Naked Trucker Man

Sorry 'The Persian Conversion' ... if I knew that was you I would have invited you in!

And I would have respectfully declined!

Ahh come on lol... I mean, I know it might not be what you wanted to look at, but seeing the upper 40% of a fat man in his bed isn't that big a deal, there are lots worse things out there. BTW, if you only saw the upper 40%, you really don't know if he was naked or not. I mean, he could have had his shirt off and been wearing pants or at least his boxers or whatever, you didn't see so you don't know.

I have always thought its kinda funny how we can be so offended at seeing naked people (especially on TV, i.e. censorship) and even diligently try to protect kids from seeing it even though we all have the same equipment, but most of the same people have no problem with watching countless depictions of violence, gunfights, murder, etc. on TV and playing out the role of a killer in games and whatnot. Its somewhat ironic to me.

Ahh come on lol... I mean, I know it might not be what you wanted to look at, but seeing the upper 40% of a fat man in his bed isn't that big a deal, there are lots worse things out there. BTW, if you only saw the upper 40%, you really don't know if he was naked or not. I mean, he could have had his shirt off and been wearing pants or at least his boxers or whatever, you didn't see so you don't know.

I have always thought its kinda funny how we can be so offended at seeing naked people (especially on TV, i.e. censorship) and even diligently try to protect kids from seeing it even though we all have the same equipment, but most of the same people have no problem with watching countless depictions of violence, gunfights, murder, etc. on TV and playing out the role of a killer in games and whatnot. Its somewhat ironic to me.

No no no, you don't understand, it was the upper 40% of him laying sideways, so I could see his left nipple, left hip, left thigh, etc.

And I think the whole violence vs nudity thing has to do with the fact that sex and the reproductive areas are inherently a private thing, and there's a certain sense of subconscious violation that goes along with even being exposed to it second-hand, especially in kids. Violence, on the other hand, is found commonly and openly in nature, is often justified (as in war), and usually glorified in such cases. It's inherently okay to defend oneself violently if presented with a violent attack (as in self-defense), and the case can be made that the protagonist in almost any violent media is acting to defend himself or others from worse violence. Think "Lord of the Rings:" pure good vs pure evil, with the good guys being violent because they have to be to survive.

Nudity doesn't bother me. I mean, it's how we came into this world, isn't it? What's the big deal?

But then again, I'm third-generation Swedish, and nudity ain't a big deal to Scandinavians from what I've seen. I guess we never got that dose of Puritanical prudery that everyone else seems to have been exposed to.

Next time I promise to close the curtains. If I'd known it was you, I would've put on some clothes and come over for a chat.

Daw.

You're such a prude, it's so cute. :D

And I think the whole violence vs nudity thing has to do with the fact that sex and the reproductive areas are inherently a private thing, and there's a certain sense of subconscious violation that goes along with even being exposed to it second-hand, especially in kids. Violence, on the other hand, is found commonly and openly in nature, is often justified (as in war), and usually glorified in such cases. It's inherently okay to defend oneself violently if presented with a violent attack (as in self-defense), and the case can be made that the protagonist in almost any violent media is acting to defend himself or others from worse violence. Think "Lord of the Rings:" pure good vs pure evil, with the good guys being violent because they have to be to survive.

Just playing a bit of a devil's advocate here, but I would like to point out that "the fact that sex and the reproductive areas are inherently a private thing, and there's a certain sense of subconscious violation that goes along with even being exposed to it second-hand, especially in kids" is purely a construct of the society in which we live, its a social taboo, something we learn from our families and friends growing up. But there's nothing natural about it. In fact there are many indigenous cultures especially ones isolated from "modern" civilization, in which these taboos against the human body being displayed simply do not exist.

Which brings me to "Violence, on the other hand, is found commonly and openly in nature..." This is of course, correct. And nudity isn't found commonly and openly in nature? When's the last time you saw a lion or chimpanzee wearing underwear or attempting to hide its junk for fear of embarrassment or harassment from the other animals? There exists no such taboo against nudity in nature. People, like all the other creatures on earth, are born without clothes. That is our natural state. Clothing does serve a purpose in keeping us warm in cold weather, but honestly the whole freaking out over nudity thing wouldn't even be an issue if it weren't for modern society artificially imposing such taboos on us from an early age.

for me, the main issue of violence vs nudity is that one kills people but is openly accepted, while the other is really harmless (other than if you want to say seeing someone naked causes psychological damage, which again is purely due to our society's imposed view of it rather than any actual harm) and yet the really harmless state of not wearing clothes is somehow seen as worse or more taboo that killing. Pretty ironic, to me.

