Author Topic: Good sense, reason, decency prevails - liberty intact (Read 38687 times)

Jamisjockey · « **Reply #175 on:** July 21, 2011, 03:02:52 PM »

Quote from: The artist formerly known as fistful on July 21, 2011, 02:20:08 PM

Ok, so nudity doesn't have to be sexually motivated to be considered wrong or illegal. You've successfully erased the false distinction in your analysis. Congratulations.

Nudity hasn't infringed on any of your rights, either.

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #176 on:** July 21, 2011, 03:19:53 PM »

Quote from: JamisJockey on July 21, 2011, 03:02:52 PM

Nudity hasn't infringed on any of your rights, either.

You forget his right to never see a nude person.

roo_ster · « **Reply #177 on:** July 21, 2011, 03:23:43 PM »

Quote from: JamisJockey on July 21, 2011, 03:02:52 PM

Nudity hasn't infringed on any of your rights, either.

You say that now.

~~Once~~ If you recover after Helen strips down to her birthday suit and shakes her thang in front of you, you may think otherwise.

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #178 on:** July 21, 2011, 03:24:52 PM »

Oh god, I saw an old person naked. How will I ever live with myself?

makattak · « **Reply #179 on:** July 21, 2011, 03:56:56 PM »

Quote from: MicroBalrog on July 21, 2011, 03:24:52 PM

Oh god, I saw an old person naked. How will I ever live with myself?

What has been seen cannot be unseen.

Although written humorously, this is completely true. The images in my head cannot be erased. We don't have a delete button (at least, one not involving trauma). For that reason, we make rules such that people can avoid scenes they do not wish to have in their heads.

That includes Helen there.

However, discussing nudity is rather far afield, but it illustrates the gulf between our thinking. You think imposing nudity upon others is fine, as you claim there is no externality at all from viewing nudity.

If you believe that, then there is no way you can understand a locality's desire to ban other rude forms of dress.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #180 on:** July 21, 2011, 04:30:51 PM »

Quote from: JamisJockey on July 21, 2011, 03:02:52 PM

Nudity hasn't infringed on any of your rights, either.

We've already covered that, and most people seem to disagree with you. I'm sorry.

What does that have to do with special dispensation for mothers?

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #181 on:** July 21, 2011, 04:51:12 PM »

Quote from: makattak on July 21, 2011, 03:56:56 PM

What has been seen cannot be unseen.

Although written humorously, this is completely true. The images in my head cannot be erased. We don't have a delete button (at least, one not involving trauma). For that reason, we make rules such that people can avoid scenes they do not wish to have in their heads.

That includes Helen there.

However, discussing nudity is rather far afield, but it illustrates the gulf between our thinking. You think imposing nudity upon others is fine, as you claim there is no externality at all from viewing nudity.

If you believe that, then there is no way you can understand a locality's desire to ban other rude forms of dress.

Is there anything else that you may find traumatizing to see? Please provide us a full list that we may ban it all post-haste!

makattak · « **Reply #182 on:** July 21, 2011, 04:59:35 PM »

Quote from: MicroBalrog on July 21, 2011, 04:51:12 PM

Is there anything else that you may find traumatizing to see? Please provide us a full list that we may ban it all post-haste!

If you'll note, I never said "ban." I said "rules such that people can avoid scenes they do not wish to have in their heads."

We don't allow R-rated material on Billboards, yet R-rated material is allowed to be shown on movie screens.

We don't allow nudity in public, but in private (houses or businesses) it is perfectly acceptable.

This is a matter of what is acceptable in public in Collinsville. If you want to walk around with your belt around your thighs or sans clothing at all, I suggest you go somewhere that has deemed that acceptable.

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #183 on:** July 21, 2011, 05:03:43 PM »

Exactly what is the moral - not legal, moral - reason we can not apply the same rule to larger localities than Collinsville? States? Entire nations?

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #184 on:** July 21, 2011, 05:21:50 PM »

Don't you think that federalism and local control are good ways to address the fact that people disagree on what laws are acceptable, or on exactly what rights we do or do not have?

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #185 on:** July 21, 2011, 05:22:29 PM »

Quote from: MicroBalrog on July 21, 2011, 03:19:53 PM

You forget his right to never see a nude person.

Pretty much.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #186 on:** July 21, 2011, 05:28:15 PM »

Quote from: Balog on July 21, 2011, 02:45:55 PM

Bull and you know it. If you propose a community can regulate dress codes, and their are examples of Muslim communities imposing their religious dictates on society at large, then it damn well is relevant.

OK, so you make the absurd leap of equating a saggy pants law with the burqa. And you explain this "logic," by digging up some school district where Muslim kids pray in a cafeteria. And anyone who doesn't grasp the connection is obtuse?

And you think I'm the one writing "blathering nonsense"?

makattak · « **Reply #187 on:** July 21, 2011, 10:25:26 PM »

Quote from: MicroBalrog on July 21, 2011, 05:03:43 PM

Exactly what is the moral - not legal, moral - reason we can not apply the same rule to larger localities than Collinsville? States? Entire nations?

Ease of exit.

Amount of disagreement.

Local rule is always better than central rule.

Competition of systems.

