Toronto Pride once again allows perverts to expose genitalia in front of children

[Michael Hardner]

10 minutes ago, blackbird said:

No.  Public nudity is contrary go God's ordained way that man should be.  It is rebellion against God and his word.

How is what "God" wants not part of public morality ?  

[blackbird]

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

How is what "God" wants not part of public morality ?  

You seem to be denying that unrighteous behavior, practices, and ideology is rampant in the laws and life of Canada.  Do I need to give you a few examples to prove it?   Same sex marriage, killing of unborn babies, doctor-assisted suicide, soft on crime justice system, continuous release of dangerous offenders who go out to murder people to name a few.

[Venandi]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

But nude events also happen on city streets.

Small town boy I guess... I've never seen that. 

What events and which cities allow public nudity on the streets as part of a city sanctioned "event?"

I'm not talking about protests and the like here.

 

Edited July 11 by Venandi

[Goddess]

I bet being able to legally expose their weenies to children would be like chum in the water for predators.

[Michael Hardner]

25 minutes ago, blackbird said:

1. You seem to be denying that unrighteous behavior, practices, and ideology is rampant in the laws and life of Canada. 
2. Do I need to give you a few examples to prove it?   Same sex marriage, killing of unborn babies, doctor-assisted suicide, soft on crime justice system, continuous release of dangerous offenders who go out to murder people to name a few.

1. I did no such thing.  I would point out that "unrighteous" is a plainly subjective word so you have to go back to the law, ultimately, to settle it.
2. Off topic.

Moral behaviour ultimately is decided in policy, law and practical enforcement.   Nudity falls into that category.  Right/Wrong, even if you personally don't think they're subjective.... are.  Since Moses left the building, we have shoddy secular institutions to settle it.

18 minutes ago, Venandi said:

Small town boy I guess... I've never seen that. 

What events and which cities allow public nudity on the streets as part of a city sanctioned "event?"

I'm not talking about protests and the like here.

 

Sanctioned is a tricky word.  I would say Pride is sanctioned and celebrated.  There are theatrical and athletic events that have nudity as well as simply sunbathing and so on that are allowed in public spaces.

[Black Dog]

20 hours ago, User said:

What is the difference? What makes someone African American and what makes someone Black?

YOU made this distinction, now you can't figure out how to explain it. 

I already told you: Black generally speaking refers to African Americans but it can also refer to black people from other places, but understanding this distinction requires an ability to detect context you apparently do not possess.

8 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

BD once claimed that "British" is not an ethnicity lol.

Cite or die.

[User]

20 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

I already told you: Black generally speaking refers to African Americans but it can also refer to black people from other places, but understanding this distinction requires an ability to detect context you apparently do not possess.

No, you are defining Black, you have yet to define African American or how you distinguish between the two... or why you call it Black History month, but then claim it is mostly for African Americans. 

It was you making this stupid distinction. 

LOL

 

[Venandi]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

But nude events also happen on city streets.

Other than pride parades (the very thing being debated as inappropriate here) what events and where? Is there even one other event that allows a similar sexualized version of nudity on public streets? 

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

There are theatrical and athletic events that have nudity as well as simply sunbathing and so on that are allowed in public spaces.

Making a movie is a bit different I think.

What public athletic events feature nudity as a matter of course and where is  nude sunbathing on city streets allowed?

Other than protests, I have never seen this on city streets in Canada or at any athletic event I've ever attended or competed in... streakers are usually arrested on the first orbit of the field and streaking is not nearly as common now as it once was.

I did a search for nude 3d archery competitions... so far no luck.

 

Edited July 11 by Venandi

[Michael Hardner]

18 minutes ago, Venandi said:

Other than pride parades (the very thing being debated as inappropriate here) what events and where? Is there even one other event that allows a similar sexualized version of nudity on public streets? 

Making a movie is a bit different I think, what athletic events feature nudity as a matter of course and where is  nude sunbathing on city streets allowed?

There's a nude bike ride, plays that feature nudity and sunbathing in public... which is defined by common spaces.  That means parks, streets and whatnot.

[Venandi]

10 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

There's a nude bike ride, plays that feature nudity and sunbathing in public... which is defined by common spaces.  That means parks, streets and whatnot.

Maybe I don't get out enough eh?

For the purposes of the discussion on this thread though, I suspect none of those venues are deliberately sexualized to the extent the pride parade is. If I'm not mistaken, that is what the objection is here and of the examples you give, I think the same level of objection (for the same reasons) would apply if they did the same thing the same way. 

