“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#565756 Nov 26, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>What adults should consider is that their privates will be at face level (or very close to it) to most children. Not many of us adults would enjoy asking for a drink or a taco from someone whose genitals are in our face. Kids already don't get enough respect as human beings without having to converse with adults' genitals in every social situation.
I don't know whether to laugh or be grossed out.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#565757 Nov 26, 2012
Janine wrote:
Well, God is Nature. God is life. God as we know it is a force larger than ourselves. You didn't create yourself, nor did your parents create themselves. Something larger than us created humanity, and keeps it alive. Something makes the seasons change, or brings babies into the world, or makes the grass grow. We humans can't do that (well yes, we can create babies) but not without the laws of nature. This isn't religion its a fact. Maybe your thinking about the idea of God being in the sky, answering people's prayers. But religion and spiritual beliefs aside, look around you. What's not man made, was created by something larger than us. It didn't just appear out of thin air, and even if it did, wouldn't that prove that something much more powerful than ourselves is at work?
Good grief.

Somebody check me on this - I think that's every single Fundie logic flaw in just one post!
Believer

London, KY

#565758 Nov 26, 2012
God put it on the hearts of man what to write in the bible.....read your bible and watch the news and you will see that all these things are being fulfilled, and the end is very near!!!!

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#565759 Nov 26, 2012
Believer wrote:
God put it on the hearts of man what to write in the bible.....read your bible and watch the news and you will see that all these things are being fulfilled, and the end is very near!!!!
Oh, that old thing again?

How long has it been now?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#565760 Nov 26, 2012
Believer wrote:
God put it on the hearts of man what to write in the bible.....read your bible and watch the news and you will see that all these things are being fulfilled, and the end is very near!!!!
The end of what?

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#565761 Nov 26, 2012
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>I don't know whether to laugh or be grossed out.
I gotta say, when I was a kid I never considered that I was at that level, it didn't cross my mind.

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#565762 Nov 26, 2012
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
I gotta say, when I was a kid I never considered that I was at that level, it didn't cross my mind.
It may have when you were clinging to the leg of a nudist and their dangly bits were brushing up against your ear.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#565763 Nov 26, 2012
Al Garcia wrote:
<quoted text>
You were correct kiddo. It was the city council that voted and not a public vote. I stand corrected.
Public nudity should be allowed only in certain restricted areas and not just out anywhere anyone chooses out in public.
I agree. I think, from reading, that most of the issues were centered around the Castro District. From what I've heard of it, there are a lot of strange people there. They give homosexuals a bad name. I'm homosexual and even I wouldn't go there let alone take a child there. Parents have a responsibility as well to keep their children away from things like that.

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

#565764 Nov 26, 2012
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>It may have when you were clinging to the leg of a nudist and their dangly bits were brushing up against your ear.
hahaa...

I guess if you were the child of a nudist, it might have been a concern.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#565766 Nov 26, 2012
Al Garcia wrote:
<quoted text>
Public nudity is fine for those that accept it and don't have a problem with it but still it should be kept private between them because there are many people that don't agree with it and have their own personal reasons for doing so.
It seems like part of the discussion here has been about how Christians are accused of "pushing their beliefs or agenda" on others but in this instance i must point out that you're suggesting that people who agree with public nudity be allowed to push their agenda or beliefs against a population that disagrees with it. Pardon me, but your view sounds very much like a double standard to me.
I strongly believe that it should be up to the parents to decide how the child will be raised regarding nudity, or the birds and the bees or any other issue of a personal issue. Not some stranger on the street with a swinging Johnson or a bare va jay jay.
Oh, Al! hahaha!

I don't want to see old naked men walking around either! Blach! And the smell....

I just didn't like their argument that kids shouldn't see genitalia. It's a stupid argument, since kids have genitalia.

And I didn't bring up the Christian angle - you did! It's an inevitable comparison, though, since we're talking about San Francisco. They weren't really making a Christian argument, however. Their whole point was that "we'd like to allow nudity, but if we do, these gay men take advantage of that and walk around naked." hahaha, what a hypocritical position - the "we want nudity to be legal for the very occasional time someone wants to exercise that right, and we'd love it if more women were naked, but since old gay men want to walk around naked and, let's be honest, their bodies aren't much to look at, we're going to repeal our law. For the kids."

I personally find it disingenuous and silly. But you know what? I don't want to see old naked men when I'm drinking my coffee at Starbucks, either. Yuk! Now, if the law was for "mostly unclad male and female models, professional athletes, and actors" I'd be a bit more interested.

