Randomness thread, part two.

[Jack Sawyer]

It just keeps getting better

Damn, no vaseline

"One broadband choice counts as “competition” in new FCC proposalPrice caps would be eliminated when there’s one more ISP within half a mile."

https://arstechnica.com/information-...-fcc-proposal/

[MadMojoMonkey]

Thought this was pretty cool

It has its moments.

Most of what I like about that performance was in the original.

I mean.. that's an OK arrangement to me. Not stellar.
I know it's subjective, so I get that you like it. I just wasn't moved.

[OngBonga]

Would you get a job for her?

Quit weed?.

No and no. Why would she ask me? She doesn't give a fuck that I'm an unemployed stoner. I kinda pick my friends based on them not being judgemental fucknuggets.

[MadMojoMonkey]

How does it take a conversation about sex to come to the conclusion that insult-tron is insecure?

You call yourself a poker player?

[OngBonga]

I don't actually think he's insecure; he's too robust in his views, too arrogant. He actually thinks he's great.

[MadMojoMonkey]

People who aren't insecure don't insult other people to buoy their own sense of self-worth.

[OngBonga]

I'm pretty sure I'm guilty of that. To improve my sense of self-worth? Well, I dunno about that, but certainly as an act of smugness. And also trolling. I think banana is semi-troll semi-tosser. He enjoys arguing shit like I do, but he's still in the mode where he thinks insulting people is pressing their buttons. People like me, just talking to me is pressing my buttons. I have a lot of buttons. Most of us do, the evidence is abundant in this thread. I reckon after perhaps a year or two of hostilities, we might eventually warm to him, and he might eventually sort of chill.

Or maybe he really is full retard, what we see is the real deal no trolling.

[Poopadoop]

The reason why there seems to be so many douchebags on the internet is because there's a lot of people out there who have hostility issues, but are cowardly and rightly fear the repercussions of spewing insults into someone's face. So, they use the anonymity of the internet as a way to vent their spleen with no consequences to themselves. It is more important to them that they express their hostility to the world than that they respect the feelings of others, and the internet gives them that option.

Whether they're abusive because they're insecure or whether they just get a childlike pleasure in hurting others is immaterial. Either way, they're acting like douchebags, and the most effective way to deal with that behaviour is to ignore it.

[CoccoBill]

I don't actually think he's insecure; he's too robust in his views, too arrogant. He actually thinks he's great.

If he isn't insecure and truly thinks he's great, he has 0 incentive to prove it to himself or to others.

[BananaStand]

Jeeeez, all I said was that I wouldn't walk down the aisle with a hooker

Now you armchair shrinks wanna talk about security issues?

Gtfo

[Savy]

Jeeeez, all I said was that I wouldn't walk down the aisle with a hooker

Now you armchair shrinks wanna talk about security issues?

Gtfo

Were you upset when your wife left you?

[OngBonga]

Now you armchair shrinks wanna talk about security issues?

I'm more than just an armchair shrink. I'm an armchair phychologist, sociologist, phsycist, theologian, comedian and political activist.

Whether they're abusive because they're insecure or whether they just get a childlike pleasure in hurting others is immaterial. Either way, they're acting like douchebags, and the most effective way to deal with that behaviour is to ignore it.

The best way to deal with it is to be amused. Noone has to behave in any particular way. If someone is "abusive", then it's either because, like you say, insecurity, which is his problem, or childlike pleasure in "hurting" others... shit use of the word "hurting" if I'm brutally honest with you, that's the langauge of a social justice warrior who thinks being "offended" or "insulted" is to be "victimised". If he's just being childish, then I assume it's all a bit of fun to him. In which case, fair enough. This is all a bit of fun to me.

I might be alone here, but I find him quite funny. You lot seem to have more of an issue with him than I do. I think he's a dick, but that doesn't matter. This forum has been more fun since he came along.

[Savy]

Dunno I preferred Wuf posting as himself rather than this guy.

[OngBonga]

Dunno I preferred Wuf posting as himself rather than this guy.

More likely to be a wuf troll than a spoon troll.

[Poopadoop]

More likely to be a wuf troll than a spoon troll.

Nah Wuf never had his grasp of how to form an argument, and for that matter he insulted Wuf too. I suspect Wuf has left for different reasons - maybe he's tired of winning as a Trump supporter and has gone to be with his own kind on reddit. But I do miss him because at least he had some sense of social decorum.

This banana guy doesn't hurt my feelings, I just think he's a twat and I don't have time for twats. Life's too short.

[OngBonga]

I miss him so much I only just noticed he kinda left. Has he actually left?

[Poopadoop]

I miss him so much I only just noticed he kinda left.

Maybe that's because he didn't insult you enough. Though he did PM me several times to say you're a knob.

Has he actually left?

It's been at least a couple of weeks since he's posted, maybe longer.

[Poopadoop]

It would also be ironic if Wuf had suddenly given up on trying to persuade us all of how great Trump is using his expert methods, and decided that insulting us via a troll account was the better way.

[OngBonga]

It's been at least a couple of weeks since he's posted, maybe longer.

Maybe he went on holiday. Maybe he just took a month off. Did he say he was leaving? I mean yeah I noticed he hadn't posted for a while, but unless he actually said "fuck this shit" then I'd expect to see him here again.

