Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,291,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

Randomness thread, part two.

Page 287 of 420 FirstFirst ... 187237277285286287288289297337387 ... LastLast
Results 21,451 to 21,525 of 31490
  1. #21451
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    and are arguing passionately like we fucking care!
    Um. I'm answering your questions about my point and you're answering questions about your point. That's not an argument, that's a conversation. I'm not trying to convince you of anything, not even assessing any moral quality to any disagreements we have. I'm just telling you what I think because you're asking me questions.

    Now we can argue whether or not it's an argument, but I'm more likely to find joy in our differences than offense. It can be hard to argue with someone who isn't saying you're wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    There is a victim in this case, in fact there's many...
    That's not what I mean by victim. I mean a person who is physically harmed.

    I believe we have a right to not be physically harmed in public places.
    I believe we do not have a right to not be offended in public places.

    Being offended is not being victimized, as I mean by victims in this conversation. If there is a better word which strips out the ridiculous PC "You hurt my feelings, so I am a victim." overtones from the word, please let me know and we'll use that instead.

    As for the social impact and societal impact, that's a wholly different subject, and not one that I think you can blame on a video of blow jobs. I mean: you have strip clubs in Jolly Old England, right? Presumably there are private rooms in which blow jobs are happening, right? So this is exactly what I'm saying. People doing sexy things in places I wouldn't. This happens. The fine-tuning and categorizing about how guilty one should feel for how and where they have sex with a consenting adult is, IMO, what's asinine and wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    This isn't like smoking weed in public. It's not just about law, it's about decency. It's unreasonable to assume everyone in that club is going to be cool with this.
    I think that it's indecent to tell consenting adults where and how they are allowed to express their affection for each other. I think it's indecent to tell an artist that they should feel guilty for their art.
  2. #21452
    That's not what I mean by victim. I mean a person who is physically harmed.
    So if I take money off you while you're not looking, you're not a victim?

    A victim is someone who suffers harm or financial loss through illegal means. You can't credibly say that a business that loses custom because of this is not a victim, they have done nothing wrong yet have lost out. If the business goes under, people lose their jobs. How are they not victims? I'm not talking about hurting someone's feelings making them a victim, although having said that people should have a right to expect decency in a public place unless it's clearly unreasonable to have that expectation... such as at a nudist beach or a stripclub. A self-styled "upmarket" establishment clearly is not the place one would expect such shenanigans.

    I mean: you have strip clubs in Jolly Old England, right?
    Of course, and every time one tries to open in Kidderminster, there's uproar. Usually they're in the seedy parts of the cities or holiday resorts on the coast, one doesn't tend to find them in non-coastal towns. And besides, a stripclub is not somewhere one could reasonably expect a certain level of decency.

    I think that it's indecent to tell consenting adults where and how they are allowed to express their affection for each other.
    I don't think it's indecent to tell adults "where", or more to the point, "where not". You surely agree that outside a school is out of bounds, right? You've already stated that you're ok with this in an adult environment, so you're already telling people where they cannot have sex... you're being indecent by your own admission.

    Now, if we're talking about an "adult environment", how about the high street betting shop? No kids should be in there. What about a pub where there will be no children, but people might be eating? How about if they don't serve food?

    Surely it's just easier to designate places where such behaviour can be tolerated in "public"... stripclubs etc. That seems both civilised and tolerant.

    I think it's indecent to tell an artist that they should feel guilty for their art.
    I mean this is just funny really. This has nothing to do with art.

    Oh, I would argue (I used that phrase deliberately) that exchanging points, as we are doing, is a form of debate, and the word "arguing" can be taken to mean "debating" (hence the phrase... I would argue... I would raise the point in a non-negative manner). Arguing is not necessarily a negative term, and certainly not from my point of view because I enjoy arguing. Stop being picky with my language, all you're doing is showing cultural differences between how we use words, and it's distracting.
    Last edited by OngBonga; 06-13-2016 at 01:16 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  3. #21453
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    To clarify: I'm not talking about thievery. Sure, I agree that being robbed, burgled, mugged, is creating a victim, but that's not the case here. I do not think that robbing someone of something intangible (like their innocence) is creating a victim.

    I think the patrons should have the right to give BJ's on dance floors and the club does have a right to say, "No BJ's on this dance floor."

    Future patrons choosing to avoid that establishment is not an act of physical harm, nor is it depriving that businessman of anything else they were entitled to. I.e., they do not have a right to customers. If the owner/manager didn't know the social climate, now they do. Time to re-brand the business or to scrap that brand and create a new one.

    Businesses close; people lose their jobs. That's life, and it can suck, but those people weren't entitled to that job or any job. They are not victims. If you have a better word, then offer it up, but this is what I've meant by victim in this conversation.

    It seems to me like if you allow the club owner/employees to be called victims, that it is the society that is victimizing them, and not the patrons who incited the disdain of the society. After all, if those patrons were victimizing the society, then why is society's ire directed at anything beyond those individuals?

    Quote Originally Posted by ongie
    You surely agree that outside a school is out of bounds, right? You've already stated that you're ok with this in an adult environment, so you're already telling people where they cannot have sex... you're being indecent by your own admission.

    Good point.

    Outside of school = plainly against the law in a place where there is no way to say, "Everyone there was of sound mind, capable of choosing their own choices under our law, and everyone thought it was OK." If someone (a child) is subjected to this in our society, then you will have 0 luck convincing anyone that this should not be a criminal act.
    In our society.
    I'm neither saying this is how it should be nor is it what I think is best. This is just how it is.

    The dissonance is because I think society's prudishness is dumb. If you ask me if I think it's OK to [public display of affection], then my answer is yes, I think you should have that right, but no society doesn't.

    I don't think we do our adult selves any benefit by growing up in a society where sex is always what we're shown and delivered and sold, but never what we talk about. I'm (controversially) not in favor of shielding sexuality (or violence or any other unavoidable reality they will need to understand and deal with one day) from children. Society has trumped my opinion, but I think society is perfectly wrong on this one. Disclaimer: I don't have (nor will I ever have) kids.

    No matter what society thinks, I believe that adults can do whatever they want to do behind closed doors so long as everyone is there knowingly and voluntarily involved.

    ***
    If I have any inkling that I am ever involved in a debate, I immediately remove myself from that situation. I am always willing to change my mind, and never willing to converse with someone who is not willing to change their mind.

    In debate, the only minds which are allowed to change are those witnessing the debate. The debaters putting forward only ideas which they think best bolster their stance, and intentionally ignore and obfuscate any contrary points. Debate is the cancer of intelligent discussion. It's got all the qualities of being a vehicle for learning, but only superficially. Underneath, it is a system which puts unequal ideas on a falsely equal footing and encourages people to be stubbornly attached to their opinion, even in the light of significant new evidence.

    Debate is a parody of constructive dialogue, IMO.
  4. #21454
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Stop being picky with my language, all you're doing is showing cultural differences between how we use words, and it's distracting.
    If we don't agree on what the words mean, how can we hope to communicate with the words?

    I'm not telling you to talk like me. I'm only saying what I heard and responding. I've offered up definitions and told you to pick the word that best fits that definition. I'm not forcing a nomenclature on you, just ensuring we're using the same nomenclature.

    In my experience, 99+% of all arguments among friends are due to skipping this step.
  5. #21455
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I mean this is just funny really. This has nothing to do with art.
    Stop being picky with my language, all you're doing is showing cultural differences between how we use words, and it's distracting.
  6. #21456
    No matter what society thinks, I believe that adults can do whatever they want to do behind closed doors so long as everyone is there knowingly and voluntarily involved.
    I agree. I just don't consider a nightclub to be "behind closed doors". Any unsuspecting adult could walk in that club to be greeted with that.

    I agree with some of your points about the prudishness of society, but not to the point of allowing stuff like this to go on where people would not normally expect it to happen.

    I think the patrons should have the right to give BJ's on dance floors and the club does have a right to say, "No BJ's on this dance floor."
    The club says "no" by default because it is illegal behaviour and the club is obliged by the terms of its license to ensure the law is upheld in its establishment.

