| to call someone who is gay or lez different is wrong aswel what's so different if they want to go for the same sex i say if they wanted to do it and wasn't aloud go somewhere they am allowed? simple some places are total hores get over it and move onto another place |
 |
| This is why humanity should just merge into a giant pool of LCL. |
Defiance said: Yoo-jin said: That's just the kind of mentality that we consider insulting. You believe our entire society needs to be changed when we like it just the way it is.I certainly know that it's difficult for people to just change tradition. It's "just how things have been." Like a sort of rite of passage and something that should show how things have been. I just don't agree with it. You just don't agree with it? Then move away. Liberals believe a 15 year old is perfectly mature enough to go get an abortion without parental consent(or even knowledge). Why aren't they mature enough to quit bitching and just move away to an area with like minded individuals when they turn 18? To me, your argument sounds just as valid as a conservative complaining about all the gay couples in San Francisco showing up at their prom wearing whatever they wanted. They don't like it? Then move away. WE'RE TOUGH MEN, IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT THEN GO AWAY. Yes. Such a perfect argument. Why would a society become more accepting and open-minded? They can just be left alone to remain ignorant fucks forever. Because moving away from a state is the easiest thing ever. I'm supposed to leave behind everyone I'm connected to, try to start a new life somewhere else, because some people are offended by my lifestyle. I can't fucking phantom how primitive people can be. |
Sonic_Moronic said: I find it mighty hypocritical that you call us primitive when you simply call us "ignorant fucks" because we don't share the same ideology as you. Ignorant is to demonize a society for their believes instead of trying to understand and accept them for what they are, which is exactly what you are doing to us right now over what you believe we are doing to gays lol. Hypocrisy at its finest in my opinion.Yes. Such a perfect argument. Why would a society become more accepting and open-minded? They can just be left alone to remain ignorant fucks forever. Because moving away from a state is the easiest thing ever. I'm supposed to leave behind everyone I'm connected to, try to start a new life somewhere else, because some people are offended by my lifestyle. I can't fucking phantom how primitive people can be. |
Defiance said: Sonic_Moronic said: I find it mighty hypocritical that you call us primitive when you simply call us "ignorant fucks" because we don't share the same ideology as you. Ignorant is to demonize a society for their believes instead of trying to understand and accept them for what they are, which is exactly what you are doing to us right now over what you believe we are doing to gays lol. Hypocrisy at its finest in my opinion.Yes. Such a perfect argument. Why would a society become more accepting and open-minded? They can just be left alone to remain ignorant fucks forever. Because moving away from a state is the easiest thing ever. I'm supposed to leave behind everyone I'm connected to, try to start a new life somewhere else, because some people are offended by my lifestyle. I can't fucking phantom how primitive people can be. While I agree that Sonic_Moronic is being a hypocrite, you don't have the reason why down quite right. "More accepting and open-minded," is the part in which is the hypocrisy. Anyway, "Ignorance" means "to not know" and I certainly don't know why people act like this. Now, I want to know for what reason do we need to have girls wear dresses and boys wear tuxedos as a regulation? For what reason should we not let them wear the opposite if they wish? |
Yoo-jin said: For one, its not gender appropriate. I don't expect(nor would I tolerate) to go into work and have the males wearing the female uniforms. Now, I want to know for what reason do we need to have girls wear dresses and boys wear tuxedos as a regulation? For what reason should we not let them wear the opposite if they wish? Where are you supposed to draw the line? Do you believe it would be appropriate for Obama to go walking around the white house wearing a skirt suit? The only reason you would want to wear an outfit of the opposite sex in such a manner is to be overly flamboyant and to garner unneeded attention. |
Defiance said: Yoo-jin said: For one, its not gender appropriate. I don't expect(nor would I tolerate) to go into work and have the males wearing the female uniforms. Now, I want to know for what reason do we need to have girls wear dresses and boys wear tuxedos as a regulation? For what reason should we not let them wear the opposite if they wish? Where are you supposed to draw the line? Do you believe it would be appropriate for Obama to go walking around the white house wearing a skirt suit? The only reason you would want to wear an outfit of the opposite sex in such a manner is to be overly flamboyant and to garner unneeded attention. Doesn't it only garner unneeded attention because we allow it to do so? If people were used to it, then what attention could it garner if it was commonplace? For what does it harm you if they wear the clothes of the opposite gender? Where do you draw the line as well? |