[bigred]

Yeah, after having to deal with BenanaStand as the voice for the other side, I miss Wuf. While I disagree with Wuf on almost everything, at least he's not a toxic person.

Catching up on the last two pages of the random thread was pretty miserable. Insecure men (some more than others) posting slightly veiled hatred for women isn't amusing or funny.

[bigred]

Something that's not random but is needed:

Who hurt you, BenanaStand?

[OngBonga]

"Daddy, why is my sister called Teresa?"
"Because your Mommy loves Easter, and it's an anagram."
"Ah, thanks Dad.
"No problem, Alan"

[bigred]

Ha, the dad likes Nala from the Lion King.

[MadMojoMonkey]

More likely to be a wuf troll than a spoon troll.

I don't see it. Spoon I could see for a minute or so, at least.

When wuf disagrees with you, he gets exasperated over how he can explain it in another way, usually veering to a metaphor.
His reaction to verbal conflict (argument / debate in his words) is to assume a greater burden of communication on himself.

Foremost, wuf stays on topic. His metaphors may be a bit winding in their path, but to him, they're exactly on topic. He will spend 6 pages defending his ideas w/o really getting lost in the tangent conversations and side-tracks that spring up.

***
Maybe the harshest things I've said to anyone in the past decade, I've said to wuf, and he never once returned the gesture.
(I'm still sorry 'bout that, wuf. )

[MadMojoMonkey]

The best way to deal with it is to be amused. Noone has to behave in any particular way. If someone is "abusive", then it's either because, like you say, insecurity, which is his problem, or childlike pleasure in "hurting" others... shit use of the word "hurting" if I'm brutally honest with you, that's the langauge of a social justice warrior who thinks being "offended" or "insulted" is to be "victimised". If he's just being childish, then I assume it's all a bit of fun to him. In which case, fair enough. This is all a bit of fun to me.

... says the guy who supports public decency laws.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'm pretty sure I'm guilty of that. To improve my sense of self-worth? Well, I dunno about that, but certainly as an act of smugness. And also trolling. I think banana is semi-troll semi-tosser. He enjoys arguing shit like I do, but he's still in the mode where he thinks insulting people is pressing their buttons.

I get the angle of bringing up when friends play the insult game. I still think it's about security.
I have no training to make this call about anyone but myself, obv.

It's certainly a different thing when there's a strong bond between friends who are knowingly pushing each others' buttons in a game than when it's a one-sided event among people who barely know each other. I think it's about security because it gives the friends a chance to vent some of the built up stress of living in a world where we make daily sacrifices. They can vent in a playful way in a safe setting to rebuild their security to face their other struggles.

Plus, there's something endearing about having someone say something which exactly triggers you and then look at you with a silly grin, as if to say, "Yeah, I know you. We've been through it all."

[OngBonga]

I support public decency laws? Where did that come from?

I support decency laws when it comes to walking around with your junk out, and even then, only to a degree. That's a different discussion though.

It incomparable to "decency" when it comes to insults though. I support free speech. Banana can literally say (or type) what the fuck he likes to me. Of course, if he publishes lies that damages my professional reputation (haha as if I could have one) then I have the right to sue him for losses, but that just goes to show that we have a balance when it comes to free speech... with the rights come responsibilities. The law protects me from people publishing lies that hurt my reputation, but I shouldn't be protected from having my feelings hurt by nasty people saying words that I find offensive.

Sticks and stones... that was probably the first proverb I ever learned, and it's the only proverb I ever vomit out of my mouth.

[Savy]

As sad as it is, United today

[Savy]

So with the better posters on this forum stopping posting on a regular basis how long is it till the shit posters (me) also stop posting and hence the forum dies?

[OngBonga]

It won't properly die. Give it another year or so and it'll be me happily arguing with myself.

[BananaStand]

Who hurt you, BenanaStand?

Democrats

[MadMojoMonkey]

I support public decency laws? Where did that come from?

That whole conversation we had about PDA where you defended the right of the public to use physical intervention (arrest) to stop people from making out in public.
You also defended the idea that public nudity is someone else's choice which you (the greater public) have the right to force them to stop doing.

I'm overly simplifying your position. You had some limits, like kissing is OK, but groping is too far, unless in a night club, then some groping is OK, but no nudity, but then a strip club is all about nudity, so that's OK...

I couldn't find any logical order to your limits other than that they seem to correspond to western religious / cultural norms.

I certainly can't mesh your positions there with your "stick and stones" attitude you recently espoused.

[MadMojoMonkey]

It won't properly die. Give it another year or so and it'll be me happily arguing with myself.

[OngBonga]

You also defended the idea that public nudity is someone else's choice which you (the greater public) have the right to force them to stop doing.

I think you must be confusing my position slightly. I doubt very much that I'd argue (unless I'm trolling) that it's ok for the greater public to intervene in such matters. That's a job for law enforcement. Also, I'm in favour of public nudity where it's non-sexual, or at least, I don't have a problem with it from a legal aspect, although I might not want to see it.

I couldn't find any logical order to your limits other than that they seem to correspond to western religious / cultural norms.

It's a matter of protecting children from being exposed to sexual behaviour, and nothing to do with cultural norms. I don't give a fuck about nudity, that isn't sexual in its own right. And I don't give a fuck about environments where children should not be present. It's not like I'm being a moral snob on the matter.