Anyway I'm not suggesting we all start a nudist truckers club or anything lol, just making conversation. :)

And I think the whole violence vs nudity thing has to do with the fact that sex and the reproductive areas are inherently a private thing, and there's a certain sense of subconscious violation that goes along with even being exposed to it second-hand, especially in kids. Violence, on the other hand, is found commonly and openly in nature, is often justified (as in war), and usually glorified in such cases. It's inherently okay to defend oneself violently if presented with a violent attack (as in self-defense), and the case can be made that the protagonist in almost any violent media is acting to defend himself or others from worse violence. Think "Lord of the Rings:" pure good vs pure evil, with the good guys being violent because they have to be to survive.

Just playing a bit of a devil's advocate here, but I would like to point out that "the fact that sex and the reproductive areas are inherently a private thing, and there's a certain sense of subconscious violation that goes along with even being exposed to it second-hand, especially in kids" is purely a construct of the society in which we live, its a social taboo, something we learn from our families and friends growing up. But there's nothing natural about it. In fact there are many indigenous cultures especially ones isolated from "modern" civilization, in which these taboos against the human body being displayed simply do not exist.

Which brings me to "Violence, on the other hand, is found commonly and openly in nature..." This is of course, correct. And nudity isn't found commonly and openly in nature? When's the last time you saw a lion or chimpanzee wearing underwear or attempting to hide its junk for fear of embarrassment or harassment from the other animals? There exists no such taboo against nudity in nature. People, like all the other creatures on earth, are born without clothes. That is our natural state. Clothing does serve a purpose in keeping us warm in cold weather, but honestly the whole freaking out over nudity thing wouldn't even be an issue if it weren't for modern society artificially imposing such taboos on us from an early age.

for me, the main issue of violence vs nudity is that one kills people but is openly accepted, while the other is really harmless (other than if you want to say seeing someone naked causes psychological damage, which again is purely due to our society's imposed view of it rather than any actual harm) and yet the really harmless state of not wearing clothes is somehow seen as worse or more taboo that killing. Pretty ironic, to me.

Anyway I'm not suggesting we all start a nudist truckers club or anything lol, just making conversation. :)

I see what you're saying. I guess to me, the difference between us and chimpanzees is more than just a few genes. I'm not trying to start a heated religious debate here, just stating my views. Open nudity and sexuality, in my opinion, goes against the laws laid out by our Creator, and promote lust, impurity and adultery, which I believe are sins. Justified violence, in my opinion, does not. Decency, rationality, modesty, morality, these are what make us different from the animals. Again, these are my beliefs, others are free to have their own beliefs. Please, no one start a flame war over it.

I certainly won't start any flame wars over that, everyone's entitled to believe what they wish. I would like to point out though, that the bible (if that is what you believe) outrightly condemns the use of violence and killing many times, that's where the whole "turn the other cheek" thing came from that Jesus was quoted as saying. If your enemy strikes you, as a christian you are supposed to "turn the other cheek" i.e. remain non-violent and non-combatant. Most other non-christian religions of the world also preach non-violence as well, with a handful of exceptions for certain situations.

I certainly won't start any flame wars over that, everyone's entitled to believe what they wish. I would like to point out though, that the bible (if that is what you believe) outrightly condemns the use of violence and killing many times, that's where the whole "turn the other cheek" thing came from that Jesus was quoted as saying. If your enemy strikes you, as a christian you are supposed to "turn the other cheek" i.e. remain non-violent and non-combatant. Most other non-christian religions of the world also preach non-violence as well, with a handful of exceptions for certain situations.

I agree, but I think there's a misconception that "turn the other cheek" means you're never allowed to defend yourself or others, that you just have to be a meek, passive little sheep. Like there is the concept of a "just war." For example, in the early 20th century the Catholics of Mexico fought back against a government which was actively persecuting them, pillaging and destroying churches, executing priests, etc. A number of people were canonized because of their actions in that struggle. And a more recent example is the Pope actually calling for war against ISIS after what happened in Paris.

If a man breaks into your house and tries to rape and murder your daughter, "turn the other cheek" does not apply, you don't go and offer him your wife as well. You defend your family, defend the innocent, and fight off the attacker, even if it means using lethal force.

Also, Ive been told by more than one priest that the traditional view of state-run execution is that it is acceptable for very serious crimes, and if it serves as a deterrent for the rest of society.

These are just a few examples. I won't even go into the money changer's tables.

"And a more recent example is the Pope actually calling for war against ISIS after what happened in Paris."

I sincerely doubt that the Pope would openly call for war. Perhaps you misread? Please share the link if you can.

Peace