The Code Nov 21st, 2006

[sandblaster]

How so? They both deviate from what is considered normal behavier? Neither hurts anybody. Why can't I pee in public?

[Burning Sheep Productions]

It makes things deteriorate quicker.

[Luke B.]

How so? They both deviate from what is considered normal behavier? Neither hurts anybody. Why can't I pee in public?

You misunderstand me.

Peeing in public would be something you choose to do.

If, on the other hand, a bully threatened violence against you unless you peed in public, and you changed your 'normal behaviour' of 'not peeing in public' into the 'bully's normal' of peeing in public, you would be acting as the hypothetical coward I refer to, by changing yourself to be what the bully says you should be.

[sandblaster]

If not peeing was very important to me then I would fight it. However if it was a fight I could never win and would reauslt in great physical pain then the braver thing to do would use my head and pee in public.

[Bocaj Claw]

Simple dimple! It is unhygenic to pee wherever you like for one thing. Dumping waste wherever one pleases contributes to the spread of plagues. Therefore, public urination does hurt somebody.

For another thing, you're placing (once again) the act of wearing "weird" clothes and the act of public urination at the same distance from your personal normal point zero. They are not equivalent.

[sandblaster]

Okay replace peeing with making very smelly farts. They don't hurt people, although they do cause discomfort just like wierd disturbing clothing. Should I be berated if I constantly fart in crowds?

[Luke B.]

Okay replace peeing with making very smelly farts. They don't hurt people, although they do cause discomfort just like wierd disturbing clothing. Should I be berated if I constantly fart in crowds?

No.

Neither should you be beaten for wearing a shirt that's the 'wrong color' or whatever other excuse bullies use when they want to see another person in pain.

[IceDragon]

I will not change just to be normal. No one should have to. Those who are just normal for the sake of being normal are not only not worth knowing, they are those who are resigned to be forgotten by history.

[Phoenix]

There is a difference in expressing yourself because you believe in something or genually like that, and rebelling just to rebel which is normally the case.

A lot of people conform just to conform, too, which is just the same...

I am saying that the wierd person deserves partial blame. It is not fair that they can't dress weird without people reacting in a normal fashion but they can avoid it by not acting weird.

How do you define 'reacting in a normal fashion'? I assume you mean beating people up, since this reaction 'is not fair' and should 'be avoided'. Is that the 'normal' reaction the average human employs when they see someone dressed weird? To run over and knock the seven bells out of them? If I see someone dressed weird, my first reaction is usually 'heh, that's unusual'. And that's it. I don't care if someone chooses to look different - why should I? The world won't explode. Does that make me 'abnormal', that the fact that someone has different-looking cloth on their body doesn't incite me to disgust and rage?

On the subject of trouser-chains you mentioned earlier, many 'normal' people wear pieces of MEHTUL on their bodies, too, that serve absolutely no use or function - chains round the neck, for example, bands of MEHTUL round the fingers, or studs of MEHTUL inserted in the ears.

I do see where you're coming from; if people don't want to get beaten up, they should submit if someone like that is attacking them. But then, that's not a satisfactoy solution either, because then they have to suffer the pressure of always repressing their desires, and the disgust of knowing that they can't stand up for themselves. Either way they go, it won't lead to happiness for them, so what can they do?

(Note: I've no intention of sounding offensive here, so apologies if I have)

[Muninn]

What is weird?

[Angstwolf]

The first step is to examine an old document to see if a random footnote reveals the secret location of an antimatter bomb set to blow up the Priory of Scion in their secret lair in the Vatican. ... Wait, what?

That's Angels & Demons, silly!

[Dr. Doog]

if people don't want to get beaten up, they should submit if someone like that is attacking them. But then, that's not a satisfactoy solution either, because then they have to suffer the pressure of always repressing their desires, and the disgust of knowing that they can't stand up for themselves. Either way they go, it won't lead to happiness for them, so what can they do?

Not fighting back doesn't mean you want to. I'll never lay a hand on a soul, even if you started to beat me up. I wouldn't want to, and I wouldn't be repressing any desires. If you don't like pacifism but you are one anyway, you're missing the point. (this of course excludes a simple smack shared with a friend)

[Bocaj Claw]

The first step is to examine an old document to see if a random footnote reveals the secret location of an antimatter bomb set to blow up the Priory of Scion in their secret lair in the Vatican. ... Wait, what?

That's Angels & Demons, silly!

Was that the one where the bad guy was middle eastern and the other bad guy was SPOILER?

[Angstwolf]

The first step is to examine an old document to see if a random footnote reveals the secret location of an antimatter bomb set to blow up the Priory of Scion in their secret lair in the Vatican. ... Wait, what?

That's Angels & Demons, silly!

Was that the one where the bad guy was middle eastern and the other bad guy was SPOILER?

Yes.

[Bocaj Claw]

My favorite part of that book is when I realized that it had basically the same plot structure and plot twist as the Da Vinci code. Oh, I laughed.

My least favorite part is when I saw a commercial for the remake of Charlotte's web.