    Businesses close; people lose their jobs. That's life, and it can suck, but those people weren't entitled to that job or any job. They are not victims. If you have a better word, then offer it up, but this is what I've meant by victim in this conversation.
    If you can demonstrate that you have lost legitimate income as a result of someone's criminal activity, then you have a good chance of successfully suing them. I do not think the law agrees with you here... people do indeed have the right to their job being protected from criminal activity, and the public display of sex falls under the remit of "criminal activity".

    Local business could sue this nightclub. Yes, the local business are potentially victims, as is the club (assuming they are faultless in that they did not turn a blind eye to this).

    If we don't agree on what the words mean, how can we hope to communicate with the words?
    You're smart enough to figure out context. I can't help but feel you're just amusing yourself.

    Stop being picky with my language, all you're doing is showing cultural differences between how we use words, and it's distracting.
    Clearly amusing yourself! I guess we have different ideas of what "art" means then, right? It's not that you used what I feel is a bad analogy, it's that we have different ideas of what that sentence means.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  7. #21457
    Even though it was very few Mormons who engaged in polygamy, it was the mass vilification of Mormons as polygamist garbage by every other American that eventually provoked Mormons to get their shit together, disavow the religion's worst ideas, and assimilate into established culture and its norms.

    So the next time somebody says it's wrong to blame Islam, maybe take a lesson from history. It will take Muslim leadership and membership at large renouncing the basic elements that give rise to radicalism within its ranks for that radicalism to be eradicated. This means, among others, renouncing Sharia law, renouncing widespread norms regarding women and gays, and probably even renouncing Muhammad as a figure with meaningful voice.
  8. #21458
    ...and probably even renouncing Muhammad as a figure with meaningful voice.
    This is like asking a Catholic to stop wanking over Mary.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  9. #21459
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    This is like asking a Catholic to stop wanking over Mary.
    It can happen though. Christianity has changed dramatically over the centuries. For example, Jesus actually wasn't that big of a deal until American evangelicals started changing everything about him about 1.5 centuries ago. Modern Christianity is a world different than the Christianity of 300 years ago.
  10. #21460
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Any unsuspecting adult could walk in that club to be greeted with that.
    I, personally, don't see why that's a problem. I get that society has rules and that not all the rules are the rules I'd make.

    What if you were that unsuspecting adult?
    What would be your issue (not society's issue, but your personal response)?

    Do you think that what any of us wants to see (or not see) entitles us to a right to see (or not see) it?
    What about when the only way to enforce the want is to tell other people that they can't do what they want because it's not what you want?

    Do you think that this is the kind of thing which should have legislation attached to it?
    Why / why not?

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I agree with some of your points about the prudishness of society, but not to the point of allowing stuff like this to go on where people would not normally expect it to happen.
    How broad a stroke are you painting with "stuff like this?"

    BJ's are not allowed?
    What about a handy?
    What about 2 people really making out and groping each other, under-the-clothing groping?
    What about 2 people really making out and groping each other, but hands stay on the outside of the clothes?
    How about that move where you go in for a kiss and her back's against a wall and you push your 1 leg in to put gentle pressure on her lady parts and hold that pose until time starts again?
    What about a couple getting a little advanced with their game of footsie under the table?
    What about 2 people just making out, but not groping?

    Obv you don't need to answer all those questions, but where is the line and what determines that line?

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    The club says "no" by default because it is illegal behaviour and the club is obliged by the terms of its license to ensure the law is upheld in its establishment.
    Do you think this is how it should be vis a vis this story?

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    If you can demonstrate that you have lost legitimate income as a result of someone's criminal activity, then you have a good chance of successfully suing them. I do not think the law agrees with you here... people do indeed have the right to their job being protected from criminal activity, and the public display of sex falls under the remit of "criminal activity".

    Local business could sue this nightclub. Yes, the local business are potentially victims, as is the club (assuming they are faultless in that they did not turn a blind eye to this).
    That's fine. I'm not talking about the law or who can sue whom or any of that.
    I'm not trying to say that the law agrees with me or that either me or the law is right.
    I disagree with the law, but I'm not claiming to be right.

    I'm not fascinated by the law.
    I'm fascinated by what you and I think are the dominant moral issues in this matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    You're smart enough to figure out context. I can't help but feel you're just amusing yourself.
    I'm smart so I must be able to read minds? Context helps, but you know I'm not asking you to define every single word, just the key words which seem to be misinterpreted to mean something other than the speaker's intent.

    Take "victim" for example. I'm not disagreeing with your the legal definition of victim, I'm only saying that I don't know a better word to use which is similar, but not as widely encompassing. I want to be clear that I'm not talking about that additional definition of victim, but I don't know of a better word.

    ***
    Somewhat amused, but not trolling when clarifying what we mean with our words. I definitely stand by the notion that almost every time friends get into a heated disagreement, it's because they are using the same word(s) in a different way than the other person.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Clearly amusing yourself! I guess we have different ideas of what "art" means then, right? It's not that you used what I feel is a bad analogy, it's that we have different ideas of what that sentence means.
    I studied art, and the working definition of art we were resigned to assert was "Art is that which is called art." Clearly, it's subjective. Clearly it's over-encompassing. However, there's just no finer way to try to say what it is without ruling out works of art which are unquestionably works of art.

    I'm not saying that the lady and 3 gentlemen are performance artists, but if they were to claim as much, then that'd be fine with me.
    Would it change your opinion?
  11. #21461
  12. #21462
    What if you were that unsuspecting adult?
    What would be your issue (not society's issue, but your personal response)?
    I would probably leave. My issue is that I don't want to see other people engaging in sexual activity. I don't want to see some dude's junk when I'm trying to drink a beer and have a dance. I'll admit I would have less of a problem if the offenders were lesbians, but I would still consider it equallly as inappropriate. I'd just at least have something to enjoy looking at.

    Do you think that what any of us wants to see (or not see) entitles us to a right to see (or not see) it?
    How does this apply in a club but not outside a school? Why do children have the right to not see this, but I don't?

    Do you think that this is the kind of thing which should have legislation attached to it?
    Of course. This isn't about nudity, it's about sexual activity. If I see a naked dude walking down the street, so long as he wasn't displaying a rather proud erection, I'd find it amusing and assume he's a nudist. I respect people right to reject clothing, but I don't respect people's right to engage in oral sex in public.

    I'm smart so I must be able to read minds?
    No, you're smart enough to know that when I use the word "depressing", you can read the sentence and understand the context means something different than "becoming clincially depressed". And when I say "argue", by assuming it's negative, you are only demonstrating your lack of awareness of the diversity of the word.

    Do you think this is how it should be vis a vis this story?
    Of course. For me to think otherwise, the club should apply for a licence which would imply to its customers that it is not a "normal" establishment, that it would be unresonable to expect protection from witnessing sexual activity.

    How broad a stroke are you painting with "stuff like this?"
    "Stuff like this" = "sexual activity which has a high probability of being witnessed by persons who wouldn't expect to witness such behaviour"

    Where is the line? I guess if stuff is going on under clothes, it's not public. Obviously I'm not saying people shouldn't be making out, or putting a hand on her arse while doing so. But when you pull down her knickers, or get a tit out and start sucking, you're crossing a line. That line, legally, would be the removing of clothing to expose sexual areas. If people are finding ways to pleasure one another without taking clothes off (or down), well who can be sure what's actually happening other than those engaging in such behaviour? That is probably happening in most clubs.

    If you think it's ok for this behaviour to go on in nightclubs, then you're surely cool with men masturbating, homosexuals bumming, and lesbians scissoring. We can have gang bangs on the dancefloor, right? I've got no right to be prudish about such behaviour, I gave up that right when I entered an adult environment. Is that your position?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  13. #21463
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I would probably leave. My issue is that I don't want to see other people engaging in sexual activity. I don't want to see some dude's junk when I'm trying to drink a beer and have a dance. I'll admit I would have less of a problem if the offenders were lesbians, but I would still consider it equallly as inappropriate. I'd just at least have something to enjoy looking at.
    Why does your want to not see this trump their want to do it?
    What is it about your want that makes it the "right" choice?