 

Edited July 11 by Venandi

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, Venandi said:

1. I suspect none of those venues are deliberately sexualized to the extent the pride parade is.

2. If I'm not mistaken, that is what the objection is here and of the examples you give, I think the same level of objection (for the same reasons) would apply if they did the same thing the same way. 

 

1. The parade definitely has sexual aspects but I wouldn't call it a 'sexual' event.  This came to the fore because... well look at the thread title.  And people asserting over and over that only gay events can be nude.  Not so.

2.  Well good.  I don't object, exactly, but I think it's too bad that people are put out by this.

[Black Dog]

1 hour ago, User said:

No, you are defining Black, you have yet to define African American or how you distinguish between the two... or
 

Wait are you honestly telling me you need to have the definition of African-American spoonfed to you? You couldn't waterboard that kind of admission out of me lol.

Quote

why you call it Black History month, but then claim it is mostly for African Americans. 

I already explained this to you three times, do you have Alzheimers or something?

[User]

24 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

Wait are you honestly telling me you need to have the definition of African-American spoonfed to you? You couldn't waterboard that kind of admission out of me lol.

No, I am saying you made a stupid distinction and after having been asked numerous times to explain yourself, you fail to do so. 

 

[Black Dog]

30 minutes ago, User said:

No, I am saying you made a stupid distinction and after having been asked numerous times to explain yourself, you fail to do so. 

Yes I know you don't understand the distinction, you've made that clear multiple times now, stupid.

[CdnFox]

14 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

Yes I know you don't understand the distinction, you've made that clear multiple times now, stupid.

So why can't you explain it. 

[Moonlight Graham]

3 hours ago, Black Dog said:

I already told you: Black generally speaking refers to African Americans but it can also refer to black people from other places, but understanding this distinction requires an ability to detect context you apparently do not possess.

Black refers to people of sub-Saharan African origin.   People from Egypt and the Maghreb aren't black.

Sub-Saharan Africans have more genetic diversity than Caucasians.  "Race" refers to genetic groupings based on common outward visual characteristics that virtually all members of that grouping possess in common.  Useful for identification purposes I suppose.

[Moonlight Graham]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

It's more of a matter of public morality and not "reason".  You wade into murky waters when you declare reason to be behind things that are, at the core, matters of personal taste.  

Nudist colonies exist, nudism exists in many western cultures, and clothing is optional in non-western cultures.

Clothing and food are quite culturally based precepts, not based on region.  Some cultures make an "ew" face if someone mentions eating dog, others do it if someone mentions eating cow.

Sure.   In our society our laws state that people, including women and children, have a right not to have perverted men with exhibitionist kinks expose their genitals to them in public,  which is exactly what's happening here.  In our society, this right supercedes a pervert's right to be a perverted exhibitionist in front of families.

But apparently in Toronto the perverts have more rights and the law isn't enforced, probably because cops don't want to offend overreacting people who will accuse them of oppressing LGBT people like the bathhouse raids of yesteryear or some such utter nonsense.  So again PC nonsense rules the day because cowards bend to the progressive bullies.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Moonlight Graham said:

1.   In our society our laws state that people, including women and children, have a right not to have perverted men with exhibitionist kinks expose their genitals to them in public,  which is exactly what's happening here. 

2. In our society, this right supercedes a pervert's right to be a perverted exhibitionist in front of families.

3. But apparently in Toronto the perverts have more rights and the law isn't enforced, probably because cops don't want to offend overreacting people who will accuse them of oppressing LGBT people like the bathhouse raids of yesteryear or some such utter nonsense.  So again PC nonsense rules the day because cowards bend to the progressive bullies.

1. The law does not talk about perversion, kinks or whatnot.

2. People have all kinds of legal perversions... Going nude may be one.

3.  Ok, I addressed the political correctness angle 3 times.  You don't want to listen.

[CdnFox]

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. The law does not talk about perversion, kinks or whatnot.

2. People have all kinds of legal perversions... Going nude may be one.

3.  Ok, I addressed the political correctness angle 3 times.  You don't want to listen.

actually most provinces have laws against 'lewd' behavior.  Then there's the criminal code:

173(1) Everyone who wilfully does an indecent act in a public place in the presence of one or more persons, or in any place with intent to insult or offend any person, (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years; or (b) is guilty of an offence ......