Yoo-jin said: This is just an ideology gap that we aren't going to come to an agreement on. I'm of the opinion that just because you can do something, it doesn't mean you should.Doesn't it only garner unneeded attention because we allow it to do so? If people were used to it, then what attention could it garner if it was commonplace? For what does it harm you if they wear the clothes of the opposite gender? Where do you draw the line as well? I find it rather annoying that you decided to answer my question with the same question, but I'll answer it anyway.I believe it is up to your peers where the line is drawn. Again using San Fransisco as an example, they find it perfectly fine to walk down main street in parades wearing dildos on their heads. And that's cool if the people there are ok with that, but people down here do NOT find that acceptable so we don't allow it. Yet because we don't allow it, people in another area dare to silence our opinion and call US the oppressive ones. Now that I have satiated your question, I would still like you to answer my original question. Where do you draw the line? |
Defiance said: Yoo-jin said: This is just an ideology gap that we aren't going to come to an agreement on. I'm of the opinion that just because you can do something, it doesn't mean you should.Doesn't it only garner unneeded attention because we allow it to do so? If people were used to it, then what attention could it garner if it was commonplace? For what does it harm you if they wear the clothes of the opposite gender? Where do you draw the line as well? I find it rather annoying that you decided to answer my question with the same question, but I'll answer it anyway.I believe it is up to your peers where the line is drawn. Again using San Fransisco as an example, they find it perfectly fine to walk down main street in parades wearing dildos on their heads. And that's cool if the people there are ok with that, but people down here do NOT find that acceptable so we don't allow it. Yet because we don't allow it, people in another area dare to silence our opinion and call US the oppressive ones. Now that I have satiated your question, I would still like you to answer my original question. Where do you draw the line? I definitely have to admit that it is a difficult question of where to draw the line. I find the idea that people can do as they wish as long as they do not hurt someone to be the main guiding principle. Yet, it also seems that it might allow too much if that was the only restriction. Perhaps the line can be drawn where as long as the clothes aren't offensive in themselves, they should be allowed. But that also doesn't seem to offer a satisfactory regulation. I am inclined to choose liberty over custom so that much would not be limited except cases in which would clearly be obscene. This would also have the issue as a subjective matter. I really do not have a clear answer on where I would draw the line but I certainly wouldn't draw it at females wearing tuxedos or males wearing dresses. Now the thing about the silence of opinions and such, it appears that it would be an oppression of both parties. Upon those who enforce limits on members of their community and those who enforce their views on members outside of their community. However, how are we to decide which opinion is to be correct? I would argue that as this does not harm people outside of the individuals, then for what reason are we regulating it? People should decide on those matters of opinion themselves without the laws. Why are those clothes explicitly for either gender? Is there something inherent about the clothes? What makes a dress that much more different than a tuxedo other than the so-called "intent". Does it somehow devalue the other sex to wear them? And just because you can regulate that men can only wear "male clothes" and women can only wear "female clothes" doesn't mean you should. |
Yoo-jin said: So you are telling me that people should exercise zero modesty just because they are not causing physical harm to another? I'm sorry, but I would have to humbly disagree. You might as well be asking me why we have a formal dress code at all.I would argue that as this does not harm people outside of the individuals, then for what reason are we regulating it? People should decide on those matters of opinion themselves without the laws. Honestly, whats the point of even having a formal dress code at an event if they can't even be gender specific? No one is saying this person can't where a tuxedo, they are just being told they can't where a tuxedo to a school prom where there is a formal dress code being enforced. In my opinion, every time someone tries to do this its just a blatant political statement. They are gay and they want everyone to know they are gay by dressing as a man with their female partner(basically acting as if they were a man). Now I'm sorry to break this to you, but men and women are NOT the same thing lol. Yes, we have equal rights in the country but that doesn't mean a gay women should go around parading as a man(in a tuxedo) at a formal event. |
