Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:

Its called I have class and a brain. People who let their underwear hang out, don't.

AvatarForm wrote:

Karon wrote:
I wish these fathers would beat the white kids who act like thugs....they just piss me off.

How does physical abuse solve your perceived problem?

Should we also wish fathers to beat their sons for wearing "skinny" jeans?

What about daughters who have piercings, tattoos and dye their hair unnatural colours?

Should we result to violence to "solve" perceived problems with how others express and represent themselves?

The only problem I have viewed here is narrow-minded bigotry and an apparent mis-understanding that violence* solves your problems.

*Yes, I understand my audience is comprised of grown adults who play with dolls that pretend to go pew-pew and kill eachother.

The point was, they act like thugs, but have never experienced it in their life. Their fathers should either A: Drop them off in a ghetto and have them find their way home or B: Kick their ass and teach them that they are being fake.

Karon wrote:

AvatarForm wrote:

Karon wrote:
I wish these fathers would beat the white kids who act like thugs....they just piss me off.

How does physical abuse solve your perceived problem?

Should we also wish fathers to beat their sons for wearing "skinny" jeans?

What about daughters who have piercings, tattoos and dye their hair unnatural colours?

Should we result to violence to "solve" perceived problems with how others express and represent themselves?

The only problem I have viewed here is narrow-minded bigotry and an apparent mis-understanding that violence* solves your problems.

*Yes, I understand my audience is comprised of grown adults who play with dolls that pretend to go pew-pew and kill eachother.

The point was, they act like thugs, but have never experienced it in their life. Their fathers should either A: Drop them off in a ghetto and have them find their way home or B: Kick their ass and teach them that they are being fake.

Because it's so much better to be a real gangster instead of a pretend one, right? These kids should definitely be more concerned with what real gangsters think of them! Also, good to know only the white kids who are sagging are the ones being fake.

Frazzled wrote:
Its called I have class and a brain. People who let their underwear hang out, don't.

Hordini wrote:Because it's so much better to be a real gangster instead of a pretend one, right? These kids should definitely be more concerned with what real gangsters think of them! Also, good to know only the white kids who are sagging are the ones being fake.

I'd also rather a bunch of "pretend" "fakers" were walking around looking like idiots than actually have some "real" "gangasta's" walking around looking and being idiots.

It also entertains me that Karon is white, yet appears to be the shining knight (I was going to say white knight, but the pun would have been too much ) of one tiny facet of "black culture" (or as I like to think of it as: "one of many different cultures that exist that anyone should be free to partake in if they so choose, no matter what colour they are born, where they are born, or how rich they or their parents are").

Edit: Fixed quotes

Karon wrote:

AvatarForm wrote:

Karon wrote:
I wish these fathers would beat the white kids who act like thugs....they just piss me off.

How does physical abuse solve your perceived problem?

Should we also wish fathers to beat their sons for wearing "skinny" jeans?

What about daughters who have piercings, tattoos and dye their hair unnatural colours?

Should we result to violence to "solve" perceived problems with how others express and represent themselves?

The only problem I have viewed here is narrow-minded bigotry and an apparent mis-understanding that violence* solves your problems.

*Yes, I understand my audience is comprised of grown adults who play with dolls that pretend to go pew-pew and kill eachother.

The point was, they act like thugs, but have never experienced it in their life. Their fathers should either A: Drop them off in a ghetto and have them find their way home or B: Kick their ass and teach them that they are being fake.

Yo, don't hate the player, hate the game! I'ma wear my pants as low as I like. In fact, feth the haters. Word to their mothers.

Yeah, I said it.

Albatross wrote:Yeah, I said it.

Shizzle to my nizzle good sir.

SilverMK2 wrote:

Albatross wrote:Yeah, I said it.

Shizzle to my nizzle good sir.

SilverMK2 wrote:(or as I like to think of it as: "one of many different cultures that exist that anyone should be free to partake in if they so choose, no matter what colour they are born, where they are born, or how rich they or their parents are").

