1. Post #81
    Dennab
    October 2010
    4,306 Posts
    You guys talk the talk, but will you walk the walk?

  2. Post #82
    Gold Member
    Thy Reaper's Avatar
    April 2006
    806 Posts
    Their isn't anything indecent about a persons face. Its a face and is almost equivalent to your identity. Most people identify you with your facial features. Its third world stupid shit to make someone cover up their face. Sure I can identify you by other physical aspects or your name but your face is the one people recognize with best and differentiates you from a crowd.
    Look up the Burqa.

    The idea that faces aren't indecent is a cultural thing. It's shared by the majority of them, but not all. Similarly, Ancient Greece and other cultures (largely before Christianity took over as a major religion) also didn't view a naked human as indecent.

    You aren't going to convince me that I should see a human body as indecent just because you think it is. You've gotta do better than "nuh uh!"

    A Kiss isn't comparable to a life sized Human being in the nude. And holding hands? What are you talking about? Holding hands isn't solely limited to PDAs and then its holding hands. You can almost replicate that by holding your hands together. We're arguing about a 21st century event that took place in the USA. I really don't care about all the old shit that happened before or things that take place in a third world country. Being ugly isn't a law no fucking shit whilst Indecent Exposure is and in some areas of the USA it is illegal to be nude in public at this time period.
    Gay men have been attacked for kissing or holding hands in the US, even fairly recently. It was more common a few decades ago, but it does still happen in some areas. If you think kissing and holding hands is obviously acceptable and not at all comparable, there are also people who strongly disagree. Also, Muslim-majority countries, of which a few countries completely ban these things in public.

    You gotta do better.

    A Flasher doesn't harass people for sexual arousal. A Flasher may harass people but it isn't sexual arousal. If Public Nudity is legal than their is no reason for anyone to have a problem with flashers from a legal perspective.
    Some flashers do it for arousal, it's called exhibitionism and takes many forms. However, it can be illegal to do otherwise legal things when you specifically target someone (e.g., run up to someone, whip it out, spin it around, and run away). Screaming is legal, but if you run up to someone and scream at them you'll probably get a stern talking to from the police at least.

    Nudist aren't a collective you dipshit. Its one thing to say "I think" its another thing to say "They".. At some point it gets annoying. Not everyone has this alertness that says "You will have diarrhea" before leaving the house not everyone is prepared before leaving the house. I'm not implying they all don't wear clothing. I opened up the possibility of an event happening.
    Virtually everyone has that specific alertness. It's one of our built-in senses. Naturally you can get attacks that are unexpected, but so can anyone, even a woman wearing a thong and a miniskirt. Not much to stop a decent attack there.

    Also, vomit. Everyone can vomit, at any time, and we largely do nothing to stop it except of our own volition. Vomiting outside is also not illegal (unless you could determine it was intentional, I suppose). Random diarrhea attacks are fairly comparable.

    Stop implying they're all the same. Thats like implying everyone carries Tums or something when they get a tummy ache.
    I'm arguing in general. Most people seem to have diarrhea under control, clothed or not. You don't suddenly get irritable bowel syndrome when you take your pants off.

    And I stated "It being icky is the only argument you could ever have"
    I'm sorry but if you used context clues you'd realize I'm talking about the only plausible reasons to make this illegal is for sanitation reasons and the fact that some people may find it disgusting or "icky".
    Which makes me laugh and laugh and laugh. Besides, it being illegal is currently unrelated to hypothetical sanitation issues. It is illegal to stand around naked, or wear transparent clothing (think see-through raincoat), but these could not not invoke any sanitation issues.