    What is special about sexuality that gives one the moral right to suppress it?

    @bold: Is this the whole truth? You don't ever watch - shall we say: NSFW - films/sketches/performance pieces?
    You are offended when some movie features a sex scene?

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    How does this apply in a club but not outside a school? Why do children have the right to not see this, but I don't?
    I've already answered this.

    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Outside of school = plainly against the law in a place where there is no way to say, "Everyone there was of sound mind, capable of choosing their own choices under our law, and everyone thought it was OK." If someone (a child) is subjected to this in our society, then you will have 0 luck convincing anyone that this should not be a criminal act.
    In our society.
    I'm neither saying this is how it should be nor is it what I think is best. This is just how it is.

    The dissonance is because I think society's prudishness is dumb. If you ask me if I think it's OK to [public display of affection], then my answer is yes, I think you should have that right, but no society doesn't.

    I don't think we do our adult selves any benefit by growing up in a society where sex is always what we're shown and delivered and sold, but never what we talk about. I'm (controversially) not in favor of shielding sexuality (or violence or any other unavoidable reality they will need to understand and deal with one day) from children. Society has trumped my opinion, but I think society is perfectly wrong on this one. Disclaimer: I don't have (nor will I ever have) kids.
    My short answer is that, IMO, children don't have any right to not see it, and neither do you or I.
    Society says otherwise, as do you.
    I'm curious about why.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Of course. This isn't about nudity, it's about sexual activity. If I see a naked dude walking down the street, so long as he wasn't displaying a rather proud erection, I'd find it amusing and assume he's a nudist. I respect people right to reject clothing, but I don't respect people's right to engage in oral sex in public.
    Why does your disrespect entitle you to authority over them?

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    No, you're smart enough to know that when I use the word "depressing", you can read the sentence and understand the context means something different than "becoming clincially depressed". And when I say "argue", by assuming it's negative, you are only demonstrating your lack of awareness of the diversity of the word.
    Dude, you win. I said I was sorry about the depression thing.
    I did think the other 2 things you stated were actual causes for depression, though, so there was ambiguity about the depth of your meaning. You're right that the context of ongie announcing he's depressed in the Rando thread is not likely.

    To me, argue does imply that 2 people are in disagreement and trying to convince each other. If that's not what you meant, then I'm very glad we talked about it so that I know you don't think I'm trying to say my opinions are "right" or that I'm trying convince you to agree with me.

    Words have plenty of meanings and sometimes there are subtleties in usage which are important to ferret out in order to achieve more fluent exchange if ideas.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Of course. For me to think otherwise, the club should apply for a licence which would imply to its customers that it is not a "normal" establishment, that it would be unresonable to expect protection from witnessing sexual activity.
    My question was whether or not you think it should be the case that a private setting of adults doing no harm to anyone and voluntarily participating in whatever are required to follow public laws.

    My question is whether or not you support civil disobedience.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    "Stuff like this" = "sexual activity which has a high probability of being witnessed by persons who wouldn't expect to witness such behaviour"

    Where is the line? I guess if stuff is going on under clothes, it's not public. Obviously I'm not saying people shouldn't be making out, or putting a hand on her arse while doing so. But when you pull down her knickers, or get a tit out and start sucking, you're crossing a line. That line, legally, would be the removing of clothing to expose sexual areas. If people are finding ways to pleasure one another without taking clothes off (or down), well who can be sure what's actually happening other than those engaging in such behaviour? That is probably happening in most clubs.
    Seems rather arbitrary. Can you help me to see why your choice is not arbitrary?
    Oh wait. You said legally. Is your choice perfectly in line with the legal one?
    If not, then why did you bring up the law?
    I want to know what you think the laws should be, not what the laws are.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    If you think it's ok for this behaviour to go on in nightclubs, then you're surely cool with men masturbating, homosexuals bumming, and lesbians scissoring. We can have gang bangs on the dancefloor, right? I've got no right to be prudish about such behaviour, I gave up that right when I entered an adult environment. Is that your position?
    Yes. (in nightclubs /whoever doing whatever as long as they're consenting)
    Yes. (gangbangs on dancefloors, but ewwww... The gangbang is not the dirtiest thing down there. Gangbangs in yards/parks is better. At least the dirtiness is actual dirt.)
    No. You have every right to be prudish and offended. You never give up that right.

    My position is that I don't understand why you claim that your desire to not witness sex in public has any bearing on another person's desire to have sex in public. My position is that I don't understand why - when you are offended by witnessing something and the people doing the something are offended by your demand that they stop what they're doing - you win the argument.

    What is the moral keystone which favors your and society's stance? Why is it taken for granted that sex is bad and we should hide it? Our sexual organs are a significant portion of our anatomy. They are densely packed with nerves. We have a need, as all species do, to reproduce in order to survive.

    My position is: Why have we allowed ourselves to be made to feel guilty about this central aspect of all life, not just human life?

    My position is that no one has a right to not be offended.
  14. #21464
    Quote Originally Posted by ong
    If you think it's ok for this behaviour to go on in nightclubs, then you're surely cool with men masturbating, homosexuals bumming, and lesbians scissoring. We can have gang bangs on the dancefloor, right?
    Quote Originally Posted by mojo
    Yes. (in nightclubs /whoever doing whatever as long as they're consenting)
    Yes. (gangbangs on dancefloors, but ewwww...
    This is the position of an insane man.

    When did you become insane?

    Nightclubs are supposed to be places where adults go to socialise, drink, dance, maybe get laid if they're lucky. They are not places where people go to openly have sex. I don't understand how this happening in a nightclub makes it nothing to be concerned about. This is no different to it happening in a pub, assuming they explicity ban children at least.

    My position is: Why have we allowed ourselves to be made to feel guilty about this central aspect of all life, not just human life?
    Right, ok. So you recognise the importance of protecting children from this kind of behaviour, yet you fail to recognise why sex should be a private matter between consenting adults.

    There are many reason why sex should remain private, I couldn't even touch the surface when it comes to explaining why I think that this should remain the case.

    Not all men are like you and me, mojo. I assume that when you have sex, it's an expression of love, or lust, or both. Some people have sex because it's an expression of dominance. If sex is something that we're open about, is that all kinds of (consensual) sex? You don't seem to have an issue with a man openly masturbating at the club. You're down with gang bangs. Let's go full bukakee! Do you think it's ok for a group of men to jizz all over a (consenting) woman in the middle of the dancefloor where I'm trying to dance without spilling my pint?

    I can't really tell you why I think it's right that we shouldn't be open about sex. I get why you feel we should be, and if we were all nice decent human beings, then I'd agree with you. But we're not. Some men who see this lady behaving like this will think she's an easy target. Other who see homosexual sex in the open will respond with aggression. Some women might slap the girl because her man was watching with a grin. Open sex has great potential to stir up negative emotions, sometimes potentially dangerous emotions, in people that are not easy to keep control of, especially when drunk.

    My position is that no one has a right to not be offended.
    Yeah I agree. this isn't about me personally being offended. This is about common decency... most people will find this offensive in a nightclub. Just because a few drunk idiots were filming it and cheering, you can't assume everyone in there was comfortable with it. It's highly unlikely that is the case. If it were a strip club, then it's different. But a nightclub is a common venue where any adult should expect a reasonable level of common decency to be upheld.

    People would be offended if I did a huge steaming shit in the park, then scooped it up in a bag and disposed of it in the dog shit bin. Should they be? Shitting is perfectly natural, we all do it most days, even children. Why should people be protected from such behaviour in public? Because common decency means something important to society. Why that is, I'll leave that to sociologists and psychologists. All I know is I agree.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  15. #21465
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    This is the position of an insane man.

    When did you become insane?
    IDK... about 40 years ago, on my 0th birthday?

    That's the loosest definition of insane I've ever heard. I disagree with a societal norm, so I'm insane?
    I have trouble understanding how humans parse out arbitrary lines in the moral sand, so I'm insane?

    I'm pretty sure we're all insane by that standard.
    (You disappoint me with this retreat to name-calling.)