Edit: Fixed quotes

helgrenze wrote:So you would be ok with a Scots ginger dressing and acting like a Masai? A Navaho acting like an Eastender (BBC version)? Anyone acting like a Twilight Vampire or Werewolf?

Sure. They may look a bit stupid to me, but it is their life and as long as they are not hurting anyone, go for it.

I personally am not old enough (unless you speak to Kan, that whippersnapper!) to be a proper grumpy old man, but I buy into that culture and generally aim to be as old and grumpy as possible.

Hrm. If your pants hang off your ass, then they're not serving the purpose of pants. Shorts are socially okay, and they expose your legs, so the point of articles of clothing that cover the lower portion of your body MUST BE to keep your crotch/ass covered. The way I see it, you either have to be okay with this (the bus thing), or you have to admit that pants are essentially unnecessary, and do not need to be worn, or could be worn obviously inappropriately (i.e. as a hat). Anything in between is hypocritical.

For that matter. If you think pants around your ankles are okay, then why require a shirt? Why any clothes for that matter? Why draw a line in the name of 'decency' at all?

helgrenze wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:(or as I like to think of it as: "one of many different cultures that exist that anyone should be free to partake in if they so choose, no matter what colour they are born, where they are born, or how rich they or their parents are").

Edit: Fixed quotes

So you would be ok with [...] anyone acting like a Twilight Vampire or Werewolf?

SilverMK2 wrote:

helgrenze wrote:So you would be ok with a Scots ginger dressing and acting like a Masai? A Navaho acting like an Eastender (BBC version)? Anyone acting like a Twilight Vampire or Werewolf?

Sure. They may look a bit stupid to me, but it is their life and as long as they are not hurting anyone, go for it.

I personally am not old enough (unless you speak to Kan, that whippersnapper!) to be a proper grumpy old man, but I buy into that culture and generally aim to be as old and grumpy as possible.

Grumpy fo' life. Represent.

If these simple minded young fellows were to not deport themselves in such outlandish and counterintuitive fashions, then how would one be able to recognise them for the trend-absorbed, addle-brained numbskulls that they are? Why, one might waste valuable time engaging them in conversation before coming to the realisation that they are untterly beneath one. A grim prospect indeed.

htj wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:

helgrenze wrote:So you would be ok with a Scots ginger dressing and acting like a Masai? A Navaho acting like an Eastender (BBC version)? Anyone acting like a Twilight Vampire or Werewolf?

Sure. They may look a bit stupid to me, but it is their life and as long as they are not hurting anyone, go for it.

I personally am not old enough (unless you speak to Kan, that whippersnapper!) to be a proper grumpy old man, but I buy into that culture and generally aim to be as old and grumpy as possible.

Grumpy fo' life. Represent.

If these simple minded young fellows were to not deport themselves in such outlandish and counterintuitive fashions, then how would one be able to recognise them for the trend-absorbed, addle-brained numbskulls that they are? Why, one might waste valuable time engaging them in conversation before coming to the realisation that they are untterly beneath one. A grim prospect indeed.

Honestly... how about that. Texas has a good idea.

daedalus wrote:Hrm. If your pants hang off your ass, then they're not serving the purpose of pants. Shorts are socially okay, and they expose your legs, so the point of articles of clothing that cover the lower portion of your body MUST BE to keep your crotch/ass covered. The way I see it, you either have to be okay with this (the bus thing), or you have to admit that pants are essentially unnecessary, and do not need to be worn, or could be worn obviously inappropriately (i.e. as a hat). Anything in between is hypocritical.

For that matter. If you think pants around your ankles are okay, then why require a shirt? Why any clothes for that matter? Why draw a line in the name of 'decency' at all?

I'd be fine with a naked society personally.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

daedalus wrote:Hrm. If your pants hang off your ass, then they're not serving the purpose of pants. Shorts are socially okay, and they expose your legs, so the point of articles of clothing that cover the lower portion of your body MUST BE to keep your crotch/ass covered. The way I see it, you either have to be okay with this (the bus thing), or you have to admit that pants are essentially unnecessary, and do not need to be worn, or could be worn obviously inappropriately (i.e. as a hat). Anything in between is hypocritical.

