LogFAQs > #956063911

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, Database 8 ( 02.18.2021-09-28-2021 ), DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	DEMOCRAT says she was HORRIFIED to see a WOMAN with PENIS at an ASIAN SPA!!!
Sahuagin 07/14/21 2:47:40 AM #119:	adjl posted... Simply entering would not inherently be wrong, but there aren't many possible non-nefarious reasons for him to enter, and entering for nefarious reasons is wrong (by simple virtue of being nefarious). yes you're just saying it's wrong because it's wrong. adjl posted... Honestly, I don't see much by way of inherent moral wrong in either situation. Nudity is morally neutral and inflicts no inherent harm. The only harm or moral foul arises in how it is applied or treated, which is a set of conscious decisions from the people involved in the situation. In truth, desegregating facilities like these wouldn't be a problem at all. In practice, the issue boils down to expectations: You don't expect a dong in the ladies' room, so when that happens, people feel uncomfortable. The thing is, you also don't expect a full-body tattoo of Spongebob. Somebody shows up in one of these spas with a full-body Spongebob tattoo, though, and you aren't going to get a public announcement about how her daughter was "scandalized" and angry protests over the "incident." Why the different standards? Why are penises so special and horrible and unexpected that seeing one warrants such a gross overreaction? Simply being unexpected doesn't explain that, especially where you're significantly more likely to see a trans woman at a spa than you are any countless number of other specific unusual aesthetic variations. is "exposing oneself" immoral? --- *The truth basks in scrutiny.* https://imgur.com/GMouTGs http://projecteuler.net/profile/Sahuagin.png <cite>Sahuagin posted [p:956063911] in DEMOCRAT s... [t:79558763]...</cite> <quote>adjl posted... </cite> <quote>Simply entering would not inherently be wrong, but there aren't many possible non-nefarious reasons for him to enter, and entering for nefarious reasons is wrong (by simple virtue of being nefarious).</quote>yes you're just saying it's wrong because it's wrong. adjl posted... </cite> <quote>Honestly, I don't see much by way of inherent moral wrong in either situation. Nudity is morally neutral and inflicts no inherent harm. The only harm or moral foul arises in how it is applied or treated, which is a set of conscious decisions from the people involved in the situation. In truth, desegregating facilities like these wouldn't be a problem at all. In practice, the issue boils down to expectations: You don't expect a dong in the ladies' room, so when that happens, people feel uncomfortable. The thing is, you also don't expect a full-body tattoo of Spongebob. Somebody shows up in one of these spas with a full-body Spongebob tattoo, though, and you aren't going to get a public announcement about how her daughter was "scandalized" and angry protests over the "incident." Why the different standards? Why are penises so special and horrible and unexpected that seeing one warrants such a gross overreaction? Simply being unexpected doesn't explain that, especially where you're significantly more likely to see a trans woman at a spa than you are any countless number of other specific unusual aesthetic variations.</quote>is "exposing oneself" immoral? --- The truth basks in scrutiny. https://imgur.com/GMouTGs http://projecteuler.net/profile/Sahuagin.png</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1