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Nightclubs are supposed to be [...] They are not places where people go to openly have sex. [...]
    I feel like we've already established that both of these kinds of nightclubs exist.
    I'd love to know what moral basis you claim to use the word "supposed" to be.

    You still haven't answered my question as to why your want to not be offended equates to a mandate that someone else not be offensive, when surely they are offended that you claim moral authority over them.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Right, ok. So you recognise the importance of protecting children from this kind of behaviour, yet you fail to recognise why sex should be a private matter between consenting adults.
    I have repeatedly said that I do not recognize the importance of protecting children from witnessing sex, violence or any of the other aspects of life that they will need to be familiar with and deal with one day.

    I only recognize that our modern society says children should be shielded from these things. I comply out of self-preservation, but not out of agreement with the norm.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    There are many reason why sex should remain private, I couldn't even touch the surface when it comes to explaining why I think that this should remain the case.
    I appreciate that you took the time and effort to try.

    Thanks.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Not all men are like you and me, mojo.
    You mean insane, don't you?

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    [...] Do you think it's ok for a group of men to jizz all over a (consenting) woman in the middle of the dancefloor where I'm trying to dance without spilling my pint?
    Can't you take your pint about 10 feet to the side for a few minutes, though? Why are you all up in their space?

    I feel confident that I've given you every reason to know that my (insane) answer is yes, but at the same time that you expect me to say no. It's a little exhausting.

    I mean... those clubs do exist, right? You're choosing to not go to them, right?

    I don't hear you saying that you think there should be 0 strip clubs. I hear you saying that it's the bar-owner's right to decide whether or not his club is a strip club. I totally agree with that. My point is that it should be his decision what kind of bar he runs and if on a random Tuesday, he's cool with whatever on his dance floor, then that's his right.

    So what's your real beef, here?

    Never did I stipulate that someone should NOT have control over their private property. Never did I stipulate you have the right to masturbate on my lawn. I do believe that you have the right to masturbate on your own lawn, though. A park is public grounds, meaning it belongs to us equally. If we're equals, then neither of us has the authority to mandate the other's behavior.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I can't really tell you why [...]
    So what is the best solution?

    I hear you saying you endorse a policy to tell otherwise innocent people that they are not allowed to express their emotions in public because sometimes it incites a person to criminal assault.

    Do I hear you right?

    I'd much prefer a policy that criminalizes violent behavior and prejudice rather than coddling the bullies.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    This is about common decency...
    [...]
    Because common decency means something important to society. Why that is, I'll leave that to sociologists and psychologists. All I know is I agree.
    I hear you saying that you have an irrational, emotional response to these things and that any intellectualization is a wasted effort on your part. Is that right?
    Inb4 you call this judgement. I share your feeling (if I have it right) about a ton of things.

    I'm fine with your poop hypothesis since you cleaned up your poop, even though I don't want to see you pooping. I might even offer up my spontaneous advice that you're being a filthy miscreant, or I might assume you're homeless. Either way, if there's a toilet, or even a porta-potty nearby, I'm going to make sure you know that.
    Last edited by MadMojoMonkey; 06-14-2016 at 03:25 PM.
  16. #21466
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    confirmed aspie
  17. #21467
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    confirmed aspie
    Quiet, now. Grown-ups are talking.
  18. #21468
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Quiet, now. Grown-ups are talking.
    That's cultural appropriation.
  19. #21469
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    btw i'm just fucking with y'all over your long ass novellas that you write in your little online debates it's nbd
  20. #21470
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    That's cultural appropriation.






  21. #21471
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    btw i'm just fucking with y'all over your long ass novellas that you write in your little online debates it's nbd
    I'd be interested in your thoughts on this topic, actually.

    I'd be surprised if you took the same line as either ong or myself, which would be cool to hear.
  22. #21472
    Alright mojo...

    Let's say in a huge coincidence we become next door neighbours. Happy days! You probably don't want to look out into my garden though, because I masturbate outside twice daily, and shit on the lawn roughly once a day. It's my lawn yo, I can do what I like.

    I also like to listen to relentless loud music, but only by day. I don't want to deprive you of any sleep, which might cause some degree of "harm", which would make you a victim. I'm not gonna make you a victim here.

    I'll just make you want to gouge your own eyes out and then stab your ears until you're deaf.

    I might hire some fat naked people to masturbate and shit on the lawn too, maybe even bum each other while rolling around in the shit.

    We're gonna have lots of fun being neighbours.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  23. #21473
    (You disappoint me with this retreat to name-calling.)
    Name-calling? I call you mojo all the time, that's a name. Why do you have a problem with name-calling?

    I'm gonna try and figure out the context here, use what I consider to be my intelligence, and assume you feel insulted by my accusation of insanity. Please don't. Once again, I don't mean insane in the literal sense, I was simply highlighting the vast difference between our opinions, that from my "sane" pov, your position is "insane".

    Don't be disappointed. Just stop taking me seriously.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  24. #21474
    So what's your real beef, here?
    That somehow a person's right to "express their love" in public by means of blow jobs on random people is somehow a thing, while a person's right to not have to witness public acts of indeceny is not.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  25. #21475
    You still haven't answered my question as to why your want to not be offended equates to a mandate that someone else not be offensive, when surely they are offended that you claim moral authority over them.
    I'm not the one claiming moral authority over them, society is, which is reflected by the law.

    If I was alone in being outraged by this behaviour, then I would stop to ask myself if I'm being a morality snob. If society in general deems this acceptable, then I would reconsider my idea of what kind of behaviour to expect in a nightclub.

    I hear you saying that it's the bar-owner's right to decide whether or not his club is a strip club.
    Not quite. it's either a strip club, or it's not. It can't be a strip club on tuesdays but not wednesdays. Its license will stipulate whether it is a strip club or not, it's not really a "decision" that the bar owner gets to make, other than when submitting his business plans.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  26. #21476
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Alright mojo...

    Let's say in a huge coincidence we become next door neighbours. Happy days! [...]

    We're gonna have lots of fun being neighbours.
    *shrug*
    I don't look out the windows at my current neighbors, either. They play slow jams at volume at all hours, not just during the day.

    I would never consider myself a victim unless physical harm were involved or my property was stolen/damaged.

    I lived through my upstairs neighbor's kid teething and barely noticed. Hardwood floors; no carpet to absorb the sound.

    What else you got?

    FYI:
    I live in a broke-ass neighborhood, among the "we sit outside all day and night making a ruckus 'cause we can't afford A/C in this 100 degree heat" types.
    There was a vigilante shooter who plugged my building missing his target (a teenager who broke into his house on a Sunday afternoon and took his phone) as the kid fled through my yard. This was in the first couple months after I moved in. Been here for years.

    I'm just the neighbor you want, considering your new lifestyle changes, that is.
  27. #21477
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Don't be disappointed. Just stop taking me seriously.
    Nope.
  28. #21478
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I'm not the one claiming moral authority over them, society is, which is reflected by the law.

    If I was alone in being outraged by this behaviour, then I would stop to ask myself if I'm being a morality snob. If society in general deems this acceptable, then I would reconsider my idea of what kind of behaviour to expect in a nightclub.
    Unless I'm not understanding, you most certainly are claiming moral authority over them, because you agree with society's position. You seem to agree that a desire to not see certain things entitles one to punish people who would do those things, provided enough people want to punish them.

    It's interesting to me that other people's opinions on the matter are a part of your analysis.

    People are confusing.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Not quite. it's either a strip club, or it's not. It can't be a strip club on tuesdays but not wednesdays. Its license will stipulate whether it is a strip club or not, it's not really a "decision" that the bar owner gets to make, other than when submitting his business plans.
    I'm assuming you're telling me this law because you're 100% in line with it.
    I'm pretty sure you didn't come up with this on your own, and I'm fascinated that your opinion is directly in line with your surrounding culture's opinion, without nuance.

    Again: people are confusing.
  29. #21479
    It's interesting to me that other people's opinions on the matter are a part of your analysis.
    Other people are important.

    you most certainly are claiming moral authority over them,
    Well if you're going to say that me stating my moral opinion is claiming moral authority, then I claim moral authority over everyone, because as far as I'm concerned, my morals are right and everyone else's are wrong. If I felt I was morally in the wrong, I would change my opinion.

