When is it OK to lie?

[Roo]

Yeah, I know you all lie.

SINNERS!!

*ahem* This is a discussion of the morality of lying and when and why people should be allowed to do it.

I'll define lying as:

To lie =df to make a believed-false statement to another person with the intention that that other person believe that statement to be true.

Lies run the gamut from social lies (that dress doesn't make your butt look fat) to politicians lying about the state of the country and everything between and beyond.

Several philosophers, chiefly among them, Immanuel Kant, Thomas Aquinas and Saint Augustine all reason that all lying should be prohibited. They argue that it takes away people's right to reason when the truth is not given to them.

Virtue ethics also contends that lying is not acceptable since it devalues someone's character.

But the utilitarians disagree and say that lying is acceptable if more people are spared from being hurt from the lie. But that leaves it in the hands of the people doing the lying to judge whether people are being hurt.


So why do you lie and when is it OK?

[mswas]

I think the first part of this that needs to be examined is the transactory economy of lying. Information is a commodity, and as such we hold power over the truth as a form of metaphysical currency. One has more power if they have access to privileged information.

Then the second part is the problem as related by Pontius Pilate to Jesus just before he washes his hands and seals his fate. 'What is Truth?', truth can be highly subjective and one truth can supplant another. In this case, the religious truth of this Judaic heretic was irrelevant to the Roman Governor, though I've always read that bit as Pilate having sympathy for Jesus.

[Roo]

Originally Posted by mswas

I think the first part of this that needs to be examined is the transactory economy of lying. Information is a commodity, and as such we hold power over the truth as a form of metaphysical currency. One has more power if they have access to privileged information.

Does that make it acceptable then to not tell the truth because it gains power?

Originally Posted by mswas

Then the second part is the problem as related by Pontius Pilate to Jesus just before he washes his hands and seals his fate. 'What is Truth?', truth can be highly subjective and one truth can supplant another. In this case, the religious truth of this Judaic heretic was irrelevant to the Roman Governor, though I've always read that bit as Pilate having sympathy for Jesus.

Truth is from the perspective of the person saying the thing. So if Pilate believed it to be the truth, then it was for him. If he didn't believe it, then it's a lie. In the story, the problem is that it's not possible to know what he really believed. I've heard sermons on dissecting what people think he believed by small pieces of evidence of his actions.

[The Superhero]

SELLECK WATERFALL SANDWICH!

[severe delays]

Originally Posted by Roo

Does that make it acceptable then to not tell the truth because it gains power?

It's not necessarily about personal power. It may be about the best gain for people as a whole. Consider someone who has the information that there is a bomb in a crowded shopping mall. The person who has that information is in a position where they literally have control over whether others live or die. But how to deal with the information? They could make an announcement giving the absolute truth. "There is a bomb in the northeast corner of the store. It will go off very soon. If you are nearby you will certainly die. If you are still within the store you will probably also die or be horribly injured as bits of the building collapse on you".

The problem with that sort of communication of the truth is that it engenders panic. A stampede of panicking people means that some could be killed in the rush to get out. They may not have been killed had the person with the information told a half-truth. "Due to a reported emergency, all customers must leave the building immediately". The second statement is calmer, has enough vagueness to not panic people yet also enough vagueness to make people attend to it and leave quietly and quickly. The end result is that by withholding the truth (at least in part) you have done greater good than by being completely honest.

To debate something philosphically often misses the realities of life. We could all kick this up and down and come to agreement that either it is always wrong to lie or it is not. But then we'd go out in the world and find occasions where life proved us wrong for that particular circumstance. For example, my view is that to lie to gain personal power is wrong. But I acknowledge that I benefit from others lying - nobody tells me explicitly that my cheap tshirt from ASDA (WalMart) was made overseas by someone in a factory working long hours for little money. By concealing the truth they gain but so do I because I don't have to think about truth. So now I cannot say that it is wrong to lie to make personal gain because I directly benefit from the lies of others. That's a really poor example but my brain is tired today and I can't think of a better one.

[Roo]

Originally Posted by severe delays

It may be about the best gain for people as a whole.

Yes, that's the utilitarian view from the OP:

Originally Posted by Roo

But the utilitarians disagree and say that lying is acceptable if more people are spared from being hurt from the lie. But that leaves it in the hands of the people doing the lying to judge whether people are being hurt.

