Muslim Idiot Zealots Threaten Nude Bathers in Germany - Hey, how about minding your own business!

Some Asswipe Muslims threatened families, women, and children in Germany for nude bathing at a legitimate venue.   Here's an idea, if you don't like nude swimmers, how about not go to that pool. Also, your religion is disgusting. Mind your own business, you psychos. If someone is not bothering you and you have to bully them because of your religion, then you deserve to go to Syria and life like a barbarian. 

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/07/26/young-muslims-threaten-n...

Views: 416

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Most societies have some version of "what can be exposed, and more than that is immoral".

In sheltered tribes in the Amazon, etc, going nude is normal, and there is no right/wrong associated with it.

In the US, public exposure of female, but not male nipples, or either's genitalia, is considered immoral, and, can be cause for arrest.

In other places, Rio, or Europe, etc, public exposure of any nipples might be fine, but not exposure of genitalia.

In still other places, such as Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan, etc, a man can expose anything except genitalia, but a woman can not expose anything except her eyes (So she can see where she is going...), but in some places, her eyes have to be covered too, but she can have a veil or screen to look through so she doesn't crash into things/trip while getting the men water and doing household chores, etc.

Some places impose religious law, such as Sharia or Puritan, upon civil law, making violation of the above "morals" a criminal offense.

So, in America, a topless (Exposed breast) woman can be arrested, the way a topless (Exposed face) woman can be arrested in parts of the middle east, and a bottomless woman (Exposed genitalia) might be arrested in most of the Western World.

Some of the above countries allow exceptions, such as at nude designated beaches, or in your own bedroom, etc.

My personal view is that exposure is not a moral issue, as I see no right/wrong associated with it in reality other than by a society's mores.  Seeing a naked person in public can't harm a child unless the society is convinced it will...because some societies then punish the child who saw the naked person, etc.

It should perhaps be more along the lines of being under dressed for an occasion...as wearing a tee shirt and jeans, or perhaps a bathing suit, etc,  to a job interview for an executive position or out to dinner with friends where everyone else there is in a suit and tie...a faux pas, sure, but not a jailable/execution worthy offense.

Where religious mores have been adopted by civil law, such as in America where indecent exposure laws can get an exposed nipple's owner arrested, or in the middle east where the exposed mouth is cause for arrest, etc...things get scary stupid.

Where religious mores are further considered to be enforceable by any citizen, such as in much of the Muslim world, the scary stupid morphs further into horrific madness.

Some of THAT is further inflamed by the practice of prosecuting those who do NOT participate in prosecution, as their consent is therefore implied, and ALSO considered worthy of arrest, etc....

...So "See Something Say Something", as public policy, is swollen to monstrous proportions.

If we can get religion out of civil matters, the world would be a better place IMHO.

The problem is that the average citizen, in all of these countries, US included, was taught that we need religion to know right from wrong...one religion, whatever theirs is...and the other religions are wrong.

So, they balk at removing what they were taught was how we know right from wrong, from the laws of the land...its seems illogical to them.

As a nit, there are some places in the US where toplessness for women is legal, but still unusual (New York City being an example).  But in the main TJ is correct, and certainly is so if you consider fairly recent history.

Even in NYC it's not customary and you'll catch some flak from other people even if the law doesn't come down on you.  I'll risk posting an NSFW link here:  http://www.thegloss.com/beauty/sunday-in-the-park-with-boobs/, and there are plenty of demonstrations, etc. in NYC, that turned up on the same google as this article, trying to make it legal and even customary in more places on grounds of equality.

LOL - Had not seen that.

I like how the cop is concerned that a kid might see a boob, you know, the things they suck on to get milk from...and how that seeing the boob would harm the child.

:D

Why did you blind fold your baby m'am?

Well, if a child sees a breast, it scars them for life.

How?

Well, a breast is used by mammals to feed their young...so, obviously, if the young were to SEE the breast, they would be terrified and have night mares.

Really?  I do remember some dreams about breasts when a youngster, but they were not what you'd call night mares...mostly pleasant in fact.

No, you were scarred for life...its still there, the damage caused by you seeing a breast.

If you go to church, you'll understand better. 

There was a wonderful Twitter storm a short while back with women taking cut out male nipples and then superimposing them on otherwise bare female breasts. Very witty :)

LOL

I heard about that, and it WAS very clever.

Luckily, men were intelligently designed to have that milk dispensing equipment but without the milk producing equipment.

Perhaps the intelligent designer also knew some men might want to change their birth gender and be ABLE to nurse their young...and designed men to be able to more easily become woman if they wanted to.

:D

 Was that a BOOB?  It's been so long since I've seen one out taking a walk.

I hate religion and it's centuries-old baggage.

In Oregon it's legal to be absolutely and totally nude but not naughty, by which I mean "indecent." In other words, here's the law:

* 163.465 Public indecency.

(1) A person commits the crime of public indecency if while in, or in view of, a public place the person performs:

(a) An act of sexual intercourse; or

(b) An act of deviate sexual intercourse; or

(c) An act of exposing the genitals of the person with the intent of arousing the sexual desire of the person or another person.

I'm not sure why (b) is necessary given (a), but with the exception of local laws on the subject, this is the state's position.

LOL

Good point about the A) and B) seeming an unnecessary detail.

Besides, who exactly had codified what sex IS deviate?

I mean, people can be pretty kinky...so, HOW much does one need to deviate from the middle of the bell curve to count on that one?

C) is also a bit vague...INTENT?

That's a mind reading issue I think?

Maybe they should add the word "failed" just before the word intent, and after "the"?

I mean, if it WORKS, who's the victim after all, right?

Officer, arrest him, he made me want to fuck his brains out by showing me his gorgeous giant cock!

Oh, wait, wait another 20 minutes, THEN arrest him!

-----------------

and, in c) again, the "or another person". 

That's a bit confusing.  I mean, I whip out the monstrous one eyed sailor and three chicks and three gay guys wanna bang me (good day perhaps?)...and, the cop has to fill out the report as to who was "the person" and, who was "another person"?

He meant it for ME!!!

No, for ME!

I KNOW it was meant for ME!

Etc....poor cop.

:)

Otherwise. its like, "wait, what?!  No No No No NO, I did NOT mean to arouse the person or the other person, or even the other other person, I wanted her to simply see my giant cock and feel sorry for me that almost no one had the orifice to take it all and truly satisfy me."

Cop: Oh, OK, as long as you didn't intend to arouse them, that's fine....everyone move along here, show's over.

And here's my card with my number on it, in case you need to discuss this further, provide more evidence, etc....

:D

Lots of laws involve gauging intent, don't they? Not just laws regarding indecency.

Another example, that can't really be considered Malum Prohibitum...is the difference between manslaughter (or negligent homicide) and murder.   It's a matter of intent.

Lack of intent is a valid—and sometimes conclusive—defense in a lot of cases.

In cases where the DEGREE of punishment takes intent into account, such as an accidental or unintended death or damage.

IE: Manslaughter vs 1st degree murder...

But, yeah, if I am a chef in the white house who accidentally misprepares the president's puffer fish dinner and he dies of poisoning, I was not assassinating the president...on purpose.

I'm still in deep doo doo of course....unless perhaps  it was puffer fish for Trump ~ 3-4 years from now...who knows.

:D

RSS

© 2021   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service