I certainly can't mesh your positions there with your "stick and stones" attitude you recently espoused.

It's entirely incomparable. I mean I'd say the same about exposing children to extreme conversations... that's worse than having an extreme conversation with only adults present. Children are more impressionable, more likely to copy behaviour they witness, they are much less capable of drawing the line between right and wrong. So it's natural that I should feel they need a greater level of protection from the vices of society than adults.

[BananaStand]

I'm in favour of public nudity where it's non-sexual, or at least, I don't have a problem with it from a legal aspect,

What about modesty?

It's a matter of protecting children from being exposed to sexual behaviour, and nothing to do with cultural norms.

Why just children?

Children are more impressionable, more likely to copy behaviour they witness, they are much less capable of drawing the line between right and wrong.

Isn't your whole position here that there is nothing wrong with public nudity, and there is nothing sexual about plain nudity. Why should we be worried about kids copying behavior that's totally fine? Why would we be worried about them witnessing behavior, if there is nothing wrong with the behavior? If it's not wrong, why do we need to worry about where the right/wrong line is?

[MadMojoMonkey]

I meant that law enforcement is empowered only because the greater public empowers them, which means it is ultimately the greater public who is causing the arrests.
I accept that it was not clear in my presentation.

***
I guess I simply don't understand why you think children need / are better off being shielded from things they will need to be prepared for in adulthood.

It's a simple observation that families for most of human history lived in single-room dwellings. The notion that children are somehow scarred by learning about sex at a young age is preposterous to me, given these historical data.

Also, I don't see how witnessing nudity or sexuality or "adult" conversations in any way damages a person, at any age.

Surely you overheard "adult" conversations when you were a small child. Surely you watched TV back in the days when like 98%+ of movies had a topless woman in them at some point.
Sure, you and I are somewhat scarred, but not because of that stuff.

Didn't you ever feel, as a child, that you were pretty sick of everyone treating you like an idiot? Weren't you sick of people pretending you were too stupid or undeveloped to understand what they were dealing with?

I sure was.

***
It has to be noted that I don't have, nor do I ever want to have children.

[MadMojoMonkey]

What about modesty?


Why just children?


Isn't your whole position here that there is nothing wrong with public nudity, and there is nothing sexual about plain nudity. Why should we be worried about kids copying behavior that's totally fine? Why would we be worried about them witnessing behavior, if there is nothing wrong with the behavior? If it's not wrong, why do we need to worry about where the right/wrong line is?

These are all great questions.

[OngBonga]

What about modesty?

What about it?

Why just children?

For reasons stated. Children are impressionable, they copy adult behaviour, they have less of a sense of morality. Adults do not need protecting because adults can make adult decisions and be held legally responsible for them.

If it's not wrong, why do we need to worry about where the right/wrong line is?

Plain nudity isn't wrong. Children being exposed to plain nudity isn't a problem. Children being exposed to erect dicks and pussy licking, that's a different matter.

These are all great questions.

Are they?

I'm not sure why you don't understand my position. Banana is probably trolling, but you're not. I'm liberal on this matter. I haven't got a problem with a nudist walking down the street with his junk out. Most people would say that's unacceptable behaviour in society. I do have a problem with people engaging in sexual activity in public, or at least blatantly. There's a difference between having a romantic fuck in some woodland, and fingering your ho of a missus on a town centre bench while people go about their shopping. Most people would agree with me here, both that sexual activity is wrong in public, and that the circumstances would dictate whether it's an offence or not. So I'm not sure why my position is controversial. It's pretty much in line with British law. Strictly speaking, you can't go fucking in the woods, but you're not going to get in trouble if you can show that it's reasonable to assume you wouldn't be seen by children. That's where the public interest lies, in protecting children. Rightfully so in my opinion.

[BananaStand]

What about it?

Does it matter? Do you even know what it means?

Let's say you see me walking down the street wearing nothing except a T-shirt that says "This is why they call me 'Tripod'". Who's modesty is offended in that instance. Yours or mine?

For reasons stated. Children are impressionable, they copy adult behaviour, they have less of a sense of morality

The only reason the child might need its 'sense of morality' is if it is presented with behavior that is immoral. And if the behavior is immoral, adults shouldn't be doing it either.

Plain nudity isn't is certainly wrong. ChildrenAnyone being exposed to plain nudity isn't, without asking for it, is certainly a problem

Corrections in bold.

Children being exposed to erect dicks and pussy licking, that's a different matter.

Why? Where's the line? Dicks get erect for no apparent reason all the time.

I'm not sure why you don't understand my position.

Your position is understood. It's just ludicrous and hypocritical.

Banana is probably trolling, but you're not.

I'm beginning to think that "trolling" means "being right all the fucking time"

[MadMojoMonkey]

First of all, I have absolutely no criticism of your opinions on this subject, only curiosity.
I don't agree with or understand the motivations for all of your positions, but I harbor no negative judgement.

Are they?