    And if you don't understand why someone with an erection in public could be disturbing or why people would want public masturbation to be illegal then you wouldn't be able to understand why people would dislike having to see naked people outside of their homes when they don't ask for it.
    People can be disturbed about a whole lot of things. Interracial couples kissing, gay couples kissing, etc. We need extra reasons, like provable psychological effects, to really warrant making things illegal. Otherwise, it's just ick-factor. Which you support, and I laugh and laugh again.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Winner Winner x 1Dumb Dumb x 1 (list)

  3. Post #83
    Gold Member
    Void Skull's Avatar
    February 2008
    4,662 Posts
    so when you get one of those out-of-the-blue boners

    do you just run like hell to the nearest hiding spot and wait it out?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Funny Funny x 2 (list)

  4. Post #84
    Gold Member
    Thy Reaper's Avatar
    April 2006
    806 Posts
    You guys talk the talk, but will you walk the walk?
    Depends on a lot more than legality. People don't always go swimming around others in a bikini because of their own self-image, after all, regardless of legality.

  5. Post #85
    3picFail's Avatar
    May 2010
    2,054 Posts
    This ban, as pheasible as it is, shouldn't go through. As stated in the article, its a large part of the tolerance found in San Francisco. And it seems like hes just mad because nudists are gathering together in small groups in public locations regularly. If THAT is the tipping point of nudism tolerance, it comes to show that there musn't have been much tolerance at all.

    People should be allowed to require clothing in their private buinesses and stores. Maybe even public transportation due to the close proximity at which people travel, but nobody is being hurt by nudists walking around sidewalks and parks. If people are uncomfortable with it, thats relavent to their own psyche and can avert their vision.

    Edited:

    so when you get one of those out-of-the-blue boners

    do you just run like hell to the nearest hiding spot and wait it out?
    I'd imagine that people who can take their clothes off and walk around in public have vast amounts of self control. The idea behind nudim is often tolerance of the human physique, people who make the choice to walk around nude often are behind this ideal and realize that a dick is a dick and boobs are boobs. Its not likely seeing and extremely attractive person clothed or even naked could arouse a nudist, its about seeing a people for who they are.

    Or maybe they just like being naked. Either way self control is required.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply United States Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  6. Post #86
    Primigenes's Avatar
    May 2012
    2,511 Posts
    Look up the Burqa.

    The idea that faces aren't indecent is a cultural thing. It's shared by the majority of them, but not all. Similarly, Ancient Greece and other cultures (largely before Christianity took over as a major religion) also didn't view a naked human as indecent.

    You aren't going to convince me that I should see a human body as indecent just because you think it is. You've gotta do better than "nuh uh!"



    Gay men have been attacked for kissing or holding hands in the US, even fairly recently. It was more common a few decades ago, but it does still happen in some areas. If you think kissing and holding hands is obviously acceptable and not at all comparable, there are also people who strongly disagree. Also, Muslim-majority countries, of which a few countries completely ban these things in public.

    You gotta do better.



    Some flashers do it for arousal, it's called exhibitionism and takes many forms. However, it can be illegal to do otherwise legal things when you specifically target someone (e.g., run up to someone, whip it out, spin it around, and run away). Screaming is legal, but if you run up to someone and scream at them you'll probably get a stern talking to from the police at least.



    Virtually everyone has that specific alertness. It's one of our built-in senses. Naturally you can get attacks that are unexpected, but so can anyone, even a woman wearing a thong and a miniskirt. Not much to stop a decent attack there.

    Also, vomit. Everyone can vomit, at any time, and we largely do nothing to stop it except of our own volition. Vomiting outside is also not illegal (unless you could determine it was intentional, I suppose). Random diarrhea attacks are fairly comparable.



    I'm arguing in general. Most people seem to have diarrhea under control, clothed or not. You don't suddenly get irritable bowel syndrome when you take your pants off.



    Which makes me laugh and laugh and laugh. Besides, it being illegal is currently unrelated to hypothetical sanitation issues. It is illegal to stand around naked, or wear transparent clothing (think see-through raincoat), but these could not not invoke any sanitation issues.



