Any sane person in that situation must realise that their behaviour is not acceptable, and that the punishment is not going to get smaller.
Yep. He clearly knows this. And does it anyway. Not because he is insane. But because that is how he is making his point.
Thus why we are talking about it today and questioning whether the law needs to changed.
An interesting choice of insult to throw at someone who is running rings around you and tripping you up with your own preconceptions
Pity it doesn't mean delusional, because if anyone's running rings round anyone here, it's certainly not you.
Actually, I'd say he was being generous - there are other terms from that scale perhaps more suited:
"Moron" was coined in 1910 by psychologist Henry H. Goddard[3] from the Ancient Greek word ????? (moros), which meant "dull"[4] (as opposed to oxy, which meant "sharp"), and used to describe a person with a mental age in adulthood of between 8 and 12 on the Binet scale.[5] It was once applied to people with an IQ of 51–70, being superior in one degree to "imbecile" (IQ of 26–50) and superior in two degrees to "idiot" (IQ of 0–25).
The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use
and yet it suits you so well.
Definitely uptight about all sorts of stuff in this country, nudity, sex, drugs and we definitely need to chill out a bit. But society decides on rules if you don't follow them you can get into trouble, there's ways to go about changing those rules. The quote about the police offering him 3 options tends to suggest they may be softening on the subject (by not arresting him straight away) His not taking option 1 or 2 suggests he's not just exercising his right to freedom but his right* to piss off other people. The paedo link maybe disingenuous but if he walks nude passed a playground he will upset parents (because he's doing stuff society as a whole finds uncomfortable) even if the kids just point and laugh. Not suggesting he sticks to privacy of his own home or the wilderness but it seems to me he's more than pushing societies boundaries here, he's actively trying to upset people (even if it is an absurd thing to be upset about) If I say nasty things about none-existent deities someone will be upset, but so what, If I do it outside a church/temple/place of worship I'd expect to be moved along by the police if not arrested. Where you do something changes it's offensiveness and the response by the authorities.
But I could be talking cobblers again.
*i'm not sure this is a real right
[quote=GrahamS ]
Thus why [s]we [/s]a handful of folk on a mountain bike forum are talking about it today and questioning whether the law needs to changed.
And that's about the extent of it. This really [i]isn't[/i] a major issue - it's not a Rosa Parks moment. What kind of parent would give up the right to see their own children to take such a stance? To deliberately antagonise society and the authorities empowered by that society just to uphold the right to walk around with no clothes on?
We all know what you meant but you can pretend if you like.
Fascinating that you should all be so offended by, and angry at, what you think I'm refering to, yet so tolerant of a guy walking around naked where he knows it's going to cause offense to many (I think I've made it clear that personally Im' more offended buy people who cover their faces than nakedness).
To deliberately antagonise society and the authorities empowered by that society just to uphold the right to walk around with no clothes on?
There's not really much evidence he's antagonised society. He just seems to have upset a few of the more prudish on here.
He's going to have less and less time to "make his point", whatever that is. The only measurable result of his actions will be time spent behind bars. He's not helping himself in any way.
Fascinating that you should all be so offended by, and angry at, what you think I'm refering to, yet so tolerant of a guy walking around naked where he knows it's going to cause offense to many (I think I've made it clear that personally Im' more offended buy people who cover their faces than nakedness).
Your post had distinct xenophobic undertones, which through some bizarre notion of deluded superiority, you claim not really to have alluded to.
Whereas this is a bloke wandering around naked.
Not hard to see why we're uncomfortable with your xenophobic attitude. Quite hard to see why you're getting offended by people wearing (by your own judgmental perception) too many or too few clothes.
Thus [s]why[/s] we a handful of folk on a mountain bike forum are talking about it today and questioning whether the law needs to changed.
Feel free to read the hundreds of news reports his actions have generated over the years, in all levels of media. He certainly got more than a handful of folk discussing it.
He's not helping himself in any way.
I'm not sure his aim is to help "himself".
I think I've made it clear that personally Im' more offended buy people who cover their faces than nakedness
How odd. I'm not really offended by either of those things.
You appear to be getting offended that some women aren't as naked as you would like?