I'm not sure why you don't understand my position. Banana is probably trolling, but you're not. I'm liberal on this matter. I haven't got a problem with a nudist walking down the street with his junk out. Most people would say that's unacceptable behaviour in society. I do have a problem with people engaging in sexual activity in public, or at least blatantly. There's a difference between having a romantic fuck in some woodland, and fingering your ho of a missus on a town centre bench while people go about their shopping. Most people would agree with me here, both that sexual activity is wrong in public, and that the circumstances would dictate whether it's an offence or not. So I'm not sure why my position is controversial. It's pretty much in line with British law. Strictly speaking, you can't go fucking in the woods, but you're not going to get in trouble if you can show that it's reasonable to assume you wouldn't be seen by children. That's where the public interest lies, in protecting children. Rightfully so in my opinion.

I understand your position. It is the position held by most of the people in my local society, as well.
It's not that I don't understand your position, it's that I don't understand how you draw the distinction between what is OK and what is not.
All of the things you cite as being different, I don't see as different. I see human sexuality as a perfectly normal and not immoral part of being alive.

"Most people agree with me." Who cares? I'm not interested in why they think what they think. I'm interested in why you, my internet friend, think what you think.
Unless your argument for why you believe these things is that it is simply easiest to agree with societal norms.

If anything, both of our views are controvercial. Yours in that you are OK with public nudity, and mine in that I think even that is not enough freedom.

***
In my opinion, children need to be protected from people who would deny them freedom. In my opinion, adults should not have their freedoms deprived over intangible fears.

[CoccoBill]

Lol at all of this. Since when is nudity and/or sexuality "wrong", "immoral" or a "problem"? You guys do realize you sound like two quran/old testament scholars arguing.

[OngBonga]

Does it matter? Do you even know what it means?

Of course. The state of being moderate. It's a bit of a vague word, so asking "does it matter" is also a very vague question. Of course it matters, this discussion is basically about our different opinions on what "moderate" means. I'm arguing that plain nudity is moderate (ie not extreme behaviour), while public sexual behaviour is not moderate. Certainly, the former is more moderate than the latter.

Let's say you see me walking down the street wearing nothing except a T-shirt that says "This is why they call me 'Tripod'". Who's modesty is offended in that instance. Yours or mine?

My modesty isn't offended, unless you have a boner anyway. I don't know about your modesty, do you consider this moderate behaviour? If so, then yes, your modesty is offended. If not, then no.

The only reason the child might need its 'sense of morality' is if it is presented with behavior that is immoral. And if the behavior is immoral, adults shouldn't be doing it either.

This is an alrming opinion. By this measure, you're saying it's ok to masturbate in the presence of a child. Or you're saying it's outright wrong to masturbate.

The problem here of course is that "morality" is non-binary. Behaviour can be moral in some contexts, and immoral in another. For example, it's perfectly fine for me to drink vodka at home, but not in a school.

Corrections in bold.

Why is plain nudity wrong?

Why? Where's the line? Dicks get erect for no apparent reason all the time.

The line is "sexual behaviour". Which, incidentally, is why dicks go hard. It's not for "no reason", it's because men are perverts who think about sex a lot, often subconcsiouly. Having an erection is not by itself "sexual behaviour". Stroking an erection would be.

Your position is understood. It's just ludicrous and hypocritical.

Your position is ludicrous, because you can't differentiate between sexual behaviour and non-sexual behaviour. You're assuming nudity is immoral, which I think is ludicrous.

I'm beginning to think that "trolling" means "being right all the fucking time"

If that's true, you're not a very good troll.

[OngBonga]

Lol at all of this. Since when is nudity and/or sexuality "wrong", "immoral" or a "problem"? You guys do realize you sound like two quran/old testament scholars arguing.

You must realise I take this as a compliment.

[bigred]

Lol at all of this. Since when is nudity and/or sexuality "wrong", "immoral" or a "problem"? You guys do realize you sound like two quran/old testament scholars arguing.

[MadMojoMonkey]

This all came from ong saying something like "sticks and stones."
I veered toward, "How does that mesh with your support of public decency laws?"
and here we are.

Lol at all of this. Since when is nudity and/or sexuality "wrong", "immoral" or a "problem"? You guys do realize you sound like two quran/old testament scholars arguing.

So both of you guys are in agreement with me that there should be no laws against public nudity, or public expressions of sexuality?
Also that injecting children's rights and/or needs into this discussion is laughable in the assertion that children's rights trump adults' rights?

Maybe I'm not as minority in this opinion as I thought.

[BananaStand]

Of course. The state of being moderate. It's a bit of a vague word, .

No the actual dictionary definition of modesty is "intentionally avoiding indecency"

My modesty isn't offended, unless you have a boner anyway

Then you're not a modest person. If you were intentionally avoiding indecency, then my nakedness would be offensive to you. that's why public nudity is a problem. By being naked, you're doing more than indulging your own comfort. You're imposing indecency on to other people.

This is an alrming opinion. By this measure, you're saying it's ok to masturbate in the presence of a child. Or you're saying it's outright wrong to masturbate

It's only alarming if ignore the qualifier of "public". We were talking about public nudity. I'm totally ok with private nudity. Just like I'm totally ok with private masturbation. But I'm NOT ok with someone jacking it on a park bench, even if there are no kids around.

The problem here of course is that "morality" is non-binary. Behaviour can be moral in some contexts, and immoral in another. For example, it's perfectly fine for me to drink vodka at home, but not in a school.