It just isn't applied to gays. 

[Moonlight Graham]

42 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. The law does not talk about perversion, kinks or whatnot.

2. People have all kinds of legal perversions... Going nude may be one.

3.  Ok, I addressed the political correctness angle 3 times.  You don't want to listen.

1. Public nudity is illegal.  If they weren't perverted men exposing themselves to women and children/ families I'd have at least a bit more sympathy.  Perverted men forcing their genitals on people's eyeballs and giving a bad name to their own parade gets no sympathy from me.  What people do in private is none of my business.

2.  I don't force my perverted kink on women/ children/others in public, it's not a human right in public. I'm very happy for exhibitionist nude men and men in drag to do what they please in private.  You start coming for our kids with your kink in public streets and public libraries and I'll call them out.  There are reasonable limits to tolerance and inclusion.

3.  Political correctness (weaksauce pander culture) will be criticized by me when observed and I will provide no quarter.  You're too nice IMO.

https://www.criminalcodehelp.ca/offences/disorderly-conduct/nudity-indecent-exposure/

"Nudity and Indecent Exposure: Though the offence is rarely prosecuted, s.174 (1) of the Criminal Code states that it is illegal to be nude in a public place "without lawful excuse." That includes nudity on your own property if you are in public view. The charge of indecent exposure may be laid if you expose your genitals to someone under 16. According to s.173 (1) of the Code, the maximum penalty is two years in jail for indecent exposure, with fines often given out for nudity, if the charge is prosecuted."

[Michael Hardner]

11 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

1. Public nudity is illegal.  If they weren't perverted men exposing themselves to women and children/ families I'd have at least a bit more sympathy.  Perverted men forcing their genitals on people's eyeballs and giving a bad name to their own parade gets no sympathy from me.  What people do in private is none of my business.

2.  I don't force my perverted kink on women/ children/others in public, it's not a human right in public. I'm very happy for exhibitionist nude men and men in drag to do what they please in private.  You start coming for our kids with your kink in public streets and public libraries and I'll call them out.  There are reasonable limits to tolerance and inclusion.

3.  Political correctness (weaksauce pander culture) will be criticized by me when observed and I will provide no quarter.  You're too nice IMO.

https://www.criminalcodehelp.ca/offences/disorderly-conduct/nudity-indecent-exposure/

"Nudity and Indecent Exposure: Though the offence is rarely prosecuted, s.174 (1) of the Criminal Code states that it is illegal to be nude in a public place "without lawful excuse." That includes nudity on your own property if you are in public view. The charge of indecent exposure may be laid if you expose your genitals to someone under 16. According to s.173 (1) of the Code, the maximum penalty is two years in jail for indecent exposure, with fines often given out for nudity, if the charge is prosecuted."

1. 2. You're making your own assumptions about how they feel, which is self-righteous and incorrect.  What people do in public is none of your business either.  The law deals with it.
3. Except you were proven wrong and keep repeating PC like a parrot.  Unless you think the naked bike riders are all pervs and gay too...

Anyway, you like to criticize those who are presumptive about rights and who try to drown out others.  Based on this conversation, it seems pretty hypocritical to me.
 

[Moonlight Graham]

12 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. 2. You're making your own assumptions about how they feel, which is self-righteous and incorrect.  What people do in public is none of your business either.  The law deals with it.
3. Except you were proven wrong and keep repeating PC like a parrot.  Unless you think the naked bike riders are all pervs and gay too...

Anyway, you like to criticize those who are presumptive about rights and who try to drown out others.  Based on this conversation, it seems pretty hypocritical to me.

The law isn't dealing with it.

A bunch of men felt they should break the law and show their genitals in front of women and children in public and felt that people wanted to see this in a parade.  The morality seems clear here IMO.  They should have some basic respect and consideration for families and women.

You're on the side of men exposing themselves.  I'm on the side of women and children.    The gay men dominating the nude beach in Toronto also aren't nudists, they're perverts. Momma didn't raise no fool.

[Michael Hardner]

16 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

1. The law isn't dealing with it.

2. You're on the side of men exposing themselves.  I'm on the side of women and children.   

3. The gay men dominating the nude beach in Toronto also aren't nudists, they're perverts. Momma didn't raise no fool.

1. They reviewed it and decided to allow it.  That's what I mean about 'dealing with it'.  You don't like the nudity and you suspect that they're all perverts.  Many feel the way you do but the decision came out the other way.