I find it mighty hypocritical that you call us primitive when you simply call us "ignorant fucks" because we don't share the same ideology as you. Ignorant is to demonize a society for their believes instead of trying to understand and accept them for what they are, which is exactly what you are doing to us right now over what you believe we are doing to gays lol. Hypocrisy at its finest in my opinion. Discrimination cannot be a valid ideology, and shouldn't be accepted. Ever. |
Sonic_Moronic said: Exercising modesty and discriminating are two separate things.I find it mighty hypocritical that you call us primitive when you simply call us "ignorant fucks" because we don't share the same ideology as you. Ignorant is to demonize a society for their believes instead of trying to understand and accept them for what they are, which is exactly what you are doing to us right now over what you believe we are doing to gays lol. Hypocrisy at its finest in my opinion. Discrimination cannot be a valid ideology, and shouldn't be accepted. Ever. |
Defiance said: Yoo-jin said: So you are telling me that people should exercise zero modesty just because they are not causing physical harm to another? I'm sorry, but I would have to humbly disagree. You might as well be asking me why we have a formal dress code at all.I would argue that as this does not harm people outside of the individuals, then for what reason are we regulating it? People should decide on those matters of opinion themselves without the laws. Honestly, whats the point of even having a formal dress code at an event if they can't even be gender specific? No one is saying this person can't where a tuxedo, they are just being told they can't where a tuxedo to a school prom where there is a formal dress code being enforced. In my opinion, every time someone tries to do this its just a blatant political statement. They are gay and they want everyone to know they are gay by dressing as a man with their female partner(basically acting as if they were a man). Now I'm sorry to break this to you, but men and women are NOT the same thing lol. Yes, we have equal rights in the country but that doesn't mean a gay women should go around parading as a man(in a tuxedo) at a formal event. Since when did I ever state that we ever were the same? It just seems that it's rather arbitrary that one of them aren't allowed to wear a tuxedo if they wish. Is it really that bad if they simply wish to wear a tuxedo? Is there something inherently wrong with it? |
Yoo-jin said: You keep asking the same question over and over and again when I have given you several answers. They might not be to your liking, but I have answered you.Is it really that bad if they simply wish to wear a tuxedo? Is there something inherently wrong with it? |
Defiance said: Yoo-jin said: You keep asking the same question over and over and again when I have given you several answers. They might not be to your liking, but I have answered you.Is it really that bad if they simply wish to wear a tuxedo? Is there something inherently wrong with it? And you keep answering that it's simply "modesty" or that it's "the way things are done". But I'm asking what makes it so that it's wrong so that they're not allowed to do it? Are they somehow being immodest by doing it? What makes it so that this "rule" shouldn't be violated? Justify the rule. What makes it so that it would be better to have this rule than to not have it? |
Yoo-jin said: It is a simple classification and standard of a man and woman in a formal environment, I really have no idea what you are having such a hard time understanding lol.Defiance said: Yoo-jin said: You keep asking the same question over and over and again when I have given you several answers. They might not be to your liking, but I have answered you.Is it really that bad if they simply wish to wear a tuxedo? Is there something inherently wrong with it? And you keep answering that it's simply "modesty" or that it's "the way things are done". But I'm asking what makes it so that it's wrong so that they're not allowed to do it? Are they somehow being immodest by doing it? What makes it so that this "rule" shouldn't be violated? Justify the rule. What makes it so that it would be better to have this rule than to not have it? |
DefianceMar 25, 2010 12:14 PM
Defiance said: Yoo-jin said: It is a simple classification and standard of a man and women in a formal environment, I really have no idea what you are having such a hard time understanding lol.Defiance said: Yoo-jin said: You keep asking the same question over and over and again when I have given you several answers. They might not be to your liking, but I have answered you.Is it really that bad if they simply wish to wear a tuxedo? Is there something inherently wrong with it? And you keep answering that it's simply "modesty" or that it's "the way things are done". But I'm asking what makes it so that it's wrong so that they're not allowed to do it? Are they somehow being immodest by doing it? What makes it so that this "rule" shouldn't be violated? Justify the rule. What makes it so that it would be better to have this rule than to not have it? If it's just a "simple classification", then what's the whole problem with a this situation? It's not as if just because it's a simple classification, it needs to be the absolute rule. Why does this simple classification have to be enforced so strictly? Are people going to forget if they're male or female if they wear or see others wearing the opposite clothing? |