For that matter. If you think pants around your ankles are okay, then why require a shirt? Why any clothes for that matter? Why draw a line in the name of 'decency' at all?

I'd be fine with a naked society personally.

Go to a retirement home and say that.

Frazzled wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

daedalus wrote:Hrm. If your pants hang off your ass, then they're not serving the purpose of pants. Shorts are socially okay, and they expose your legs, so the point of articles of clothing that cover the lower portion of your body MUST BE to keep your crotch/ass covered. The way I see it, you either have to be okay with this (the bus thing), or you have to admit that pants are essentially unnecessary, and do not need to be worn, or could be worn obviously inappropriately (i.e. as a hat). Anything in between is hypocritical.

For that matter. If you think pants around your ankles are okay, then why require a shirt? Why any clothes for that matter? Why draw a line in the name of 'decency' at all?

I'd be fine with a naked society personally.

Go to a retirement home and say that.

Hey now, the human body is a beautiful thing...despite any sagging or wrinkles.
...I say this primarily due to the fact that I'll be sagging and wrinkling in the next few short decades myself..


EDIT:...Amusingly enough, it seems that as one get's older they tend to "reverse" the sagging of pants.

There is a direct variation between age and belt height. Or is it indirect variation? Not so good with math...

Well, I think it looks pretty stupid, but I don't care if people want to do it.

So, does anyone have strange preferences with clothing though? For example, I don't like wearing shoes very much at all. I only wear them when I go out because I have to.

Frazzled wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

daedalus wrote:Hrm. If your pants hang off your ass, then they're not serving the purpose of pants. Shorts are socially okay, and they expose your legs, so the point of articles of clothing that cover the lower portion of your body MUST BE to keep your crotch/ass covered. The way I see it, you either have to be okay with this (the bus thing), or you have to admit that pants are essentially unnecessary, and do not need to be worn, or could be worn obviously inappropriately (i.e. as a hat). Anything in between is hypocritical.

For that matter. If you think pants around your ankles are okay, then why require a shirt? Why any clothes for that matter? Why draw a line in the name of 'decency' at all?

I'd be fine with a naked society personally.

Go to a retirement home and say that.

It's not like I have to look We'd save so much on laundry and confidence would sky rocket.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

daedalus wrote:Hrm. If your pants hang off your ass, then they're not serving the purpose of pants. Shorts are socially okay, and they expose your legs, so the point of articles of clothing that cover the lower portion of your body MUST BE to keep your crotch/ass covered. The way I see it, you either have to be okay with this (the bus thing), or you have to admit that pants are essentially unnecessary, and do not need to be worn, or could be worn obviously inappropriately (i.e. as a hat). Anything in between is hypocritical.

For that matter. If you think pants around your ankles are okay, then why require a shirt? Why any clothes for that matter? Why draw a line in the name of 'decency' at all?

I'd be fine with a naked society personally.

Go to a retirement home and say that.

It's not like I have to look We'd save so much on laundry and confidence would sky rocket.

While I don't have this problem, (obviously ) but what about the men with less than impressive sized I can't imagine this being good for their confidence.

Cheesecat wrote:
While I don't have this problem, (obviously ) but what about the men with less than impressive sized I can't imagine this being good for their confidence.

Most men are around 6 inches. Anyone who tells you that most men are anything else is lying. Size is only one factor in the equation anyway.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

Cheesecat wrote:
While I don't have this problem, (obviously ) but what about the men with less than impressive sized I can't imagine this being good for their confidence.

Most men are around 6 inches. Anyone who tells you that most men are anything else is lying. Size is only one factor in the equation anyway.

I was just joking, either way going to a swimming pool change room really shows that there isn't as much variance in size as one would think (wow that sounds really pedo of me ). Yeah, I knew about

the six inch thing too, but there's always exceptions which is what I was getting at.

Cheesecat wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

Cheesecat wrote:
While I don't have this problem, (obviously ) but what about the men with less than impressive sized I can't imagine this being good for their confidence.