    People can be disturbed about a whole lot of things. Interracial couples kissing, gay couples kissing, etc. We need extra reasons, like provable psychological effects, to really warrant making things illegal. Otherwise, it's just ick-factor. Which you support, and I laugh and laugh again.
    I'm getting tired of you bringing examples from the past and other countries. Then there Interracial/Gays/etc kissing that are basically the same as Heterosexuals kissing. You need to step up with your examples. Its obvious that I don't agree with those actions and every time I have to justify why two people kissing, holding hands or whatever is ok I waste my time.

    Also do you think I'm trying to convince you? Beauty is subjective and I'm sure you already know that

    What the fuck are you even doing?

    The only way it would be considered illegal if we outlawed public nudity is if you stalked a person or did it infront of their homes in that general direction.
    No ones saying they get IBS when they take their pants off. Its "what if" they got IBS.

    The point is that you may or may not know when diarrhea or regurgitation will occur. Its not a thing you can just plan for half the time unless you're already aware of it. And thus not everyone may plan for any issues while they make the venture outside.

    And if I could cite a source for psychological effects I wouldn't be arguing on behalf of "Its disgusting" or "Its icky" in fact I would have cited them already. All I know is that reactions to public nudity are dependent of the subject. The ick factor is at best the only thing you can use since no one has cared enough to make a study on The Effects of Public Nudity on the Populous
    The "ick factor" is an important part of decency. Especially when you benefit from clothing more than you would without. Which is why we have been wearing clothing for such long periods of time. Now let me be serious for a second

    Of course you can't really make it illegal along with sexual activities in public but these acts should be frowned upon. They're stupid and disgusting.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Dumb Dumb x 4 (list)

  7. Post #87
    3picFail's Avatar
    May 2010
    2,054 Posts
    The point is that you may or may not know when diarrhea or regurgitation will occur. Its not a thing you can just plan for half the time unless you're already aware of it. And thus not everyone may plan for any issues while they make the venture outside.
    Refer to the post above mine. I mention self control a few times. Realize that most nudists don't decide to take their clothes off on a whim. Think about the mental preperations you'd have to go through to be able to do that yourself, and apply that to the concept of controlling sexual arousal, bowelmovements, and the overall concept of being outside, in public, and in he judgement of the human eye. If you haven't already understood what im trying to get at, (almost) everyone does this every day. You are just applying this to a specific group of people. Wearing clothes doesn't make shitting yourself any less sanitary anyways.

    and if I could cite a source for psychological effects I wouldn't be arguing on behalf of "Its disgusting" or "Its icky" in fact I would have cited them already. All I know is that reactions to public nudity are dependent of the subject. The ick factor is at best the only thing you can use since no one has cared enough to make a study on The Effects of Public Nudity on the Populous
    Remember that we are talking about the city of tolerence here. The fact a certain number of people would dislike something relatively harmless shouldn't dictate wether people can or cannot do it.

  8. Post #88
    Gold Member
    Thy Reaper's Avatar
    April 2006
    806 Posts
    I'm getting tired of you bringing examples from the past and other countries. Then there Interracial/Gays/etc kissing that are basically the same as Heterosexuals kissing. You need to step up with your examples. Its obvious that I don't agree with those actions and every time I have to justify why two people kissing, holding hands or whatever is ok I waste my time.
    It's not a waste of time, it gets to the core of why you think this particular icky thing should be illegal when those other icky things should not be. After all, others have called all those things icky in the past, and used that as their reason for them being illegal. I have no reason to think your ick factor here is valid beyond yourself, or that I should give a shit that you hate nakedness.

    Also do you think I'm trying to convince you? Beauty is subjective and I'm sure you already know that

    What the fuck are you even doing?
    I'm posting on an internet discussion forum. We discuss things. If you don't want to discuss things, or aren't trying to convince others of your point of view, then why are you posting?

    The only way it would be considered illegal if we outlawed public nudity is if you stalked a person or did it infront of their homes in that general direction.
    No ones saying they get IBS when they take their pants off. Its "what if" they got IBS.
    Your randomized spacing aggravates me.

