StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Darth Wong wrote: Again, I reiterate that this is exactly the same argument used by the Islamic clerics: sexual temptation and "decency". What we think of as "oppressive", they think of as "decent". What we think of as "decent", they think of as "whorish". Go to France, and the standards are different.

Yes, they are; and so the French may do as they wish. I have no problem with that, it does not concern me.

Opinion. Nothing more. Certainly no justification to throw a woman in jail because she's not conducting herself according to your personal standards. No law should ever be justified only by opinion.

That's the problem with most laws today. They are justified only by opinion, or by pseudoscience, which is the same thing. How can you define fact when it comes to social issues? They are a myriad..

However, law is ultimately something which very rarely can be based only on fact. After all, governments are omnipressive things, they try to extend into all realms. If you sweep away everything but fact, that would have precious little to stick their grubby paws into.

Ultimately it is an acknowledgement of reality to recognize that the legislation of morality will occur. It is simply my hope to reduce this to the lowest levels of government - the community - and to perhaps see it be a matter which is genuinely representative of the morality that exists there at the time.

And unwilling to recognize the parallels between your thinking and that of Islamic clerics on this matter.

Oh, no doubt I could get along well with some conservative Islamic clerics. Inherently we share a similiar worldview on some things, despite vastly different conceptualizations on others - Just, really, not on this one. The clothing of the women in the Islamic world enforces a psychological concept of servitude; here, I merely desire both genders to avoid overt displays which would be... Crass.

Of course, that's what I say. The matter, like most in the realm of politics and psychology, is open to interpetation.

I will say that it would be so nice to enforce my ideal moral standards on society: Very tempting, in fact. Proper decorum, organized rules of behaviour and all that. Hardly unliveable rules, but I dislike many aspects of modern society. It is inelegant and crass; I grant you, though, that I am as much a creature of it as any of the rest of us.... Perhaps therein my own discontent. But, it isn't my business, and that's that. On the other hand, it does remain the business of governments, and at least in the USA the majority of the populace does not support such laws on decency.

Being as I am conservative in outlook, I do in fact support change, but I believe that the society must change first, and then the laws. In the USA enough of the people like things the way they are that the laws will not change, and it would be counterproductive to force change upon them. Once the outlook of the society has changed, then the laws can be changed, with popular will behind them. To do otherwise is merely to tempt fate with social engineering.

Thus I have rambled, and perhaps some sense can be made of it. Essentially, I don't think the boat should be rocked by people outside of it. Society should change its self and then force change upon the legal system; and the USA simply isn't at a point where these laws would be changed.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:That's the problem with most laws today. They are justified only by opinion, or by pseudoscience, which is the same thing. How can you define fact when it comes to social issues? They are a myriad..

Not at all. An objective fact would be something like murder; the person is dead. Destruction of property. Theft. Assault. These are all things which can be objectively evaluated; there is no need to appeal to someone's personal beliefs in order to determine whether someone was assaulted or raped.

However, law is ultimately something which very rarely can be based only on fact. After all, governments are omnipressive things, they try to extend into all realms. If you sweep away everything but fact, that would have precious little to stick their grubby paws into.

This explains but does not justify their behaviour.

Ultimately it is an acknowledgement of reality to recognize that the legislation of morality will occur.

Justify your claim that nudity has something to do with morality.

Oh, no doubt I could get along well with some conservative Islamic clerics. Inherently we share a similiar worldview on some things, despite vastly different conceptualizations on others - Just, really, not on this one.

So you openly share their irrationality and oppressiveness on this matter; interesting.

The clothing of the women in the Islamic world enforces a psychological concept of servitude; here, I merely desire both genders to avoid overt displays which would be... Crass.

If it is reasonable to criminalize public displays which are crass, perhaps we should make T-shirts with offensive slogans illegal, hmm? And then, since the majority is religious, we should perhaps outlaw those Darwin fish on cars? After all, we wouldn't want religious people's children seeing things which their parents don't want them to see, right? Oops, let's get rid of all those nasty science textbooks with the evolutionist conspiracy in them too!

I will say that it would be so nice to enforce my ideal moral standards on society: Very tempting, in fact. Proper decorum, organized rules of behaviour and all that. Hardly unliveable rules, but I dislike many aspects of modern society. It is inelegant and crass; I grant you, though, that I am as much a creature of it as any of the rest of us.... Perhaps therein my own discontent. But, it isn't my business, and that's that. On the other hand, it does remain the business of governments, and at least in the USA the majority of the populace does not support such laws on decency.

Tyranny of the majority. I thought you said this was a bad thing.

Being as I am conservative in outlook, I do in fact support change, but I believe that the society must change first, and then the laws. In the USA enough of the people like things the way they are that the laws will not change, and it would be counterproductive to force change upon them. Once the outlook of the society has changed, then the laws can be changed, with popular will behind them. To do otherwise is merely to tempt fate with social engineering.

We are already tempting fate with social engineering. The United States has four times the rate of sexual assault as Germany, which is much less oppressive on these matters and which has even legalized prostitution. How can you argue that it is "tempting fate" to NOT regulate something, as if NOT regulating something is more "social engineering" than actively regulating it?