    I'm not claiming any "authority". I'm not actioning any power. I'm merely in agreement with society's moral position on this matter. If I agree murder is morally wrong, when someone murders another and goes to jail, I'm not the authority, even though I agree with the sentence.

    I might claim a morally superior position over others. That's isn't authority, and that is entirely natural.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  30. #21480
    Just bought some of this as nowhere locally that I go shopping seems to have Cholula.



    I'm not huge on heat but this seems a bit hotter than Cholula, still on the mild side. Very good on scrambled eggs. Has a really nice flavour to it, if it works as well on other foods it may have to become a staple in the cupboard.
  31. #21481
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Other people are important.
    Yeah, but they're a lot of impulsive, lazy, short-sighted ruffians. Most of their ideas of right and wrong are at odds with my notions of right and wrong when we consider any nuance.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I might claim a morally superior position over others. That's isn't authority, and that is entirely natural.
    Saying that the police are expressing authority, and not you, is implying that you don't think the police have the right to express that authority. I get the sense that you do believe the police should have that authority.
    Have I misunderstood this?

    I thought you agreed that you do not have a right to not be offended in public. Then you say other people don't have the right to offend you in public. Your only argument expanding on your position is that other people are also offended.
    What am I missing?


    MMM: What's your beef?
    ong: That somehow a person's right to "express their love" in public by means of blow jobs on random people is somehow a thing, while a person's right to not have to witness public acts of indeceny is not.

    Hmm. Maybe you didn't agree with me about not having the right to not be offended in public...

    I can't understand how your support of coercion is somehow more decent than their acts of pleasure-giving. I don't see how physically forcing other people to not offend you is decent.


    EDIT:
    MMM: My position is that no one has a right to not be offended.
    ong: Yeah I agree.

    sup?
    Last edited by MadMojoMonkey; 06-15-2016 at 08:13 AM.
  32. #21482
    ong: That somehow a person's right to "express their love" in public by means of blow jobs on random people is somehow a thing, while a person's right to not have to witness public acts of indeceny is not.
    Hmm. Maybe you didn't agree with me about not having the right to not be offended in public...
    Well it seems we're both making up imaginary rights. I claim the right to be offended, you claim the right to defecate on your lawn.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  33. #21483
    I have repeatedly said that I do not recognize the importance of protecting children from witnessing sex, violence or any of the other aspects of life that they will need to be familiar with and deal with one day.

    I only recognize that our modern society says children should be shielded from these things. I comply out of self-preservation, but not out of agreement with the norm.
    This is where your position collapses. In mojo's ideal world, men can masturbate within sight of a school. Children should not be protected from this, because it's something that is natural and the kids will learn about one day. So why hide it from them?

    Because we don't want children thinking about this kind of stuff when they should be learning how to muliply. Because we want to discourage the kind of people who would like to masturbate within sight of a school from doing so.

    This isn't about me being "offended", in fact I doubt I am even offended directly. I don't care all that much, I just find it inappropriate. But I certainly find myself concerned about the impact such behaviour has on society. So offended? I don't think so. Concerned is a better word to desribe my feelings here.

    It is necessary for society to put in place restrictions on certain activities in public.

    Here's another one for you mojo... there was a dude who went on the internet and found some guy who would come and eat his penis and then kill him. I'm sure he was German. So anyway, this is essentially suicide, so he's not a victim in the normal sense. Both are consenting adults.

    This can happen on the street in your world, right? Or maybe not the street, that's council property. But it's cool on private property that is in full view of other people, because there's no victim, and kids don't need protecting from this kind of fuckery.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  34. #21484
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Well it seems we're both making up imaginary rights. I claim the right to be offended, you claim the right to defecate on your lawn.
    What do you mean by imaginary rights?
    Are any rights not imaginary?
    Aren't all rights some ideological conceit that the world should be something it isn't? I.e. civilized.
    Do rights exist outside of human assertion?

    I'm not saying anything I believe is True. I'm saying that, as far as I understand morality, people should not have the right to force other people how to live their lives unless those other people's choices are causing physical harm to people or property which is not owned by them. I'm saying that, as I see it, anything less is bullying.
    I'm not claiming to be right. I'm claiming this is what I understand.

    I stipulated a right to be offended. You agreed.
    I realized that the use of double negative is important and meaningful in this case.
    I stipulated the lack of right to not be offended. You agreed.

    I don't see how you can agree that you do not have the right to not be offended and then say (at least some) people in your society have the right to coerce because people in your society have a right to not be offended.


    The whole lawn pooping thing is really weird to say the least. I'd wager that for 99% of human history, the notion of pooping on a "lawn" was perfectly normal and taken for granted. I know that there is such a crisis of clean water in many parts of the world today that "lawn" (if it could be called such) pooping is the norm. Am I mistaken in assuming that your sense of morals is constant? I.e. are you saying, "When in Rome, do as Romans?" Or are you saying, "Lawn pooping is a clear and obvious wrong against the sensibilities of humans."

    If you want to argue from a position of public health, then I totally agree that to the extent that lawn pooping is contaminating public water supplies and spreading disease, that's bad and needs to be stopped. To me, though... the argument that seeing someone poop is unwanted is trivial. The argument that it causes physical harm is huge.
  35. #21485
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    This is where your position collapses.
    I don't know what you mean. How can my understanding collapse? What are you saying?

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    In mojo's ideal world, men can masturbate within sight of a school. Children should not be protected from this, because it's something that is natural and the kids will learn about one day. So why hide it from them?

    Because we don't want children thinking about this kind of stuff when they should be learning how to muliply. Because we want to discourage the kind of people who would like to masturbate within sight of a school from doing so.
    You're talking about me in the third person, now? What's that about?
    People are confusing.

    Again, I'd wager that throughout 99% of human history, families lived in 1-room dwellings and mom-n-dad's sexual activities were simply a part of daily life. I don't recon that the culture was uncivilized, insofar as it was a state-level society with elaborate social structures and morals.
    My point is: Children are already aware of and thinking about sex. It seems a totally arbitrary thing to stipulate that children need to be shielded from witnessing sex. I don't see much historical precedent for it being a problem.

    I've been thinking about sex when I should be thinking about multiplication since 2nd grade. I don't think you can show a cause-effect relationship between the dude masturbating outside and the fact that johnny and jane fancy each other.

    I'm 100% on board with discouraging the person from whatever behavior. I'm 100% opposed to coercing the person from that behavior (unless there is physical harm to people or their property).

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    This isn't about me being "offended", in fact I doubt I am even offended directly. I don't care all that much, I just find it inappropriate. But I certainly find myself concerned about the impact such behaviour has on society. So offended? I don't think so. Concerned is a better word to desribe my feelings here.
    So now you're saying that society has a right to coerce because some people are concerned? Not even offended?
    That's even more disturbing to me.

    Or do I have you wrong about the notion of coercion? If you are truly only endorsing discouragement, then I get that.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    It is necessary for society to put in place restrictions on certain activities in public.
    No disagreement, here.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Here's another one for you mojo... there was a dude who went on the internet and found some guy who would come and eat his penis and then kill him. I'm sure he was German. So anyway, this is essentially suicide, so he's not a victim in the normal sense. Both are consenting adults.

    This can happen on the street in your world, right? Or maybe not the street, that's council property. But it's cool on private property that is in full view of other people, because there's no victim, and kids don't need protecting from this kind of fuckery.
    I guess I'd like them to get a permit to gather and tell the community officials before-hand what they were going to do. It's certainly unusual, and I don't expect it to come up too often. My primary concern is whether or not the person requesting assisted suicide is truly of sound mental facilities, but assuming they are, and that they are not being tricked or manipulated into this act, then it's cool with me. My other concern is that the police would interpret this as a murder and interject themselves on the situation when there was really no crime being committed.

    I'm not against regulation, I'm just skeptical of the reasons put forward to justify prohibition.