    That is not the only way it could be made conditionally illegal, that's a non-argument. You could make nudity have quite a lot of conditions for its legality.

    Someone with a medical condition that makes nudism effectively impossible, or at least impractical, will have to deal with that in their own way. Just like someone who has a condition that makes them spontaneously vomit.

    The point is that you may or may not know when diarrhea or regurgitation will occur. Its not a thing you can just plan for half the time unless you're already aware of it. And thus not everyone may plan for any issues while they make the venture outside.
    Sure, but that's the case now, and it is a terribly minor issue on the whole. Plenty of people vomit or shit themselves from drinking too much alcohol, for example. We do not use this as a primary factor in determining its legality.

    And if I could cite a source for psychological effects I wouldn't be arguing on behalf of "Its disgusting" or "Its icky" in fact I would have cited them already. All I know is that reactions to public nudity are dependent of the subject. The ick factor is at best the only thing you can use since no one has cared enough to make a study on The Effects of Public Nudity on the Populous
    So you are arguing. Why did you ask about why I'm discussing this earlier, then? Why say you weren't trying to 'convince' me?

    Alright, but ick factor is insufficient for public policy, as per all the other examples of things that have been or currently are illegal elsewhere based on ick factors.

    The "ick factor" is an important part of decency. Especially when you benefit from clothing more than you would without. Which is why we have been wearing clothing for such long periods of time. Now let me be serious for a second
    Decency is not a good basis for anything. It's far too subjective a basis for the limiting of freedom, which we generally take very seriously. Look how much people hate marijuana being illegal, and that has much more serious implications overall!

    And yes, clothes are functional. That is unrelated. We could just as easily be talking about full head coverings if we were in certain countries.

    Of course you can't really make it illegal along with sexual activities in public but these acts should be frowned upon. They're stupid and disgusting.
    You are silly and foolish, and I find your text to leave a significantly foul after-taste.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Dumb Dumb x 1 (list)

  9. Post #89
    Gold Member
    Ardosos's Avatar
    July 2009
    7,128 Posts
    Decency has nothing to do with it, it's an issue of sanitation.

  10. Post #90
    Gold Member
    Paramud's Avatar
    November 2008
    8,968 Posts
    Decency has nothing to do with it, it's an issue of sanitation.
    Then his argument shouldn't entirely be "it's disgusting."
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Dumb Dumb x 1 (list)

  11. Post #91
    Needs more suspension.
    Dennab
    February 2006
    4,484 Posts
    in that picture of them eating in the restaurant... if they don't wear clothes, how do they carry their money/identification/phone?

  12. Post #92
    J. Jett's Avatar
    October 2010
    834 Posts
    in that picture of them eating in the restaurant... if they don't wear clothes, how do they carry their money/identification/phone?
    Most likely a bag or a purse.

  13. Post #93
    zakedodead's Avatar
    September 2007
    3,232 Posts
    I'm all for freedom but public nudity takes it a bit too far
    I know right because it's immoral and jesus told me that god created humans in his perfect image so that he could then say they're gross and make them wear clothes.

    Being naked doesn't do anything that can harm anyone else, just because you don't like seeing peoples bodies doesn't mean it should be illegal.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Dumb Dumb x 6 (list)

  14. Post #94
    Gold Member
    Thy Reaper's Avatar
    April 2006
    806 Posts
    Decency has nothing to do with it, it's an issue of sanitation.
    The law does not reflect that in any way. It is entirely about decency with no regard to sanitation.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Dumb Dumb x 1 (list)

  15. Post #95
    Gold Member
    Ardosos's Avatar
    July 2009
    7,128 Posts
    Then his argument shouldn't entirely be "it's disgusting."
    Sanitation issues are disgusting.

    The law does not reflect that in any way. It is entirely about decency with no regard to sanitation.
    The laws in their current state are poor, I'm not arguing that. I'm just saying that there are legitimate arguments besides "it's obscene, think of the children!".
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Winner Winner x 1 (list)

  16. Post #96
    3picFail's Avatar
    May 2010
    2,054 Posts
    Decency has nothing to do with it, it's an issue of sanitation.
    Actually, its not an issue of sanitation, at least not any less than that between you and anyone else around you. You can't assume that they are a sanitation problem just because they are naked.

