Anything Forums

shenbaw wrote:

Will wrote: Shenbaw, what the fudge are you babbling about? You're taking an entirely different line here.

Will, this entirely different line I'm taking, is the line of the thread. You should try it once in a while. I think I'm putting WW on ignore for a while. He seems to have trouble staying on topic. And when he does stay partially on topic, all he does is come up with stupid "hypotheticals" and accuse others of being in support of them. Will, there's a big difference between someone overhearing a conversation between you and your "mate" and directly verbally assaulting someone. I'm talking about the later, which I do believe should be regulated in some way. Do you?

Agreed. By the way, nice job insulting me with kindness. Why don't you just give me a big hearty FU and let it go at that?
That whole paragraph was so elitist, I feel like a piece of fecal matter scraped off your boot. Thank you for that amusing and informative paragraph, Shenbaw. It's nice to know you gan tell someone to fudge themselves without saying it directly. Again, I must say that this is how most Americans behave. They say nice things like these to you with no profsnity at all when it would be much simpler to just say fudge YOU.

It seems my opinion matters as much as a rock's so, I leave you to "Debate" (if it can be called that)and leave Shenbaw to his high horse.

Oh and by the way. Shenbaw? You're a real wanker. A nose-in-the-air, uppity wanker.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19334

shenbaw wrote: Will, there's a big difference between someone overhearing a conversation between you and your "mate" and directly verbally assaulting someone. I'm talking about the later, which I do believe should be regulated in some way. Do you?

Shenbaw, I reread the thread and you consistantly talked about parents regulating the stuff that children were exposed to, and you mentioned public displays of profanity, and you nowhere made it clear that you were talking about "directly verbally assaulting someone." I personally think Will was staying on topic the whole time and you unnecessarily came down quite hard on him. Can't you take a bit of disagreement? You even tried egging me on by posting in color because I supposedly couldn't understand black and white. Do you think posting a smiley-face after a statement like that will mitigate the jab? Well for me it did, But Will doesn't mitigate as easily as I do. If you jab at him, he will jab back, but then don't complain at his responses.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19338

Bookworm wrote:

shenbaw wrote: Will, there's a big difference between someone overhearing a conversation between you and your "mate" and directly verbally assaulting someone. I'm talking about the later, which I do believe should be regulated in some way. Do you?

Shenbaw, I reread the thread and you consistantly talked about parents regulating the stuff that children were exposed to, and you mentioned public displays of profanity, and you nowhere made it clear that you were talking about "directly verbally assaulting someone." I personally think Will was staying on topic the whole time and you unnecessarily came down quite hard on him. Can't you take a bit of disagreement? You even tried egging me on by posting in color because I supposedly couldn't understand black and white. Do you think posting a smiley-face after a statement like that will mitigate the jab? Well for me it did, But Will doesn't mitigate as easily as I do. If you jab at him, he will jab back, but then don't complain at his responses.

Bookworm, I must commend you for being a fair and just man. More power to you, even if your point is a little weird. You should join the Royal Marines.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19347

All right y'all, call me what you want. I can take it!

Will, you need to lighten up.

Shenbaw, what the fudge are you babbling about?

I guess I figured if you can use your choice of language, you could afford me the same privilege, but if you insist. FU.

Agreed. By the way, nice job insulting me with kindness. Why don't you just give me a big hearty FU and let it go at that?

The reason I try to hold off on giving someone an "FU" is because I'd really rather not. Not because I'm above it, but because I really think it's just a stupid thing to say. What's it mean? Nothing. What's it accomplish? Nothing. So I just thought I'd say what I was thinking. And since you're the one always bitching about people "silencing you when you speak," in fact, I think you said something like...

resorting to namecalling and walking away will not gain respect fro me of any kind. I would prefer that I be left to my own opinion rather than be harried for carrying my own thoughts. This kind of smothering angers me greatly and has caused a rift betwixt myself and others on here.

I figured you'd be okay with that. I guess I was wrong.

you consistantly talked about parents regulating the stuff that children were exposed to, and you mentioned public displays of profanity, and you nowhere made it clear that you were talking about "directly verbally assaulting someone."

Bookworm, a public display of profanity does not take place in a conversation between someone and their mate. People can't control the things they overhear in public. Sure, if they could, I'm sure they would, but for the most part things are overheard "by accident." Thus, nothing can be done about it. Maybe just be more carefull next time. This is the reason I felt Will was getting off topic. Cause he was coming up with insane consequences for things that happen by accident and can't be helped, then insinuating I would be in favor of such things.

