Assaulting Personal Liberty in San Francisco

[Aridas]

And your cherry-pick is disgusting, too.
being blase' about folks putting their pubes in a child's face is pretty sick...

Cherry pick? I was simply pointing out that your manner and word choice was obviously intended to provoke a specific reaction of disgust.

And, frankly, you're still doing it. Is there something inherently disgusting or wrong about pubic hair? And, unless I'm incorrect about normal elevator behavior, is there some reason why the adult would be intentionally facing the child?

 

[jiggeryqua]

And your cherry-pick is disgusting, too.
being blase' about folks putting their pubes in a child's face is pretty sick...

Do you have any rational reason for believing that people who choose to be naked in public are also interested in thrusting their genitalia into the faces of children, rather than being courteous, civil minded types who would take great care not to do that?

On bare feet...I walk barefoot whenever possible. In the UK, especially where I currently live, that's not very often. It would be inadvisable, there is too much risk of dog mess, broken glass and discarded needles etc. but i recently spent a week in Holland and only felt the need to wear shoes when I visited a waste management facility. I learned the Dutch for "you have no shoes on!", after a small child and an old man remarked on it (the only two of hundreds of people I encountered who did mention it). For the record, I did not thrust my naked feet into the face of the small child...

 

[Nosi]

Maybe they should require steel-toed workbooks and hardhats.

Two hard hats for each male nudist?

 

[Nosi]

No particular need. The issue remains the same if it were the parish Priest.

That there is a whole potential can of worms all right. Catholic priests, even rotten ones do however know how to dress respectably.

 

[Nosi]

And your cherry-pick is disgusting, too.
being blase' about folks putting their pubes in a child's face is pretty sick...

There are times in crowded situations where there is little choice. The New York subway during rush hour comes to mind. People can be crammed cheek to armpit, or if your tiny, butt. If there is a GERD sufferer on board, farts will fly.

 

[Craig4]

There are times in crowded situations where there is little choice. The New York subway during rush hour comes to mind. People can be crammed cheek to armpit, or if your tiny, butt. If there is a GERD sufferer on board, farts will fly.

Clearly there's a good "time and place" argument to be made here. No one should have to be crammed next to a naked person on a crowded subway car. I don't see anything wrong with regulating when one can go about naked in public. Of course seeing as apparently there are many people in San Francis who wish to go about naked they should have a designated time and place to do so.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

They are.

Just as many people advocating for civil rights in the 1960s were black.

.......

Way to go ... You would be hard put, to find a better way to trivialize the civil rights movement..

Maybe we can re-visit this when you offer an example of someone being lynched for going barefoot...

 

[citizenzen]

Way to go ... You would be hard put, to find a better way to trivialize the civil rights movement.

While you trivialize the debate, not wishing to address the actual argument, but instead getting vexed over a small side issue.

 

[Aridas]

Clearly there's a good "time and place" argument to be made here. No one should have to be crammed next to a naked person on a crowded subway car. I don't see anything wrong with regulating when one can go about naked in public. Of course seeing as apparently there are many people in San Francis who wish to go about naked they should have a designated time and place to do so.

Indeed, regarding the time and place argument, itself, so long as emotional appeals aren't being used. I would think that it's the kind of objection that would fade as people became used to the idea of public nudity being allowed, but that it wouldn't be remotely as bad an issue as some people might think. I further would imagine that, generally speaking, most people would wear clothes anyways, for fashion and utilitarian reasons (rain, cold, pockets, protection), even if they didn't legally or culturally need to do so. Clothes are a useful tool, after all.

 

[sarge]

I thought I was just taking you at your words. Did you or did you not say the things I've quoted above, and if they don't mean what they say, exactly what DO they mean?

If you failed to grasp the notions, you should have asked before falsly attributing to me things that I clearly did not say.



1. I said "It is possible to cause harm by violating beliefs that are not grounded in logic." You equated this with "offense equals harm". The two statements are not equal. Indeed, they are not similar. It is possible to be offended without being harmed, and no one is guaranteed freedom from offense. It remains true that a person may suffer real, measurable psychological harm without suffering obvious physical harm.

2. In support of your interpretation of " contradicting my beliefs equals harming me, even if my beliefs are wrong", you quoted my "It is possible to cause psychological harm to someone by running afoul of deeply held beliefs, even if the beliefs themselves are not logical." Again, your interpretation is not supported by my statement. That it is possible for something offensive to cause harm does not mean that everything offensive will cause harm, or even that most things offensive are likely to cause harm.

3. And the most assinine - "giving offense by being nude comparable to giving offense by raping a child'. I gave an example of a situation where a victim may be harmed psychologically without having suffered obvious physical harm. I made no assertion that rape is equal to seeing someone naked.

You have resorted to intentionally mistating my arguments. You oppose my argument, but lack an ability to articulate why you do. You are feeling "truthy" about your stance on public nudity.

 

[Craig4]

Indeed, regarding the time and place argument, itself, so long as emotional appeals aren't being used. I would think that it's the kind of objection that would fade as people became used to the idea of public nudity being allowed, but that it wouldn't be remotely as bad an issue as some people might think. I further would imagine that, generally speaking, most people would wear clothes anyways, for fashion and utilitarian reasons (rain, cold, pockets, protection), even if they didn't legally or culturally need to do so. Clothes are a useful tool, after all.

No one says "think of the children" when they walk into Palazza di Signori in Florence where the "David" replica is along with about a dozen other nude statues. Yet at the idea of seeing an actual person in the nude is somehow traumatic. Obviously there needs to be some regulation for health and comfort of everyone but I just don't see seeing a body as being damaging.

 

[Aridas]

No one says "think of the children" when they walk into Palazza di Signori in Florence where the "David" replica is along with about a dozen other nude statues. Yet at the idea of seeing an actual person in the nude is somehow traumatic. Obviously there needs to be some regulation for health and comfort of everyone but I just don't see seeing a body as being damaging.

That's because it isn't. It's the beliefs that are instilled in a person that can cause damage. Personally, for time and place arguments, I would actually cite cases like construction sites and jobs that have a real risk of harm associated with them that clothes significantly reduce.

 

[citizenzen]

... I would actually cite cases like construction sites and jobs that have a real risk of harm associated with them that clothes significantly reduce.

If clothing significantly reduced the risk of workplace injury, you could probably rest assured that insurance companies or government regulations would require them. People generally try to avoid injury. I don't think it would take too many lost wankers or boobies to convince workers to cover up.

 

[Checkmite]

You're making an assumption about my birth culture, and it happens to be incorrect. I've said many times before, I grew up on a commune full of hippies, where nudity was completely unremarkable. I wear clothing to spare the feelings of folks who are prudish, or when I need more armour than my skin gives. I'm not ignorant of your cultural customs, but by growing up outside of them I do recognize that they have a basis in culture, not fact.

So then that whole "when I see a sign at a store that says you must wear a shirt and shoes, I can't help but assume they're only mean a shirt and shoes and not any other clothing" line was deliberate BS for pretty much its own sake? If you're "not ignorant" of our cultural customs, why do you argue as if you want to be seen that way?

There is no 'we do this because' defense here except for 'we do this because we've always done it', and that's no defense at all, especially when extended to 'doing it differently is wrong'. I'm also not trying to be an ass; I just believe that thinking beings should be able to examine themselves and know what aspects of their behavior are based on serving a need, and which are based on cultural conservatism. Nudity taboo is cultural conservatism and cultural elitism. Nothing makes your culture better than anyone else's culture except that it's yours, and human nature being what it is, what your tribe does is right and what the other tribes do is wrong.

There's also nothing inherently wrong with a culture that eschews nudism. Insisting there is, also counts as "cultural elitism".

 

[uruk]

My only issue with nudists is that the majority of them look like me; over wieght and well below the minimum acceptable aesthetic level that is safe for human consumption.

I can only be nude around cattle and landfills.

 

[Checkmite]

And, frankly, you're still doing it. Is there something inherently disgusting or wrong about pubic hair?

Only when it drifts into your food.

 

[citizenzen]

Only when it drifts into your food.

Have you ever seen food service people wearing a hair guards for their beard?

You could wear one one your *ahem* as well.

 

[BStrong]

My only objection to public nudity is that the people you encounter nude are never the people you'd wish to see nude.

 

[Checkmite]

Have you ever seen food service people wearing a hair guards for their beard?

You could wear one one your *ahem* as well.

Yeah...or, you could wear clothes...

 

[Skeptical Greg]

... Is there something inherently disgusting or wrong about pubic hair? ....

Inherently ? No...

But it is in close proximity; in the flight path as it were, to the potential seepages mentioned earlier..

Pants would mitigate the fallout...