Female Privilege, part 43989222

[Angry Floof]

And grown ass men can damn well control themselves when looking at little girls regardless of what they're wearing.

Yes. We'd like that... in a perfect world and all that.

Aw, poor grown ass men living in a world with people who expect them to act like adults.

If you're saying that taking pictures up people's clothing in public is disgusting, I couldn't agree more.

Disgusting and a violation of a person's reasonable expectation of privacy for their crotches. Interesting to see how far you will go to defend peeping toms. You know that's against the law, right? You going to defend that, too?

Now post nudes or shut the fuck up, toots.

 

[Angry Floof]

I agree: Parents should stop dressing their children like sex workers.

Little girls wearing skirts is the same as a street walker to you? Wow, that's pretty sick.

And with this, I think JonA has told us everything we need to know about him.

If I wear my shirt unbuttoned, is it reasonable for me to think no one will see my undershirt?

A skirt worn properly isn't unbuttoned or unzipped.

No; but it is wide open at one end.

and pointed toward the ground, so since no one's normal every day view is upside down looking up, we can expect that their undergarments are not meant for public viewing.

If someone has to contort their normal every day gaze to look up a skirt, that is little different than a peeping Tom grabbing a ladder to look in someone's bedroom window. Their argument is the same as yours:

"Hey a window is made of glass and if I try hard enough I can peek through blinds or around curtains and see inside. That must mean they intended their bedroom windows to be for public viewing".

Right?

Interesting to watch someone continue to defend a lowlife behavior. Not defending a person from undue judgment, not defending a right to voice unpopular speech, nothing so noble or intelligent as that. No, he's defending the action of looking up people's skirts and taking pictures. You have to wonder why someone would do this. There is nothing to defend there.

But I think it's a good thing when people like this reveal themselves so that those of us with who don't regard our fellow human beings as objects to violate and manipulate are aware of the stunted minds among us.

 

[Bronzeage]

If you think a woman is not entitled to privacy in public because she is wearing a skirt, you are free to make that argument. It has all the acuity of your fear of contamination from public urinals.

I notice you didn't bother to address anything I said, instead choosing to just roll out the ad hominem.

What points would that be? You did not make any points. You and I disagree about what is reasonable.

 

[JonA]

Having one's undergarments visible invalidates the claim that one desires them to remain private.

If one has the undergarments in plain view, yes. But they are not in plain view when one is wearing a dress.

Depends on the angle of the viewer and the dress.

 

[JonA]

I agree: Parents should stop dressing their children like sex workers.

Little girls wearing skirts is the same as a street walker to you?

No; which is why I didn't say they were the same.

If I wear my shirt unbuttoned, is it reasonable for me to think no one will see my undershirt?

A skirt worn properly isn't unbuttoned or unzipped.

No; but it is wide open at one end.

and pointed toward the ground, so since no one's normal every day view is upside down looking up, we can expect that their undergarments are not meant for public viewing.

If someone has to contort their normal every day gaze to look up a skirt, that is little different than a peeping Tom grabbing a ladder to look in someone's bedroom window. Their argument is the same as yours:

"Hey a window is made of glass and if I try hard enough I can peek through blinds or around curtains and see inside. That must mean they intended their bedroom windows to be for public viewing".

Right?

One has a reasonable expectation of privacy in one's bedroom with the windows and doors closed off.

But an expectation of privacy in a public space is, by definition of all the terms involved, unreasonable.

 

[JonA]

Interesting to see how far you will go to defend peeping toms. You know that's against the law, right? You going to defend that, too?

Of course not. And attempting to smear me instead of addressing my points won't get you very far, you dog-raping Nazi.

Now post nudes or shut the fuck up, toots.

A not-so-funny indication of how hopeless you've found your position.

 

[Angry Floof]

Of course not. And attempting to smear me instead of addressing my points won't get you very far, you dog-raping Nazi.

Now post nudes or shut the fuck up, toots.

A not-so-funny indication of how hopeless you've found your position.

Don't pretend you don't like it. Seriously, post the pics or get the fuck out.

 

[JonA]

Little girls wearing skirts is the same as a street walker to you? Wow, that's pretty sick.

And with this, I think JonA has told us everything we need to know about him.

Utterly pathetic that you attempt to smear your opponent by clinging onto someone else's misrepresentation of his argument.

If I wear my shirt unbuttoned, is it reasonable for me to think no one will see my undershirt?

A skirt worn properly isn't unbuttoned or unzipped.

No; but it is wide open at one end.

and pointed toward the ground, so since no one's normal every day view is upside down looking up, we can expect that their undergarments are not meant for public viewing.

If someone has to contort their normal every day gaze to look up a skirt, that is little different than a peeping Tom grabbing a ladder to look in someone's bedroom window. Their argument is the same as yours:

"Hey a window is made of glass and if I try hard enough I can peek through blinds or around curtains and see inside. That must mean they intended their bedroom windows to be for public viewing".

Right?

Interesting to watch someone continue to defend a lowlife behavior. Not defending a person from undue judgment, not defending a right to voice unpopular speech, nothing so noble or intelligent as that. No, he's defending the action of looking up people's skirts and taking pictures. You have to wonder why someone would do this. There is nothing to defend there.

But I think it's a good thing when people like this reveal themselves so that those of us with who don't regard our fellow human beings as objects to violate and manipulate are aware of the stunted minds among us.

More content-less attempts at smear.

 

[Angry Floof]

snip desperate scum blabber

Fuck off, peeping tom. The way you're posting, you have no reasonable expectation that I will not treat you accordingly. Stop asking for it by not properly covering your scum bag views in public.

 

[laughing dog]

If one has the undergarments in plain view, yes. But they are not in plain view when one is wearing a dress.

Depends on the angle of the viewer and the dress.

If the dress covers the undergarments, then the undergarments are not in plain view. Duh. How many more pointless hairs are you going to split?

I agree: Parents should stop dressing their children like sex workers.

What proportion of children are dressed like sex workers in your view?

 

[JonA]

Depends on the angle of the viewer and the dress.

If the dress covers the undergarments, then the undergarments are not in plain view. Duh. How many more pointless hairs are you going to split?

The dress doesn't cover the undergarments. It hides them from certain viewing angles.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

If the dress covers the undergarments, then the undergarments are not in plain view. Duh. How many more pointless hairs are you going to split?

The dress doesn't cover the undergarments. It hides them from certain viewing angles.

Clothing doesn't hide anything since someone can use a super-tech-TSA-Xray device to look behind them.

 

[Bronzeage]

If the dress covers the undergarments, then the undergarments are not in plain view. Duh. How many more pointless hairs are you going to split?

The dress doesn't cover the undergarments. It hides them from certain viewing angles.

In this case, it would be pubic hairs.

 

[Deepak]

If the dress covers the undergarments, then the undergarments are not in plain view. Duh. How many more pointless hairs are you going to split?

The dress doesn't cover the undergarments. It hides them from certain viewing angles.

The problem is that your only access to that viewing angle is through surreptitious means - at least if you don't want to get punched in the mouth.

This is different from someone being in a bikini at the beach or standing in front of a bay window in the buff. While the person is in a public place, the outergarments serve as a screen to public viewing.

 

[laughing dog]

If the dress covers the undergarments, then the undergarments are not in plain view. Duh. How many more pointless hairs are you going to split?

The dress doesn't cover the undergarments. It hides them from certain viewing angles.

It partially covers the undergarments - otherwise they are visible from all angles. The dress hides them from normal viewing angles. As Deepak points out, the dress acts as a screen.

The readers of this thread await the next serving of your pathetic hair-splitting.

BTW, you forgot to answer "What proportion of children are dressed like sex workers in your view? "

 

[Angry Floof]

The dress doesn't cover the undergarments. It hides them from certain viewing angles.

The problem is that your only access to that viewing angle is through surreptitious means - at least if you don't want to get punched in the mouth.

This is different from someone being in a bikini at the beach or standing in front of a bay window in the buff. While the person is in a public place, the outergarments serve as a screen to public viewing.

I believe that the majority of human beings do not need laws or threat of punishment to refrain from disrespecting or violating others. However, there's always a percentage, for whatever reason (lack of empathy? incapacity for self reflection? some kind of damage or defect?) who need others to restrain them and serve as their conscience for them. Some of them do seem to recognize disrespect if it's aimed at them, though.

 

[abaddon]

The problem is that your only access to that viewing angle is through surreptitious means - at least if you don't want to get punched in the mouth.

This is different from someone being in a bikini at the beach or standing in front of a bay window in the buff. While the person is in a public place, the outergarments serve as a screen to public viewing.

I believe that the majority of human beings do not need laws or threat of punishment to refrain from disrespecting or violating others. However, there's always a percentage, for whatever reason (lack of empathy? incapacity for self reflection? some kind of damage or defect?) who need others to restrain them and serve as their conscience for them. Some of them do seem to recognize disrespect if it's aimed at them, though.

And JonA would recognize it and care if it were aimed at him too. I think he was worried about more laws restricting our… or his… freedoms, as if there’s a slippery slope where if laws are made against guys looking up little girls’ dresses then eventually “they” will be coming for his guns, or something along those lines.

He doesn’t have to deal with people looking into his clothes to try to glimpse his penis so this isn’t an issue for him, thus the lack of empathy leaving nothing left but the fear of an imposition upon himself.

 

[blastula]

If the dress covers the undergarments, then the undergarments are not in plain view. Duh. How many more pointless hairs are you going to split?

The dress doesn't cover the undergarments. It hides them from certain viewing angles.

It finally happened. We can mark this moment as the day the internet jumped the shark.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Or y'know, we could as a society just get over the puritan nudity taboo. Ever been to a nudist resort or nude beach? You rather quickly forget about the whole clothing and nudity taboo thing. And its far less sexual than most would imagine.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Aren't those for adults? Also, isn't the issue privacy, not nudity? ...and female privilege, don't forget how Obama changed everything.