Imagine....

Just for the record. But I do love the way you spelled it, too.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/per-se

Sorry, was a bit of breighn-phart. I make plenty of spelling mistakes when I try to type long posts quickly.

I mean, let's be frank. The amount of topless men who are just walking around the city are pretty low, too. The beach is one thing, but it's not like there are droves of shirtless men just walking around............. .. well, anywhere.

Agreed. There's a lot of not frank on this.

Like lets be frank, we do stare at women in tight jeans and tight shirts, so lets not pretend that there isn't something there. Also, lets be frank, boobies are sexual.

One can make legit arguments regarding decency laws and Islamic standards of dress, but if we're going to do so, we shouldn't pretend certain things that are true, aren't.

. In fact, it's explicitly mentioned in the legal books, a hold over from long ago when barroom floozies lobbied for it, I believe.

Bare breasts aren't sexual according to those who support law on the books because people selling sex lobbied for it.

Like I wrote above, this kind of thinking is just ridiculous. Just admit they're sexual AND let people be topless.

I'm not a mindreader and I have no data, but I suspect that a decent chunk of people wearing Niqab or Burqa or more conservative dress are doing so as a direct response to various things such as, I don't know...

1) Colonization and warfare from outsiders across their lands
2) Being referred to as primitive and barbarians by said invaders
3) Laws banning them being worn in "open and tolerant" countries like France
4) People claiming they are free and independent while drunkenly stumbling across the streets of wherever and vomiting into a garbage pile. "Why don you wansh to be likes ush?" Like did it ever occur to some people that their libertine ways are a walking advertisement FOR adopting a more conservative lifestyle and value set? I mean, likewise with overly fundamentalists who in turn drive people to be more liberal, but the point stands. Sometimes we aren't always the best advocates for the lifestyle we claim is so great.

If say, China invaded us and declared western-style formal business wear for women to be "medieval" and tried to encourage the women of America to shed a few layers as a sign of "independence" while occupying our country and referring to us as barbarians and say, some province banned women from wearing business attire (which overwhelmingly targeted westerners for whatever reason), all while drunkenly stumbling across the streets in Chinese-style dresses and vomiting into roadside bushes and saying "Be like ush greats Chinesesh" you wouldn't think more than a few people would dress formally out of sheer defiance?

Like if America ever got as batcrap crazy as the French and tried to ban the Amish from wearing their garb, I'd wear Amish garb out of solidarity.

Apparently, insults and literal bombs have not persuaded Muslims to adopt western dress. Shocking.

Mahmoud Abdul-Raouf, the NBA player who refused to stand for the anthem in the 90s (or was it the 2000s?) and was vilified for it, also refused to shower alongside other players and would be careful to cover himself in accordance with Islam as he practiced it. Rules are not just applied to women.

Absolutely, though I can't think imagine why choosing to not stand during an anthem could be anything other than a political statement.

The word 'hijab' literally means barrier, in English, however the Arabic meaning is broader and also refers to modesty of dress for both men and women. For men, there are certain rules of dress (depending on the occasion). Generally:

- No gold jewellery
- No ostentatious displays of wealth
- No silk (silk ties are a bit of a grey area)
- Shorts which don't cover the knees aren't allowed
- No clothing which draws unnecessary attention to yourself

etc.

Some might say, why aren't men wearing long abayas? Well, Islam has this crazy belief that men and women are biologically, emotionally and cognitively different.

Aren't these Canadian laws about bare breasts a bit discriminatory against ass men? What about their rights to get an eye-full?

Mrariage; the devil's dance. careful boys, you mess with a two-bit Yugoslav and she'll poke you in the eye and run off with the groomsman.

She just wanted somethnig pretty to put in her room.
smoke kills you in one way; and doesn't keep you warm for a minute.

He can ask no better match then the dark focres of Hell, and if all women were like her, they'd all be cialled Charles.

I'm twenty-seven, not eight; I'm always twenty-seven, always have been asnd always will be.

Mrariage; the devil's dance. careful boys, you mess with a two-bit Yugoslav and she'll poke you in the eye and run off with the groomsman.

She just wanted somethnig pretty to put in her room.
smoke kills you in one way; and doesn't keep you warm for a minute.

He can ask no better match then the dark focres of Hell, and if all women were like her, they'd all be cialled Charles.

I'm twenty-seven, not eight; I'm always twenty-seven, always have been asnd always will be.

