriage and has no discernible effect on the world's population. If however, you are really worried about the world's population, which I don't think you are but rather, are using it as a straw man argument, then one would think that you would welcome gay marriage since the world is, by most accounts, dangerously overpopulated and we 7 billion plus are in danger of depleting our natural resources.

    And, yes, I would certainly say that basic human rights are denied to gays who are not allowed to marry. "Discriminatory marriage laws deprive gay and lesbian couples of over 1000 federal rights and benefits. Deprivation of these benefits has demonstrable negative psychological and social impact on same sex couples, their children and families. Discrimination frays the human spirit. Making committed human connections is good for physical and mental health. Forming families, traditional or not, is good for the soul. Marriage is a basic human right and an individual personal choice and the State should not interfere with same-gender couples who choose to marry. Homosexuality is a normal variant of adult sexuality; gay men and lesbians possess the same potential and desire for sustained loving and lasting relationships as heterosexuals, including loving and parenting children. This is supported by hard data, not just opinion. Ending discrimination enhances the human spirit and makes all our lives better."

    If you would not deny the right to marriage to straight couples who cannot or will not have children then you have no argument against allowing gays to marry since your whole premise seems to be that the perpetuity of the human race is at stake.

    Kindness is a moral virtual. Try and practice it towards all. Have a good day.

    Posted in: Thousands march for gay rights in Japan's first 'Rainbow Week'

  • 0

    ambrosia

    voiceofokinawa: You then argue which will contribute to the perpetuity of the humanity biologically and socially.

    People having babies contributes to the perpetuity of the human race and as I've already stated, homosexuals are just as capable of having and or raising babies as straights are. How does trying to deny them the same opportunity to create a family contribute to the perpetuation of society in any way, unless you are comfortable living in a society which denies equal rights to all of its members? I am not. Everyone is not suddenly going to become homosexual because you allow them to marry. The same percentage of people who were gay before will be gay now, they will simply be allowed to live their lives like equals. You can "concrete" this as much as you want but your basic argument still comes down to denying people rights. That has never proved to be a good thing for a society and never will be.

    Posted in: Thousands march for gay rights in Japan's first 'Rainbow Week'

  • 1

    ambrosia

    Mohamed Al Hashim: These marriages decreases birth and increase women depression because there will be less men as husbands.

    How do you figure? Plenty of gays want to marry and have kids too. Plenty of straight people don't want to have kids. As a woman, I can tell you that I'd be far more depressed married to a guy who was gay and really didn't want to be with me than I would by never being married. First, give women a little more credit than that. Second, give it some logical thought.

    Posted in: Thousands march for gay rights in Japan's first 'Rainbow Week'

  • 0

    ambrosia

    olegek: What does it means - homophobic ?

    Homo = same Phobic = fear of

    It is NORMAL people.... and it is ...with deviations

    Who is normal? Do you know what goes on in the bedrooms of your friends, co-workers, neighbors? Other than the sex itself, if you are straight there is really not much at all that is different about you from homosexuals. They're just living their lives and trying to get along as best they can, like most everyone is.

    Our civilisation based on the normal one...

    No, our civilization is based on pretending that the other one didn't exist. Thankfully, that is changing.

    Posted in: Thousands march for gay rights in Japan's first 'Rainbow Week'

  • 0

    ambrosia

    voiceofokinawa: I am talking about the matter idealistically, abstracting away from concreteness. Yes, there are many married couples who want a child but cannot due to some biological reasons and whose last resort is adoption and/or in-vitro fertilization. There are also cases in straight marriages in which child rearing is neglected or even infanticides occur. I am abstracting away from such concreteness and talking about the matter more idealistically. You cannot take up peripheral cases such as these and justify your position. The comparison must be done between idealistic straight marriage and idealistic gay marriage.

    No, what you are doing is fantasizing about an ideal that simply doesn't exist. There is no "ideal marriage". What works for some may not work for others so, sorry, but I refuse to base my argument within such narrow parameters. If your idea of an "ideal marriage" is one with children then simply ask yourself if you accept the notion of people adopting and or using fertility treatments. If the answer is yes, then please explain what your objection is to homosexual couples doing exactly the same. Ask yourself if those who are infertile or not allowed to adopt for whatever reason should also be banned from getting married. If the answer is no, then please explain why you'd want to deny that right to gays.

    Allowing gays to marry changes nothing for straight people. Straight people will continue to have children and not have children. They'll continue to be in good marriages and crappy marriages. They'll continue to never marry, stay married and divorce. Nothing changes for them by allowing gays to marry. And if you think that the institution of marriage is so fragile that its very existence is threatened by whatever percentage of an estimated 10% of the homosexual population wants to get married, then it is an extremely fragile institution. But then again, the high rate of divorce among heterosexual marriages should've already been an indication of that.

    Posted in: Thousands march for gay rights in Japan's first 'Rainbow Week'

  • 0

    ambrosia

    the chronic: then I am waiting for the day when western countries allow plural marriage so long as all parties are your so called Consenting adults!

    I don't know if you're being facetious or not but yes, logically, it is hard to oppose plural marriage that occurs between consenting adults. I, for one, am not opposed to it.

    Posted in: Thousands march for gay rights in Japan's first 'Rainbow Week'

  • 3

    ambrosia

    voiceofokinawa: I am not a biologist, but I take your word in explaining the mechanism of how fertilization occurs. But does that happen between homosexual couples?

    No, you certainly aren't but I'm just going to assume you're not being purposely obtuse. All children come into the world the same way, scientifically speaking. What's important is that they are raised by people who want and love them. Do you oppose adoption and the use of fertility treatments by straight couples, given that the fertilization didn't happen in the traditional manner? How is that any different when it occurs between homosexual couples other than the fact that it makes you uncomfortable for purely emotional and not logical reasons?

    Posted in: Thousands march for gay rights in Japan's first 'Rainbow Week'

  • 2

    ambrosia

    voiceofokinawa: By marriage society is assured of its perpetuation and prosperity because posterity is born from married couples. Of course that applies only to a heterosexual marriage and not to a homosexual one. The latter should therefore be confined to a personal world. Issuing legal licenses to homosexual couples is out of question.......

    No, society is assured of its perpetuation by sperm and ovum meeting, the sperm penetrating the ovum, fertilization occurring, the zygote multiplying again and again, the blastocyst reaching the uterine lining, implantation occurring and pregnancy going to a healthy term. That is exactly how society insures its perpetuation and posterity. One need not be married, straight or even with a partner for that to happen. It's simply basic biology.

    Prosperity is a whole other matter but neither is that tied to marriage.

    Marriage is a social and legal contract, the terms of which have differed greatly over time and differ now from place to place. Just because one pattern has been the norm in one place does not mean it cannot change. "Marriage licenses from their inception have sought to establish certain prohibitions on the institution of marriage. These prohibitions have changed throughout history. In the 1920s, they were used by 38 states to prohibit whites from marrying blacks, mulattos, Japanese, Chinese, Indians, Mongolians, Malays or Filipinos without a state approved license."

    Again marriage is essentially a social and legal contract and as society and laws have changed so have and so should the terms of that contract. If you believe in a god, then perhaps for you it is also a holy covenant but if you believe in religious freedom, which also means the right not to believe, then you cannot impose your religious beliefs on others and insist that they see it the same way.

    If you believe that all people should be treated equally and allowed the same rights and opportunities, then it is difficult to really justify opposing marriage for all sound-minded adults entering freely into the terms.

    Posted in: Thousands march for gay rights in Japan's first 'Rainbow Week'

View all