Yoo-jin said: You remind me of a child that keeps saying "why?' repeatedly and its starting to come off as insulting. First you were concerned about why the rule was there in the first place, yet now you ask why it has to be enforced so strictly.Defiance said: Yoo-jin said: It is a simple classification and standard of a man and women in a formal environment, I really have no idea what you are having such a hard time understanding lol.Defiance said: Yoo-jin said: You keep asking the same question over and over and again when I have given you several answers. They might not be to your liking, but I have answered you.Is it really that bad if they simply wish to wear a tuxedo? Is there something inherently wrong with it? And you keep answering that it's simply "modesty" or that it's "the way things are done". But I'm asking what makes it so that it's wrong so that they're not allowed to do it? Are they somehow being immodest by doing it? What makes it so that this "rule" shouldn't be violated? Justify the rule. What makes it so that it would be better to have this rule than to not have it? If it's just a "simple classification", then what's the whole problem with a this situation? It's not as if just because it's a simple classification, it needs to be the absolute rule. Why does this simple classification have to be enforced so strictly? Are people going to forget if they're male or female if they wear or see others wearing the opposite clothing? I'm done going in circles in this debate with you. I've stated my opinions and I will leave them at that. I can no longer assist you if you STILL do not understand. |
Defiance said: Yoo-jin said: You remind me of a child that keeps saying "why?' repeatedly and its starting to come off as insulting. First you were concerned about why the rule was there in the first place, yet now you ask why it has to be enforced so strictly.Defiance said: Yoo-jin said: It is a simple classification and standard of a man and women in a formal environment, I really have no idea what you are having such a hard time understanding lol.Defiance said: Yoo-jin said: You keep asking the same question over and over and again when I have given you several answers. They might not be to your liking, but I have answered you.Is it really that bad if they simply wish to wear a tuxedo? Is there something inherently wrong with it? And you keep answering that it's simply "modesty" or that it's "the way things are done". But I'm asking what makes it so that it's wrong so that they're not allowed to do it? Are they somehow being immodest by doing it? What makes it so that this "rule" shouldn't be violated? Justify the rule. What makes it so that it would be better to have this rule than to not have it? If it's just a "simple classification", then what's the whole problem with a this situation? It's not as if just because it's a simple classification, it needs to be the absolute rule. Why does this simple classification have to be enforced so strictly? Are people going to forget if they're male or female if they wear or see others wearing the opposite clothing? I'm done going in circles in this debate with you. I've stated my opinions and I will leave them at that. I can no longer assist you if you STILL do not understand. The reason I continue to ask why is that the answers do not seem satisfactory, not as a sort of insult or anything. I was growing tired of it as well as it just seemed to fall back upon the same answers that "It's just how they do things," and that, "They shouldn't do it because of modesty/et cetera." These do not seem like real justifications for the whole limiting in the first place. If you want to know upon what do I base my arguments in, I would suggest you read John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty". Even if you don't agree with some parts of it, it is a good read. Anyway, you're free to your opinion and I'm free to mine. I guess we'll just agree to disagree. (Which reminds me, these same sorts of arguments reminded me of a similar incident in which the proms were not allowed to be "mixed" with black and white people. The justification was just that "it was the way things had been done in the past.") |
| You mentioned children, which is an interesting point, I think a little bit of "child's understanding" is what this world needs. Most of us get so tainted with society's norms that we simply stop wondering WHY these norms exist in the first place. A little bit of curiosity, skepticism and such would be refreshing. |
| This arguement is all messed up. If I had loads of free time I would go back and pick up the loose ends, and unfortunately I can't. There are some fundamental ideas here that are just not understood. Some Examples: -Clothes -Human Self Esteem -The fact that you cannot run away forever -Human Genetics -Overuse of outdated references -Human Self Control -Difference of Opinion -Contradiction of Opinion -Talking in Circles |
 Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur. |
Yoo-jin said: I would rather prefer you not compare what I'm talking about(gender based formal dress codes) to being against mixed raced couples. That extremely dilutes the point I was trying to make.(Which reminds me, these same sorts of arguments reminded me of a similar incident in which the proms were not allowed to be "mixed" with black and white people. The justification was just that "it was the way things had been done in the past.") |
Defiance said: Yoo-jin said: I would rather prefer you not compare what I'm talking about(gender based formal dress codes) to being against mixed raced couples. That extremely dilutes the point I was trying to make.(Which reminds me, these same sorts of arguments reminded me of a similar incident in which the proms were not allowed to be "mixed" with black and white people. The justification was just that "it was the way things had been done in the past.") Yet this idea of "tradition" seems to be the heart of it. I know there is a difference in content but the basic argument seems to be along the same line. Although, it seems that you aren't arguing purely tradition so it doesn't fully apply. |
Deserada said: This arguement is all messed up. If I had loads of free time I would go back and pick up the loose ends, and unfortunately I can't. There are some fundamental ideas here that are just not understood. Some Examples: -Clothes -Human Self Esteem -The fact that you cannot run away forever -Human Genetics -Overuse of outdated references -Human Self Control -Difference of Opinion -Contradiction of Opinion -Talking in Circles Feel free to criticize as time allows as that we're still here. Wrong argumentation or argumentation that's based on wrong premises certainly is flawed. I think I could certainly learn from the whole thing if the criticisms are good enough. But, if you don't have enough time, then I guess it's just too bad. |
Yoo-jin said: The segregation of clothing options and the segregation of race are worlds apart lol. I feel as though you are just bringing it up to add a somewhat racist element to my side of the argument. Even if that isn't your intent, it is certainly what is implied.I know there is a difference in content but the basic argument seems to be along the same line. |
Defiance said: Yoo-jin said: The segregation of clothing options and the segregation of race are worlds apart lol. I feel as though you are just bringing it up to add a somewhat racist element to my side of the argument. Even if that isn't your intent, it is certainly what is implied.I know there is a difference in content but the basic argument seems to be along the same line. I was just stating that a simple "argument from tradition" can be used to justify a whole slew of things. Of course, some traditions are nice to keep around. However, it doesn't mean that tradition should be some kind of iron rule that no one is allowed to violate for no other reason that it's tradition itself. To do so would create a "Despotism of Custom". In the situation I was referencing, apparently a person said that he didn't feel that it was racism that caused it. When pressed why such a thing was still around he stated, “It’s how it’s always been,” he says. “It’s just a tradition.” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/magazine/24prom-t.html |
Yoo-jin said: You seem to be basing your argument off the idea that "if I can do it, why not do it?" I was just stating that a simple "argument from tradition" can be used to justify a whole slew of things. Of course, some traditions are nice to keep around. You seem to have an inherent problem that just because ANYTHING is specific to any gender, it is automatically discriminatory. Why do men and women have separate bathrooms? There is absolutely no reason why there should be gender specific bathrooms if not only for tradition, right? A gay man would be in the same sexual position as a straight guy was in the women's bathroom. Or by that standard, should we have 4 different bathrooms for each individual's sexual preference? A bathroom specifically for people who like women and one specifically for those who like men. OR a unisex bathroom system for all gender regardless. |
| The last option sounds well. |
Defiance said: Yoo-jin said: I would rather prefer you not compare what I'm talking about(gender based formal dress codes) to being against mixed raced couples. That extremely dilutes the point I was trying to make.(Which reminds me, these same sorts of arguments reminded me of a similar incident in which the proms were not allowed to be "mixed" with black and white people. The justification was just that "it was the way things had been done in the past.") Irk. Reading this debate makes my head spin. I dunno if you are both really thinking about this or just spouting bullshit. Did want to interject here, if you don't mind. ('Cause I don't agree with Yoo-jin's race-to-crossdress analogy either, but I agree with the sentiment.) Put a spin on what Yoo-jin said (way) earlier. Same time period, 1950's. Someone like myself goes to school. Without a doubt, I'll be sent home within a few minutes. Why? I'd be a girl wearing slacks. Back them, completely unacceptable and distasteful. Today, you can't go outside without seeing a girl in jeans. Just goes to show how a bit of acceptance, time and people willing to take a stand can irreversibly change societal viewpoints. Unless you want to call my wearing pants as immodest. Go ahead, if you will. |