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #188 on:** July 21, 2011, 10:32:55 PM »

Quote from: The artist formerly known as fistful on July 21, 2011, 05:21:50 PM

Don't you think that federalism and local control are good ways to address the fact that people disagree on what laws are acceptable, or on exactly what rights we do or do not have?

I'm not sure what your point is.

What I disagree with is the idea that you somehow 'consent' to local laws since you 'can always move to another town'.

makattak · « **Reply #189 on:** July 21, 2011, 10:44:28 PM »

Quote from: MicroBalrog on July 21, 2011, 10:32:55 PM

I'm not sure what your point is.

What I disagree with is the idea that you somehow 'consent' to local laws since you 'can always move to another town'.

You do. You may not agree with them, but you do consent to them by the fact you have not left.

For example, many people disagree with banning prostitution. (Note also, this is actually BANNED, as in it is not legal to do, even on private property.) They consent to these laws by the fact they have not moved to Nevada or Amsterdam.

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #190 on:** July 21, 2011, 10:46:16 PM »

Quote from: makattak on July 21, 2011, 10:44:28 PM

You do. You may not agree with them, but you do consent to them by the fact you have not left.

For example, many people disagree with banning prostitution. (Note also, this is actually BANNED, as in it is not legal to do, even on private property.) They consent to these laws by the fact they have not moved to Nevada or Amsterdam.

On this logic, is there anything that the government may not morally (rather than legally) do, as long as they are not keeping you from leaving?

makattak · « **Reply #191 on:** July 21, 2011, 11:04:16 PM »

Quote from: MicroBalrog on July 21, 2011, 10:46:16 PM

On this logic, is there anything that the government may not morally (rather than legally) do, as long as they are not keeping you from leaving?

It is immoral for the government to take your property by force, whether or not you may leave.

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #192 on:** July 22, 2011, 03:25:51 AM »

Quote from: makattak on July 21, 2011, 11:04:16 PM

It is immoral for the government to take your property by force, whether or not you may leave.

And this is the only thing you've come up with?

The Prosecution will rest its case.

KD5NRH · « **Reply #193 on:** July 22, 2011, 04:08:01 AM »

Quote from: The artist formerly known as fistful on July 21, 2011, 05:28:15 PM

OK, so you make the absurd leap of equating a saggy pants law with the burqa.

It's hardly an absurd leap; the law isn't specific, and would also prohibit wearing a burqa so saggy that one's drawers are exposed.

I'm still curious as to how it would apply to, say, wearing a union suit with overalls, since that would still expose a significant amount of underwear.

RoadKingLarry · « **Reply #194 on:** July 22, 2011, 05:32:45 AM »

Quote from: makattak on July 21, 2011, 10:44:28 PM

You do. You may not agree with them, but you do consent to them by the fact you have not left.

For example, many people disagree with banning prostitution. (Note also, this is actually BANNED, as in it is not legal to do, even on private property.) They consent to these laws by the fact they have not moved to Nevada or Amsterdam.

So, if a local law is passed that covers the area where I own property have resided for an extended period of time and I disagree with that law I am free to pack my crap and leave.

Tyranny of the majority?

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #195 on:** July 22, 2011, 10:37:42 AM »

Quote from: KD5NRH on July 22, 2011, 04:08:01 AM

I'm still curious as to how it would apply to, say, wearing a union suit with overalls, since that would still expose a significant amount of underwear.

The Collinsville law doesn't affect that at all. Are you saying you can't see a difference between the two situations?

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #196 on:** July 22, 2011, 10:38:51 AM »

Quote from: MicroBalrog on July 21, 2011, 10:46:16 PM

On this logic, is there anything that the government may not morally (rather than legally) do, as long as they are not keeping you from leaving?

They may not violate your rights.

RoadKingLarry · « **Reply #197 on:** July 27, 2011, 11:34:00 PM »

This woman being ticketed should make some of you puritans happy

http://www.live5news.com/story/15154990/sc-woman-gets-jury-trial-for-display

makattak · « **Reply #198 on:** July 27, 2011, 11:39:11 PM »

Quote from: RoadKingLarry on July 27, 2011, 11:34:00 PM

This woman being ticketed should make some of you puritans happy

http://www.live5news.com/story/15154990/sc-woman-gets-jury-trial-for-display

Well within the state's ~~rights~~ power.

I also happen to approve. I don't relish explaining to a 4 year old what tasteless things some truck owners wish to impose on others.

Again, so long as there are "public" areas, the public has a say in what is acceptable there. Want to drive around with "Truck nuts" on private property? Knock yourself out.

KD5NRH · « **Reply #199 on:** July 28, 2011, 05:06:37 AM »

Quote from: RoadKingLarry on July 27, 2011, 11:34:00 PM

http://www.live5news.com/story/15154990/sc-woman-gets-jury-trial-for-display

Quote

"My interpretation is they're talking about human body parts," says Caddell. "I don't think these are human body parts... it looks like a chrome plated door knocker."

Given that they're clearly designed to portray human body parts, I wonder how he'd feel if the local elementary schools started celebrating Honen Matsuri.

News:

Author Topic: Good sense, reason, decency prevails - liberty intact (Read 38687 times)