Subject:
|
Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Feb 2004 00:58:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
476 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Orion Pobursky wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Don Heyse wrote:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Orion Pobursky wrote:
> > >
> > > But who's "sensibilities" are we catering to? Does this mean that if
> > > one guy in the mall that I frequent thinks my girlfriend should wear a
> > > full length dress instead of slacks then she should and if she doesn't
> > > then she's "uncivilized" and "narcissistic"? The argument nakedness
> > > is wrong in that most people feel that covering up is the "right" thing
> > > to do is fundmentally flawed.
> >
> > 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 people that public sex is wonderful, then
> > you should be able to get the law changed. Until then, either obey it
> > or pay the consequences. Or move to Canada ;^)
>
> 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 trying to make is that the majority
> is not always right. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the
> majority is often wrong.
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 laws you have anarchy.
I hope we can all agree that's not going to work. So what do you do?
You get "enough people" to agree on a framework of laws and work with
it. That's the best you can do. It's never gonna be perfect, but
if it can be changed with time for a better fit then it has a chance
of working, mostly. Work with it, work to change it if you wish,
but ignore it at your own peril.
> > Same argument applies to the veil.
> >
> > I think the real issue here is the scale of "local culture". Should
> > this sort of law be allowed on a national level, or should it be
> > restricted to state, city, or even narrower scope. I don't know. My
> > gut feeling is the more local the better, but that gets tricky with
> > global media like TV and the internet.
>
> The scale of "local culture" should end at the individual and the
> individual's right to choose what kind of life to live in any locale.
Hmmm, that sounds suspiciously like anarchy. Perhaps I was wrong to
think we could agree on something here.
Don
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
88 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