No, it's pretty binary. I'm sure we could sit here and contrive some 'gray areas', but I think the overwhelming majority of moral decisions are between 'right' and 'wrong' only.

Your example is shit too. In your example, the immoral act would be disrespect for the school's policy (assuming there is one). You can't disrespect school policy at home. And in neither case is the drinking of vodka 'immoral'.

Why is plain nudity wrong?

Because it offends other people's modesty. It forces other people to participate in your indecency.

The line is "sexual behaviour". Which, incidentally, is why dicks go hard. It's not for "no reason", it's because men are perverts who think about sex a lot, often subconcsiouly. Having an erection is not by itself "sexual behaviour". Stroking an erection would be.

What if I have an itch?

Or, what if I have a fetish for being exposed? Wouldn't the nudity itself then be sexual? You've chosen a really shitty place to draw your line. Isn't it just easier to move it backwards a little bit and just ask everyone to wear pants?

Your position is ludicrous, because you can't differentiate between sexual behaviour and non-sexual behaviour. You're assuming nudity is immoral, which I think is ludicrous.

No, nudity is not immoral. Just like your example above where drinking vodka is not immoral. Its' when those things harm other people that it becomes immoral. If you're offending other people's modesty, or if you're undermining order in a school, then you're committing immoral acts. The tools you use to commit those acts (nudity and vodka), are not immoral by association. That's how lib-tards think.

If that's true, you're not a very good troll

Improving every day.

[BananaStand]

On a side note, I really wanna punch a republican over this transgender bathroom debate.

The argument about 'modesty' that I've laid out above in opposition to public nudity can also be applied to this problem. I actually don't have a problem with people using whatever bathroom they want. But when it comes to locker rooms and changing facilities, there should be one for dicks, and one for no-dicks.

I have daughters. They haven't told me this, but i know them pretty well, so I'm going to assume that they would be uncomfortable being in a locker room with someone who has the size, structure, and anatomy of a man. I believe that being naked around someone of the opposite sex, regardless of how they identify, should invoke a natural discomfort in modest people. It's not bigotry, prejudice, or hatred. It's just modesty.

And instead of having a substantive debate around that sentiment, the dick-holes in the GOP blurted "well, what about perverts dressing up as girls to peek at vaginas?"

FAIL

[Savy]

On a side note, I really wanna punch a republican over this transgender bathroom debate.

The argument about 'modesty' that I've laid out above in opposition to public nudity can also be applied to this problem. I actually don't have a problem with people using whatever bathroom they want. But when it comes to locker rooms and changing facilities, there should be one for dicks, and one for no-dicks.

I have daughters. They haven't told me this, but i know them pretty well, so I'm going to assume that they would be uncomfortable being in a locker room with someone who has the size, structure, and anatomy of a man. I believe that being naked around someone of the opposite sex, regardless of how they identify, should invoke a natural discomfort in modest people. It's not bigotry, prejudice, or hatred. It's just modesty.

And instead of having a substantive debate around that sentiment, the dick-holes in the GOP blurted "well, what about perverts dressing up as girls to peek at vaginas?"

FAIL

There are lots of places all over the world with mixed gender toilets, changing rooms etc. It doesn't really cause any issues & it's a much more economical in terms of space etc for businesses.

The whole modesty argument is just down to it not being the norm for people.

[CoccoBill]

So both of you guys are in agreement with me that there should be no laws against public nudity, or public expressions of sexuality?
Also that injecting children's rights and/or needs into this discussion is laughable in the assertion that children's rights trump adults' rights?

Maybe I'm not as minority in this opinion as I thought.

This is a moral issue, not a legal issue. Running around naked or having sex in public is probably not something that should be encouraged, but it's not harming others (being offended does not equal being harmed) so there should be no basis for punishment. Age doesn't change the equation in any way until there's scientific proof that it does.

A couple notes before the biblical SJWs jump in. If someone urinates in public, harasses or acts aggressively towards others, or otherwise causes or threatens harm to others, that should be basis for punishment, regardless of their clothing.

[OngBonga]

No the actual dictionary definition of modesty is "intentionally avoiding indecency"

Nope. I could make a modest payment to a charity, say £10. What's indecent about that? Modesty is a broad word, you're cherry picking one specific definition that suits you, and even then you're picking a subjective word... indecent. Decency is a matter of opinion. My sense of decency isn't going to be that different to yours... I don't walk around naked... but I at least recognise that my sense of decency is not necessarily the same as everyone's. And what right have I got to impose my view on others? I'm an adult, I can deal with people being "indecent". It happens all the time in summer. I think twat men walking the streets topless while drinking beer is indecent.

By being naked, you're doing more than indulging your own comfort. You're imposing indecency on to other people.

By insisting people wear clothes in public, you're imposing your standard of decency on others.

[OngBonga]

No, it's pretty binary. I'm sure we could sit here and contrive some 'gray areas', but I think the overwhelming majority of moral decisions are between 'right' and 'wrong' only.

Morality is absolutely, entirely subjective. And by that I mean the polar opposite of binary, which in the context I use the word binary, means black and white, as in objective.

