|
I find US citizens to be over sensitive with regards to vocabulary. They need to understand that context is equally important if not more. Many of US citizens are, apparently, also hell bent on treating absolutely everything to racism. They have forgotten that specifying characteristic of a person is not racism. Discrimination based on said characteristic is.
|
|
|
|
|
If I call my wife a bitch it doesn't mean I hate women.
It means I'm angry.
In our sound bite society people don't care about context anymore.
Basically, we're all primed to fight and since all of our basic needs are met we have to fight over meaningless stuff.
It is pathetic.
|
|
|
|
|
MehGerbil wrote: f I call my wife a bitch it doesn't mean I hate women.
Yeah, it means you are dying in 3,2,1, BANG.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: I find US citizens to be over sensitive with regards to vocabulary.
I disagree. It is our media that has made it this way. Most people wouldn't have cared.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, as an outsider, I was scared of saying anything. All I had on mind was, "Don't say anything remotely related to color and don't get shot."
|
|
|
|
|
Fair enough.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: Fair
Fair? FAIR? What's wrong with dark? You are a white supremacist. KKK? You hate other races right?
|
|
|
|
|
You said "color" and "shot" in the same sentence - that was clearly meant as a racist slur, you racist you!
Oops, I just realised I did too! Me racist me!
Sometimes this is all just too ridiculous. People, especially USians are way over sensitive about things that are said. What is said is way less important than what is done, usually.
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
Oddly enough, I moved from Canada to the United States, and, while I don't agree with everything here, I much prefer the political climate here to Canada's.
Tim
|
|
|
|
|
I wish you'd elaborate on that.
That could be really interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
In the '80s, I was at a friend's house. His Dad was a police officer. I asked him, "The charter of rights and freedoms says that sexual discrimination is illegal. However, men are allowed to go topless in public, but women aren't - that is indecent exposure. Are they on a collision course?" I was told, "Yes, they are on a collision course."
Well, the supreme court declare the indecent exposure law unconsitutional: result, women can go topless in Canada in public.
I do not want my children exposed to topless women, so I can't go to a public beach.
And, do any of want to see our daughters, sisters, mothers, grandmothers walking around topless for all to see?
|
|
|
|
|
Tim Carmichael wrote: And, do any of want to see our daughters, sisters, mothers, grandmothers walking around topless for all to see?
I dunno... how cute is your sister?
Actually, I don't want to see the men topless.
I didn't know it was legal to be topless in Canada.
The only saving grace is that it's cold up there most of the time.
|
|
|
|
|
MehGerbil wrote: The only saving grace is that it's cold up there most of the time.
Hard nips even with a shirt on. 
The report of my death was an exaggeration - Mark Twain
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
I'm on-line therefore I am.
JimmyRopes
|
|
|
|
|
I basically agree with your opening rant and the sentiments that you expressed in it.
But this response is truly one of the best that I have seen here.
Very very funny and respectful of Tim's statement, even though it was encouraging some flame.
Just wish you had of inserted the word 'Kid' in front of 'sister'.
I Enjoyed this... Thanks 
"Rock journalism is people who can't write interviewing people who can't talk for people who can't read." Frank Zappa 1980
|
|
|
|
|
Tim Carmichael wrote: women can go topless in Canada in public.
How come Charlie Sheen never moved to Canada?
|
|
|
|
|
d@nish wrote: How come Charlie Sheen never moved to Canada?
Because Charlie Sheen does not have to go to Canada to have topless woman around him. Heck, he could do that in Saudi Arabia if he wanted to.
|
|
|
|
|
In NY State, the State Supreme Court, in a moment of Blessed Clarity decreed that Woman may go topless anywhere men can. Voyeuristic considerations aside, I applaud the law.
Your worry: Tim Carmichael wrote: I do not want my children exposed to topless women, so I can't go to a public beach.
is actually pointing out the real problem. There is nothing whatsoever obscene about a topless woman. The worry you have about such exposure is really how you'd react.
Where I live (near beaches), the women going topless doesn't disrupt a thing.
More news: Sex is Not Sin (original or otherwise). It is following the very first decree by deity to creation, which is Be Fruitful and Multiply. Interestingly, all species, except ours, have no problems with being in the open. It's only 'dirty' because some sick mind made it that way. So following the bible can get you arrested.
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Forbidding sex in public has nothing to do with sex being shameful or wrong.
It has everything to do with protecting other people - it is a courtesy.
Unlike animals, we people have a tendency to get jealous and have problems with envy.
With that in mind, I don't care to see two college kids with perfect bodies having sex on the lawn of the administration building during lunch when my wife and I have imperfect bodies and we're both a full work day ahead of us before we could get around to our imperfect sex.
Nudity laws are about courtesy - it is the same reason why it is considered rude for millionaires to walk around with a placard on their chests announcing their bank balances.
|
|
|
|
|
A large fraction of your post has to do with commercially defined attitudes of what people should look like. Animals do get jealous - but they still don't worry about "where the sun don't shine".
MehGerbil wrote: it is the same reason why it is considered rude for millionaires to walk around with a placard on their chests announcing their bank balances.
Wrong. They do it with big cars, shiny baubles, etc.
Should we outlaw the display of anything wherein someone else's may be 'bigger' (put intended).
The internet user are warned about being victimized by responding to social engineering scenarios. They omit the bigger picture of the total social engineering of what personal behavior is or isn't offensive.
Surely there are behaviors a human can do which are unacceptable: deification in public areas, blasting audio invading someone else's audio territory (that doesn't mean only silence is acceptable).
A lifetime of psychological manipulation has paid off - at least for the manipulators.
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos wrote: A large fraction of your post has to do with commercially defined attitudes of what people should look like. Animals do get jealous - but they still don't worry about "where the sun don't shine".
This is where we head in separate philosophical directions.
Envy/Jealousy is built into the human psyche so at worst 'commericially defined attitudes' is merely working with the putty they already find between our ears. The big bad advertiser isn't making us envious - he's just working with the natural inclination of mankind.
W∴ Balboos wrote: Wrong. They do it with big cars, shiny baubles, etc.
..and the response typically is what?
We make jokes about the guy in the Jaguar - jokes that he's compensating.
How much more miserable would you be if you could see for sure that he wasn't compensating.
W∴ Balboos wrote: Surely there are behaviors a human can do which are unacceptable: deification in public areas, blasting audio invading someone else's audio territory (that doesn't mean only silence is acceptable).
This is an entirely arbitrary list which I suspect is as much a product of manipulation as the sex thing.
No, we're better off recognizing human nature - what it is at it's core - and dealing with that issue.
|
|
|
|
|
Envy/Jealousy are part of the evolved survival instinct, where it is beneficial for preservation of ones genes (another rant I could enter).
That it can be exploited and misdirected, as has been done, doesn't make the consequences of the misdirection valid in any way. Yeah. They messed with the putty. But it's your putty - take it back and reshape it.
I picked 'defecation', in particular, not for it's impact in the lounge or an arbitrary reason. This is a real potential health threat and should thus be a taboo. It was, in fact, since biblical times (Israel's military were instructed to carry a shovel-like-paddles, go off to the side of the camp/road, and when done, cover the mess).
The jokes about the guy in the Jaguar? Like nervous laughter. At the heart of it, not real. Lamborghini, Lotus, Austin-Martin, etc., they're all in-your-face wealth. Fun to drive, you say? Most of that thrill is disobey logical safety because 'special people' have special privileges.
But, let's digress for a moment - and look at the putty play:
When I was growing up, it was easy for any kid to watch war movies, cowboys & Indians, etc., with massive amounts of killing going on. Even modern SciFi will only PG a movie with skillions of humans being killed by the evil aliens. On the other hand, watching two people love one another - from that we protect our children! Someone, somewhere, once told the censors no kisses longer than 15 seconds, but you can massacre at will. Check out some of the armed insurgents around the world (primarily Muslim insurgents): kids given guns to play with and wave in the air whilst daddy looks on and grins (real things, too) being also taught it's dirty for a woman to even show her face in public.
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos wrote: That it can be exploited and misdirected, as has been done, doesn't make the consequences of the misdirection valid in any way.
I wouldn't claim the manipulation is okay but rather that dealing with the substance of what can be manipulated is a better approach to fixing then problem then rounding up the manipulators and getting them to promise to play nice. If you do that root cause fix then it is fixed for all types of manipulation.
W∴ Balboos wrote: When I was growing up, it was easy for any kid to watch war movies, cowboys & Indians, etc., with massive amounts of killing going on. Even modern SciFi will only PG a movie with skillions of humans being killed by the evil aliens. On the other hand, watching two people love one another - from that we protect our children!
Again, you're pointing out what is legal and contrasting it with what is illegal and implying the legality of one says something about the legality of the other. At best, with this approach, you can establish hypocrisy but unfortunately for your argument the sting hits in both directions. Your approach could just as easily be used to outlaw violence on TV - appealing to a cultural norm can hit both ways. Someone could say, "Hey, we don't allow sex on TV so we shouldn't allow violence!" and they'd be just as rationally consistent as what you propose here.
I don't think you can make an argument for 'tits in public' that isn't self defeating.
Let's review the typical arguments:
1: Violence is legal, we're hypocrites, stop the hypocrisy. (See above)
2: Animals don't care - we can learn from them. (Uh, no.. animals also eat their young. Not consistent)
If you don't have a good argument to allow tits in public then by what standard is the gross commercialization condemned? Can you establish that tits are banned in public as a product of advertising is wrong? I seriously doubt it - outside of personal preference.
|
|
|
|
|
Briefly (for a change)
MehGerbil wrote: (Uh, no.. animals also eat their young. Not consistent)
And humans kill other humans (very few animals will kill their own kind) - We can still learn from them.
MehGerbil wrote: If you don't have a good argument to allow tits in public then by what standard is the gross commercialization condemned? Can you establish that tits are banned in public as a product of advertising is wrong? I seriously doubt it - outside of personal preference
As good an argument as allowing woman to not where blue burkahs and peer through slits their entire life. The argument, clearly rhetorical.
As for condemning gross commercialization, were I to start to be specific about a standard I'd start with a concept where commercialization is done at the expense of liberty.
Any perceived harm from visual exposure of humans to other humans is a taught reaction. From the oxymoron, "Societal Norms".
It may come down to this: it's not making an argument for 'tits in public' that in question, but rather, making an argument for 'why not tits in public'.
(futile attempt at brevity)
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
There's a difference between 'it's rude' and 'it should be illegal'. Take your analogy: it's not illegal for rich people to flaunt their wealth.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