Defiance said: Yoo-jin said: You seem to be basing your argument off the idea that "if I can do it, why not do it?" I was just stating that a simple "argument from tradition" can be used to justify a whole slew of things. Of course, some traditions are nice to keep around. You seem to have an inherent problem that just because ANYTHING is specific to any gender, it is automatically discriminatory. Why do men and women have separate bathrooms? There is absolutely no reason why there should be gender specific bathrooms if not only for tradition, right? A gay man would be in the same sexual position as a straight guy was in the women's bathroom. Or by that standard, should we have 4 different bathrooms for each individual's sexual preference? A bathroom specifically for people who like women and one specifically for those who like men. OR a unisex bathroom system for all gender regardless. Where did you get the idea that I said that "anything" specific to gender is discriminatory? Tradition isn't the reason for which there are different bathrooms for the sexes. I do have to admit, however, that this would cause me to fall onto some kind of "discomfort" or such other argument and that it seems that I the standard I proposed would not quite work there. It could possibly allow some problems of one's privacy being invaded by the other gender or such. However, that does not seem like a good enough argument. I concede that you bring up a good point. I still, however, do not see why it would cause so much trouble to simply allow some people to wear tuxedos or dresses if they wish to. |
Nottori said: Defiance said: Yoo-jin said: I would rather prefer you not compare what I'm talking about(gender based formal dress codes) to being against mixed raced couples. That extremely dilutes the point I was trying to make.(Which reminds me, these same sorts of arguments reminded me of a similar incident in which the proms were not allowed to be "mixed" with black and white people. The justification was just that "it was the way things had been done in the past.") Irk. Reading this debate makes my head spin. I dunno if you are both really thinking about this or just spouting bullshit. Did want to interject here, if you don't mind. ('Cause I don't agree with Yoo-jin's race-to-crossdress analogy either, but I agree with the sentiment.) Put a spin on what Yoo-jin said (way) earlier. Same time period, 1950's. Someone like myself goes to school. Without a doubt, I'll be sent home within a few minutes. Why? I'd be a girl wearing slacks. Back them, completely unacceptable and distasteful. Today, you can't go outside without seeing a girl in jeans. Just goes to show how a bit of acceptance, time and people willing to take a stand can irreversibly change societal viewpoints. Unless you want to call my wearing pants as immodest. Go ahead, if you will. I don't really agree with my own argument either. I should have simply argued against using an "argument to tradition" and the problems with using the argument as a de facto way to treat it. I retract the comparison. I was merely trying to demonstrate that tradition isn't some sort of infallible concept. |
Nottori said: You have been making your whole case against me by saying that if there isn't something inherently wrong with it, it is discriminatory(or whatever word of your choice).Where did you get the idea that I said that "anything" specific to gender is discriminatory? I will even quote the question you had repeatedly asked me for which I make this accusation. Yoo-jin said: Is it really that bad if they simply wish to wear a tuxedo? Is there something inherently wrong with it? |
Defiance said: Nottori said: You have been making your whole case against me by saying that if there isn't something inherently wrong with it, it is discriminatory(or whatever word of your choice).Where did you get the idea that I said that "anything" specific to gender is discriminatory? I will even quote the question you had repeatedly asked me for which I make this accusation. Yoo-jin said: Is it really that bad if they simply wish to wear a tuxedo? Is there something inherently wrong with it? I was saying that if there isn't something inherently wrong with it (and perhaps we can add the clause of "or doesn't have a good reason to prohibit the action"), then it's not really justified. Nowhere did I say that it was discriminatory. If I have, then I apologize. |
Yoo-jin said: I would think that goes under "or whatever word of your choice". Your intent was the same though, lets not beat around the bush here with such semantics lol.then it's not really justified. |