Thus I have rambled, and perhaps some sense can be made of it. Essentially, I don't think the boat should be rocked by people outside of it. Society should change its self and then force change upon the legal system; and the USA simply isn't at a point where these laws would be changed.

And how do you know that? Old men make the laws, based on old ideas. The power structure is as far disconnected from actual popular opinion as it could possibly be.

Ted wrote:

aerius wrote:It would also cause widespread eye damage particularly among males. You're right that it would remove the sexuality aspect. If I saw fat naked women every day on the streets I'd likely end up impotent after a short while, either that or I'll go blind.

Either way would allow jmac freedom, the freedom to come over to my place.

I'm sorry, but that's just not happening. Me & him both know that if I leave him it'll be for another woman.
Unless you plan on a sex change but that's just creepy!

ArmorPierce wrote:I think that the weight limit for women going topless should be about 140

Well, I guess I won't be going around topless then will I? Phew!

jmac wrote:I'm sorry, but that's just not happening. Me & him both know that if I leave him it'll be for another woman.

You know, thats exactly the same with my GF.

Ah, the joys of a bi GF, certainly you'd leave him for my girl, no?

jmac wrote:

ArmorPierce wrote:I think that the weight limit for women going topless should be about 140

Well, I guess I won't be going around topless then will I? Phew!

No, thats in the states, you can still go around topless here.

Darth Wong wrote:

Justify your claim that nudity has something to do with morality.

A lot of people think it does; and if enough people think it does, then it does. That's totally irrational, but that's often the way large groups of people work. That's why I say that psychology is totally worthless in actually helping people, but very good at manipulating large groups of people. Reality becomes what they will it to. Considering the relation between nudity and (it's perceived immorality) is religiously based, and religion is basically a mass psychological delusion, this shouldn't really be surprising.

So you openly share their irrationality and oppressiveness on this matter; interesting.

Well, I probably have a touch of a misanthrope inside of me - it gets depressing at times - so don't read much into what I say about my opinions about society or how I relate to it.

If it is reasonable to criminalize public displays which are crass, perhaps we should make T-shirts with offensive slogans illegal, hmm? And then, since the majority is religious, we should perhaps outlaw those Darwin fish on cars? After all, we wouldn't want religious people's children seeing things which their parents don't want them to see, right? Oops, let's get rid of all those nasty science textbooks with the evolutionist conspiracy in them too!

If we lived in Athens, that would probably happen, and they probably would have made you drink poison along with Socrates. Consider that a compliment incidently.

Tyranny of the majority. I thought you said this was a bad thing.

It is. In particular, though, the example I used was of an unavoidable circumstance. That is that the exposure to an undesireable, or perceived danger, was passive, if the majority had its way. While in this case the perceived positive for the minority remains available within the limits of property rights; and because it is an active (something not exposed to but rather sought out), that is acceptable.

We are already tempting fate with social engineering. The United States has four times the rate of sexual assault as Germany, which is much less oppressive on these matters and which has even legalized prostitution. How can you argue that it is "tempting fate" to NOT regulate something, as if NOT regulating something is more "social engineering" than actively regulating it?

Well, I do support legalizing prostitution, and quite vigorously too. I think it would be a benefit both for prostitutes and the society as a whole and reduce the spread of disease for that matter.

I suppose my comments were based on a gut reaction; instinctual remarks, and then my usual stubborn defence thereof (and I will do that over anything I say I confess; Irish blood and all that...), over the very idea of a society in which nudity is acceptable, which is so completely alien, as to seem incomprehendable.

(Speaking, that is, of the reference to nudity on campus and thinking of it applied to a whole country - Not of toplessness. I emphasize this so that it is not mistaken for the lesser)

It is hardly something I am unfamiliar with, but at the same time the idea of society - It is a place of some sort of established order, and decorum, wherein the behaviour is regulated and things proceed within certain bounds, and that is outside of them. For all of the foolish and idiot agendas of the paleocons; and how much I applauded when Trent Lott was replaced in the Republican leadership.. I simply cannot fathom being part of the sort of society you want. It would be like gawking at the natives as a British adventurer in colonial India or something.

I should note, that purely on the question of toplessness, that is a far lesser affair than what I was considering, as I had seen the reference to more complete nudity and reacted to that. I am rather more ambivalent on the subject of toplessness. It's not uncommon for women in many places after all.

All this debate is concerning nudity only, yes? Or does its scope extend to everything?

Ted wrote:Ah, the joys of a bi GF, certainly you'd leave him for my girl, no?

Doubtful. Though I enjoy the company of other girls I'm not just gonna hook up with some complete stranger you know! Geez, where do you get these ideas?

Ted wrote:No, thats in the states, you can still go around topless here

Of course I can walk around topless here, but I won't as it attracts too much attention seeing that I've already caused a car accident and that was wearing shorts & a t-shirt while biking near my place with my BF! The teenage males in that car were leaning out the windows and oogling me when they ran a red light and smacked into a van! My BF thinks they were staring at my butt, I think they were trying get a view of my breasts, and I still haven't heard the end of that incident!

jmac wrote:Of course I can walk around topless here, but I won't as it attracts too much attention seeing that I've already caused a car accident and that was wearing shorts & a t-shirt while biking near my place with my BF! The teenage males in that car were leaning out the windows and oogling me when they ran a red light and smacked into a van! My BF thinks they were staring at my butt, I think they were trying get a view of my breasts, and I still haven't heard the end of that incident!

That's something that doesn't happen everyday.

I can't say I'm that opposed to topless fat chicks. I've already seen the scariest thing I can ever experience, and that was on somebody clothed:

Have you ever seen a woman with jowls...on her shoulder blades?

To quote the Sea Captain: "Yargh! That be replacin' the whales in me nightmares!'

Ryoga wrote:I can't say I'm that opposed to topless fat chicks. I've already seen the scariest thing I can ever experience, and that was on somebody clothed:

Have you ever seen a woman with jowls...on her shoulder blades?

To quote the Sea Captain: "Yargh! That be replacin' the whales in me nightmares!'

What's that?

I believe they are the flabs of skin akin to extra chins

Essentially it would take a rather fat woman to have jowls over her shoulder blades.

Ryoga wrote:I can't say I'm that opposed to topless fat chicks. I've already seen the scariest thing I can ever experience, and that was on somebody clothed:

Have you ever seen a woman with jowls...on her shoulder blades?

To quote the Sea Captain: "Yargh! That be replacin' the whales in me nightmares!'

It can get grosser. What if that same woman was wearing nothing? She'd probably have hair everywhere, to make it even sicker.

SyntaxVorlon wrote:I'm moving to canada or england at my first real chance.
Actually toplessness is not illegal in a lot of places in the US, it isn't illegal in central OH, though it is highly frowned upon by prudish idiots. Mostly it allows women to breastfeed in public.

To be honest, having worked in Saudi Arabia and Japan and Israel, you guys should be happy with the "action" we get in the US. The fact that people can walk outside in T-shirts in the US would be astonishingly lewd in Saudi Arabia. Seeing anyone in a swimsuit (even the non-bikini ones) would qualify for the same in parts of Japan. Israel isn't quite as bad, except in the areas around Jerusalem, but there it can be pretty rough.

Master of Ossus wrote:

SyntaxVorlon wrote:I'm moving to canada or england at my first real chance.
Actually toplessness is not illegal in a lot of places in the US, it isn't illegal in central OH, though it is highly frowned upon by prudish idiots. Mostly it allows women to breastfeed in public.

To be honest, having worked in Saudi Arabia and Japan and Israel, you guys should be happy with the "action" we get in the US. The fact that people can walk outside in T-shirts in the US would be astonishingly lewd in Saudi Arabia. Seeing anyone in a swimsuit (even the non-bikini ones) would qualify for the same in parts of Japan. Israel isn't quite as bad, except in the areas around Jerusalem, but there it can be pretty rough.

Or, back in the early 20th century, the kind of bikinis women wear now would be illegal then. On the topic, did they have strip clubs back in the 18th century where female dancers would show the audience their ankles, and that qualified as nudity then?

Setzer wrote:I'm simply going to state that I don't believe the government should legislate morality. For example, here in Florida, oral sex (i don't know if this is performing or recieving) is punishable by a 20 year jail sentence. In Washington DC it is illegal to have sex with a virgin, and in Connecticutt sex in a private area between consenting adults is illegal. My source is "The U.S. book of lists", but I don't know how reliable it is.

Are you sure you got that right? I mean, how do virgins in Washington become... non-virgins? And if you can't have sex between two consenting adults in a private place, then were can you have it? Above treetops?

The government should legislate morality, but morality has nothing to do with sexual repression. The word "morality" has been perverted to deal almost entirely with sex, as if it has nothing to do with things like theft, assault, murder, fraud, etc.

Most modern morality is derived from Humanism which was developed by french philosophes and italian humanists during Renassaince(sorry about the spelling), where greek, roman, and christian philosophies were merged, played around with, then became wiser and more mature. Modern philosopers have toyed with things more but that is the basis for modern morality. Nudity is an uncomfortable subject for many people who have been brought up to be embarassed by their own bodily functions, which is everyone who has not been raised with the specific intention not to be(a slim minority). Morality has nothing to do with sexuality exept in the context of depriving others of their rights in the area of being the masters of their own bodies(rape, molestation, sexual harassment, etc.). But morality, which as part of philosophy, has been linked to religion, and christianity being a constraining, legalized, and controling religion, has usurped authority over 'morality.' Clerics and preachers like to bind morality to religion so they can be exempt from persecution on moral grounds, an example of clerics using assumed morality to control others are the pediphiles who were discovered Catholic chruch.
This is also why 'godless' and 'immoral' have been grouped together. The fact is that as long as conservative philosophers control the church, then conservative philosophies control the church. Some sects of christianity have broken away from conservative philosophy, Unitarian, the Anabaptists of old, etc.