[OngBonga]

It's not about "grey areas", it's much more cultural than that. How many people do think masturbation is immoral? Fucking lots. How many people think smoking weed is immoral? Fucking lots. How many people think drinking alcohol is immoral? Fucking lots. How many people think eating pork, eating dogs, eating whales, eating pigs etc is immoral? Wearing miniskirts? Having sex outside marriage?

Morality is possibly the most subjective thing I can thing of.

[BananaStand]

Nope. I could make a modest payment to a charity, say £10. What's indecent about that? Modesty is a broad word, you're cherry picking one specific definition that suits you

You really should know better than this, and I think on some level you do. I just think that your mind is so saturated in THC that it can't organize your thoughts logically anymore.

I'm not cherry picking a specific definition. The word is a homonym, which means two distinctly different words can have identical spellings and pronunciations while having very different meanings and origins. I actually can't believe that I need to address this. And by "address this", I don't mean 'give it a street and house number corresponding to it's location within a municipality'.

and even then you're picking a subjective word... indecent. Decency is a matter of opinion.

NO IT ISN'T. Holy shit have you really smoked yourself so lazy that you can't even check a dictionary anymore. Decency, noun, behavior that conforms to accepted standards of morality or respectability. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of accepted standards. How do we know what's an 'accepted standard'? Well, a good clue is if this standard has been codified into law by a democratically elected representative government.

My sense of decency isn't going to be that different to yours...

No it isn't. See above. What's different is your respect for accepted standards.

And what right have I got to impose my view on others?

Exactly, so why would you go around challenging accepted standards?

It happens all the time in summer. I think twat men walking the streets topless while drinking beer is indecent.

I don't disagree, and there are many places where a government of the people has exercised democracy and outlawed that behavior.

By insisting people wear clothes in public, you're imposing your standard of decency on others.

By insisting that people obey speed limits, you're imposing your standard of safety on to them. I'm sure there are people that can drive 70 in a 50 (that's 115 in an 80 for you metric pussies), while still maintaining safe control of the vehicle. But that doesn't matter. There is an accepted standard, enacted by a properly empowered government, that says everybody keeps it under 50, or you're getting a ticket.

[OngBonga]

The word is a homonym, which means two distinctly different words can have identical spellings and pronunciations while having very different meanings and origins

It's not two distinct words with two distinct meanings, it's one distinct word with related definitions. The "modest" payment I might make is entirely related, linguistically speaking, to an act of modesty in terms of the clothing I decide to wear. In both cases, I am avoiding extremes... I am being moderate... a moderate payment, a moderate item of clothing... hence, modest.

NO IT ISN'T.

Of course it is. How decent are African tribeswomen? They have their saggy tits hanging out for all to see. Seems pretty indecent, right? But obviously it isn't because it's totally acceptable in their culture.

Some people think that breastfeeding in public is indecent. Others don't.

There are countless examples where one person will say "that's indecent" and another will say "not to me it isn't".

It's subjective as hell. You just like to think you're "right", that your idea of decency is the "correct" view. It's only correct from your point of view, and those who agree with you. It is a position based on personal opinions... which is the dictionary definition of "subjective".

behavior that conforms to accepted standards of morality or respectability

And those "accepted standards" differ from culture to culture. Hence, decency is not objective. We call people who don't like wearing clothes "nudists" or "naturists". Their "accepted standards" differ to ours.

By insisting that people obey speed limits, you're imposing your standard of safety on to them.

Sure. Now tell me how not wearing clothes puts other people in danger, and I might accept this analogy.

[BananaStand]

It's not two distinct words with two distinct meanings, it's one distinct word with related definitions..

You're talking out of your ass. If the word had one meaning, there would be one entry for it in the dictionary. There's actually more than one entry, because the word has multiple meanings despite being spelled and pronounced identically in each instance.

Of course it is. How decent are African tribeswomen?

Perfectly decent. Again, a dictionary clears this whole dispute right up. I don't understand why you're so defiant toward the long-established and virtually undisputed authority on the definition of words. Maybe just accept that the folks at Merriam Webster have a little bit better grasp on this than you do.

The word "decency" is defined as 'conforming to accepted standards'. If floppy-tits is an acceptable standard in Africa, so be it.

They have their saggy tits hanging out for all to see. Seems pretty indecent, right? But obviously it isn't because it's totally acceptable in their culture.

Agreed. But if Sally Sagbags decides to take a holiday in jolly ol' London, she should expect to cover up. She has no right to claim "this is my culture and it's considered acceptable in my town".

Some people think that breastfeeding in public is indecent. Others don't

Some people think that wearing white after Labor Day is indecent. Fringe opinions don't really matter at all. What we're concerned with is 'accepted standards'. Sometimes those standards are so widely accepted that they become codified into laws enacted by democratically elected representative governments. In those instances, you DO NOT have a subjective application of decency. It's a concrete objective one.

There are countless examples where one person will say "that's indecent" and another will say "not to me it isn't".

There are countless examples of morons calling down nits on the river with weak hands. That doesn't mean it's right.

The people you're describing are idiots. They clearly don't know what the word 'decency' means. What they're really saying is "I don't like that, and since I'm a whiny liberal snowflake pussy, I want my government to make everyone agree with me"

It's subjective as hell. You just like to think you're "right", that your idea of decency is the "correct" view.

No, it's only subjective if you refuse to acknowledge the true definition of the word decency. You're pot-soaked lib-tard mind has chosen to bastardize the definition of a word so you can use it to prop up your self-indulgent position.

It's only correct from your point of view, and those who agree with you. It is a position based on personal opinions... which is the dictionary definition of "subjective".

No, decency is a position based on 'accepted standards'. Either there are standards or there aren't. And they are either 'accepted' or they aren't. In the case of public nudity, there ARE accepted standards. That's proven by the fact that there are laws. That means it's NOT subjective. It's entirely objective.

Just because you can contrive an argument in your mind that supports public nudity, doesn't mean that you now have a malleable, subjective definition of what's 'decent'. Decency still refers to 'accepted standards'. Just because you, singularly, reject those standards doesn't make them any less accepted by society as a whole.

And those "accepted standards" differ from culture to culture. Hence, decency is not objective.

Seriously man, invest in that dictionary. Again, if Sally Sagbags moves from Africa to London, she's going to have to start wearing a shirt. That's not a 'subjective' application of decency. That's two different cultures, with two different objective positions on what is an 'acceptable standard'.

Sure. Now tell me how not wearing clothes puts other people in danger, and I might accept this analogy.

I don't need to. If you concede that there is at least one person out there with the driving acumen to operate a car above the speed limit without increasing the safety risks, then you've already accepted the analogy.

[Poopadoop]

It's an illuuuuuusion!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/articl...ed-right-wrong

[OngBonga]

In those instances, you DO NOT have a subjective application of decency. It's a concrete objective one.

Law is supposed to be objective. I'm not talking about law. I'm talking about morality and decency, which are subjective. You can disagree all you like, but because we can argue about what is moral and what is not, because we can argue about what is decent and what is not, I know I am right, that these matters are subjective. We can't argue about law, because that isn't subjective.

The law doesn't tell me what is decent and what is not. I make that decision, and sometimes I agree with law, and sometimes I don't. Perhaps decency is objective to you, and by that I mean you submit yourself to law unconditionally, and accept law as your moral guide. But that doesn't mean everyone does, nor should they. Decency is totally subjective to me, because law does not tell me how to think.

No, it's only subjective if you refuse to acknowledge the true definition of the word decency.

"Acceptable standards" is subjective. They can change, they can differ from person to person, village to village, nation to nation.

Law tells people what is acceptable. If by "acceptable standards" you mean "law", then yes, decency is objective. But "acceptable standards" isn't a legal definition, it's not underpinned by law, and therefore it is entirely subjective. That's why it's indecent to wear shoes in a mosque, while not illegal. Because law and "acceptable standards" are different things.

In the case of public nudity, there ARE accepted standards. That's proven by the fact that there are laws. That means it's NOT subjective. It's entirely objective.

Yes, clearly you see "acceptable standards" and law as one and the same. This is why you're wrong.

Seriously man, invest in that dictionary. Again, if Sally Sagbags moves from Africa to London, she's going to have to start wearing a shirt. That's not a 'subjective' application of decency. That's two different cultures, with two different objective positions on what is an 'acceptable standard'.

Probably not, actually. She might well be in a position to legally challenge the law, saying it's discriminatory to her culture. And she'd probably win. Because, get this, we don't have the right to force our idea os "decency" on others. The idea that it's indecent for her to have her tits out would be utterly ridiculous to her.

But again, you're mistaking "acceptable standards" for law.

I don't need to. If you concede that there is at least one person out there with the driving acumen to operate a car above the speed limit without increasing the safety risks, then you've already accepted the analogy.

Not at all. The speed limit is in place because of public safety. Clothing laws are unrelated to public safety. This anology is awful.

[BananaStand]

The law doesn't tell me what is decent and what is not. I make that decision,

Yes it does. And no, you don't.

Decency is totally subjective to me, because law does not tell me how to think.

No, Decency is subjective to you because you refuse to accept the definition of the word decency. You insist on it having a subjective and malleable definition so you can mold it to fit your argument whenever you want.

"Acceptable standards" is subjective. They can change, they can differ from person to person, village to village, nation to nation.

Great. But we're not talking about what's acceptABLE. We're talking about what's acceptED

Law tells people what is acceptable. If by "acceptable standards" you mean "law", then yes, decency is objective. But "acceptable standards" isn't a legal definition, it's not underpinned by law, and therefore it is entirely subjective

.
Stop conflating my argument with a legal one. My only point regarding the law is that it stands as proof that a certain standard has been acceptED. If we define decency as conforming with accepted standards. And the law proves definitively what is an accepted standard, then we can prove definitively what is decent and what is not. Objectively.

It's possible to have an accepted standard that is not codified into law. For example, if you actually had a job, you might be expected to shower every day. Perhaps the culture in that office doesn't accept body odor. In that case you have 'acceptED standards' that are not actually enacted into law. However, failing to meet those standards would still be considered indecent.

Then, after you got fired and started walking down the street, your body oder would no longer be considered indecent. The 'acceptED standard' in public streets is that people aren't required to impress anyone, so you can smell as bad as you like.

It might seem that different standards for different places means that the standards are subjective. They aren't. There are simply different standards for each place that sets an objective, but different, criteria for decency within each section of society.

