 | | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) I agree that most in the US are "modest" by your definition, but what about those who don't fit your definition? Don't they have just as much of a right to be "immodest"? Until someone can tell me exactly why public nudity is harmful, without (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) You may enjoy this: Naked rambler completes his trek (URL) A (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Orion Pobursky wrote: <snip> someone can tell me exactly why public nudity is harmful, without (...) Hear! Hear!! (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) Okay, here goes. First, WRT to religion, I get my values and morals from my religion and they will be reflected in my answer, but they are mine. It is never my intention to force my religion on somebody else. But because I derive my values (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) Please. "Naked"??? He wore shoes and socks! Give me a real Naked Trekker, not this pitiful pretender! JOHN (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
"John" <John@TCLTC.org> wrote in message news:HsKsoz.1qu3@lugnet.com... snipped religion (...) citizens (...) frequent (...) the (...) for the (...) we just (...) Only (...) around (...) would (...) and (...) guess (...) what (...) be (...) to (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) The example you gave above regarding woman being cover is flawed. The woman in that society choose to cover up. We might not see it as choice since Islamic law dictates it, but think of it from their perspective. They were brought up in a (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) We're catering to the sensibilities of the local culture and the laws they enact. If enough people in one society decide public sex acts should be illegal then they should be free to create laws to that effect. If you can convince enough (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) What if I convince enough people that slavery is wonderful? Should we encat a law authorizing slavery? Or, a little less extreme than the above example, what if I convince enough people that men wearing skirts is wonderful? The point I'm (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) Who said anything about the majority? I just said "enough people". The problem with your argument is that it implies all laws are bad so long as one person disagrees. Well, if that one person likes to kill people, you've got a problem. Without (...) (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) Isn't that a majority? (...) I'm saying that laws that infringe on one's personal freedom's are wrong. The Principle of Life Ownership states: "I own my own life. I can do whatever I want to with it. This is a right that I take for myself. No (...) (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) No. Check out what "Pure Democracy is Evil" has to say about majority rule. I love the silly quotes at the bottom. (URL) The problem with your argument is that it implies all laws are bad (...) Agreed. Except for one small detail. You don't (...) (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) I agree in the sense the government recognized marriage is useless. Marriage in the sense of 2 people deciding to spend the rest of their lives together and possibly raise offspring is fine. -Orion (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) With adoption, artificial insemination, host mothers, etc, it's hard to make the argument that "gay marriages can't produce progeny" a meaningful argument any more, in my view. Where I think we still have work to do is on the number... why (...) (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) I agree. Orion is almost implying that infertile individuals should not marry. ;) (...) You've not met my wife. ;) Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) So I agree that unfettered democracy is evil. I think what Orion is asking you is for a definition of "enough people." I'm curious too. (...) I think there is a degree of behavior that could be called impinging on your freedom, but simply (...) (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) Why do you draw the line at 2 people? And for that matter, why not allow 6 year olds to marry if they decide to. Like I said, the law is never going to be perfect. I just don't see how the proposed modifications to current marriage laws make (...) (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) I read your post after I posted my reply to Orion, but I think we're almost on the same page here. I guess the difference is that I see the ongoing hacks to the marriage laws as doing more harm than good. However, we are rapidly approaching (...) (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) I don't think any one definition fits all situations. Look at the peanuts on airplanes issue. Apparently these peanuts cause an extreme amount of suffering for a rather small number of people. The relativly light pain caused to others by (...) (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) My contention I that we should do away with marriage laws all together. Government has no business dictating what does or does not constitute a marriage. This dicision is up to the individuals concerned and the life choice they decide to make. (...) (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) Ok. But what do you propose to replace the dependent support systems tied into those marriage laws you'd like to obliterate? Take your time because there's a lot of details that need to be worked out. Don (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) But you're making a ridiculous comparison. An action by a person that produces a substantially unhealthy state for others is very different than one who does not. The occurrances of people reacting to the sight of a naked body, even a (...) (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) I, at least, would like you to enumerate a handful of these problems. I am now getting the feeling that I misinterpretted your concern (though I just posted a note based on my potential misunderstanding). Chris (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) OK. I think you're right... hacking isn't the right approach for the "final answer". however, as a hacker myself, there's value in hacking. If a few states go through various permutations on this (Ohio, I hear is about to do a very restrictive (...) (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) Your misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that I should wake up tomorrow and all the laws regarding marriage will be stricken from the books. Just as cutting off one's arm to stem a minor infection would be bad, so to would instantainiously (...) (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) You're almost right here, but you're doing things in the wrong order. Heal the sick people of their neuroses first. Then strike down the no longer needed laws designed to protect them from the consequences of these neuorses. (...) How can you (...) (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
Out of curiosity, why do you think we haven't passed compulsory nudity laws for those neurotics who are afraid of clothing? Chris (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) The answer is obvious. There are not enough of them around in these parts. I suspect they tend to live in warmer climates. Don (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Peanuts on Airplanes (was Re:Skin)
|
|
(...) So this is an interesting example, because the negative effects are pretty well understood, and the costs of an alternative are pretty well understood. Of course what may not be so understood is how many other substances can cause fatal (...) (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
|
(...) Marriage is also a formal statement of interpersonal committment, and the legal recognition of marriage entitles the spouse to benefits and responsibilities not available to non-spouses. (...) No need for that; many same-sex couples already (...) (20 years ago, 5-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