    I'm in favor of the community setting up a compromise such that there is a time and a place for said activities. If the purpose of the suicide is not to be a performance act, then that shouldn't be a problem. If it is a performance act, then the billing should indicate as much. They can even charge admission, for all I care.
  36. #21486
    I guess I'd like them to get a permit to gather and tell the community officials before-hand what they were going to do.
    Ok fine. So this girl who noshed the guys in the club should have applied for a permit to do so?

    If you want to argue from a position of public health, then I totally agree that to the extent that lawn pooping is contaminating public water supplies and spreading disease, that's bad and needs to be stopped. To me, though... the argument that seeing someone poop is unwanted is trivial. The argument that it causes physical harm is huge.
    What if I clean up after myself? I'm in full view of the public, but let's remove the public health issue by shitting in a bowl on the lawn and disposing of it down the toilet. So now it's purely an issue of decency.

    You're asking me why public decency should trump people's right to behave as they like (provided it causes no harm to others). I can't answer that. I just know I agree. If people were allowed to engage in sex in nightclubs, then society suffers. Why does it suffer? I don't know, it just does.

    It is necessary for society to put in place restrictions on certain activities in public.
    So you agree with this. Why then is sex not one of these activites that needs to be restricted in public?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  37. #21487
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Ok fine. So this girl who noshed the guys in the club should have applied for a permit to do so?
    No. None of the criteria I cited are present in this case. There is no reason to believe that anyone witnessing this act would confuse it for an act of unwanted aggression. There is no reason that police would be tempted to stop this mid-act over a misunderstanding of what was happening. I don't see any physical harm involved for any parties. I don't see any theft or destruction of property caused by this act. I don't see any reason that the community would misinterpret this act in such a way that direct physical harm to people or property was at risk.

    My reason to suggest a permit was to document the fact that no physical harm was intended in the act, and no property would be affected. It would eliminate misunderstanding about what was happening and eliminate unwanted interruptions during the act by mistaken public servants.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    What if I clean up after myself? I'm in full view of the public, but let's remove the public health issue by shitting in a bowl on the lawn and disposing of it down the toilet. So now it's purely an issue of decency.
    It would be indecent to mandate that you change your lifestyle over something which has no consequence on others' health and property. It would be indecent to deny you your freedom over what is, at most, a minor inconvenience for people who need to look away. Certainly it isn't causing them physical harm.

    So I guess I agree that it's a matter of decency. We just weigh the factors differently.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    You're asking me why public decency should trump people's right to behave as they like (provided it causes no harm to others). I can't answer that. I just know I agree. If people were allowed to engage in sex in nightclubs, then society suffers. Why does it suffer? I don't know, it just does.
    I very much appreciate your honesty.

    I'm OK with not knowing why. I mean, I'd like to know why, but I'm perfectly happy with the answer, "I don't know." It's of fundamental importance to scientific understanding to clearly state what is not known.

    Can you describe how society suffers?

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    So you agree with this. Why then is sex not one of these activites that needs to be restricted in public?
    A lack of physical harm and/or damaged or stolen property to any parties.

    Furthermore, I believe the onus of demonstrating that something is harmful to society lies on the party who would restrict humans' freedoms, not on the party who demands their freedoms.

    Why do you think people's freedoms should be restricted when it comes to sex?
    Is there any reason which seems "permanent" or fundamental to humanity?
    Or are the reasons all transient and based on current societal momentums?
  38. #21488
    Can you describe how society suffers?
    I have explained. Local business can suffer as a result of the tarnished image the town gets as a result. People's house value could suffer if the town's image suffers enough. I doubt a one-off will have any lasting impact, but if the town gets itself a reputation for this kind of behaviour, then these factors could be real issues.

    You're asking me how society suffers when people ignore the law and ignore the club's policy. Society suffers because law and order (which includes common decency) is not seen to be upheld, which causes a loss of confidence in both policing and the ability of nightclubs to maintain decency in their establishment. From there, people might start to behave in a less ordely, less decent manner, thus propogating the problem of the image it causes to the town.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  39. #21489
    Why do you think people's freedoms should be restricted when it comes to sex?
    I have as much difficulty answering this question as I do when asked to define "common decency".

    We're not dogs. We don't just shit and fuck wherever we feel like it. I guess that's what civilisation means... the ability to control our behaviour so as to not cause conflict with others.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  40. #21490
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    I'd weigh in, but idk what is going on in this conversation.
  41. #21491
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    I'd weigh in, but idk what is going on in this conversation.
    God damn I saw someone other than mojo had posted and thought someone else had weighed in.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  42. #21492
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    I'd weigh in, but idk what is going on in this conversation.
    Here's the tl;dr...

    ong - holy shit some bitch noshed off three random guys in a club in my town
    mojo - what's the problem?
    ong - um
    mojo - seriously what's the problem
    ong - common decency etc
    mojo - what right do you have to enforce your idea of common decency on others?
    ong - um
    mojo - seriously
    ong - I'm just gonna shit on my lawn and masturbate for all to see
    mojo - no problem
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  43. #21493
    This conversation somehow gives the impression that mojo would be a more fun guy to invite to a party than I would.

    Just remember who's bringing the weed. Mojo is just gonna bring pedantry and scientific analysis of every conversation.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  44. #21494
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Nudity and public intercourse laws originate from church goers.

    Nowadays, churc h goers have less political power...but still have a lot of it. Nevertheless, I think most would find such behaviour offensive because of how uncommon it is. Hell, many find breastfeeding to be offensive.
  45. #21495
    Hell, many find breastfeeding to be offensive.
    Yeah these people need a good fucking slap.

    Cue accusations of moral hypocrisy.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  46. #21496
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    This conversation somehow gives the impression that mojo would be a more fun guy to invite to a party than I would.
    Well, I can categorically state that I wont be pooping OR masturbating on their lawn, which is always nice to know when you place an invite.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Just remember who's bringing the weed. Mojo is just gonna bring pedantry and scientific analysis of every conversation.
    I can state with 100% confidence that you have no idea what I bring to the party.
  47. #21497
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    Nudity and public intercourse laws originate from church goers.

    Nowadays, church goers have less political power...but still have a lot of it. Nevertheless, I think most would find such behaviour offensive because of how uncommon it is. Hell, many find breastfeeding to be offensive.
    But ongie isn't a church-goer, and yet he is in lockstep with their lines of demarkation vis-a-vis public displays of affection.
    That is a supremely interesting coincidence, IMO. I want to understand it better than I do.

    I'd love to know how he came to this position.
    (... and I'm starting to worry that he's secretly, subconsciously coercing himself to not love Jesus, when all along, that's all he's ever wanted - deep down in his heart.)

    Ongie said he agrees with me that no one has a right to not be offended in public.
    However, he also says that society has a right to coerce people for doing things which cause no physical harm to anyone, nor cause any damage to property, but are merely "concerning" to society.

    So I'm trying to suss out what the heck is going on with that. I mean... how can one hold both opinions at the same time?
    I want to understand this.

    Also, I don't understand how one can claim that coercion is more decent than public pleasure-giving. I am really trying to make sense of any definition of decent in which this makes sense. I don't understand how intangible harms like loss of business are justification to coerce.

    I don't get this.

    I just don't get it.
  48. #21498
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Society has a right to coerce? I'm not sure I'd phrase it that way. Protect against? Punish? Idk.

    But it's certainly a weird issue. It's not nudity in general, or sex acts in general, that are punishable. It's specifically when they're in public. So why?

    For sex acts, could it be guarding against the transmission of stds? Or the careless leaving of bodily fluids everywhere? People don't want semen or pools of sweat on their floors.

    Or is it a way to disincentivize sex? Is there a concern that public sex would encourage minors to partake more frequently?

    Or is it really just to stop people from second outside of God's bedroom?

    For me, I don't want to walk through semen everywhere I go. I also don't think most people are attractive, so seeing them slobbering each other up is kinda gross to me. Even if they were attractive, I'd be annoyed to see it everywhere I go.
  49. #21499
    But ongie isn't a church-goer, and yet he is in lockstep with their lines of demarkation vis-a-vis public displays of affection.
    I have no problem with "public displays of affection". That's a pretty loose term that includes kissing, holding hands, cuddling, hand on thigh etc.

