Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine #votebluenomatterwhat are you having fun al? are you having van al? gaolang > your fav i refuse to pay my taxes imagine thinking trump is the good guy is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? it's over for trump life goal sister harem loli mfw kamala harris can actually win real madrid tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you worst thread ever
You are derivating again with fallacies..
- First you tell us that Nudity is the problem
- Then you tell us that Pornography is the problem
- Then you tell us that nudity is the problem because nudity exposition leads to pornography..
... without even the mear tiny bit of fact to sustain that affirmation.
Dude.. you are literally exposed to nudity since the moment you are born. The exposure to it won't throw you toward pornography, what is throwing teenagers toward pornography is the prohibition (which is normal for pornography) not nudity.
The more you hide something, the more you are gonna want to see it.. it's human.
Me : "I don't care about incest as long as people don't make babies and are consentant adults"
Photon: "So youre okay if two people doing incest in public is okay as long as they are consent to it?"
The fallacy is strong with this one...
Consent is consent. It's "Yes, I agree" and a consentent relationship following that statement. Nothing less.
If someone gives you a kiss, it doesn't mean they want you to frick them, first. And second, Animal don't give consent, period. So let's stop with the rape culture rethoric please
Actually I don't. Those people live peacefully at least without capitalism behind them, so its YOU who has the burden of proof here once again.
Unlikely.
Let's be clear:
Give the humanity full and unlimited access to an average temperature of 25 to 27 degree celcius at all time in all situation in public and private spaces and in all societies... and you will see ALL human societies go full nude in the span of 300 to 500 years.
- First you tell us that Nudity is the problem
- Then you tell us that Pornography is the problem
- Then you tell us that nudity is the problem because nudity exposition leads to pornography..
... without even the mear tiny bit of fact to sustain that affirmation.
Dude.. you are literally exposed to nudity since the moment you are born. The exposure to it won't throw you toward pornography, what is throwing teenagers toward pornography is the prohibition (which is normal for pornography) not nudity.
The more you hide something, the more you are gonna want to see it.. it's human.
Me : "I don't care about incest as long as people don't make babies and are consentant adults"
Photon: "So youre okay if two people doing incest in public is okay as long as they are consent to it?"
The fallacy is strong with this one...
Consent is consent. It's "Yes, I agree" and a consentent relationship following that statement. Nothing less.
If someone gives you a kiss, it doesn't mean they want you to frick them, first. And second, Animal don't give consent, period. So let's stop with the rape culture rethoric please
Actually I don't. Those people live peacefully at least without capitalism behind them, so its YOU who has the burden of proof here once again.
Unlikely.
Let's be clear:
Give the humanity full and unlimited access to an average temperature of 25 to 27 degree celcius at all time in all situation in public and private spaces and in all societies... and you will see ALL human societies go full nude in the span of 300 to 500 years.
Your statement ''nudity is wrong because it's bad'
''Nudity is always sexual''
In the past there were time periods it was normal for example to breastfeed in public.
Today people twist their undies when they see a woman's naked breast in a completely non-sexual context.
The culture here has been changing too, cultures always change.
Now what do you say about my example?
There were times when exposed knees and elbows were seen as indecent.
Can you relate to this? are you aroused by a woman's elbiws, knees,shoulders?
''Nudity is always sexual''
In the past there were time periods it was normal for example to breastfeed in public.
Today people twist their undies when they see a woman's naked breast in a completely non-sexual context.
The culture here has been changing too, cultures always change.
Now what do you say about my example?
There were times when exposed knees and elbows were seen as indecent.
Can you relate to this? are you aroused by a woman's elbiws, knees,shoulders?
Come on, don’t be so ridiculous
There’s a huge difference between knees/elbows and titters, pussy and dicks.
You know that they’re called intimate areas?
They do what they want at home but not in public. There would be tons of people who would feel uncomfortable + children shouldn’t see such things
This is also why children shouldn’t watch porn
cultures change but that doesn’t mean that the change is something good. Many things can lead us to shit
There’s a huge difference between knees/elbows and titters, pussy and dicks.
You know that they’re called intimate areas?
They do what they want at home but not in public. There would be tons of people who would feel uncomfortable + children shouldn’t see such things
This is also why children shouldn’t watch porn
cultures change but that doesn’t mean that the change is something good. Many things can lead us to shit
The point is that they used to be seen as indecent not too long ago
You're not aroused by them because you weren't taught that they are indecent
You're dismissing thr fact that much of India's prudish stuff today goes back to the Brits conquering your asses and force feeding you their Puritan morals
You're not aroused by them because you weren't taught that they are indecent
More I see some of these so called liberals argue more I feel humans are becoming dumber day by day.
Wearing clothes is a toxic or oppressing rule of the society? WEARING CLOTHES???! Dude you crossed a line here
Do you know what toxic and oppressing behaviour is?
There are woman who get beaten to death or still have disadvantages in workplaces and you have a the balls to say that covering your intimate areas is toxic and oppressive?
This is why no one takes you guys fucking serious
I will end this discussion before I slam my head against the wall. It’s has no meaning because we won’t come to a conclusion
Peace out
Do you know what toxic and oppressing behaviour is?
There are woman who get beaten to death or still have disadvantages in workplaces and you have a the balls to say that covering your intimate areas is toxic and oppressive?
This is why no one takes you guys fucking serious
I will end this discussion before I slam my head against the wall. It’s has no meaning because we won’t come to a conclusion
Peace out
Youre the ones strawmanning if anything. I mentioned the word consent and refer to it linguistically, but somehow you have different definition of consention just to somehow invalidate my point.
Explain LOL
Why are you comparing a kid with an infant lmao.
I have my facts right, its just you needing to be spoon-fed all the time just to see the obvious correlation. Kids can get sexually aroused by nudity, and this might rewire their brain neuron to think of this solely all the time. This will eventually lead to doing some kind of pleasures. If they cant see someone nude at one point, theyll obviously resort to watching this pornography. The deadly cycle then continues.
Your 1 and only argument is the consent of the participants. If two people on nude doing an incest in public space have consent, your logic says its all okay
Period. Period. Period.
How many are you going to say that while saying nothing of substance lmao
Since you leftist like to play word manipulation, then ill stop using the word consent and ill just instead say a basic sentence. If an animal want to get intimate with their owner and it is the animal that initiate the act and the owner agrees, is this wrong?
You never learn about burden of proof huh?
I gave you credible known study which has also been supported by numerous other study. Anything you say will never make those study invalid just because you want it to.
"Those people live peacefully at least without capitalism behind them"
That is your assumption, you are the one on the burden of proof.
get your logics straigth
totally unrealistic
Explain LOL
Why are you comparing a kid with an infant lmao.
I have my facts right, its just you needing to be spoon-fed all the time just to see the obvious correlation. Kids can get sexually aroused by nudity, and this might rewire their brain neuron to think of this solely all the time. This will eventually lead to doing some kind of pleasures. If they cant see someone nude at one point, theyll obviously resort to watching this pornography. The deadly cycle then continues.
Your 1 and only argument is the consent of the participants. If two people on nude doing an incest in public space have consent, your logic says its all okay
Period. Period. Period.
How many are you going to say that while saying nothing of substance lmao
Since you leftist like to play word manipulation, then ill stop using the word consent and ill just instead say a basic sentence. If an animal want to get intimate with their owner and it is the animal that initiate the act and the owner agrees, is this wrong?
You never learn about burden of proof huh?
I gave you credible known study which has also been supported by numerous other study. Anything you say will never make those study invalid just because you want it to.
"Those people live peacefully at least without capitalism behind them"
That is your assumption, you are the one on the burden of proof.
get your logics straigth
Post automatically merged:
totally unrealistic
You have no fact. No data, just your bias and a bit of moral panic.
No.
Stop the fallacies.
Until you understand that consent is something you give, not something you imply.
Actually, as a sceptic, I know my fair share of the concept of the burden of proof. so yeah.. you still got it.
My assumption is what we call a reasonable assumption. What you are asserting is an extraodinary assumption (that those tribes are affected by a negative aspect of nudity) so you need to give us extra evidence to prove your point. (which will be difficult as.. well.. thisis not a thing)
Oh.. really ?
You'd be surprised.
No.
Stop the fallacies.
Until you understand that consent is something you give, not something you imply.
Actually, as a sceptic, I know my fair share of the concept of the burden of proof. so yeah.. you still got it.
My assumption is what we call a reasonable assumption. What you are asserting is an extraodinary assumption (that those tribes are affected by a negative aspect of nudity) so you need to give us extra evidence to prove your point. (which will be difficult as.. well.. thisis not a thing)
Oh.. really ?
You'd be surprised.