2. Aaaaand... even though I expressed regret over how this plays out, you read my objective tone as being absolutely in favour of this.  You are a serious poster, but this is a serious flaw.

3. Will you at least acknowledge that it's not all gay people ?  The bike ride folks aren't gay and the beach (I have been there, yes with my kids) is probably about 10% gay.  Mostly kids in their 20s... South American, indian, Black kids... splashing in the waves and having fun for free... a liberal woke dream and conservative nightmare right  

[blackbird]

20 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I would point out that "unrighteous" is a plainly subjective word so you have to go back to the law, ultimately, to settle it.

I assume when you say law, you are referring to legislation in the law books that was passed by government.  If not, you should say what you mean by "law".

The basics of society are built on several thousand years of Judeo-Christian beliefs, and ultimately these are rooted in the Bible.  Nothing subjective about the ten commandments.  Just a few commandments should tell you that.  though shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and thou shalt not covet, etc.

If you think everything must be "subjective", that is called naturalism, paganism, heathenism, or secular humanism.

It has no foundation.  The only foundation in existence is God's revelation, the Holy Scriptures.  In English, that is the King James Bible (1611).  Subjectivism is a curse and a recipe for a decadent society.  Liberalism is subjectivism and is therefore a deceptive ideology.  It leads nowhere except downward for society.  

When you say you have to go back to the law (man-made law) to settle things, you are showing you don't understand what this is about.

Man's laws should be built on God's law and written revelation, not on subjective humanism, which is changeable at whim.  You being a Romanist is why you don't understand how society and government should work.  Your god appears to be liberalism, which is an idol and a false god.  That is the root of your problem.  Romanism does not consider the Holy Scriptures as the infallible and final authority.  Romanism believes man is his own authority.  That is why Roman Catholic doctrine is built on church councils, popes, and the beliefs of men, not on God's written revelation.  That is what makes it a false religion.  So you see how religion is directly connected with government, laws, and life.

The man-made laws are not a guide on what new laws are needed and interpretation of right and wrong should be for elected representatives.  How laws are working can be studied to determine how new laws should be written to improve them, or how old laws should be replaced or removed, but the guide for how it is all done must come from God's written revelation.

 Laws cannot be written based on other laws unless the laws themselves are based on what God has said.  Then they could be a guide.  Otherwise, they are not a guide.  We are subject to the laws to maintain law and order, not to write new laws.

Edited July 12 by blackbird

[Michael Hardner]

19 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I assume when you say law, you are referring to legislation in the law books that was passed by government.  If not, you should say what you mean by "law".

The basics of society are built on several thousand years of Judeo-Christian beliefs, and ultimately these are rooted in the Bible.  Nothing subjective about the ten commandments.  Just a few commandments should tell you that.  though shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and thou shalt not covet, etc.

If you think everything must be "subjective", that is called naturalism, paganism, heathenism, or secular humanism.

It has no foundation.  The only foundation in existence is God's revelation, the Holy Scriptures.  In English, that is the King James Bible (1611).  Subjectivism is a curse and a recipe for a decadent society.  Liberalism is subjectivism and is therefore a deceptive ideology.  It leads nowhere except downward for society.  

When you say you have to go back to the law (man-made law) to settle things, you are showing you don't understand what this is about.

Man's laws should be built on God's law and written revelation, not on subjective humanism, which is changeable at whim.  You being a Romanist is why you don't understand how society and government should work.  Your god appears to be liberalism, which is an idol and a false god.  That is the root of your problem.  Romanism does not consider the Holy Scriptures as the infallible and final authority.  Romanism believes man is his own authority.  That is why Roman Catholic doctrine is built on church councils, popes, and the beliefs of men, not on God's written revelation.  That is what makes it a false religion.  So you see how religion is directly connected with government, laws, and life.

The man-made laws are not a guide on what new laws are needed and interpretation of right and wrong should be for elected representatives.  How laws are working can be studied to determine how new laws should be written to improve them, or how old laws should be replaced or removed, but the guide for how it is all done must come from God's written revelation.

 Laws cannot be written based on other laws unless the laws themselves are based on what God has said.  Then they could be a guide.  Otherwise, they are not a guide.  We are subject to the laws to maintain law and order, not to write new laws.

I never said anything about right and wrong.  I talked about settling as in settling a dispute. 

You put a long post together that has nothing to do with what I'm saying.  I'm not talking about right and wrong nor will I.