    My problem is with public indecency. Our issue is defining that in any meaningful way.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  50. #21500
    I can state with 100% confidence that you have no idea what I bring to the party.
    Bring rust, aluminium and some magnesium ribbon please, and I'll share my weed with you.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  51. #21501
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Yeah these people need a good fucking slap.

    Cue accusations of moral hypocrisy.
    Things like breastfeeding do expose some of the ridiculousness of public opinion on things like nudity.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I have no problem with "public displays of affection". That's a pretty loose term that includes kissing, holding hands, cuddling, hand on thigh etc.

    My problem is with public indecency. Our issue is defining that in any meaningful way.
    As a British person you should be sickened by any public displays of affection. A tap on the head is pushing the boundaries of decency.
    Last edited by Savy; 06-15-2016 at 06:53 PM.
  52. #21502
    Oh, and as a scientist, I hope you pronounce it alu-mini-um and not a-loom-inum.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  53. #21503
    Quote Originally Posted by ImSavy View Post
    Things like breastfeeding do expose some of the ridiculousness of public opinion on things like nudity.
    Sure. But nudity isn't my problem, it's indecency. Being nude isn't necessarily being indecent.

    dictionary definition of indecent - not conforming with generally accepted standards of behaviour, especially in relation to sexual matters.

    Only idiots think breastfeeding falls under the remit of "sexual matters". Neither mother nor baby is getting any sexual pleasure out of that, the only people who might are pervert observers.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  54. #21504
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Hi, JKDS!

    I've been meaning to ask you this:
    In this conversation, I've rejected the notion that causing intangible harm warrants legal action. Is this short-sighted?

    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    Society has a right to coerce? I'm not sure I'd phrase it that way. Protect against? Punish? Idk.
    I don't see how being placed under arrest is anything but coercion. I guess I can imagine public punishments which did not involve coercion of the offending party.

    I mean... there's a chance that ong only supports "discouragement" of these public acts, which I also have no problem with, so long as discouragement does not involve any coercion or physical harm to people or property.

    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    But it's certainly a weird issue. It's not nudity in general, or sex acts in general, that are punishable. It's specifically when they're in public. So why?
    Exactly!

    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    For sex acts, could it be guarding against the transmission of stds? Or the careless leaving of bodily fluids everywhere? People don't want semen or pools of sweat on their floors.
    I doubt it. I'd guess these "concerns" predate our knowledge of STD's and bodily fluids.

    Besides, if that were true, wouldn't the law have everything to do with littering and nothing to do with naked time?

    I just got home from work via public transit in St Louis summer heat. That bus was sweaty, I assure you. I doubt I'm the only one who didn't like that aspect of the bus ride. I'm not going to pass up a seat on the bus just because it's sweaty. Still, I'd rather stand than sit in a seat wet with semen. (I think that counts as damage to public property, FWIW. Not the same a semen on the lawn.)

    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    Or is it a way to disincentivize sex? Is there a concern that public sex would encourage minors to partake more frequently?

    Or is it really just to stop people from second outside of God's bedroom?

    For me, I don't want to walk through semen everywhere I go. I also don't think most people are attractive, so seeing them slobbering each other up is kinda gross to me. Even if they were attractive, I'd be annoyed to see it everywhere I go.
    These are good questions to which I don't know the answers.

    That said, none of these seem like moral justifications for legal action (if coercion is too strict. I don't think it is, as I suspect that the primary legal action will be to arrest the offenders and take them into custody.)
  55. #21505
    I mean... there's a chance that ong only supports "discouragement" of these public acts, which I also have no problem with, so long as discouragement does not involve any coercion or physical harm to people or property.
    I'm down with public acts of sexual activity being punishable by arrest.

    I guess having thought about it somewhat, I'm not taking away the right of people to be naked and to do as they please. I'm just also not taking away the right of society to punish such behaviour.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  56. #21506
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Bring rust, aluminium and some magnesium ribbon please, and I'll share my weed with you.
    You want to lite the spliff with thermite!?

    That is a good party!
  57. #21507
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Oh, and as a scientist, I hope you pronounce it alu-mini-um and not a-loom-inum.


    I'll say whatever I need to say to most rapidly avoid pedantic interruptions and convey my intended meaning.
  58. #21508
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post


    I'll say whatever I need to say to most rapidly avoid pedantic interruptions and convey my intended meaning.
    Sick answer.

    edit: As an American, and with this excellent modus operandi in mind, isn't it always best to say aluminum? No American will so much as flinch, and it seems if you say aluminium, a Brit who is inclined to "cprrect" you on aluminum is just as likely to commend you on using aluminium-- at which point you dismissively ask whether they are interested in discussing the topic at hand or having a fruitless and pedantic discussion about grammar.


    Also, I'd point out that it isn't about pronunciation. There are two different words that are fairly similar and are the chosen noun for the same element (and colloquially for many alloys.) The British word is Aluminium while the American word is Aluminum.
    Last edited by boost; 06-15-2016 at 10:29 PM.
  59. #21509
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Hi, JKDS!
    I've been meaning to ask you this:
    In this conversation, I've rejected the notion that causing intangible harm warrants legal action. Is this short-sighted?
    Thats a more complex question than you may think. The first is "what is harm?", followed by "what is intangible harm?" Then what kind of legal action.

    In the US, you ordinarily dont have a civil action unless someone has harmed you. IE, someone has caused you a real injury. That could include physical injuries (ouch), financial (double ouch), emotional (wah), or legal (like a deprivation of rights).

    But that isnt the case for criminal actions. There are many crimes which have "no victim". Traffic crimes are the most common example of those, followed by Drugs. Committing such acts within view of an officer will result in legal action.

    Besides, if that were true, wouldn't the law have everything to do with littering and nothing to do with naked time?
    Perhaps. We actually have a lot of redundant laws. Take DUI for example. That entire section of law could be replaced by other laws. Is it just that they were too drunk? Reckless driving/distracted driving. Did they hit someone? Assault, voluntary manslaughter, criminal damage. The law was pushed by MADD, but isnt really necessary.
  60. #21510
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    To give you my opinion:

    I think most of our criminal codes need to be revamped and simplified. We need to cut all the crap that is just duplicate law, and streamline it so the code can actually be understood by laypeople.

    This is unlikely to happen though. One reason is that new laws are occasionally struck down. Perhaps they are vague, or they are written just weird enough to trigger someone's constitutional violation senses. Either way, new laws mean new rulings. And you dont want to revamp what it means to "murder" someone, only to find that your new fangled murder statute is unconstitutional and its now temporarily ok to murder people.
  61. #21511
    Do you know what? All this time I thought Americans were just being fucking dumb and pronouncing it wrong, but I didn't know that they actually drop the second "i" when written, too.

    Boost is right, it's not about pronounciation. This is standard bastardisation of English. And yes, bastardisation has no fucking z in it (that's zed, not zee).

    a Brit who is inclined to "cprrect" you on aluminum is just as likely to commend you on using aluminium
    I would quietly nod my head in approval while listening intently to what he's saying.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  62. #21512
    rong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    9,033
    Location
    behind you with an axe
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Do you know what? All this time I thought Americans were just being fucking dumb and pronouncing it wrong, but I didn't know that they actually drop the second "i" when written, too.

    News to me too.
    I'm the king of bongo, baby I'm the king of bongo bong.
  63. #21513
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Boost is right, it's not about pronounciation. This is standard bastardisation of English. And yes, bastardisation has no fucking z in it (that's zed, not zee).
    Is it so hard to accept that you Englishers got lazy and stopped improving the language?

    Do ya have to be a raging squid of anger about the project being picked up where you left off?

    We're sharing our results with you, after all.
  64. #21514
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    Thats a more complex question than you may think. The first is "what is harm?", followed by "what is intangible harm?" Then what kind of legal action.

    In the US, you ordinarily dont have a civil action unless someone has harmed you. IE, someone has caused you a real injury. That could include physical injuries (ouch), financial (double ouch), emotional (wah), or legal (like a deprivation of rights).
    I would say that emotional harm is not a "real injury," because emotions are intangible.

