• NSFW: Activists preform sex acts nude during church service
    346 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;30251555]Can I get some information on the sentences please[/QUOTE] Too complicated? Let me simplify: Nudity or public sex acts being illegal doesn't really stop any harm to society, and the additional charges that can be tied to "public indecency" can really spiral into ridiculous punishments. Also, do you really think that if it wasn't illegal, it would be going on all the time everywhere? The simple answer is no, not even in nudist colonies does this happen. The idea that rape would happen more often can also be seen to be false in nudist colonies, so that point is void as well. It's just unnecessarily illegal. Also, if men don't have to wear shirts, women shouldn't either. It's just that simple.
and i'm going to bed before i start to licking the screen
sexual repression fuels the desire to rape. nudity being illegal does as much to stop rape as drugs being illegal does to stop drug cartels
[QUOTE=Sanius;30251634]sexual repression fuels the desire to rape. nudity being illegal does as much to stop rape as drugs being illegal does to stop drug cartels[/QUOTE] I concur.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;30251493] Again we find that the difference in the restriction of rights in [i]theory[/i] and in [i]reality[/i] is great. In theory it can be considered an expicitly discriminatory law to force them to cover up. In reality it can be considered "You have to wear a shirt. Big deal." I don't think that warrants being called a misogynist[/QUOTE] You have to sit at the back of the bus Big deal And yes, the level of discrimination in these two specific scenarios is [b]exactly the same[/b]. A law that forces women to wear a shirt but not men is no different than a law that forces blacks to sit at the back of the bus but not whites. Fortunately I live in a country where this law does not exist
[QUOTE=Zeke129;30251732]You have to sit at the back of the bus Big deal And yes, the level of discrimination in these two specific scenarios is [b]exactly the same[/b]. A law that forces women to wear a shirt but not men is no different than a law that forces blacks to sit at the back of the bus but not whites. Fortunately I live in a country where this law does not exist[/QUOTE] Actually I did think of that counterpoint after I posted my argument. I was hoping nobody would say it. :smith: Sorry. [editline]4th June 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Megafanx13;30251608]Too complicated? Let me simplify: Nudity or public sex acts being illegal doesn't really stop any harm to society, and the additional charges that can be tied to "public indecency" can really spiral into ridiculous punishments. Also, do you really think that if it wasn't illegal, it would be going on all the time everywhere? The simple answer is no, not even in nudist colonies does this happen. The idea that rape would happen more often can also be seen to be false in nudist colonies, so that point is void as well. It's just unnecessarily illegal. Also, if men don't have to wear shirts, women shouldn't either. It's just that simple.[/QUOTE] Jesus i asked for the sentences which you said were so over-the-top This is quickly getting unpleasant, can we all agree with Breen to quit
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;30251787]Jesus i asked for the sentences which you said were so over-the-top This is quickly getting unpleasant, can we all agree with Breen to quit[/QUOTE] Concede defeat or this will not end. Why would I agree to cease discussion when your points begin falling apart?
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;30251866]Concede defeat or this will not end. Why would I agree to cease discussion when your points begin falling apart?[/QUOTE] Because you're not a troll feeding off of drama Oh wait
[QUOTE=Hampants;30251914]Because you're not a troll feeding off of drama Oh wait[/QUOTE] I am not.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;30251732]You have to sit at the back of the bus Big deal And yes, the level of discrimination in these two specific scenarios is [b]exactly the same[/b]. A law that forces women to wear a shirt but not men is no different than a law that forces blacks to sit at the back of the bus but not whites. Fortunately I live in a country where this law does not exist[/QUOTE] ACTUALLY! While using the restroom it came to me! The reason why there is a difference between bus discrimination and breast discrimination is this: The bus discrimination arose from the idea that black people were subhuman. Think about these two imaginary scenarios. Assume everything I say is true. Think not of how ridiculous they may sound, I am making a point.[list] [*]You're waiting at the DMV. A man who works there comes out and says "Black people and white people are going to be processed separately because black people are inferior." [*]You're waiting at the DMV. A man who works there comes out and says "Black people and white people will be processed separately because it's more efficient to group by race." What he says is completely honest and no racist ulterior motive exists.[/list] Imagine that both groups wouldn't have any real benefits or negative effects as a result of which group they end up in. [b]Again, don't think about the improbability of either situation.[/b] Can you REALLY say that the second case is as bad as the first? It's not by far. This applies to the argument about breasts because to say that women must wear bras/shirts does not arise from the idea that women are inferior. It may be considered misogynist by some, but I don't think it arises from misogyny.
Yeah it does arise from the idea that women are inferior. It arises from the idea that women should be modest and subservient to men, while men should be afforded luxuries that women are not because they are more powerful.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;30252067] The reason why there is a difference between bus discrimination and breast discrimination is this: The bus discrimination arose from the idea that black people were subhuman. [/QUOTE] yes and the idea that breasts are a disgrace arose from the fact that peasants couldn't afford proper clothing, so their breasts were exposed and dirty. covered breasts are a status symbol your move, misogynist
So many things that people just accept are actually gross and rooted in misogyny. Man has lots of sex, he's a player. Woman has lots of sex, she's a slut. Misogyny. Men should be the "breadwinner" while women should stay at home. Misogyny. Single women make bad parents. Misogyny. And now the shirt thing as well. Here's a twofer: Lesbians are hot while gay men are gross. Misogyny (women are for amusement and lesbians are [i]very[/i] amusing) AND homophobia on the part of men.
I did not know that Sanius, I will admit that much. However, I will say that it doesn't really matter if there was a nasty motive for considering breasts indecent 2000 years ago. What matters is if the motive today is the same. If you were to take any person today who thought women should cover their tits up, and asked them "Why do you want this to be so?", they won't say "Because women should be subservient." We know that people don't always speak the truth. But they won't mean "Because women should be subservient" either. They wouldn't even subconsciously think that. The real reason behind it is the idea that it's indecent. You can call that silly or illogical but it's not [i]misogynist[/i].
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;30252204]The real reason behind it is the idea that it's indecent. You can call that silly or illogical but it's not [i]misogynist[/i].[/QUOTE] It is misogynist when the only reason it's thought of as arbitrarily "indecent" is because of those past misogynist mindsets.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;30252162]So many things that people just accept are actually gross and rooted in misogyny. Man has lots of sex, he's a player. Woman has lots of sex, she's a slut. Misogyny. Men should be the "breadwinner" while women should stay at home. Misogyny. Single women make bad parents. Misogyny. And now the shirt thing as well. Here's a twofer: Lesbians are hot while gay men are gross. Misogyny (women are for amusement and lesbians are [i]very[/i] amusing) AND homophobia on the part of men.[/QUOTE] A lot of that is full of bullshit. "Single women make bad parents." Generally a kid with a mom AND a dad is going to end up better. You could say the same about dads: "Single dads make bad parents." MISANDRY? Lesbians and gay men. I agree that to avoid men who are gay because they're gay is homophobic, but "Lesbians are hot while gay men are gross" just arises from the fact that women making out gives men a stiffy and men making out doesn't. That's just nature, and doesn't amount to either homophobia or misogyny.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;30252204] We know that people don't always speak the truth. But they won't mean "Because women should be subservient" either. They wouldn't even subconsciously think that. The real reason behind it is the idea that it's indecent. You can call that silly or illogical but it's not [i]misogynist[/i].[/QUOTE] Around the end of segregation do you think people would have said it was done because blacks were inferior? Nah, they'd probably say it was done because "that's the way we've always done it"
[QUOTE=Zeke129;30252257]Around the end of segregation do you think people would have said it was done because blacks were inferior? Nah, they'd probably say it was done because "that's the way we've always done it"[/QUOTE] But they actually thought that blacks were inferior. They didn't say that however, because it'd make them look bad. There's a reason I said that they wouldn't [i]mean[/i] it, or [i]even subconsciously think[/i] that. It's because the GENUINE reason 99% of people have for opposing topfreedom is not "Women should be subservient". However, the GENUINE reason people segregated was a feeling that black people were inferior.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;30252249] "Single women make bad parents." Generally a kid with a mom AND a dad is going to end up better. You could say the same about dads: "Single dads make bad parents." MISANDRY?[/quote] Your first statement is not scientifically accurate (there's no basis that a mom and a dad can do a better job of raising a child) and your second statement is fine. Yeah, that would be misandry if you were a woman. Since you're not it's just standard stupidity. [QUOTE=Elecbullet;30252249]Lesbians and gay men. I agree that to avoid men who are gay because they're gay is homophobic, but "Lesbians are hot while gay men are gross" just arises from the fact that women making out gives men a stiffy and men making out doesn't. That's just nature, and doesn't amount to either homophobia or misogyny.[/QUOTE] Yeah it's misogyny, that bit of "nature" wouldn't be accepted as the only truth if it weren't for men assuming the ruling position [editline]4th June 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Elecbullet;30252274]But they actually thought that blacks were inferior. They didn't say that however, because it'd make them look bad.[/QUOTE] Is that so? Do people think that blacks are inferior now when they drive through a predominantly black ghetto and don't get angry about the poor living conditions? Or are they just accepting it as the way it's always been and moving on?
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;30252274]There's a reason I said that they wouldn't [i]mean[/i] it, or [i]even subconsciously think[/i] that. It's because the GENUINE reason 99% of people have for opposing topfreedom is not "Women should be subservient". However, the GENUINE reason people segregated was a feeling that black people were inferior.[/QUOTE] Except that the reason people don't want woman to have the freedom to not wear shirts has its very basis in misogyny.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;30252278]Your first statement is not scientifically accurate (there's no basis that a mom and a dad can do a better job of raising a child) and your second statement is fine. Yeah, that would be misandry if you were a woman. Since you're not it's just standard stupidity.[/QUOTE] With one less person to help around the house and provide income, it only follows logically that there is less time and resources to raise the child successfully. NOTE: I am not saying anything about households with two men as the head of the family, or two women. I don't know anything about that. I don't claim to. I'm just saying: Logically, two parents are better than one. What if I said "A single parent is not as good as two parents"? You can't call it misogyny OR misanthropy now, because the gender is unspecified. And it's neither. It's only logical.
They must have had little to know clue what was happening.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;30252319]With one less person to help around the house and provide income, it only follows logically that there is less time and resources to raise the child successfully. NOTE: I am not saying anything about households with two men as the head of the family, or two women. I don't know anything about that. I don't claim to. I'm just saying: Logically, two parents are better than one. What if I said "A single parent is not as good as two parents"? You can't call it misogyny OR misanthropy now, because the gender is unspecified. And it's neither. It's only logical.[/QUOTE] It's as simple as this: One good parent is infinitely better than two awful ones.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;30252278]Is that so? Do people think that blacks are inferior now when they drive through a predominantly black ghetto and don't get angry about the poor living conditions? Or are they just accepting it as the way it's always been and moving on?[/QUOTE] I don't see what this has to do with the debate at hand, but generally the reason blacks live in generally poorer conditions is because once the civil rights movement hit its prime they were already at an extreme disadvantage, and disadvantaged parents produce disadvantages kids. Ironically the same argument is used to counter racists who tout high crime rates among blacks. [editline]4th June 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Megafanx13;30252349]It's as simple as this: One good parent is infinitely better than two awful ones.[/QUOTE] I know that much, but those are EXCEPTIONS. The overall rule is: One parent is in general less able to produce a successful child than two parents. Since this is true, we can therefore be able to say that :[list] [*]One mother is less able to produce successful children than a mother and father, and: [*]One father is less able to produce successful children than a mother and father.[/list] And it's neither misogyny or misanthropy.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;30252319] NOTE: I am not saying anything about households with two men as the head of the family, or two women. I don't know anything about that. I don't claim to. I'm just saying: Logically, two parents are better than one. What if I said "A single parent is not as good as two parents"? You can't call it misogyny OR misanthropy now, because the gender is unspecified. And it's neither. It's only logical.[/QUOTE] So are three parents better than two? If so, do you support polygamy? If you're looking at this from a purely 2 > 1 mathematical perspective, then you should.
Well... I don't know that I could. You have have 3 caretakers without polygamy: mother, father, grandmother... That is a different debate however and it just seems like you're avoiding saying that your initial example of criticizing single mothers as misogyny was misguided. It's not bad to be wrong dude. I mean Christ I've made a fool of myself a hundred times already. I [i]guess[/i] misogyny should be legal. It's something that I have put very little thought into though.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;30252387]The overall rule is: One parent is in general less able to produce a successful child than two parents.[/QUOTE] How about three parents? Isn't that an argument for polygamy? PS I hate this therad and I hope you all die
TH89 that was actually an extremely amusing post I guess that is an argument for polygamy now isn't it. Monogamous relationships have their benefits as well, but this is an entirely different debate and we shouldn't get so off-track
"actually?"
Okay fine, you're just an all-around hilarious guy. <3
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.