Politicians often use that view to justify their actions. And there are lots of examples that have been raised, but first, I don't think they're routinely faced by most people, and I also think that those complicated situations can be unpacked and often are in real life to guide people on what is acceptable.

Originally Posted by severe delays

To debate something philosphically often misses the realities of life.

That's true of any philosophical discussion. Do philosophical discussions have value?

Originally Posted by severe delays

We could all kick this up and down and come to agreement that either it is always wrong to lie or it is not. But then we'd go out in the world and find occasions where life proved us wrong for that particular circumstance. For example, my view is that to lie to gain personal power is wrong. But I acknowledge that I benefit from others lying - nobody tells me explicitly that my cheap tshirt from ASDA (WalMart) was made overseas by someone in a factory working long hours for little money. By concealing the truth they gain but so do I because I don't have to think about truth. So now I cannot say that it is wrong to lie to make personal gain because I directly benefit from the lies of others. That's a really poor example but my brain is tired today and I can't think of a better one.

I'm not sure about this last example. There was a thread on the SDMB a couple weeks ago where the OP asked people to see where their shirt was made. Almost everyone came up with an answer. I didn't see any people who stated that they couldn't tell. I think it's easy to tell what country a shirt is made, and it's probably not that hard to find out whether the shirt is made in a place with poor working conditions.

So the lie on the part of the shirt-seller is not that obvious. If people want to disregard the truth, that's a little different.

[severe delays]

Originally Posted by Roo

Yes, that's the utilitarian view from the OP:

Politicians often use that view to justify their actions. And there are lots of examples that have been raised, but first, I don't think they're routinely faced by most people, and I also think that those complicated situations can be unpacked and often are in real life to guide people on what is acceptable.


That's true of any philosophical discussion. Do philosophical discussions have value?

I'm not sure about this last example. There was a thread on the SDMB a couple weeks ago where the OP asked people to see where their shirt was made. Almost everyone came up with an answer. I didn't see any people who stated that they couldn't tell. I think it's easy to tell what country a shirt is made, and it's probably not that hard to find out whether the shirt is made in a place with poor working conditions.

So the lie on the part of the shirt-seller is not that obvious. If people want to disregard the truth, that's a little different.

I'd disagree. I could probably tell where my shirt comes from but that wasn't what I was talking about here. I'm saying that the shirt seller chooses not to make it obvious and the buyer chooses to accept the lie. Both know that there is a lie of omission there but for convenience (personal gain) they both ignore the lie.

[backyard]

I'll take this on for a moment.

This is fairly easy for me, since I don't think there's an absolute Truth. Therefore, if everything we say is not absolute truth, and if that qualifies it as a lie, then I think that lying is ok all of the time. Otherwise, we'd all walk around in silence.

For me, there are shades of truth and shades of not truth and shades on either side of those shades. So, are we talking lighter grey or darker grey?

I'm a non-absolute truth teller all the time. I admit it.

[Roo]

Originally Posted by backyard

For me, there are shades of truth and shades of not truth and shades on either side of those shades. So, are we talking lighter grey or darker grey?

I'm a non-absolute truth teller all the time. I admit it.

You might have to expand on this some. I mean the truth from your perspective. It's something you don't believe to be the truth that you say (or not say).

Why do you (or other people) do that and why is it acceptable?

[severe delays]

The problem with the stance that Kant etc take is that it doesn't take into account the realities of people as social beings. We need to live in groups to survive well. When living in groups we cannot be brutally honest at all times or we're going to create bad feeling or conflict. It's a noble idea but not a practical one. A friend I once had maintained that she shouldn't have to lock her front door because stealing was wrong. While I do agree with her I also accept the reality that some people steal and that it is impractical to ignore that. Again, she's got a very noble view of how humanity should be but a very vague view of how we actually are.

For myself, I try not to lie. I've actually just written something that originally had a slight untruth in it. The untruth being there for humorous purposes. It took me a long time to write because I felt very uncomfortable presenting something that was not absolutely true. In the end I had to rework it so the humour was still there but so the lie wasn't actually a lie. I'm not generally comfortable in a world where people will not tell the truth. (I'm discounting things like 'Oh your hair is lovely!' because to my mind that is a social smoother which promotes good feeling in the group). I know this is because I can be very literal-minded at times so the idea that people routinely say stuff that's not true is a bit jarring when I work it out.

[The Superhero]

Here's a picture of a woman hugging a giant penis.

[severe delays]

Originally Posted by The Superhero

Here's a picture of a woman hugging a giant penis.

Doesn't look like mle. Have you been fooling around Mister?

[backyard]

Originally Posted by The Superhero

Here's a picture of a woman hugging a giant penis.

I can't be certain that the human is a woman, or that the action is hugging or that the object that is receiving the action is a penis. Or that it is a large object.

[mswas]

Originally Posted by backyard

I can't be certain that the human is a woman, or that the action is hugging or that the object that is receiving the action is a penis. Or that it is a large object.

So true. It's possible that the object wrapping itself around the penis is just very small.

[backyard]

Originally Posted by mswas

So true.

Says who? You?

[Roo]

Originally Posted by severe delays

The problem with the stance that Kant etc take is that it doesn't take into account the realities of people as social beings. We need to live in groups to survive well. When living in groups we cannot be brutally honest at all times or we're going to create bad feeling or conflict. It's a noble idea but not a practical one.

That's an interesting thought--one that is corroborated by a writer in this article. Apparently, half of Americans in a poll voted that lying was always wrong but that 2/3 of Americans thought that is was sometimes justified. One of the philosophers interviewed noted that people who say they never lie are not taking into account the social realities.

But are the realities shaped by the lies we accept? I've noticed that my friends from Romania would easily and happily tell each other that the dress someone is wearing is ugly. And they feel that they're doing a service to them by being truthful. It seems to me that different cultures accept different degrees of honesty in different areas as social lubrication. But not all cultures are the same as what social lubrication is required in what situations.

Originally Posted by severe delays

For myself, I try not to lie. I've actually just written something that originally had a slight untruth in it. The untruth being there for humorous purposes. It took me a long time to write because I felt very uncomfortable presenting something that was not absolutely true. In the end I had to rework it so the humour was still there but so the lie wasn't actually a lie. I'm not generally comfortable in a world where people will not tell the truth. (I'm discounting things like 'Oh your hair is lovely!' because to my mind that is a social smoother which promotes good feeling in the group). I know this is because I can be very literal-minded at times so the idea that people routinely say stuff that's not true is a bit jarring when I work it out.

I think of myself in roughly the same way. But I also wonder how much truth-telling is possible with ourselves. But that may be the subject of another thread.

[Fish]

The trouble with imagining the world as a perfect, idealistic model is that the world rarely lives up to it.

For instance: by lying to somebody you take away their right to reason. I don't publish my bank account number and debit PIN because I don't want people to know those things.

However, by stealing my money, thieves are taking away my property. This doesn't seem to stop them, does it? So as long as there are people who are free to take away my rights, I'll continue to pre-emptively take away theirs. It all comes down to numbers and logic.

Assume 1 in 1000 people is a scoundrel.
Assume that secrets escape; information tends to become available. Once you reveal information you have no control who obtains it.
Therefore, assume by telling 1 person the truth, 1000 people will hear it.
Therefore, assume that by telling the truth, at least 1 scoundrel will hear it.

Therefore, lying is reasonable because eventually, somebody can and will use that information to harm you. You're taking away the "right to reason" of 999 people in order to target that 1 scoundrel who doesn't respect rights.

[Zeener Diode]

I play mafia.

[Roo]

Originally Posted by Zeener Diode

I play mafia.

The first part of my OP is for you. The scourge of the earth.




_{*I play mafia too. That was a joke.}

[Parthenokinesis]

I lie when ever someone asks me something that is none of their business and I feel the need to protect my privacy. There's not a lot of topics I feel the need to private myself about, but there are some. Most people aren't rude enough to intrude in the private areas, so it doesn't come up often.

[Roo]

Originally Posted by Fish

Therefore, lying is reasonable because eventually, somebody can and will use that information to harm you. You're taking away the "right to reason" of 999 people in order to target that 1 scoundrel who doesn't respect rights.

Originally Posted by Parthenokinesis

I lie when ever someone asks me something that is none of their business and I feel the need to protect my privacy. There's not a lot of topics I feel the need to private myself about, but there are some. Most people aren't rude enough to intrude in the private areas, so it doesn't come up often.

Could you both expand a bit here? Are you saying that it's a lie from omission that if someone asks you for private information, you tell them that you won't be giving it?

Saying that you won't be giving out private information isn't a lie because you haven't said anything you don't believe.

[Parthenokinesis]

Originally Posted by Roo

Could you both expand a bit here? Are you saying that it's a lie from omission that if someone asks you for private information, you tell them that you won't be giving it?

Saying that you won't be giving out private information isn't a lie because you haven't said anything you don't believe.

No, I will actually lie if I feel a refusal to answer will be a tacit admission of personal information. "Did you have sex with that person last night?" "No, I've misplaced my penis." "Oh, dear. Hope that turns up soon."

[Roo]

Originally Posted by Parthenokinesis

No, I will actually lie if I feel a refusal to answer will be a tacit admission of personal information. "Did you have sex with that person last night?" "No, I've misplaced my penis." "Oh, dear. Hope that turns up soon."

Now I'm curious. Why do you choose to tell an obvious affirmative lie when a lie of omission would work?

Is it because they're both lies, so they're equal in value?

[Parthenokinesis]

Originally Posted by Roo

Now I'm curious. Why do you choose to tell an obvious affirmative lie when a lie of omission would work?

Is it because they're both lies, so they're equal in value?

I think I'm trying to be funny and charming, and dig back at the person who is being rude enough to ask inappropriate questions. Also I want them to not be able to determine the actual truth. To a direct question, a lie of omission is often ineffective. You've certainly experienced that in your behavior on this board.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Roo

Could you both expand a bit here? Are you saying that it's a lie from omission that if someone asks you for private information, you tell them that you won't be giving it?

It isn't always feasible to provide a non-answer such as you describe. If you think a moment, you can come up with numerous occasions where you are called upon to reveal personal information that can adversely affect you — especially if you give a non-answer.

If a police officer asks you if you've ever broken the law.
If you're applying for a job and the interviewer asks you if you're married.
If you've just met somebody, but you're also sort-of-seeing somebody else, and you're not committed to either as a relationship yet.
If you're shopping for a big-ticket item and the salesman asks what your budget is.

In all of those situations, saying the utterly true "that's personal and I'm not going to tell you" can have unwelcome consequences for you, and standing on your right not to speak won't prevent those consequences from happening.

[Roo]

Originally Posted by Fish

It isn't always feasible to provide a non-answer such as you describe. If you think a moment, you can come up with numerous occasions where you are called upon to reveal personal information that can adversely affect you — especially if you give a non-answer.

If a police officer asks you if you've ever broken the law.
If you're applying for a job and the interviewer asks you if you're married.
If you've just met somebody, but you're also sort-of-seeing somebody else, and you're not committed to either as a relationship yet.
If you're shopping for a big-ticket item and the salesman asks what your budget is.

In all of those situations, saying the utterly true "that's personal and I'm not going to tell you" can have unwelcome consequences for you, and standing on your right not to speak won't prevent those consequences from happening.

Right. So in those cases, you tell the truth.

Where's the part where it's necessary for someone to lie?

[severe delays]

Originally Posted by Roo

Right. So in those cases, you tell the truth.

Where's the part where it's necessary for someone to lie?

No, because in each case you weigh up the odds of whether the truth will harm you or aid you. To take the salesman case, I know he's just looking to get a bigger commission and the higher priced items may not be the right thing for me. So I need to dissemble a little. Ensure he knows enough about my budget to lead me to what I want but not know so much that he will lead me to what he wants.

[Jaglavak]

Originally Posted by Roo

Yeah, I know you all lie.

No I don't!

[The Superhero]

Here is a picture of some truly epic cleavage.

[Roo]

Originally Posted by Jaglavak

No I don't!

Liar!!

Stop blatantly joking in my oh-so-serious thread!

[mlerose]

I think I might be ovulating earlier than usual this month.

[The Superhero]

• It's against the law to discriminate against a fireman who is unable to drive a car in Wyoming.
• In Ashofar Town County, North Carolina, it's illegal to compile and distribute a list of "stupid laws".
• It's forbidden for a man to give his prom date a box of candy costing less than $20 or weighing less than 27 pounds in Colorado.
• In Illinois, it's against the law to steal a road sign unless you have a good reason.
• It's unlawful in Tucson, Vermont to attempt to bribe an elected official with less than $12,000.
• It's a misdemeanor in Akron, Hawaii for the host at a dinner party to serve a baked potato on hot pink plates.
• In Seely County, Hawaii, it's a violation of the law to eat peanuts and whistle at the same time with no exceptions.
• In St. Frias County, Maryland, it's a misdemeanor to discharge a cannon at a wedding while drunk.
• It's a violation of the law in Eureka, South Dakota for a thunderstorm to hit during a parade.
• It's a violation of the law to name a child "Tripacle" in St. Conley, Hawaii.
• In Checksfieldopolis, Illinois, it's a crime to use "dihydrogen monoxide" as a dangerous weapon.
• In San Antonio County, Delaware, it's against the law to use "dihydrogen monoxide" as a dangerous weapon.
• It's a crime in Heartwell, New York to put live squirrels in your pants for the purposes of gambling.
• It's prohibited in West Josephineton, Utah to use any horse as part of a religious ceremony.
• It's illegal for a married man to ride a bicycle on a public street unless his wife is present according to Mississippi law.
• It's prohibited in Milwaukee, Nebraska to hit a school teacher over the head with a comb.
• It's a crime to curse on a public street according to Illinois law.
• It's a Class A misdemeanor in Birch City, New Jersey to annoy any horse within 270 feet of a landfill.
• In Fort Town, Rhode Island, it's unlawful to use a touch-tone phone without first reading the manual.
• It's unlawful for a teacher or professor to give a failing grade to the son or daughter of a clergyman in Rhode Island.
• It's illegal in South Mountain, Alabama to mispronounce the name of the state song.
• It's forbidden to allow a pet to bite a milkman according to Texas law.
• It's a violation of the law in Northdale, South Carolina to sell a ceiling fan to a clergyman.
• In St. Hoag, California, it's a Class A felony to build a snowman taller than 120 inches.
• In Pitvee County, New Mexico, it's a violation of the law to detonate a nuclear device without a permit.

[Jaglavak]

Originally Posted by The Superhero

• In St. Frias County, Maryland, it's a misdemeanor to discharge a cannon at a wedding while drunk.
• In Pitvee County, New Mexico, it's a violation of the law to detonate a nuclear device without a permit.

Well now, these are perfectly reasonable. Necessary, even.

[The Superhero]

Originally Posted by Jaglavak

Well now, these are perfectly reasonable. Necessary, even.

No way, man! That fascist-socialist pig Barak HUSSEIN Osama can have my nukes when he pries them from my cold, dead hands!

And since they're on a dead-man switch, he'd really HAVE my nukes, if you know whut I'm sayin.

WORST PRESIDENT EVER!

[Roo]

Originally Posted by mlerose

I think I might be ovulating earlier than usual this month.

Maybe you should tell your husband. Then perhaps he and you could do something more entertaining than posting off-topics posts in this thread.

[mlerose]

But Roo, it's the box! Anything goes in here!

[Roo]

Originally Posted by mlerose

But Roo, it's the box! Anything goes in here!

I agree. If this is the most interesting thing you can find to do, go for it!

[The Superhero]

all
work
and no
play makes
Jack a dull boy
all work and no play
makes Jack a dull boy
all work and no play makes
Jack a dull boy all work and no
play makes Jack a dull boy all work
and no play makes Jack a dull boy all
work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
no TV and no beer makes Homer go crazy
all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
all work and no play makes Jack a dull
boy all work and no play makes Jack
a dull boy all work and no play
makes Jack a dull boy all
work and no play
makes Jack a
dull boy
.

[mlerose]

Last night I dreamed that I was going to be beheaded. I think this means I've been watching too much of The Tudors.

[mlerose]

Ooh! Does that mean we're having sterno-and-tonics tonight?

[Fish]

And I gotta say, I don't get why the outpatients are out in force today, in this thread. Maybe they missed a round of medication from Nurse Ratched.

Look, you guys complain when Roo has nothing to say except "I'm just saying." When Roo actually has an interesting philosophical point to make, or a question to discuss, don't you think that kind of thing should be encouraged? Good grief. Monkeys, all.

[Darmund]

I know. If only this board had a forum for philosophical discussions where off-topic posting is discouraged...

[Fish]

So you're basically saying that everybody's being a douchebag to prove a point?

[Roo]

Originally Posted by Fish

So you're basically saying that everybody's being a douchebag to prove a point?

Originally Posted by The Superhero

Because Roo thinks she's making some sort of Grand Point or scoring a Moral Victory or something by only starting threads in the Box, so far as I can tell.

I think it's to make sure that I don't make a Grand Point* or score a Moral Victory, as far as I can tell.



*what the Grand Point is, is less clear

[Darmund]

Originally Posted by Roo

*what the Grand Point is, is less clear

Especially since you won't tell anybody why you only start threads in the box now. Not that I blame you. "Because I'm a passive-aggressive twat" must be a hard thing to admit.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Darmund

"Because I'm a passive-aggressive twat"

This was all the response that was necessary. I can't see that fighting passive-aggressiveness with further passive-aggressiveness is good for anybody.

I don't even go to the Box, usually, but your continued bumping of the thread keeps an interesting thread title bobbing to the surface. Nobody would know this thread was here if you'd just ignored it.

[Giraffe]

Originally Posted by Fish

This was all the response that was necessary. I can't see that fighting passive-aggressiveness with further passive-aggressiveness is good for anybody.

I don't even go to the Box, usually, but your continued bumping of the thread keeps an interesting thread title bobbing to the surface. Nobody would know this thread was here if you'd just ignored it.

Given all the discussion we had about the Box in Roo's free for all forum suggestion thread, I'm pretty sure she was well aware of the possibility of hijacks when she chose to start her thread in here. Obviously, the fact that people are hijacking deliberately is designed to poke at her, but again, poking people with sticks is one of the purposes of the Box. Feel free to be annoyed at people for doing it, but I'd be surprised if you were surprised about it -- it's a pretty natural consequence of the choice to start a bunch of threads here.

Anyone interested in the topic who would like to discuss it without all the hijacks and silliness is welcome to cut and paste the OP into a PPR thread.

[The Superhero]

Originally Posted by Roo

I think it's to make sure that I don't make a Grand Point* or score a Moral Victory, as far as I can tell.

Rooroo, just because I recognize that you think you're making a point doesn't mean I have even the vaguest clue what your point is. I've never understood what you're on about. No one but you understands what you're on about, and maybe not even you. If I don't even understand what you think your point is, I can hardly be accused of trying to prevent you from making it.

You're an idiot. You started a thread in the Box, and I will readily admit that I shat all over it just for fun. That's because the fucking thread IS IN THE FUCKING BOX, YOU IDIOT! Had you started a serious discussion in, oh, I don't know, the PPR Forum, I wouldn't have done what I did here. Had I participated in the thread at all, I would have done my best to contribute in an interesting and meaningful way pertinent to the subject at hand. And even if I had gotten it in my head to share a picture of a woman hugging a giant penis in the midst of the hypothetical thread-in-the-proper-forum, the mods could have come along to remind me that I shouldn't do that. What's more, if I had persisted in shitting all over your stupid thread, they could have shuffled me off to the Box to prevent me from continuing with it. That's kinda how the whole thing is supposed to work.

And I have a guess as to what's next: you constRooing this to mean that this is the perfect demonstration of why the Box isn't suited to your Perfect Ideal Forum Utopia because it's for punishment, and this just demonstrates why we should have a special Free-For-All forum that's more differenter and betterer than what we have now.

To everyone else: I am heartily, heartily sorry for my part in turning this into yet another "I'M ROO AND I LIKE TO BITCH AND COMPLAIN AND YOU NEED TO PAY ATTENTION TO ME AND MY SPECIAL IMPORTANT IDEAS ABOUT HOW TO IMPROVE THE BAORDS!!!!!1!!!1!" thread. Wasn't my intention. Sorry. Please don't whip me or set Fenris on me or anything like that, Mr. Giraffe. I'll be good from now on, I promise.




Here's a picture of a woman in a cowboy outfit riding a giant penis.

[Parthenokinesis]

Originally Posted by The Superhero

Here's a picture of a woman in a cowboy outfit riding a giant penis.

i was distressed to find that it was a giant mechanical penis. Hardly the same thing. Not nearly as thrilling.

[Fenris]

Originally Posted by The Superhero

And I have a guess as to what's next: you constRooing this to mean that this is the perfect demonstration of why the Box isn't suited to your Perfect Ideal Forum Utopia because it's for punishment, and this just demonstrates why we should have a special Free-For-All forum that's more differenter and betterer than what we have now.

Note that under the proposed "Free-for-All forum" what you, I and others were/are doing would be just fine. This thread would be identical in the box or in a free-for-all forum.

And frankly, it's freer here. In a free-for-all forum, I could box someone even if I shouldn't. Here? What can I do to someone who "misbehaves"? Throw them in the box?

Here's a picture of a woman in a cowboy outfit riding a giant penis.

Hi. My name is Fenris and I approve of and endorse this campaign of blatantly weird, but vaguely hot NSFW pic links