    Edited:

    I'm just saying that there are more illegitimate arguments besides "it's obscene, think of the children!".
    ftfy
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Winner Winner x 1 (list)

  17. Post #97
    Gold Member
    Ardosos's Avatar
    July 2009
    7,128 Posts
    Actually, its not an issue of sanitation, at least not any less than that between you and anyone else around you. You can't assume that they are a sanitation problem just because they are naked.

    Edited:


    ftfy
    Alright, let me put this as objectively as possible - for every square inch of skin exposed, there exists a number of potential issues, there is sweat, potential open sores, cysts, rashes, and any number of other bacteria, dirt or infectants. Logically, the more area of skin is exposed, the more this chance increases.

    As such, you have a potential problem that can be easily somewhat combated (by wearing clothing), and the solution is not harmful to others (because nobody needs to be naked, outside of a few psychological reasons, or in cases of specific articles of clothing causing allergic reactions).

    All of this is ignoring the higher-contaminate areas of the body that are traditionally covered in clothing (the genital region), as well as areas of the body that have a higher risk of being hygienically neglected.

    Please note the absence of key words such as "obscene" or "decency" or "vulgar" in the above statements.

    Edited:

    To summarize, I can think of a number of reasons against public nudity, and far less reasons in favor of it. If you can think of any that somehow combat or negate the reasons against, I'm all ears.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Friendly Friendly x 1Winner Winner x 1 (list)

  18. Post #98
    U.S.S.R's Avatar
    December 2010
    3,820 Posts
    Actually, its not an issue of sanitation, at least not any less than that between you and anyone else around you. You can't assume that they are a sanitation problem just because they are naked.

    Edited:


    ftfy
    How about a majority of people do not want a bunch of nudists waltzing about in the open, or that some people don't have the capacity to tolerate it? Nudity should only be allowed within private places, and going on about personal freedoms is just an awful, redundant argument since it can go either way.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows Vista United States Show Events Zing Zing x 1 (list)

  19. Post #99
    Gold Member
    Paramud's Avatar
    November 2008
    8,968 Posts
    How about a majority of people do not want a bunch of nudists waltzing about in the open, or that some people don't have the capacity to tolerate it?
    Because a majority of people can never be wrong, right?

    Alright, let me put this as objectively as possible - for every square inch of skin exposed, there exists a number of potential issues, there is sweat, potential open sores, cysts, rashes, and any number of other bacteria, dirt or infectants. Logically, the more area of skin is exposed, the more this chance increases.

    As such, you have a potential problem that can be easily somewhat combated (by wearing clothing), and the solution is not harmful to others (because nobody needs to be naked, outside of a few psychological reasons, or in cases of specific articles of clothing causing allergic reactions).

    All of this is ignoring the higher-contaminate areas of the body that are traditionally covered in clothing (the genital region), as well as areas of the body that have a higher risk of being hygienically neglected.

    Please note the absence of key words such as "obscene" or "decency" or "vulgar" in the above statements.

    Edited:

    To summarize, I can think of a number of reasons against public nudity, and far less reasons in favor of it. If you can think of any that somehow combat or negate the reasons against, I'm all ears.
    All good points which are mysteriously vacant from most of Primigenes' posts.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 1Dumb Dumb x 1 (list)

  20. Post #100
    U.S.S.R's Avatar
    December 2010
    3,820 Posts
    Because a majority of people can never be wrong, right?
    The majority should have to tolerate something they find disgusting, revolting, and unsanitary? Something that isn't necessary at all, and doesn't have any place within equality or fairness. I don't care about San Francisco, but I'd scream if it was legal anywhere else. I don't want disgusting, uncovered flesh surrounding me, I don't feel comfortable around the clothed populace anyway.