    Ong put forward that if the nightclub in question lost revenue because patrons stopped going there after they heard about the BJ incident - that would be harm caused to the nightclub owner and employees by the BJ party.
    I disagree that this A) amounts to "real injury" and B) the loss of revenue falls on the BJ party and not on each of the patrons who chose to boycott that establishment over something done spontaneously by their peers.

    I'm getting the sense that the law is on ong's side, but I don't understand the reasoning which gets it there.
    Clearly, this is not about protecting the freedoms of adults. The argument says people experiencing intangible, perceived harm have a right to tangibly reduce the freedoms of people causing no "real injury" to anyone or anything.

    It's clear that what the history books say is the American ideal of expanding and protecting freedoms is a lie, or at least, has been subverted.
    What are the real, underlying moral principles which the laws manifest?

    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    But that isnt the case for criminal actions. There are many crimes which have "no victim". Traffic crimes are the most common example of those, followed by Drugs. Committing such acts within view of a video recorder will result in legal action.
    FYP
    We have cameras which take a picture of your car at a stoplight and send you a ticket for not stopping, never mind that physics cannot prove that your instantaneous velocity between any 2 frames was never 0 mph. I mean... we can put some limits on the amount of acceleration - force - it would take to stop and resume the mass of the vehicle in that time, and make some pretty good guesses based on whether or not your car has experienced damage to the frame and drive train or not, but nothing that can be proven with a pair of photos by a traffic camera.

    In St Louis, there are areas of town with CCTV security cameras in place by local authorities monitoring the streets. Those systems were put in place and used for years before they made a public announcement that such was the case. Yes, these are in places which are known as high crime areas, but I don't see how this is any less profiling the entire neighborhood and everyone who goes to shop there and not merely the criminals.

    I really can't help but feel this is a pretty big problem for a people who claim to be champions of freedom.

    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    Perhaps. We actually have a lot of redundant laws. Take DUI for example. That entire section of law could be replaced by other laws. Is it just that they were too drunk? Reckless driving/distracted driving. Did they hit someone? Assault, voluntary manslaughter, criminal damage. The law was pushed by MADD, but isnt really necessary.
    I've long known about this. It's pretty 'tarded that no one person can be expected to know all of the laws they're meant to follow in the nation, state, city and neighborhood they live. The sheer abundance of laws and their difficult language is prohibitive to most people.

    It's well past the point of "ignorance is no excuse." It's more properly, "ignorance is unavoidable."

    Do lawyers even know all of the laws which apply to them?
  65. #21515
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    I't so hrd to acept that yu Engers got lazy n stop proving the languaze?
    There you go. I "improved" English by removing letters, and for some random reason I changed a "g" to "z", even though it didn't shorten the word.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  66. #21516
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    There you go. I "improved" English by removing letters, and for some random reason I changed a "g" to "z", even though it didn't shorten the word.
    Was that Klingon?

    Fun fact: there have been more "invented" languages in the history of humans than there are "real" languages which are used by humans.

    All language is invented, but J.R.R. Tolkien's elven language or Star Trek's Klingon are what I mean by "invented" language. A "real" language is like English or French... something that is in widespread usage, not among some small group of Esperanto nerds (but keep at it, guys, it's only a matter of scale).
  67. #21517
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    There you go. I "improved" English by removing letters, and for some random reason I changed a "g" to "z", even though it didn't shorten the word.
    The history of the material and spelling of Al is not as boring as many other subjects.

    If I remember correctly, the word Aluminum (without the 2nd "i") is of British origin, like the word soccer. Humphry Davy named it when he was the first person to isolate the element from being an alloy. (Hmmm... can't find it on his wiki page.)

    Here it is:
    Quote Originally Posted by wiki "Aluminium"
    The earliest citation given in the Oxford English Dictionary for any word used as a name for this element is alumium, which British chemist and inventor Humphry Davy employed in 1808 for the metal he was trying to isolate electrolytically from the mineral alumina. The citation is from the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London: "Had I been so fortunate as to have obtained more certain evidences on this subject, and to have procured the metallic substances I was in search of, I should have proposed for them the names of silicium, alumium, zirconium, and glucium."[87][88]Davy settled on aluminum by the time he published his 1812 book Chemical Philosophy: "This substance appears to contain a peculiar metal, but as yet Aluminum has not been obtained in a perfectly free state, though alloys of it with other metalline substances have been procured sufficiently distinct to indicate the probable nature of alumina."
    Nope. I was wrong... it is that boring.
  68. #21518
    "Soccer" is short for "association football" and certainly is of British origin. However, we ditched the term in favour of "football", and because it's our game, we get annoyed when people call it "soccer". But really we don't get annoyed, we just like to moan at Americans for bastardising our language. Of course, you can't call it football, because you call your game football, so you need a different name. "English football" doesn't work really, even though we call your sport "American football", or "gridiron" if we're trying to annoy you lot.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  69. #21519
    iirc people stopped calling it soccer because that's what the upper class called it and people hate them some upper class.

    mb murika calls it soccer because we dont give a shit about youse class warfare.
  70. #21520
    I don't think anyone here gives a shit about why we don't call it soccer anymore, I just think British people like to have a moan at Americans.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  71. #21521
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Let's talk about an actual sport

    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  72. #21522
    soccer is probably the best sport you could put ur kid in
  73. #21523
    Quote Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla View Post
    Let's talk about an actual sport

    What sport is that? Ice soccer with sticks?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  74. #21524
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    I would say that emotional harm is not a "real injury," because emotions are intangible.
    Would your answer be the same for extreme cases of emotional harm? What about moderate cases?

    We have cameras which take a picture of your car at a stoplight and send you a ticket for not stopping, never mind that physics cannot prove that your instantaneous velocity between any 2 frames was never 0 mph. I mean... we can put some limits on the amount of acceleration - force - it would take to stop and resume the mass of the vehicle in that time, and make some pretty good guesses based on whether or not your car has experienced damage to the frame and drive train or not, but nothing that can be proven with a pair of photos by a traffic camera.
    But can it be proven beyond a reasonable doubt? Given that the the vehicle was on a road, with a person in the drivers seat, and at 1 point he was in one location and at another point he was in another location, would the totality of the circumstances show that he was almost certainly running the light?

    Sidenote: An expert is almost never going to testify and say otherwise. Why? Its not because of correctness...its because of cost. Experts want money to testify, usually. A decent amount. In my jurisdiction, defense attorneys get paid about $250 per misdemeanor case. Thats pennies. An expert will want much more, especially if they are such that would indisputably attack the system.

    But what happens after? Will the law be overturned? No. Cases on the trial court level carry no precedent . No court is forced to abide by their decisions. Itd be lucky if anyone else even knew about the decision. So how could the law be beaten?

    Well, you'd have to either A) lose a misdemeanor case, then appeal and have a higher court say "unconstitutional, because science", a very expensive process...much more than the simple cost of a ticket, or B) rally the media, and push for legal change. Would rallying the media stop video laws though? Or would it just fix the issue with the science?

    In St Louis, there are areas of town with CCTV security cameras in place by local authorities monitoring the streets. Those systems were put in place and used for years before they made a public announcement that such was the case. Yes, these are in places which are known as high crime areas, but I don't see how this is any less profiling the entire neighborhood and everyone who goes to shop there and not merely the criminals.

    I really can't help but feel this is a pretty big problem for a people who claim to be champions of freedom.
    Hrm. Would it be a problem if I set up a CCTV in my store? What if I owned a mall, and set it up there? Something larger? Are those damn ongabongas wrong for having cameras in many English locations, watching the street?

    Isnt this concern over privacy also an intangible harm?

    It's more properly, "ignorance is unavoidable."
    Agreed.

    Do lawyers even know all of the laws which apply to them?
    Eh. Lets parse out the bad lawyers, and the mediocre lawyers; lets only talk about good or great lawyers. For these people, they will generally know the law within their area of practice. The exceptional will even know a good deal outside of their area of expertise.
  75. #21525
    I would say that emotional harm is not a "real injury," because emotions are intangible.
    Is depression a real thing or is it imaginary?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •