WelcomeWEFreedomWindsorEssexCounty-ActionCommunicationsRalliesResourcesSocialEventsWednesdayNightMeetings-ActivismAgoraAgorismCanadaCommonLawCommunityDataCentersDataCentresDoocracyFarmersMarketIntroductionsNaturalLawNewslettersOntarioOrganizingOutreachProjexProjexWikiRalliesResistanceAnalysisSoireesSoiréesWikiSpooksWindsorElectionsTop Subs
3
Opinions - - (+2|-0)
Men should be able to shop without a shirt(self)
4 commentsbyx0x7

Wouldn't life be more convenient if you didn't need to throw on a shirt. You'd save time. It's one less thing you'd have to do to be presentable in public.

Men are allowed to go other places without a shirt. So what's so special about a store? You think your store is better than the beach or something. Your store couldn't hope to be as cool as the beach, in part because it has lame ass rules that have nothing to do with shopping or being able to sell more stuff.

No shirt, no shoes, no service. Just because you can make a catchy phase with expanding length per clause doesn't make it reasonable.

To that I say, friends, nobles, countrymen, take off your shirts!

I guess equality becomes an issue. But no one is boycotting the beach over equality. So similarly your store's popularity will not be impacted by an equality issue. And as a store owner that's what should matter. Restriction for equality makes no sense anyway. I remember a conversation I had with a realtor once and he was explaining the faux-ethics they have to follow. He was buying in on it, but I saw through the bullshit. He said you can't describe a property as being walking distance from a store. Why? Because it fails to take into account people who can't walk. So instead you should describe it as being near. So we replaced one already subjective term for one that is 100x more subjective? So now everyone just has less information including the lame who probably have some idea of what walking distance is over "near." It makes no sense to reduce the options of one person just to create a meaningless parity with another person.

In short this is why men should be allowed to shop without a shirt.

Discuss.

Comment preview

[-]WhiteCollarCriminal2(+2|0)

I think women should be allowed to shop without a shirt. But there has to be a "look" clause. If you "look" ugly, by my standards of course, back on with your shirt! 😂

parentlinkreply
[-]JasonCarswell2(+2|0)

Also, women should be able to shop without a shirt.

However, I don't want to see most people's flesh. Especially fatties.

I don't even like seeing the stupid people wearing pajamas and flipflops everywhere.

And then there's the hair and body odour. Especially in Windsoristan.

I'm within talking distance of some near things.

parentlinkreply
[-]x0x71(+1|0)

Amen brother. Though clothes can actually contribute to body odor. How about this, the amount of clothes you have to wear at minimum in public is democratically decided for every person by the opposite sex, direct democracy. We use goatmatrix style polls and and we have predefined levels. Then society can decide if it's ok for you to wear yoga pants. If you are a guy and have any level of muscular definition now you don't have to wear a shirt.

Then it becomes a status symbol to go without a shirt. "Society said I can do this."

parentlinkreply
[-]JasonCarswell1(+1|0)

Clothes odour, like any odour, would be caused by lack of hygiene over time.

Since we're already going to be tracked and traced with a social credit score why not have an algorithm to include your score, hygiene schedule, and body mass index to determine if you need to hide in shame or not? Add that to your direct democracy opposite sex appeal and let the fashion police decide your fate.

"Society said I can do this." The new cool neck tattoo.

parentlinkreply