    This isn't a matter of human rights or anything, this is a minority people exposing themselves, lowering the sanitary state of everything around them, and causing discomfort in others.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows Vista United States Show Events Winner Winner x 1 (list)

  21. Post #101
    Gold Member
    Paramud's Avatar
    November 2008
    8,968 Posts
    The majority should have to tolerate something they find disgusting, revolting, and unsanitary?
    If what they find disgusting isn't wrong, then yes. They should. You don't get to criminalize something because you don't like how it looks. I suggest you read a fucking history book if you think that's a good argument.


    As for sanitation, the effects are not as extreme as you think. I'll find a study to cite.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 2Dumb Dumb x 1 (list)

  22. Post #102
    Gold Member
    Maloof?'s Avatar
    December 2006
    7,059 Posts
    The majority should have to tolerate something they find disgusting, revolting, and unsanitary? Something that isn't necessary at all, and doesn't have any place within equality or fairness. I don't care about San Francisco, but I'd scream if it was legal anywhere else. I don't want disgusting, uncovered flesh surrounding me, I don't feel comfortable around the clothed populace anyway.

    This isn't a matter of human rights or anything, this is a minority people exposing themselves, lowering the sanitary state of everything around them, and causing discomfort in others.
    It is a matter of human rights though

    the right to decide how one presents one's self
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 New Zealand Show Events Dumb Dumb x 1 (list)

  23. Post #103
    U.S.S.R's Avatar
    December 2010
    3,820 Posts
    If what they find disgusting isn't wrong, then yes. They should. You don't get to criminalize something because you don't like how it looks. I suggest you read a fucking history book if you think that's a good argument.
    What does history have anything to do with this if it isn't an issue of civil rights? It isn't. You don't need to be nude, you don't need to show your body off to others and set your most unsanitary parts about. It is wrong to a large group, but that isn't the issue. It doesn't matter if it is wrong or right. It's better to protect the people who can't deal with disgusting shit like this than to allow a minority of people to prance about nude so they can catch the air.

    Edited:

    It is a matter of human rights though

    the right to decide how one presents one's self
    And what about my right to not have to deal with something that I can't mentally handle? It isn't some issue of life and death or equality. It is a minor thing. Artistic expression shouldn't come over sanitation or someone's ability to cope with societal interaction.

  24. Post #104
    Gold Member
    Maloof?'s Avatar
    December 2006
    7,059 Posts
    What does history have anything to do with this if it isn't an issue of civil rights? It isn't. You don't need to be nude, you don't need to show your body off to others and set your most unsanitary parts about. It is wrong to a large group, but that isn't the issue. It doesn't matter if it is wrong or right. It's better to protect the people who can't deal with disgusting shit like this than to allow a minority of people to prance about nude so they can catch the air.

    Edited:



    And what about my right to not have to deal with something that I can't mentally handle? It isn't some issue of life and death or equality. It is a minor thing. Artistic expression shouldn't come over sanitation or someone's ability to cope with societal interaction.

    Is seeing a naked person when you weren't expecting it going to make you have a mental breakdown?


    set your most unsanitary parts about.
    I think you'll find that the genitals are often the cleanest parts of the human body, given that we tend to wash them more thoroughly due to that perception that they are inherently filthy
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 New Zealand Show Events Dumb Dumb x 1 (list)

  25. Post #105
    Gold Member
    Paramud's Avatar
    November 2008
    8,968 Posts
    It's better to protect the people who can't deal with disgusting shit like this than to allow a minority of people to prance about nude so they can catch the air.

    And what about my right to not have to deal with something that I can't mentally handle?
    If you can't handle nudity, I'm sorry. I really am. But that does not give you the right to criminalize something harmless, just because you can't stand it.