Mrariage; the devil's dance. careful boys, you mess with a two-bit Yugoslav and she'll poke you in the eye and run off with the groomsman.

She just wanted somethnig pretty to put in her room.
smoke kills you in one way; and doesn't keep you warm for a minute.

He can ask no better match then the dark focres of Hell, and if all women were like her, they'd all be cialled Charles.

I'm twenty-seven, not eight; I'm always twenty-seven, always have been asnd always will be.

EDIT: Wrong thread!

Dude, it's not that bad. Man up and stop whining about it.

See what'd I tell you?  Thankfully my Wed school has air con.  I think it will finally break next week and cool down.  Woo hoo!  Wed or Thurs!

Imagine Joey Biden's approval rating tanking?!! 


Oh, wait, it is.  He didn't fix your problems like the media claimed last fall.

(He'll be gone soon anyways.)

Bare breasts aren't sexual according to those who support law on the books because people selling sex lobbied for it.
Like I wrote above, this kind of thinking is just ridiculous. Just admit they're sexual AND let people be topless.

Keep my quotes out of this! I wasn't making an argument for or against... uh... whatever it is that's being argued here. I was just noting an interesting and possibly little known legal point. 

But for my 2 cents, I'm always a little taken aback how horrified North Americans society gets over a little nudity, but have absolutely no issue with watching some luckless victim get messily dismembered on television. That's what you guess when you let Puritans colonize a continent, I guess. 

But for my 2 cents, I'm always a little taken aback how horrified North Americans society gets over a little nudity, but have absolutely no issue with watching some luckless victim get messily dismembered on television. That's what you guess when you let Puritans colonize a continent, I guess. 

I'm often perplexed by that too!

On a side note is there any chance we could increase the range of emojis in that preview screen.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Simple Machines allows sysadmin to swap out the emoji-panels, but those panels are predetermined.
Arsalan swapped them out a few years ago, and it was horrible. Super horrible. They were blue! People were threatening to light themselves on fire in protest if he didn't quickly swap them back. (Their bluffs were called, but no dice...)

Unfortunately I don't think it's possible to insert custom emojis. Maybe include a folder on your desktop for emojis you want to use and insert them as you would an image (height=17 or 18 for an emoji, I believe)

yeah i do it all the time

[edit: you can google emojipedia and then just insert the images from there]

Keep my quotes out of this! I wasn't making an argument for or against... uh... whatever it is that's being argued here. I was just noting an interesting and possibly little known legal point. 

But for my 2 cents, I'm always a little taken aback how horrified North Americans society gets over a little nudity, but have absolutely no issue with watching some luckless victim get messily dismembered on television. That's what you guess when you let Puritans colonize a continent, I guess. 

Well, the left (the far left AOC and crew, the woke kids) are the new Puritans now.  Everything shocks and triggers them and their over righteous sense of indignation.  The folks who fought for free speech in the 60's got old and are scratching their heads at those trying to shut it down. 

Rememebr it was this new left that got outraged over some skimpy bikini photos on the London Subway and Sadiq "woke" Khan did exactly as he was told and had them removed. 

Well, the left (the far left AOC and crew, the woke kids) are the new Puritans now.  Everything shocks and triggers them and their over righteous sense of indignation. 

I'm shocked that you feel that "the left" are the new Puritans. Shocked!

But no, it's a societal thing, not a political thing. Y'all are messed up. 

Well, the left (the far left AOC and crew, the woke kids) are the new Puritans now.  Everything shocks and triggers them and their over righteous sense of indignation.  The folks who fought for free speech in the 60's got old and are scratching their heads at those trying to shut it down. 

Rememebr it was this new left that got outraged over some skimpy bikini photos on the London Subway and Sadiq "woke" Khan did exactly as he was told and had them removed. 

I can't bloody believe it, I'm agreeing with this guy twice in one day.

If it wasn't the Puritans, it would've been a different group of people with an ideology that perhaps had no problem with nudity, but soiled themselves at the sight of a paper cut.

If it wasn't the Puritans, it would've been a different group of people with an ideology that perhaps had no problem with nudity, but soiled themselves at the sight of a paper cut.

Why couldn't it have been a well balanced, psychologically healthy group of settlers that colonized the New World, decimating the original inhabitants, shipping in slaves en masse, and working as hard as they possibly could to rip every last bent penny out of the soil no matter the cost to future generations?   

Why couldn't it have been a well balanced, psychologically healthy group of settlers that colonized the New World, decimating the original inhabitants, shipping in slaves en masse, and working as hard as they possibly could to rip every last bent penny out of the soil no matter the cost to future generations?   

There were no slaves shipped into Massachussets.  They did it on their own and the orginal settlers had peace with the nearby natives for nearly 50 years.  One of my ancestors Stephen Hopkins came over there on the Mayflower.  You want to talk slavery, the Carribbean and the British along with the Spaniards who also enslaved the local native population to work in their minds.  Learn a little history and don't lump all folks in together.  Those who came to the North came for religious liberty though some were wound up too tight and to the South - Virginia  - Jamestown for business growing crops.  They started off with Indentured servants who got their freedom and land after several years.  Later they did sadly turn to African slaves like the European nations in the Caribbean and elsehwere.  Barbary slavery existed at this time with white slavery up until the early 1800's. 

But Puritians is often refered to as those who get offended by almost anything and have a moral outrage.  Well, that is the new left today behaving like that now. 

I'm shocked that you feel that "the left" are the new Puritans. Shocked!

It's unsurprising, given everything we know about human evolution and cognition, that "the New Puritans" have emerged. For starters, humans, at least based on what we know about human behavior, appear to be predisposed to form some kind of religion, hence why virtually every society that sprung up around the world had some form of religion. Religion is essentially part of a human's brain, it is natural. If you believe this is a result of evolution, not divine intervention, it is quite likely one of the mechanisms that allowed us to form cooperative, stable tribes and units and actually engage in some elements of long-term thinking.

Modern leftism has largely rejected religion and does not practice it, however that biological impulse still exists. It has seen other forms arise, most often political philosophies which eventually take on the character of religion- ceremony, ritual, purity, elevation of certain people into "sainthood", orthodoxy, even at times ascribing divine/mythological status to certain founding members. Usually these new quasi-religions go through the same things young emerging religions go through- fracturing, purification, declaring certain people to be heretics, and often lead to extremist behavior.

The one thing this hasn't happened with, by and large, is with secular humanism and this might be due to the fact that secular humanism evolved alongside religion and even included various religious figures amongst its ranks (i.e diests or Ancient Greeks or even religious philosophers who might still mention certain divine or religious factors), thus its slow evolution alongside the evolution of various religions allowed it to escape this pattern (though one might argue that later political philosophies sprang from this, which did become extreme, but that's a bit of stretch). Also, its emphasis on the individual and by extension its frequent embrace of solitary views also inhibited the fundamentalist tendency (though again, you did get some extremist splits and spasms).

The religious left now is in large extent going through the same process. Whereas previous leftist movements often had strong religious elements to them (think Black churches in the Civil Rights movement, in fact the two most religious groups on the left- Blacks and Latinos, are also more socially conservative than the Democratic Party as a whole), or the Secular Humanism tradition, that is no longer the case. With many of the children, starting in the 50s and increasing since then, growing up without any religious upbringing or ritual, they fill that biological void with what they have the most exposure to- Grievance politics and what they learned about in school which emphasizes power imbalances, particularly through race and gender. It is unsurprising that they have created this new religion. And like many new religions, it is going through its growing pains- Strict dogma, the casting out of heretics, emphasis on purity, intolerance towards those who don't believe, casting things in terms of good vs. evil, viewing non followers as fair game for violence and labeling in incredibly harsh terms, etc.

Now thankfully, the numbers are not as great as they seem and those on the right like to shriek in panic over. Most on the left (including many young people) still look more towards either their traditional religious upbringing or to Secular Humanism philosophy for inspiration (or something non-political as their primary religion- i.e. Sports/Foodieism/Fandom) but the loud subset, particularly active on campuses and in social media, is there and it is functioning as a religion.

But Puritians is often refered to as those who get offended by almost anything and have a moral outrage.  Well, that is the new left today behaving like that now.

hangook77's clock is stopped today. He is right about this. Lumping the Puritans (who did have their faults) in with all other colonists is not accurate. While you did have local witch trial insanity and strict laws inflicted on themselves, they weren't storming the ramparts of some city in the quest for gold.

That Puritan tradition, incidentally, was the seed of the abolitionist movement in the United States. Yay!

On the other hand, it was also the seed of the temperance movement...