They should have used a better justification, though. Silly San Francisco.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#565767 Nov 26, 2012
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
Absolutely. I don't give a rat's ass what someone's sexual orientation is nor would a child even know that's an issue. My God-child is four and if any dude walked by him naked, gay or straight, he is going to find clothing by way of an EMS gown.
Why??? That's crazy! You think someone else's nudity hurts your child???

That's insane. What do you think is going to happen to the child? Do you think s/he will explode? Suddenly become a Muslim? I mean, get real.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#565768 Nov 26, 2012
Skombolis wrote:
Absolutely. I don't give a rat's ass what someone's sexual orientation is nor would a child even know that's an issue. My God-child is four and if any dude walked by him naked, gay or straight, he is going to find clothing by way of an EMS gown.
Quite frankly I could do without seeing it myself as most the population would not fall into the category of those I would be lining up to see naked. But if it was a private community of just adults or something, well, it isn't exactly going on my "Things to worry about" list. I have more important things going on and whatever floats your boat I guess if someone is a nudist.
But in an age where 5th graders are having sex in front of other students in the middle of class and chicks are blowing dudes for rides at lunch, and every pop-star looks and dresses like she is on her way to a porno shoot the last thing we need is children seeing people walk around naked. And under any circumstances it is just flat-out inappropriate for them to see an adult stranger naked.
Yes body-image is out-of-control where everybody is made to feel bad about themselves and if adults want to embrace the idea that they are comfortable in their bodies enough to be naked around one another then more power to them. Just keep it away from the kids. People's rights can't infringe on the right's of others. That's just the rules.
(T) Peace
Al Garcia wrote:
<quoted text>
Well said.:)
No, it wasn't well said. It was an appeal to violence.

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#565769 Nov 26, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
No, it wasn't well said. It was an appeal to violence.
At the end he said , "people's right can not violate the rights of others". That is exactly the opposite to an appeal for violence.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

#565770 Nov 26, 2012
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't say nothing i believe what taught to me by man. But I can say fairly confidently that nothing I believe is because man taught it to me. Only what I have come to discover on my own or confirm on my own that I found or someone else showed me makes it past the cutting room floor. Some things people taught me I have found to be correct. A lot of things I have found not to be.
I think people would be shocked if they knew how little the person that taught them actually knew. It is very hard to teach people the Bible. It is a very long and complicated read and takes tons of cross-referencing. Back in the day when most priests learned what they did in seminary, they had no indexes, they had no Internet, the had no Bible searches by keyword or subject. They had no online commentaries or concordances or lexicons. They didn't have input from thousands of people with the same. We have huge advantages these days so I am not knocking priests for only knowing what they do. But there is a good chance many of them didn't know as much as they would need to in order to properly teach it. So they drew their own conclusions often on limited information which leads to errors.
Any serious student of the bible IMO has to start from scratch. Then go though and keep the beliefs they find to be correct and discard the rest. Knowing how fallible man is and therefore how many teachers must be, it is amazing to me people are so resistant to doing this. I feel like I owe it to myself and God to try to figure out what it is He is trying to get me to understand. That is way more important than clinging to something because of indoctrination.
Ok, meant to get off of here a long time ago!
(T) Peace
Go, my son.

Your work here is done.

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#565771 Nov 26, 2012
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>At the end he said , "people's right can not violate the rights of others". That is exactly the opposite to an appeal for violence.
So he had contradictory statements then. He started with "My God-child is four and if any dude walked by him naked, gay or straight, he is going to find clothing by way of an EMS gown."

In other words, he'd violently attack anyone who was publicly naked if his godchild was around, but he doesn't support violating anyone's rights.

Do I have to point out that attacking someone to the point of sending them to the ER is violating another person's right to health?

“Why does my ignorance”

Since: Mar 11

justify your deity?

#565772 Nov 26, 2012
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
hahaa...
I guess if you were the child of a nudist, it might have been a concern.
What's disturbing is that many of the above posters have openly said that human genitalia are disgusting and would somehow damage or belittle children.

They fail to see how skewed their viewpoints are and they don't understand children, nor that they are raising children to be ashamed of their own bodies. For they are literally imbuing in children a disgust of self, a disgust of their own genitals.

That's more abusive, in my opinion, than any naked body is, and will cause lasting damage to children's sense of self worth.

“The Intrepid”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#565773 Nov 26, 2012
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>It may have when you were clinging to the leg of a nudist and their dangly bits were brushing up against your ear.
As a child I was very shy, often hiding behind my mom or the couch when people cam to visit, whether they were strangers or not. I hate to think that as a pre-schooler I would not have had some sort of clothing barrier between her bum and my nose. Growing up associating butt smell with comfort could have altered the nature of aromatherapy in a really disgusting way, a la Eau de bum...oil of crack, etc.

I think that clothing lends humans an "air" of genteelness that beats the heck out of the canine's butt sniffing ritual. Shaking hands with strangers is bad enough. At least as a woman I can refuse to shake a man's hand without breaking any rules of etiquette.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#565774 Nov 26, 2012
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
What facts? You've provided no facts that support your implied contention that Congress was lying when it said unanimously that, "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." You provided a snippet that said that one treaty was superceded by another.
You're still wrong.

Pay attention to the context of the treaty and the reason for the treaty and the reason for the words of the treaty and whom those words were addressed to...

Until then, I can't go back & forth with you on this any more.

“The Intrepid”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#565775 Nov 26, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
What's disturbing is that many of the above posters have openly said that human genitalia are disgusting and would somehow damage or belittle children.
They fail to see how skewed their viewpoints are and they don't understand children, nor that they are raising children to be ashamed of their own bodies. For they are literally imbuing in children a disgust of self, a disgust of their own genitals.
That's more abusive, in my opinion, than any naked body is, and will cause lasting damage to children's sense of self worth.
"Your genitals' place is not in my child's face." How hard is that to understand?

I never said genitals are disgusting, just that their place is not in my face. Normal people "get" that.

I don't want to see them while I'm at the mall shopping or in the food court. I don't want to see them at the park, the library or grocery store either. They belong in the spa showers or your home and that's it. I would never tell my child that she should be ashamed of any part of herself, ever, only that it's not a good idea to roam the streets naked. Any sane person knows this is true.

She's already heard me discuss the newer trend in cosmetic surgery with another relative, labia enhancement; where I expressed my wonder at how so many women felt their genitals were so ugly that they wanted to surgically alter them. I saw the before and after pictures in one article and couldn't tell that there was any discernible difference between what they looked like before and after the surgery. Gee, labia is labia is labia. They all look the same to me, so I don't get how one woman can tell herself that hers looks "prettier" or uglier than any other's.

I understand children very well, I've been one long enough to know what they do and don't like.

The only thing I "imbue" in a child is that they have a right to protest what grosses them out, i.e., pushy adults with an agenda.

OCB

“What a GLORIOUS day!!!”

Since: Apr 12

Orlando but NYC born & raised

#565776 Nov 26, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>As a child I was very shy, often hiding behind my mom or the couch when people cam to visit, whether they were strangers or not. I hate to think that as a pre-schooler I would not have had some sort of clothing barrier between her bum and my nose. Growing up associating butt smell with comfort could have altered the nature of aromatherapy in a really disgusting way, a la Eau de bum...oil of crack, etc.
I think that clothing lends humans an "air" of genteelness that beats the heck out of the canine's butt sniffing ritual. Shaking hands with strangers is bad enough. At least as a woman I can refuse to shake a man's hand without breaking any rules of etiquette.
Where do you get that you can refuse to shake a man's hand without breaking any rules of etiquette?

That is so wrong......and I guess you're another germ-ophobic- shaking hands is "bad enough"??

Do you even know the origins of people shaking hands and why people shake hands?

It is a sign of PEACE, but as you have proven you are hardly a peaceable person, I'm not surprised you find hand shaking to be "bad enough" or that you stupidly think women are exempt from hand shaking. To refuse to shake someone's hand- no matter your gender- is to say you do not come in peace.

BTW, the reason why people wear clothing is for protection from the elements, since the non-human animals you are so quick to scorn and put down have NATURAL protection from the elements which humans do not- be it scales, feathers or fur. And there is no correlation at all between humans wearing clothing and the rituals of animals greeting one another or checking one another out.

This post of yours to which I am responding is one of your most asinine posts yet- not that there aren't plenty of your posts which rate as incredibly asinine; most of your posts can be rated as such.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 4 min Michael 560,549
Moses never existed 21 min feces for jesus 836
Gay snapchat names 43 min raye 177
SMOKING: One of the dumbest - deadliest human h... 52 min OMG 44
Dark Circle Reduction Treatment 59 min Helena Grace 1
Couch Potato Alert 1 hr yon 11
Wake up, Black America!! (Sep '13) 1 hr yon 4,900
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 4 hr Ugly Truth from d... 605,347
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 4 hr WasteWater 265,472
Straight guys: Would you ever have intercourse ... (Jul '12) 11 hr risque 137
More from around the web