    That is not how the law works.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 1Dumb Dumb x 1 (list)

  26. Post #106
    U.S.S.R's Avatar
    December 2010
    3,820 Posts
    Even if sanitation isn't an issue, it still is something that'd socially break my last functioning limb. People shouldn't have to tolerate it, it isn't a right that someone has to have to live normally.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows Vista United States Show Events Winner Winner x 1 (list)

  27. Post #107
    Gold Member
    Maloof?'s Avatar
    December 2006
    7,059 Posts
    something that'd socially break my last functioning limb.
    you'll have to explain that one, sorry, I'm not sure what you mean

  28. Post #108
    U.S.S.R's Avatar
    December 2010
    3,820 Posts
    you'll have to explain that one, sorry, I'm not sure what you mean
    Mental conditions. I can't go out into public for very long at all.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows Vista United States Show Events Friendly Friendly x 1 (list)

  29. Post #109
    Conservative Cunt who fucking loves piss
    Elecbullet's Avatar
    November 2007
    11,621 Posts
    I think you'll find that the genitals are often the cleanest parts of the human body, given that we tend to wash them more thoroughly due to that perception that they are inherently filthy
    So rub your fucking hands all over them.

    Just because something is lacking in germs doesn't mean that it's illogical to not want to touch it directly or indirectly. You can't just break things like this down into the most logical, rational components.

  30. Post #110
    Gold Member
    Maloof?'s Avatar
    December 2006
    7,059 Posts
    Mental conditions. I can't go out into public for very long at all.
    I'm genuinely sorry to hear that; I'm quite introverted and I start to get a bit tense if I can't be alone for a bit to recharge

  31. Post #111
    quality poster
    Dennab
    August 2009
    12,242 Posts
    Kissing isn't the same as Public Nudity
    Holding hands isn't the same as Public Nudity (What are you even getting at here.)
    Showing ones face blah blah third world country shit isn't the same as Public Nudity.

    If your going to spring stupid shit like that when all you have to say is that "Being icky" isn't the reason to outlaw something than I am going to say that we should legalize sex in public.

    And it should be illegal because it goes against all sorts of common sense and its visually fucking disgusting to some people.

    An anti Obama sticker is so minuscule.. Why did you even bring it up?

    There are reasons we wear fucking clothing. The main one being to protect us from the environment. And then we have the fact that its fucking visually unappealing. The first thing I think of when I hear nudist are genitals hanging, tits sagging, people who make situations uncomfortable for certain members of the populous.

    This is why we have places for people who want to walk around Nude.

    It being icky is the only argument you could ever have. Stop trying to compare it to "PDA" shit to rule it out.

    I think I deserve the right to not see you naked

    Who gives a fuck about sex or what you consider "Freedom of expression" at the time
    This is the point where we lose all decency. Its rude its vulgar and its fucking backwards

    Right now I'm imagining some nude male/female who had diarrhea earlier today sitting next to me on a train.

    That shit is disgusting.

    You're trying to be open minded but you just look stupid. How the fuck are you going to argue for something that is almost entirely a visual matter.
    You may as well allow fucking public masturbation or sex as long as nothing gets on you.

    Especially if they manage to clean up they're fluids.

    Matter of fact whats the different between a flasher and a nudist?
    And you can't legalize nudity and ban erections
    is it illegal to be repulsive? there's some disgusting people out there but they can still walk about just fine. i don't particularly enjoy gazing at massively obese people with busted up faces and stains on their clothing but i'm not going to try and get them arrested for it.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 3Dumb Dumb x 1 (list)

  32. Post #112
    Gold Member
    Maloof?'s Avatar
    December 2006
    7,059 Posts
    So rub your fucking hands all over them.

    Just because something is lacking in germs doesn't mean that it's illogical to not want to touch it directly or indirectly. You can't just break things like this down into the most logical, rational components.
    I'm not saying walk up to a nudist and grab his wang because that's alright


    I'm saying that the idea that you're going to die if you touch something that somebody's buttock bumped into accidentally is silly and likely a result of the contemporary hand-sanitiser-culture that we've got going on. It's also about respecting one's genitals for sexual and personal reasons; which is why you wouldn't walk along grabbing bollocks if you were in a nudist area.