😀
Be fair he does not mind seeing young lads in tight fighting trunks as well but it so he can be sure what they are or are not packing 😉
I've tried reasoning with the xenophobic special person with the intellectual superiority complex before.. you're on a hiding to nothing
[quote=yunki ]I've tried reasoning with the xenophobic special person with the intellectual superiority complex before.. you're on a hiding to nothing
😆
I'm not offended by the naked rambler's nakedness but he'll get no support from me. I think asking him to cover his genitals with a loin cloth or similar is reasonable, and if he won't he has to live with the consequences- as he has chosen to do. I think covering your face in public is unreasonable, but for reasons nobody has given many of you disagree with me.
I've clearly explain my arguments in favour of people having their faces visible in public, perhaps those insulting me for holding this view would care to give a reasoned argument in favour of people having covered faces.
I've tried reasoning with the xenophobic special person with the intellectual superiority complex before.. you're on a hiding to nothing
You're not suggesting someone needs some Edukation?
I think covering your face in public is unreasonable but for reasons nobody has given many of you disagree with me.
Its your face and your body you can cover it or uncover it as you see fit.
it has nothing to do with me how you dress.
Did not really think this needed stated or you could not work it out.
I am also not aware of some sort of crime spree here or in France by Burkha clad women [ or imposters] that actually requires legislation to prevent them wearing what they wish.
Ditto naked man his only crime is to be naked- now if he was going on crowded trains and rubbing next to folk I would object but he is not
I'm willling to be educated but nobody has come up with any positive justificarion for people to be able to cover their faces in public. If you are so in favour of it there must be some kind of persuasive logic that demonstrates clear advantage for society and the people concerned.
there must be some kind of persuasive logic that demonstrates clear advantage for society and the people concerned.
no there mustn't.. they can simply dress as they please is my only argument
but for reasons nobody has given many of you disagree with me.
Time for some edukation then:
You appear to have a particular deep seated difficulty with a particular group of people observing the traditional dress of their religion. That would be the reason we disagree.
but nobody has come up with any positive justificarion for people to be able to cover their faces in public.
Actually I'm pretty sure Junkyard just did. (and now yunki. And zokes)
Who are you to demand that women should wear less clothes?
Shouldn't that be up to them?
If you are so in favour of it there must be some kind of persuasive logic that demonstrates clear advantage for society and the people concerned
Again...
As you seem to have a fixation on Muslim dress and the Burka in particular then I think you should know that the Burka is the visible tip of an iceberg of religious subjugation and human rights abuses, Junkyard. The kinds of abuses that include a 'crime spree' of thousands of casees of genital mutilations in Germany (the only European country of seen figures for), forced marriages... .
If you are "not aware", do some research.
the Burka is the visible tip of an iceberg
Ah, the thin end of the wedge! We're all doomed when the darkies take over 🙄
Moron is far too polite.
visible tip of an iceberg of religious subjugation and human rights abuses
You are, quite deliberately, conflating women being [i]free[/i] to cover their faces if they wish and women being [i]forced[/i] to cover their faces, when those two things are quite clearly very different issues.
he Burka is the visible tip of an iceberg of religious subjugation and human rights abuses, Junkyard.
You are right what we need to do to protect them from the subjugation to other peoples will and to protect them is BAN them from wearing it and force them to do as we say....literally nothing else will protect thier human rights 🙄
when those two things are quite clearly very different issues
I told you he needed some edukation.
He don't need no thought control...
I think you'll find we need to protect people from their own peoples and force them to do as we say in the interests of the victims of barbaric practices, Junkyard. I'll be more specific: Bild quote 23 000 genitally mutilated women in Germany of which 2000 were carried out in Germany and Muslim religious practice is the principal reason quoted by Bild. So when you say Burka wearers don't commit crimes, think again.
People have been banned for less than this tosh.
I think you'll find we need to protect people from their own peoples and force them to do as we say in the interests of the victims of barbaric practices, Junkyard. I'll be more specific: Bild quote 23 000 genitally mutilated women in Germany of which 2000 were carried out in Germany and Muslim religious practice is the principal reason quoted by Bild. So when you say Burka wearers don't commit crimes, think again.
Are you just testing Chutney's vocabulary?
People have been banned for less than this tosh.
A bloke called Gough was jailed for something far less offensive. Although I'm biased, because I just want to see his c*ck.
I think you'll find we need to protect people from their own peoples and force them to do as we say in the interests of the victims of barbaric practices,
I wish I could be so certain I was right that I could force people to do what I think because I know best but this is exactly what you and your kind accuse the "Muslims" of doing to their women , forcing them to do what they say as they know best. You sure do need some education not least in irony/hypocrisy.
Oh FFS people in trainers commit crimes 🙄
Are you now suggesting banning the Burkha will end female circumcision? You probably are - is there an emoticon for shakes head in disbelief?
Moron would seem to be the best description here I shall follow Yunkis advice and leave you to your prejudices and rather odd version of "logic"
Edukator - Member
Bild quote 23 000 genitally mutilated women in Germany of which 2000 were carried out in Germany and Muslim religious practice is the principal reason quoted by Bild.
Bild? As in the German version of the Sun?
Bild quote 23 000 genitally mutilated women in Germany of which 2000 were carried out in Germany and Muslim religious practice is the principal reason quoted by Bild. So when you say Burka wearers don't commit crimes, think again.
Wow that is some astoundingly ignorant nonsense right there.
Do you honestly think that legally forcing women to wear less clothes than they would like to would have prevented those genital mutilations? 😕
Wouldn't it be slightly easier to make forced genital mutilation illegal (which I suspect it might well be).
People have been banned for less than this tosh.
Was just thinking the same thing myself! But often better to confront nonsense like this than pretend it doesn't exist.
I think you'll find we need to protect people from their own peoples and force them to do as we say in the interests of the victims of barbaric practices, Junkyard.
I'm far more concerned about protecting people in minorities from rampant xenophobia such as yours
I'll be more specific: Bild quote 23 000 genitally mutilated women in Germany of which 2000 were carried out in Germany and Muslim religious practice is the principal reason quoted by Bild.
So you're quoting the German version of The Sun, and somehow extrapolating back to burqa wearing? (And you were talking about that after all your earlier protestations. How are those rings you're running you supercilious fool?)
Are you seriously saying that if the burqa is banned, then these alleged crimes will cease? If so, you are seriously more naïve than I thought
So when you say Burka wearers don't commit crimes, think again.
People wearing suits commit crimes. Even people in your beloved budgie smugglers commit crimes. Heading back to the original topic, even those wearing nothing at all appear to commit crimes.
People have been banned for less than this tosh.
What, popping up on a thread you've not previously comment on to troll?
Whilst I agree with what Chutney said earlier, I think these "banning" comments are out of order.
It's a bit too hypocritical to start preaching tolerance, and then calling for bans of people whose views you can't tolerate.
You are putting words in my mouth, Graham S, Zokes and Junkyard. I suggest you stick to analysing what I type not what you think I'm thinking.
he knows it's going to cause offense to many
Oh, pity the poor offended. Whatever will we do.
You are putting words in my mouth, Graham S and Junkyard. I suggest you stick to analysing what I type not what you think I'm thinking.
I'd let them crack on with thinking what you're thinking. It'll be less daft than what you're typing.
You are putting words in my mouth, Graham S, Zokes and Junkyard. I suggest you stick to analysing what I type not what you think I'm thinking.
Rightio then - why don't you type out, nice and clearly so everyone at the back can hear, why [i]exactly[/i] you think that legally requiring women to wear less clothes than they would like to would be in their best interest?
Edukator - MemberI'm willling to be educated but nobody has come up with any positive justificarion for people to be able to cover their faces in public. If you are so in favour of it there must be some kind of persuasive logic that demonstrates clear advantage for society and the people concerned.
And [i]your [/i]positive justification for this is...
Bit late for a back pedal tbh but I would not want to try and defend what you just said either so I dont blame you for your blatant and poathetic attempt to side step it and say we are misrepresenting what you meant
Anyone who can read and think can see what you said and what you meant
Rightio then - why don't you type out, nice and clearly so everyone at the back can hear, why exactly you think that legally requiring women to wear less clothes than they would like to would be in their best interest?
And whilst you're at it, you can also explain why you agree with the naked rambler being forced to wear more clothes than he desires.
Aside: I always find it amusing when quoting someone back to themselves results in them claiming I am putting words in their mouth or twisting what they say.
I'm not.
I'm quoting you and explaining how I have understood what you have said and how I react to that.
Aka a conversation.