Most men are around 6 inches. Anyone who tells you that most men are anything else is lying. Size is only one factor in the equation anyway.

I was just joking, either way going to a swimming pool change room really shows that there isn't as much variance in size as one would think (wow that sounds really pedo of me ). Yeah, I knew about

the six inch thing too, but there's always exceptions which is what I was getting at.

Ha, yeah. Those exceptions are making their money in a certain industry, however :3 Quickly, back on topic!

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

Cheesecat wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

Cheesecat wrote:
While I don't have this problem, (obviously ) but what about the men with less than impressive sized I can't imagine this being good for their confidence.

Most men are around 6 inches. Anyone who tells you that most men are anything else is lying. Size is only one factor in the equation anyway.

I was just joking, either way going to a swimming pool change room really shows that there isn't as much variance in size as one would think (wow that sounds really pedo of me ). Yeah, I knew about

the six inch thing too, but there's always exceptions which is what I was getting at.

Ha, yeah. Those exceptions are making their money in a certain industry, however :3 Quickly, back on topic!

By exceptions I was more referring to this. But if were talking about the opposite end of the spectrum, it wouldn't surprise me if some of them male porn stars were taking male enhancement pills such as ExtenZe's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micropenis

Either way that's enough derailing, now back on-track.

...So yeah, I don't like the low-pants, gangsta-style look but I think people should be able to wear what they want (at least in most circumstances ) regardless if I agree with their fashion choices or not.

You should see the Howard Stern segment about that. It honestly wouldn't bother me. But we're getting back on topic. So, saggy pants and old people who don't like them.

Aren't use nerds the one who preach you shouldn't care what other people think of you.
Hence the lacking style we have been stereotyped with and nasty BO?
Its funny because these people mare doing just that and we yell at them.
but seriously, we must ask the purpose of pants. Make sure you remember the purpose of underwear when trying to hypothesis the reason for pants. Could lead to an interesting discussion.

SilverMK2 wrote:

Hordini wrote:Because it's so much better to be a real gangster instead of a pretend one, right? These kids should definitely be more concerned with what real gangsters think of them! Also, good to know only the white kids who are sagging are the ones being fake.

I'd also rather a bunch of "pretend" "fakers" were walking around looking like idiots than actually have some "real" "gangasta's" walking around looking and being idiots.

It also entertains me that Karon is white, yet appears to be the shining knight (I was going to say white knight, but the pun would have been too much ) of one tiny facet of "black culture" (or as I like to think of it as: "one of many different cultures that exist that anyone should be free to partake in if they so choose, no matter what colour they are born, where they are born, or how rich they or their parents are").

Edit: Fixed quotes

I won't go into my personal upbringing to prove a point. People shouldn't try to act like something they know they aren't.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

daedalus wrote:Hrm. If your pants hang off your ass, then they're not serving the purpose of pants. Shorts are socially okay, and they expose your legs, so the point of articles of clothing that cover the lower portion of your body MUST BE to keep your crotch/ass covered. The way I see it, you either have to be okay with this (the bus thing), or you have to admit that pants are essentially unnecessary, and do not need to be worn, or could be worn obviously inappropriately (i.e. as a hat). Anything in between is hypocritical.

For that matter. If you think pants around your ankles are okay, then why require a shirt? Why any clothes for that matter? Why draw a line in the name of 'decency' at all?

I'd be fine with a naked society personally.

And I gotta say: I totally respect that. I just think it should be one way or the other. Pants around the ankles =/= pants.

Mewiththeface wrote:Aren't use nerds the one who preach you shouldn't care what other people think of you.
Hence the lacking style we have been stereotyped with and nasty BO?
Its funny because these people mare doing just that and we yell at them.
but seriously, we must ask the purpose of pants. Make sure you remember the purpose of underwear when trying to hypothesis the reason for pants. Could lead to an interesting discussion.

Well the purpose of underwear is to prevent body secretions from getting on you clothes and pants covers your lower body, keeps heat in and protects it from certain surfaces.