    Why would you not break things like this down into logical and rational components?

  33. Post #113
    Gold Member
    Paramud's Avatar
    November 2008
    8,968 Posts
    Mental conditions. I can't go out into public for very long at all.
    There are things you do not like that you will have to accept outside. The law is not a blanket to protect you from the harsh parts of reality. It's not a tool to make the world bend to your whim.

    That's not what you want to hear, but that is the truth.

    Just because something is lacking in germs doesn't mean that it's illogical to not want to touch it directly or indirectly. You can't just break things like this down into the most logical, rational components.
    I really have no idea where you're getting this thought that he wants people to touch his genitals.

  34. Post #114
    Conservative Cunt who fucking loves piss
    Elecbullet's Avatar
    November 2007
    11,621 Posts
    I really have no idea where you're getting this thought that he wants people to touch his genitals.
    I really have no idea where you're getting this thought that I have this thought that he wants people to touch his genitals. I actually do know but I didn't mean that in the least.

    My point is that some repulsions and taboos in society cannot be defended scientifically and yet that is not a reason to oppose the taboos.

  35. Post #115
    U.S.S.R's Avatar
    December 2010
    3,820 Posts
    I'm genuinely sorry to hear that; I'm quite introverted and I start to get a bit tense if I can't be alone for a bit to recharge
    Thanks. Anyway, if nudity should be allowed at all, it should only be sanctioned in small towns or villages that are not near metropolitan areas instead of a major travel stop like San Francisco. A compromise works and more conservative communities could keep their clothing laws.

  36. Post #116
    Gold Member
    Paramud's Avatar
    November 2008
    8,968 Posts
    I'm saying that the idea that you're going to die if you touch something that somebody's buttock bumped into accidentally is silly
    Fun fact, a toilet seat is usually cleaner than a cutting board.

    I'm pretty sure that if something you regularly piss, shit, and occasionally vomit into is cleaner than what you prepare food on, you're probably alright if a naked person sat the chair you're using an hour before you did.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Dumb Dumb x 1 (list)

  37. Post #117
    U.S.S.R's Avatar
    December 2010
    3,820 Posts
    Fun fact, a toilet seat is usually cleaner than a cutting board.

    I'm pretty sure that if something you regularly piss, shit, and occasionally vomit into is cleaner than what you cook food on, you're probably alright if a naked person sat the chair you're using an hour before you did.
    That's because places like public bathrooms are cleaned more than regularly. You wouldn't expect someone to clean a chair twice a day.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows Vista United States Show Events Agree Agree x 2 (list)

  38. Post #118
    Gold Member
    Paramud's Avatar
    November 2008
    8,968 Posts
    That's because places like public bathrooms are cleaned more than regularly. You wouldn't expect someone to clean a chair twice a day.
    No, but I do expect everyone to clean their cutting boards before they use them.

  39. Post #119
    Conservative Cunt who fucking loves piss
    Elecbullet's Avatar
    November 2007
    11,621 Posts
    Fun fact, a toilet seat is usually cleaner than a cutting board.

    I'm pretty sure that if something you regularly piss, shit, and occasionally vomit into is cleaner than what you prepare food on, you're probably alright if a naked person sat the chair you're using an hour before you did.
    This goes back to the illusion of sanitation defining what is acceptable.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Linux United States Show Events Dumb Dumb x 2 (list)

  40. Post #120
    Primigenes's Avatar
    May 2012
    2,511 Posts
    is it illegal to be repulsive? there's some disgusting people out there but they can still walk about just fine. i don't particularly enjoy gazing at massively obese people with busted up faces and stains on their clothing but i'm not going to try and get them arrested for it.
    1. I don't think they should be arrested.
    2. Stains, Obesity and having a messed up face isn't the equivalent to being nude in public.
    3. I made an earlier statement stating that I don't think this can really be made illegal (well on the basis of it being disgusting)