Now in your weird, nazistic future, let's experiment.
Meet mr. Hypothetical! And his four year old daughter! Now then, let's say Mr. Hypothetical walks down the street with his daughter and hears me telling one of my mates he should go fsck himself, he replies I'm a stupid fsck and then Mr. Hypothetical calls in the INTERPOL for a matter of National Security: a group of 14-year-olds uttered the word "fsck" within his daughter's hearing range. Orders are given to shoot all the offenders on sight.

I think you can guess where this is going.

Now then, Shenbaw, if you like this idea, I think you should see a headshrinker. I'm not saying you should allow a child to see porn or hear "bad wang-gwidge" but why should we, the common, adult citizens, be kept from doing so? Why can't we just peacefully tell each other, like sane, normal adults, to fsck off? Why can't we whip out the old man to pee in a secluded corner?

I guess the absurdity of the scenario and the fact that I've never proposed being shot as a viable punishment for profanity made the whole thing seem a little off base. But again,

I personally think Will was staying on topic the whole time and you unnecessarily came down quite hard on him.

I guess I was wrong. My appologies.
Do we really want to start a debate about whether or not urinating in public should outlawed though?

You even tried egging me on by posting in color because I supposedly couldn't understand black and white. Do you think posting a smiley-face after a statement like that will mitigate the jab? Well for me it did

No Bookworm, you got it all wrong. The only thing you can understand is black and white. But it's good to see you can take a joke.

But Will doesn't mitigate as easily as I do. If you jab at him, he will jab back, but then don't complain at his responses.

Again, my appologies for hurting anyone's feelings.

But isn't complaining just as much a right as taking the jab in first place.

When I said "a public display of profanity," I think I had previously mentioned "a giant hand with an extended middle finger up on a billboard." Right? To me, this is the equivilant of a public display of profanity because it is directed at everyone. It would be like getting a loud speaker and screaming over and over, "F@ck everyone! F@ck the world! F@ck you! And F@ck you! And you can go to Hell!" At everyone that happened to be within hearing distance. This is what parents have a right to shelter or filter from their kids. Accidents seem to be something completely different.

That's all I was really trying to say. In the future I will do my best not to be a wanker. A nose-in-the-air, uppity wanker.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19554

It's a known fact that all who disagree with Will are ignorant arseholes who resort to namecalling and other immature, poorly thought-out responses when faced with opposition....

...........................................................

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19555

And I should have made some comment about Will's need to resort to name-calling when he disagrees. He sets himself up for gettin it right back and then he complains about it.

But back to the game. What about election finance laws? I know they are not morality based, but what harm is the law protecting us from. Would a particular candidate be harmed if individuals could give more than a certain amount to a candidate, or would the entire political process be harmed.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19564

OK, who here has kids?
I know WW doesn't because he's 14.
If you don't have kids, your view of the world and what's going on in it will change when you do have kids. Don't think so? Just wait.
I for one do have kids and I'm fine with the public nudity and drinking laws in this country.
I'm also fine with me staying here and you staying where ever you are. I happen to like it here. You don't have to save me from myself. I'll be ok.
If you get you're information on how the average American is from crappy music, Hollywood and the retarded media, You're an Idiot.
I'm not looking to pick a fight, I just see allot of arrogant and ignorant posts.

Have a nice day..

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19567

0 wrote: I for one do have kids and I'm fine with the public nudity and drinking laws in this country.

But would you still be fine with them if they got even stricter? At some point a law can become so strict that it no longer has anything to do with public benefit and starts to be about someone's concept of what is the right thing to do. A town in Mexico recently outlawed nudity in one's own home if there is a chance that someone could see it through a window. Are they going too far?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19570

Bookworm wrote: A town in Mexico recently outlawed nudity in one's own home

I find that very hard to believe. Do you have a link to a news item on this?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19572

Bookworm wrote: But would you still be fine with them if they got even stricter? At some point a law can become so strict that it no longer has anything to do with public benefit and starts to be about someone's concept of what is the right thing to do.

I believe that is Some parts of San Francisco It's illegal to smoke on the city streets. Outside..... on the streets.... Open air. I'm not a smoker but to me that's ridiculous. But it seems that a majority of the people that live in that area wanted it. So they got it.
Is this what you mean bookworm?