Yes, clearly you see "acceptable standards" and law as one and the same. This is why you're wrong.

no chuckle-head. Once again, the law only proves that the standards have been acceptED. They aren't one in the same. One proves the other, but not the other way around. Don't conflate my words. The law simply means that decency has been objectively defined within that society.

Probably not, actually. She might well be in a position to legally challenge the law, saying it's discriminatory to her culture.

GTFO, if this could happen, it would have already. If this worked, Rastafarians would claim that weed laws infringe on their religious rights. I'm sure some have made that claim, but I've yet to hear of it holding up in any court of law.

But again, you're mistaking "acceptable standards" for law.

No I'm not. You're mistaking anything that could possible be acceptABLE for things that have been culturally acceptED

Not at all. The speed limit is in place because of public safety. Clothing laws are unrelated to public safety. This anology is awful

But that speed limit is set based on, at least, average driving abilities and road conditions. Certainly an expert driver in ideal conditions could increase his speed without sacrificing safety.

[OngBonga]

No, Decency is subjective to you because you refuse to accept the definition of the word decency.

No, because I refuse to allow law to define decency.

[OngBonga]

GTFO, if this could happen, it would have already. If this worked, Rastafarians would claim that weed laws infringe on their religious rights.

This is a highly complex issue in the UK.

http://www.academia.edu/1214128/_Ras...Law_Exemption_

[OngBonga]

But that speed limit is set based on, at least, average driving abilities and road conditions. Certainly an expert driver in ideal conditions could increase his speed without sacrificing safety.

What does this have to do with clothing?

[Jack Sawyer]

Strike 3! Bill's out!

https://twitter.com/dylanbyers/statu...63812779565056

[Savy]

Strike 3! Bill's out!

https://twitter.com/dylanbyers/statu...63812779565056

I don't get why people are happy about things like this, he's there to fill a role and that role will be replaced with someone else because that is the gap to fill.

I'm not saying he's not a cunt or any of those things (and if what happened is true obviously it's a no brainer) but people seem to think this results in what he represents being gone, well no obviously not.

[Jack Sawyer]

I don't get why people are happy about things like this, he's there to fill a role and that role will be replaced with someone else because that is the gap to fill.

I'm not saying he's not a cunt or any of those things (and if what happened is true obviously it's a no brainer) but people seem to think this results in what he represents being gone, well no obviously not.

It's not about being happy, it's about hypocrisy. Bill O' there has brought a lot of really really bad shit on a lot of people. But apparently, the skeletons in his closet jumped the fuck out.

Apparently, it was systemic mistreatment of women at FOX by Bill O' that led to this outcome. But it's next level hypocrisy. I'm sure someone on youtube will be making a video explaining exactly what happened.

[Savy]

It's not about being happy, it's about hypocrisy. Bill O' there has brought a lot of really really bad shit on a lot of people. But apparently, the skeletons in his closet jumped the fuck out.

Apparently, it was systemic mistreatment of women at FOX by Bill O' that led to this outcome. But it's next level hypocrisy. I'm sure someone on youtube will be making a video explaining exactly what happened.

People hate Bill because of his stances on things, his stances on things (if true) aren't what got him fired him being an abusive cunt did. His stances are what kept him in the job and are the hole that is created. The people who are happy about him getting fired are those who are against Bill more so than those who are against what he did (I'm sure there is a huge overlap, but not that makes such a vocal crowd).

[oskar]

Life Hack of the day: brush your teeth before eating dark chocolate - poor man's After Eight.

[Savy]

Life Hack of the day: brush your teeth before eating dark chocolate - poor man's After Eight.

Has anyone (uk especially) noticed how mint hot chocolate drinks have completely gone? The market seems to be dominated by are you fat but still want chocolate have this tasteless water that does multiple flavours (of which one is mint). Anyone have any solutions? I've settled to just buying mint flavouring but it's not the same.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Life Hack of the day: brush your teeth before eating dark chocolate - poor man's After Eight.

A poor man's what?



Oh.

I'd try them. Minty cream filling is usually good.

[OngBonga]

Can confirm After Eights are good.

[CoccoBill]

What chocolate isn't.

[MadMojoMonkey]

What chocolate isn't.

Most.
Most chocolate isn't good; most chocolate is barely passable as an edible food product.

All but the best chocolate is a mediocre treat, IMO.

The best chocolate is an OK thing to eat if I don't have any other options for a dessert.

[BananaStand]

Most.
Most chocolate isn't good;

Lies

most chocolate is barely passable as an edible food product.

Ooooh, that must be why it's so popular

All but the best chocolate is a mediocre treat, IMO.

I feel like I'm going to regret asking this, but what do you think differentiates "the best" chocolate from the rest.

The best chocolate is an OK thing to eat if I don't have any other options for a dessert.

Maybe just don't eat dessert then? Why choke down something you think is just 'ok'?

Unless you're admitting that it's more than 'ok', which I'm sure you are. What I'm not sure about is why you started this smear campaign against chocolate when you obviously like it so much.

[Savy]

Tbf US chocolate is awful.

[Poopadoop]

Once I discovered dark chocolate and gave up on that sugary milk chocolate shit, my appreciation for chocolate increased by about 300%. I eat it (in small quantities) almost every day. Viva chocolate!

[OngBonga]

Tbf US chocolate is awful.

This is true as far as I'm aware. It's possible that they just don't export their good stuff though.