Defiance said: Yoo-jin said: I would think that goes under "or whatever word of your choice". Your intent was the same though, lets not beat around the bush here with such semantics lol.then it's not really justified. I'm sure that "discrimination" and "not justified" (one would seem to involve the speaker more while the other seems to involve the action more) would bring different connotations to the matter. Anyway, I am not arguing that *anything* dealing with gender is not justified, either. It's just that I find that some of the such attributed are arbitrary without much better justification than "tradition" or some such. |
| I read this article. Thank god my school is gay friendly. There are alot of gay guys at our school so it's not a surprise and the school doesn't demand that we wear gender-based clothing. We just haves strict "no sexual-bending policy" and no touching. I don't understand how people can be so homophobic. |
    |
| Man, it's 2010 and we're still having this problem. I guess I take my school for granted because we're pretty accepting of this. There was this strike (West Borough Baptist Church) near my school, although it was pretty pathetic, our school was pretty supportive.. |
| Southern America as well. |
 |
SuperKyou said: Land of the free? Well I beg to differ lol =/ |
sarahfreakazoid said: Lol, I wouldn't compare them to general population of Christians. Those people are so crazy that even Bill O'Reilly is condemning them on a weekly basis.West Borough Baptist Church |
imouto said: -Spooky- said: windy said: I just can't get over how this is an issue. Someone's going to be ~offended~? ~Uncomfortable~? Heaven forbid! Get over it, people. Poor Constance and her girlfriend. i totally agree. this is ridiculous. i cant believe that something like this can still happen today. GAYS AND LESBIANS EXIST, GET OVER IT! this pisses me off. we re the land of equality but we cant treat people equal if they are different from us? How can anime fans act like this and in turn say Code Geass is one of their favorite anime? "All men are not created equal." Remember the speech? Why we discriminate? Or did you only like the show for the same reason most liked the movie Avatar? Code Geass is bad and you should feel bad. (oh and I believe it's actually called Code Gayass and promotes sexy noodle man love) Also, Defiance makes me cringe. |
ESSWHYApr 7, 2010 5:38 PM
Defiance said: Yoo-jin said: For one, its not gender appropriate. I don't expect(nor would I tolerate) to go into work and have the males wearing the female uniforms. Now, I want to know for what reason do we need to have girls wear dresses and boys wear tuxedos as a regulation? For what reason should we not let them wear the opposite if they wish? Where are you supposed to draw the line? Do you believe it would be appropriate for Obama to go walking around the white house wearing a skirt suit? The only reason you would want to wear an outfit of the opposite sex in such a manner is to be overly flamboyant and to garner unneeded attention. Wouldn't bother me in the slightest if Obama walked around the white house in a skirt suit, though im not American but it wouldn't bother me if Australia's Prime Minister did so either. Also how do you know those are the only reasons why someone would wear "outfits of the opposite sex", for all you know she wanted to wear a tuxedo to fit the tradition of one person in a suit and one in a dress ignoring the sex of the two people. |
 |
| People can wear whatever they want, for all I care. I don't see how somebody's clothing choice should bother anyone. Then again, the whole fixation on gender and/or the roles a culture prescribes to a given gender at a given time is a mystery to me. |
Dark_Puddles said: Wouldn't bother me in the slightest if Obama walked around the white house in a skirt suit, though im not American but it wouldn't bother me if Australia's Prime Minister did so either. How many people in the world would take a leader seriously if he were in a dress? I believe it was Mark Twain that said "Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society." |
 L2 Search - http://fc04.deviantart.com/fs48/f/2009/236/3/9/L2_Search_by_Siya_Akuma.jpg We're all getting trolled by Mayans. They probably thought "Fuck this shit, let's end the calendar and say shit's gonna go down." |
Sayalol said: Dark_Puddles said: Wouldn't bother me in the slightest if Obama walked around the white house in a skirt suit, though im not American but it wouldn't bother me if Australia's Prime Minister did so either. How many people in the world would take a leader seriously if he were in a dress? I believe it was Mark Twain that said "Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society." Not many and that says something society, that someone can be judged on what they decide to wear instead of who they are and what they do. The people not taking the leader seriously isn't that persons problem, it's those that judged their ability to lead because of what they wore. Just because in reality this probably wouldn't work and the leader would most likely get nowhere running the country doesn't mean that it's right to just conform to the ideas of the majority or tradition. |
| |