Believe me, there are ridiculous laws on the books everywhere. Some are just not enforced. I think there's a website dedicated to these types of laws. I'll see if I can find it.


Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19575

shenbaw wrote: snip

Stasi, go to hell. First class Elevator, if you please.

Shenbaw, ahem, last thing you told me was public PROFANITY. Swearing in public is just as bad as your(very funny)example in some people's eyes. You know and I know that some people will take this thing a bit too far. Everyone does. There are lots of examples in history in which this was done. At one time, you'd be exiled for being a Christian in Rome. Another time you'd get eaten by a lion. You see how it happen? Someone pushes the envelope too far with a law, leading to it being struck down. That's what I'm against. You might not suggest that I be shot for saying fsck, but SOMEONE might.

The reason I try to hold off on giving someone an "FU" is because I'd really rather not. Not because I'm above it, but because I really think it's just a stupid thing to say. What's it mean? Nothing. What's it accomplish? Nothing. So I just thought I'd say what I was thinking. And since you're the one always bitching about people "silencing you when you speak," in fact, I think you said something like...
I figured you'd be okay with that. I guess I was wrong.

There you go again.

I'd really rather not. Not because I'm above it, but because I really think it's just a stupid thing to say. What's it mean? Nothing. What's it accomplish? Nothing.

That's my flicking point! I'd MUCH rather you say "Fsck off you little wanker" than subtly tell me "fsck off" like that. What you just said is the definition and picture of an uppity, snobbish stick.

Just in case I forgot, stasi, go to hell. Satan's getting rather horny.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19616

William Wallace wrote:

shenbaw wrote: I'd really rather not. Not because I'm above it, but because I really think it's just a stupid thing to say. What's it mean? Nothing. What's it accomplish? Nothing.

That's my flicking point! I'd MUCH rather you say "Fsck off you little wanker" than subtly tell me "fsck off" like that. What you just said is the definition and picture of an uppity, snobbish stick.

Will, I don't care what you would "rather" I said to you. If I don't feel like telling you to "fsck off," I'm not going to tell you to "fsck off." I'm going to say what I flicking feel like saying. And like I said, considering the fact that you're the one always demanding the right to say what you want to say and "be left to your own opinions" you should probably allow others to do the same and not try to dictate their words or the manner in which people choose to express themselves. You can name-call as much as you want, call me "uppity" or a "wanker," it's all sticks and stones buddy , and like what I said about resorting to a big FU, it's really meaningless and weak. When you resort to name-calling or profanity, Will, all that tells me is that you are incapable of expressing yourself in a more articulate fashion and in effect, literally have nothing better to say. Which is fine and you have every right to do it, but don't try and drag others down to your level. If I didn't do a good job of explaining what I meant by a "public display of profanity," I appologize. But I think I've done a pretty good job of clarifying myself at this point. Let's move on.

A town in Mexico recently outlawed nudity in one's own home if there is a chance that someone could see it through a window. Are they going too far?

I don't think so. But it probably depends upon your opinion of public nudity laws. If you agree with them, then of course you would agree with a law against people displaying themselves in such a way that would possibly expose the unexpecting passer-by to the indecent material. Much like putting a hand with an extended middle finger in the front window of your house, even though it in your home, it effects the general public. However, if you disagree with public nudity laws, and don't think there is anything wrong with exposing the general public to your or others private parts, then of course you would argue that they in fact have gone too far since #1. you are in your own home and #2. there is nothing inherently wrong or offensive about nudity in the general public.

I believe that is Some parts of San Francisco It's illegal to smoke on the city streets. Outside..... on the streets....  Open air. I'm not a smoker but to me that's ridiculous. But it seems that a majority of the people that live in that area wanted it. So they got it.

This is another area where one could see it from both sides. Sure people have always had the right to smoke in public. Now smoking is starting to be heavily regulated in enclosed buildings because of the proven horrible effects of second hand smoke. It makes sense. It directly harms those that have to endure it. Every year millions of waitresses develope lung cancer from simply doing their job and serving people their food as they puff away. It'd be like forcing people to serve food to people who habitually throw asbestos into the air. It hurts people and causes them to get sick. So should people be prohibited from smoking outdoors where it doesn't effect others, probably not. But should people be prohibited from smoking directly outside the main entrance ways of buildings where everyone that enters of exits has to walk through a cloud of tobacco smoke and chemicals just to get into or out of the building. I think so. If you're going to choose to kill yourself, fine, but do it somewhere where you're not also slowly killing everyone else too.

Oh yeah Will, nice sig. It's people like me that you need to fight? Why? Cause I said I was going to do my best to ignore your absurd and ridiculous comments? Or because I'm an uppity wanker?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19624

Here ia a link to an article about the Mexican town.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19626

That's pretty funny.

"I have no idea how you detect the naked. You'd have to have a big operation to try to bring it under control"

Um, wouldn't an easy way to detect nakedness be to see it though a large picture window? You'd have to have a large operation to control nudity visable to the general public? Yeah, a large operation like people reporting it. I guess I'm a little confused. Bookworm, you said "A town in Mexico recently outlawed nudity in one's own home if there is a chance that someone could see it through a window." But this article makes it sound like they outlawed indoor nudity all-together.

the city council in the southeastern city of Villahermosa has adopted a law banning indoor nudity, officials confirmed Wednesday.

the measure, part of a larger series of prohibitions, "tramples on the rights of the citizens by taking laughable measures such as contemplating penalties for citizens who walk around nude inside their houses."

These seem to be talking about a completely different law than what you were talking about Bookworm. If they have outlawed indoor nudity all-together, I would say that would be "going too far," since they would have to invade a person's right to privacy in their own home in order to enforce it. But outlawing nudity visible to the general public seems to be a bit more debatable. No?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19627

I had just read the article one time before I thought of it while making a post here. I must not have caught everything the first time I read it or I had read a different version of it.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19629

Bookworm wrote: I had just read the article one time before I thought of it while making a post here. I must not have caught everything the first time I read it or I had read a different version of it.

Well, in my uninformed opinion, the law is likely much more similar to what you explained (outlawing nudity in the home if there is a chance it will be visible to the general public), and the people they quoted in the article, and USA Today for that matter, were just trying to make the law seem more restrictive and invasive than it actually is cause they don't like the idea of legislating what goes on in the privacy of one's own home.

Again, I have nothing to back that up. That's just what I think happened.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19632

0 wrote:

Bookworm wrote: But would you still be fine with them if they got even stricter? At some point a law can become so strict that it no longer has anything to do with public benefit and starts to be about someone's concept of what is the right thing to do.

I believe that is Some parts of San Francisco It's illegal to smoke on the city streets. Outside..... on the streets.... Open air. I'm not a smoker but to me that's ridiculous. But it seems that a majority of the people that live in that area wanted it. So they got it.
Is this what you mean bookworm?

Believe me, there are ridiculous laws on the books everywhere. Some are just not enforced. I think there's a website dedicated to these types of laws. I'll see if I can find it.

That doesn't seem so terrible to me...if a lot of people are walking on those city streets, and people are smoking, that's a lot of secondhand smoke going around. And if the majority of the people there don't want their lungs invaded when they're going to work every day, then I think that law absolutely makes sense.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19636

William Wallace wrote: Stasi, go to hell.  First class Elevator, if you please.

Awww, can't handle a bit of introspection? Afraid of the truth? You know, for someone who hates to called childish or have people criticize your arguments with comments relating to your age, you make it awfully difficult to resist doing so, but I'll leave the immature remarks and name-calling to you. Grow up.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19639

Thanks for the link Bookworm.
Now that law is just silly.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19641

erolyn wrote:

0 wrote:

Bookworm wrote: But would you still be fine with them if they got even stricter? At some point a law can become so strict that it no longer has anything to do with public benefit and starts to be about someone's concept of what is the right thing to do.

I believe that is Some parts of San Francisco It's illegal to smoke on the city streets. Outside..... on the streets.... Open air. I'm not a smoker but to me that's ridiculous. But it seems that a majority of the people that live in that area wanted it. So they got it.
Is this what you mean bookworm?

Believe me, there are ridiculous laws on the books everywhere. Some are just not enforced. I think there's a website dedicated to these types of laws. I'll see if I can find it.

That doesn't seem so terrible to me...if a lot of people are walking on those city streets, and people are smoking, that's a lot of secondhand smoke going around. And if the majority of the people there don't want their lungs invaded when they're going to work every day, then I think that law absolutely makes sense.

So if the majority of the people don't want something, then the law makes sense? Well, the majority of the people in America do not want gay marriage, so do laws banning it make sense?

*checks watch to see how long it takes someone to tell me that one law is about harm and the other one isn't*

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19648

Bookworm wrote: So if the majority of the people don't want something, then the law makes sense? Well, the majority of the people in America do not want gay marriage, so do laws banning it make sense?

As far as I'm concerned, you could marry a sheep. It wouldn't bother me. But try and put that sheep on your health insurance. That's where I think the real issue is.
I don't think big business is willing to give "partners" the same treatment as a traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Hell, they want to cover as few people as possible.
I don't see why it's not legal in every state. Lawyers will benefit from this in a big way. A whole new demographic for divorce. I can see it now.....

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19650

STUPID LAWS

http://www.ahajokes.com/stupid_laws.html

http://www.geocities.com/nakedapril00/4.html

http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~jimella/laws01.htm

http://www.justicejunction.com/judicial_in...stupid_laws.htm



Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19651

Bookworm wrote:

erolyn wrote:

0 wrote: I believe that is Some parts of San Francisco It's illegal to smoke on the city streets. Outside..... on the streets.... Open air. I'm not a smoker but to me that's ridiculous. But it seems that a majority of the people that live in that area wanted it. So they got it.
Is this what you mean bookworm?

Believe me, there are ridiculous laws on the books everywhere. Some are just not enforced. I think there's a website dedicated to these types of laws. I'll see if I can find it.

That doesn't seem so terrible to me...if a lot of people are walking on those city streets, and people are smoking, that's a lot of secondhand smoke going around. And if the majority of the people there don't want their lungs invaded when they're going to work every day, then I think that law absolutely makes sense.

So if the majority of the people don't want something, then the law makes sense? Well, the majority of the people in America do not want gay marriage, so do laws banning it make sense?

*checks watch to see how long it takes someone to tell me that one law is about harm and the other one isn't*

Close Bookworm, you're catching on. In fact, both smoking laws and laws banning gay marriage are about protecting something from harm. But the first is about protecting people or individuals from harm or protecting their rights, and the second is about protecting an idea, namely marriage, from harm. That's assuming that "harming" an idea is actually possible. However, if you're talking about homosexuality in general, not gay marriage, then the issue isn't about harm, since neither participant feels they are being harmed, but is more about consent. A person who is walking out of a building and gets bombarded with second hand smoke in no way has given those smokers permission to cause their body to injest nicotine or the chemicals in cigarettes consequently putting them at risk to develope any number of cigarette related illnesses, thus, their rights to pursue a healthy lifestyle are being violated. In the case of homosexuality, the participants are in everyway, giving consent and willingly participating in the act or practice of being a homosexual, so noone's rights are being violated. The same line of rationale could be taken on 0's idea of marrying a sheep. If a sheep could realistically have a way of communicating consent, then we would have something to debate about, but right now, a sheep or any other kind of animal, has no way of communicating consent or disapproval of any kind, therefore, forcing the animal into a relationship of any kind would be violating that animal's rights. It's a sick thought, I know, but I'm just saying... This line of logic also works when applied to laws against pedophelia, elderly sexual abuse, mentally disable sexual abuse, etc.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19657

Wait a minute. Do animals actually have rights? I know we as humans should not abuse animals, but does that mean that the animals are in possession of rights?

I do catch the point you are making, but I still believe homosexuality is Biblically wrong. As far as the harm it causes marriage, I believe adultery and divorce constitute a greater harm to the institution of marriage than gay marriage does. I believe both adultery and divorce are Biblically wrong, but I wouldn't introduce laws to ban them.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19660

Bookworm wrote: Wait a minute. Do animals actually have rights? I know we as humans should not abuse animals, but does that mean that the animals are in possession of rights?

I don't know. Ask these guys.
http://www.peta.org/about/

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), with more than 800,000 members, is the largest animal rights organization in the world. Founded in 1980, PETA is dedicated to establishing and protecting the rights of all animals.

They sure seem to think so.

I do catch the point you are making, but I still believe homosexuality is Biblically wrong. As far as the harm it causes marriage, I believe adultery and divorce constitute a greater harm to the institution of marriage than gay marriage does. I believe both adultery and divorce are Biblically wrong, but I wouldn't introduce laws to ban them.

But you are in support of laws to ban gay marriage? Or?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19662