Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Liar. It's the first time I've directly made that comparison.
I asked you for examples when you sought to bolster the argument being made by Enviro.
So what am I lying about?
Liar. It's the first time I've directly made that comparison.
I gave you examples. Then you changed your mind to full frontal.I asked you for examples when you sought to bolster the argument being made by Enviro.
So what am I lying about?
I'm drawing that comparison *now* (note, not earlier, if you'd read the thread also you've inserted full frontal not me - because it suits you) because there's a prolific level of varying amounts of sexuality- based nudity in mainstream advertising - which I've given examples of - that simply does not attract the same levels of outrage compared to this.
I gave examples of mainstream brands that are well known for their use of sexual-based nudity that sells their products and that also project the idealistic body. It's relevant because of the disconnect between what is perceived as taboo plus the importance we comparatively attach to the impact of advertising compared to lone examples of eccentricity where the adverse impact - if any - can be easily managed. Societal taboo in this case is clearly a matter of opinion as our society allows naked public mass bike rides.I didn't insert full frontal because it suits me but because that is the comparable level of nudity to that which Gough displays. The reason why 'Unashamed sexual nudity advertising' is generally considered a lesser evil for most people is that it does not feature full frontal nudity whilst this man has been walking around fully naked. Whether or not there are ads with half naked/partially concealed individuals is irrelevant when full frontal nudity is clearly the societal taboo which the issue in this case. And as far as I can see you didn't give any examples of adverts with comparable levels of nudity.
Might come up in the church quiz?meatus. well you learn something new everyday.
I gave you examples. Then you changed your mind to full frontal.
They cut the mustard for your original question. You then changed your question. So if you want to complain that I didn't answer your revised question - by all means do so. But don't fucking misrepresent what's a matter of record earlier in the thread.No.
Enviro equated nudity in advertising with a bloke that's wandering around the country constantly exposed.
I challenged that, and you gave examples didn't cut the mustard, so I asked you draw an equivalence. Which you haven't.
They cut the mustard for your original question.
Mandy Rice-Davies.Cobblers.
You don't even seem to understand what the original question was.
Mandy Rice-Davies.
lMFGTYWTF are you on about?
Well, a good compromise for that would be to insist that he stays in the countryside and away from inhabitation. Then the only thing he'd spoil would be Spymaster's aim.Him being naked in public will cause varying levels of alarm / distress / offence / upset / trauma to various people for various reasons. Shit but true. Their right to be protected from that alarm etc definitely outweighs his right to be naked. Seems only fair to me.
Well, a good compromise for that would be to insist that he stays in the countryside and away from inhabitation. Then the only thing he'd spoil would be Spymaster's aim.
I doubt it.I'm gonna make a spliff. See if you make any sense when I'm stoned.
Looking forward to stoned version of macho green ink, although I don't suppose you'll attain the entertaining levels of last night's apoplexy.Me too but I'm going to give it a go.
lMFGTY
Has he ever explained his position, perhaps on a website or in an interview or something.
Since I have been aware of him I have yet to learn why, really why, he is doing this.
Looking forward to stoned version of macho green ink, although I don't suppose you'll attain the entertaining levels of last night's apoplexy.
Him being naked in public will cause varying levels of alarm / distress / offence / upset / trauma to various people for various reasons. Shit but true. Their right to be protected from that alarm etc definitely outweighs his right to be naked. Seems only fair to me.
I think it was CR's depiction of people that weren't particularly offended plus critical of the jail time; as far right fascists that had me rolling around in laughter.Which bits specifically?
I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but what's your rational justification for that?
Holby City causes varying levels of alarm / distress / offence / upset / trauma to people that have had friends or relatives die or be seriously injured/ill in hospital. I personally found it really upsetting when I accidentally caught part of it around the time my wife had suffered a massive brain aneurysm. I don't think it should be banned though.
So I'm not convinced that causing offence etc is a justification on its own.
What differentiates Gough's nakedness from Holby City?
None of the above is rhetorical argument btw. In case you missed my previous, my opinion is very much up in the air on this.
No one's making you watch Holby City (thank fuck), but if you're just mooching about and happen to cross paths with Gough then, why aye, it's one in the eye. Whether you like it or not.
Him being naked in public will cause varying levels of alarm / distress / offence / upset / trauma to various people for various reasons. Shit but true. Their right to be protected from that alarm etc definitely outweighs his right to be naked. Seems only fair to me.
But isn't it a bit ridiculous the state humanity has reached, that we are ashamed or even alarmed by our own and other people's bodies?
How is mooching about different to channel-surfing?
ETA: Your post sound a bit similar to the police's argument
Indeed it is. That's why I said 'shit but true'. In an ideal world things would be different, but that's a whole separate thread