Dark_Puddles said: Sayalol said: Dark_Puddles said: Wouldn't bother me in the slightest if Obama walked around the white house in a skirt suit, though im not American but it wouldn't bother me if Australia's Prime Minister did so either. How many people in the world would take a leader seriously if he were in a dress? I believe it was Mark Twain that said "Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society." Not many and that says something society, that someone can be judged on what they decide to wear instead of who they are and what they do. The people not taking the leader seriously isn't that persons problem, it's those that judged their ability to lead because of what they wore. Just because in reality this probably wouldn't work and the leader would most likely get nowhere running the country doesn't mean that it's right to just conform to the ideas of the majority or tradition. Except dressing can say a lot about a person. Taking the time an effort to make your self look nice in a "socially agreeable" way says who you are just as not showing for 3 days, and coming to some meeting in your underwear and a white t-shirt with stains. It separates who was willing to put in the work and who wasn't? It's just like the kid at school who's a genius but does nothing compared to the kid who is pretty much stupid but works hard for good grades. The stupid kid doesn't even compare in wits to the genius, but since the genius is lazy, he fails and accomplishes nothing. but that's off topic. On the subject, while I don't agree with the fact that they canceled the dance, I can't say it was "wrong" either. If anything, take a vote among the student body to tally how many people would actually feel "uncomfortable." |
L2 Search - http://fc04.deviantart.com/fs48/f/2009/236/3/9/L2_Search_by_Siya_Akuma.jpg We're all getting trolled by Mayans. They probably thought "Fuck this shit, let's end the calendar and say shit's gonna go down." |
Sayalol said: Dark_Puddles said: Sayalol said: Dark_Puddles said: Wouldn't bother me in the slightest if Obama walked around the white house in a skirt suit, though im not American but it wouldn't bother me if Australia's Prime Minister did so either. How many people in the world would take a leader seriously if he were in a dress? I believe it was Mark Twain that said "Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society." Not many and that says something society, that someone can be judged on what they decide to wear instead of who they are and what they do. The people not taking the leader seriously isn't that persons problem, it's those that judged their ability to lead because of what they wore. Just because in reality this probably wouldn't work and the leader would most likely get nowhere running the country doesn't mean that it's right to just conform to the ideas of the majority or tradition. Except dressing can say a lot about a person. Taking the time an effort to make your self look nice in a "socially agreeable" way says who you are just as not showing for 3 days, and coming to some meeting in your underwear and a white t-shirt with stains. It separates who was willing to put in the work and who wasn't? It's just like the kid at school who's a genius but does nothing compared to the kid who is pretty much stupid but works hard for good grades. The stupid kid doesn't even compare in wits to the genius, but since the genius is lazy, he fails and accomplishes nothing. but that's off topic. On the subject, while I don't agree with the fact that they canceled the dance, I can't say it was "wrong" either. If anything, take a vote among the student body to tally how many people would actually feel "uncomfortable." Dressing can say a lot about a person if someone is able to judge what they see properly and think about all possible reasons why said person dresses the way they do but in reality there is to much variation and to many possibilities to do so. The problem i see with judging people is the judgements aren't always right and it just becomes a generalisation, sometimes you may be right but who's to know unless they actually learn more about the person? The two scenarios you mentioned could turn out to be true, but what if the one in the less "socially agreeable" attire out does everything the other one does or the genius despite not trying manages to still get better results than the less intelligent kid. With the asking the students if they would feel uncomfortable i presume that if over 50% said yes then they should not be allowed to come and if under 50% said Yes then they should? By the same standards shouldn't this be done about everything that could possibly make anyone feel uncomfortable? "Ugly people?", "Overweight people?" etc. |
| |
Dark_Puddles said: With the asking the students if they would feel uncomfortable i presume that if over 50% said yes then they should not be allowed to come and if under 50% said Yes then they should? By the same standards shouldn't this be done about everything that could possibly make anyone feel uncomfortable? "Ugly people?", "Overweight people?" etc. Isn't this essentially how people vote on what is "moral" in society? U.S. wise anyways. |
L2 Search - http://fc04.deviantart.com/fs48/f/2009/236/3/9/L2_Search_by_Siya_Akuma.jpg We're all getting trolled by Mayans. They probably thought "Fuck this shit, let's end the calendar and say shit's gonna go down." |
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
272 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |