No it's not about you, it's the actions you take against other people that may be unethical, it's a terrible thing when people act against their conscience as history shows.
Naked Rambler Jailed
- Thread starter Burnsy2023
- Start date
No it's not about you, it's the actions you take against other people that may be unethical, it's a terrible thing when people act against their conscience as history shows.
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,749
- Location
- Southampton, UK
Ethics are a key part in all decisions the police make, that doesn't mean that my personal political views are included though.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 20,345
- Location
- Stanley Hotel, Colorado
I believe he is fairly hard core about things but doesnt get very far usually, arrested after 50 miles and then jail for a year or so and again. Put him on a ship to colonies down under would make sense here, he could wander the outback and be happy. He could do that himself, I doubt they'd find him if he took it seriously
Last time I was there I saw hundreds. There was a huge nudist parade along the harbour.
you could say the same for;
monkeys,
rats,
chipmunks,
lions,
deer,
super furry squirrels.
having fur don't mean you're gonna be able to live in the ****ing Arctic you gimp.
you however can sit in a sauna and not die while your dog will, nothing to do with clothes or fur but because you like a pig can sweat.
The most plausible explanation for the relatively low level of body hair in humans is that reduced body hair conferred an advantage in hot places (especially in persistance hunting) and thus an advantage in reproduction. That's evolution.
If humans living in colder areas developed more body hair over generations because doing so conferred an advantage in reproduction, that would also be evolution.
Wearing clothes cannot possibly be evolution. It's an artificial workaround by a species that excels at using tools. It isn't a change in the species.
You clearly don't understand even the basics of what evolution is. The idea that people have evolved to wear clothes is nonsense. Evolution in this context would be physiological changes to humans that would enable them to thrive in colder places without having to use artificial things to keep warm.
how come Arabs are hairier than Scandinavians then?
Associate
- Joined
- 14 Oct 2009
- Posts
- 1,938
- Location
- Rotherham. S.Yorks
he deserves jail time, if i was out with my daughter and came across this naked weirdo then how do u explain that to a child? he needs locking up!
If it were me I would explain to my daughter that not everyone in life is the same and that this person likes to walk around without clothes. I'd further explain what the consequences are for someone doing that in a modern society but also take it as an opportunity to explain to her that we all have to make our way through life in the best way we see fit without affecting others.
If there were any implied threat by this persons actions to my daughter then that would be another matter of course. I'm very protective of my daughter and it wouldn't be pretty if I thought she were threatened in any way. But I'm assuming in this example we are merely suggesting a naked person is walking past or in the near vicinity with no threat implied to others.
Exactly. You wont be able to survive right? Those animals had to "evolve" differently to either be able to wear clothes in order to to survive there as in our case, or evolve into something like a polar bear.
Last edited:
I didn't say wearing clothes IS evolution. I said "we evolved to wear clothes."
This is ludicrous I'm honestly getting trolled here. You say we're a "species that excels at using tools" but straight after you say "It isn't a change in the species". By what process, do you believe we came about our lovely five fingered hands in order to be able to "excel" at using these lovely precision tools then? What process?
What??
That would be going back to a primitive level of life! Funnily enough "devolution" as I jokingly referred to it earlier! That cant happen!
And this "physiological change" has already happened mate! It is increasing brain capacity and dexterity (leading us to start controlling fire, eating prepared and cooked food, using its skins, etc) pair this with decreasing size of teeth for example. Humans are evolved to have less reliance on primitive methods of survival like teeth and raw meat and fur, that's why teeth have gotten smaller.
We cant have a "physiological change" back in the opposite direction as you seem to think that's what evolution is!... That's devolution, it cant happen.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,758
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
I do agree with others in here that the vast majority of kids would just point, laugh and probably come out with a gem like "Why has that man got a small ****?".
It's only us adults who are prudes.
It's my house, my rules, I sleep in the buff and walk to the toilet in the buff so many times over the last 28 years my daughters have seen me nude when we accidentally meet on the landing and I normally get a "Daaaaaaaaad".
The other week one of the boyfriends saw me on the landing and just said "Whoah, the boys are out of the barracks"
It's only us adults who are prudes.
It's my house, my rules, I sleep in the buff and walk to the toilet in the buff so many times over the last 28 years my daughters have seen me nude when we accidentally meet on the landing and I normally get a "Daaaaaaaaad".
The other week one of the boyfriends saw me on the landing and just said "Whoah, the boys are out of the barracks"
What? Who's talking about sex?
What you cant seem to differentiate between is a child who's grown up in a nudist environment who's accustomed to seeing knobs from birth, and how different this is from a small child who's never seen a knob ever in their life who happens to get exposed to a random old man's knob in completely unexpected circumstances.
Well you come into this thread talking about people sticking carrots in their vaginas, when the thread is about someone walking around naked.
Aside from his make believe evolution argument, even if somehow humans had evolved to wear clothes that doesn't mean people that don't wear clothes should be vilified.
"He prefers not to wear clothes, some people don't, darling daughter."
What's the worst that could happen? shock horror, she may grow up to be relaxed about her body and nudity.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 10,263
- Location
- UK
OP let your daughter walk around naked and tell us how you would feel about it. There is a thing called modesty you know 
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,749
- Location
- Southampton, UK
OP let your daughter walk around naked and tell us how you would feel about it. There is a thing called modesty you know
That's like being offending when young girls don't was l wear tops at beaches. For good sake let them be kids and don't sexualise everything.
It's not sexualising anything or anyone. It's called protecting your child while they remain blissfully unaware. They don't know peados exist now do they? How can anyone possibly be so negligent.OP let your daughter walk around naked and tell us how you would feel about it. There is a thing called modesty you know
Exactly. It's absolutely unfair and downright disgusting and pretty negligent to let your child be freely added to some peado's **** bank. If they want to be exhibitionists when they're older it's their choice, until that time it's not hard to protect your kids and cover them up.
Last edited:
Evolution isn't an efficiently planned method of reaching a predetermined goal. It isn't planned and it doesn't have a goal, so there can easily be variations between seperated populations. Evolution will tend to result in adaptations better suited to local conditions, but it won't always do so because it isn't planned and doesn't have a goal. The only time evolution will definitely result in adaptations better suited to local conditions is when those conditions impose a selection pressure so strong that the adaptation is essential for survival (and even then only if the species survives).
And, as has been repeatedly stated and explained in some detail, wearing clothes has no connection to evolution. In any case, no species can evolve to do anything. That's fundamentally not how evolution works. You are reversing cause and effect. Evolution is reactive, not proactive and it doesn't have a mind. It does not have and cannot have any goal.
If you stopped using words that you don't know the meaning of, you might be able to make your point better. As it stands, nobody knows what point you're trying to make.
Evolution. Since you don't know what that is and are determined to not know, there's no way I can explain it to you.
What??
That would be going back to a primitive level of life! Funnily enough "devolution" as I jokingly referred to it earlier! That cant happen!
It would be adapting to conditions. Which is evolution. Which can happen. Which does happen. It even happens with modern humans, although we slow it down a huge amount by adapting our conditions to us rather than the other way around whenever we can.
You're making yourself look silly by your refusal to either learn anything about evolution or stop using the word.