Post Unvoted, Forfeited & Vote Bombed DebatesPosted 7 years Ago

At 5/25/2013 3:51:08 PM, The_Chaos_Heart wrote:
Debate on Race as a social construct or real biological phenomenon.

I'm going to request a counter-vote against HeartofGod's vote. In addition to "self-evidence" not being an actual argument, his reasons for his vote are minimal and lackluster. That reeks of biased voting to me.

Looking at his statistics, he has only done four debates in his year of being here, all of them quick ones and ones he lost. They have one forum post. And has also cast 18 votes. This account reeks of being an alt account.
Forums Home >

Topless in Public?Posted 7 years Ago

At 5/25/2013 4:40:44 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
I would agree that there may be good arguments for allowing nudity, but most people have no desire to go walking around naked.

And thankfully, the whole idea behind freedom is that you can do what you want, and likewise, don't have to do what you don't want to do. Allowing public nudity isn't the same as demanding everyone in public be nude.

That could be weird. Like imagine a naked parent taking there kid to school or a playground. Or a teacher that shows up naked. Nudity definitely can be weird.

Only because we're not used to it. Again, other cultures existed where nudity was the norm. Hell, ALL HUMANS BEGIN NUDE IN THIS WORLD. And before we developed clothing, we ALL WALKED AROUND NUDE.

It's not as weird as you might think.

Why is a penis sexual, or a vagina or but? It just is.

No, because they are explicitly by their very nature involved in the sexual process.

Breasts are not so.

Maybe some people o not find them sexual. Maybe people don't find sex sexual. I think they are sexual because of biological impulses or something.

Exactly. You find them to be sexual, based on your subject composition and desires.

That is not the same as saying they are "inherently sexual".

Anyone can find anything sexual. To help illustrate this point, I'm going to reveal something about myself. I find vore attractive. The idea of being eaten alive by another person is sexually stimulating to me.

What're you going to do now, ban eating in public?
Forums Home > Politics

Topless in Public?Posted 7 years Ago

At 5/25/2013 4:32:58 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
I think it is reasonable for people not to want to see sexual genitalia in public. Maybe they do not want their kids to see sexual genitalia. Is that not reasonable?

Yes, it is unreasonable. Because what matters isn't what people "like" to see, it's what's harmful.

Again, people might not like to see fat people, or people they find unattractive, ect. But we do not ban these people from walking around in public, because that would be ludicrous. Instead we tell people "you're in public, get over it".

Why does this suddenly change when sexuality is involved? Where's the harm? What makes boobies and penises and vaginas so special?
Forums Home > Politics

Topless in Public?Posted 7 years Ago

At 5/25/2013 4:02:40 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
In general, touching female breasts is sexual.

Says who? You? On what grounds? Because you find them sexual? Well I don't find them sexual. Now explain to me how they are "inherently" sexual, when there are literally millions of people who do not find breasts sexual. Hell, there are whole cultures, and have been whole cultures, where women being topless was a thing, and no one walked around with an erection all day because of it; breasts simply are not inherently sexual.

Males cannot show their penis or but.

*butt. Two 't's lass.

In any case, they should be allowed to.

Men do not have breasts like females.

Only in the sense that their's aren't swollen up. Other than that, yeah, they do. The genetic material is all there. One flip of a genetic switch, and men can grow boobies. It's simply that their male genetics don't do that. But the tissue is the same, hell even the potential for lactation is there (some men have been known to lactate). Men are even affected by breast cancer, albeit, rarely.

When it looks the same, is made of the same components, can perform the same functions under the right circumstances, and can be afflicted by the same problems, I dare say it's the same damn thing. Any difference at that point is negligible.

And hell, what about flat-chested women? They have breasts, they just don't "grow out" so to speak. Are those inherently sexual because they happen to be on a female body, even though they are the same exact shape and size of male breasts? Good lord, give me a break.

Some society members are offended by sexual things.

Well that's their own damn problem. Some people are offended by the sight of fat or ugly people. I guess we should ban them from walking the streets too.

Maybe parents do not want their children seeing naked people?

Even though those children already see themselves naked. Yeah, brilliant parenting. *rollseyes*

It's simply ridiculous. Seeing a naked person isn't going to harm a kind, so it's a non-argument.

It seems a small burden to cover up

Except on the days where you really don't want to, particularly close to the equator, during summer.

so people do not see sexual things that would offend them.

Well boo stupid hoo. We shouldn't appease such nonsense to begin with.
Forums Home > Politics

Topless in Public?Posted 7 years Ago

At 5/25/2013 2:29:00 PM, twocupcakes wrote:
The only reason to touch a breast would be a sexual one. I just wanted to show that a women's breast is clearly more sexual than a man's. So the argument "men can do it, so women can too" does not work.

So all doctors are sexual assaulters then, or are fooling around with their patients?

There is nothing inherently sexual about the female chest. It's biological function isn't even a sexual one. Further more, even if there were something inherently sexual about it, that's still not a justifiable reason to force women to cover up, as (1) we still allow males to express sexuality nude or partially nude, and (2) why the hell does sexuality need to be "covered up" in the first place?
Forums Home > Politics

Post Unvoted, Forfeited & Vote Bombed DebatesPosted 7 years Ago

Debate on Race as a social construct or real biological phenomenon.
Forums Home >

Topless in Public?Posted 7 years Ago

I have yet to see a sound argument against it. Why shouldn't a female be allowed to be topless in public?

Then again, I'm for public nudity in general. Clothing rules seem silly to me. If someone wants to have certain parets of their body not covered on some form of cloth...where is the harm?
Forums Home > Politics

Decline in qualityPosted 7 years Ago

Honestly, even when I joined, there were interesting debates. The reason I took a couple months off was because all that was popping up were crap debates by shitty debaters, many of whom just dropped out in the middle of the debate. It's depressing really.
Forums Home >

Rational Madman's videoPosted 7 years Ago

Can someone send me this video? I could use a good chuckle.
Forums Home >

Communism Works!Posted 7 years Ago

At 3/4/2013 4:44:43 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
1. State (or administration or whatever executive institution you would like to have in your "stateless" situation) is not perfect. It is formed by a people and it can make a mistake like all people. In fact, regardless of what your opinion about communist regime in the past, history had proved that a state own economy is far less capable in deciding what to produce and who to distribute compare to private entrepreneurs (if you want example: look at Mao's great leap forward, Roux Khmer Collective farm, and a lot more)

The fact that people can make mistakes, as you correctly point out, is a problem that crosses all economic systems. How this is grounds for a refutation for Communism is beyond me. No one says Communism is perfect; just better than other possibilities.

2.There is no freedom in communist. Communism is not Anarchism as everything to the state is not the same as everything to everyone.

And here is where you show a stunning lack of knowledge on the subject. A Communist society, by definition, is stateless. It is, in fact, a form of Anarchist society.

3. Marxist Communist, even in its purest form, required for class conflict and violence revolution.

Class conflict exists with o without Marxism. As for violent revolution to be required, hardly; only if the oppressors resist the will of the people.

So yes, I think communist is bad, very bad. It is a group of bandit and raper who will not only rob you of your right and property but also your future and your dream.

I guess I'm a bandit and a rapist, despite being a virgin and never having stolen anything in my life.

Or you could, perhaps, gain a more accurate and informed view of what Communism actually is.
Forums Home > Politics

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.