Subject:
|
Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Feb 2004 16:36:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
652 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Don Heyse wrote:
>
> > Not to you, but if a large number of people start to vomit at the
> > sight of your naked hairy body, dingleberries and all, then it's an
> > issue for society. That said, if you can find enough people who
> > don't mind, then go ahead and behave that way amongst them.
> 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 grotesquely obese naked body
> covered in filth, with such _visceral_ behavior is infinitesimal.
> This is so true that I would be comfortable suggesting that one who
> did react that way was suffering from substantial neuroses.
>
> And yet, while no one is harmed by seeing another human's body --
> "dingleberries and all", you are perfectly comfortable legislating
> the amount of clothing I can wear to keep this incredibly small pool
> of insane people comfortable.
>
> We could liken this to the peanut allergy except for two main
> things. First, even those neurotics that you're protecting will not
> die from their mental instability and gut reactions. Second, peanut
> allergies can not be healed. The poor, sick people that you're
> describing can, and should, be helped.
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.
> > We're back to that matter of scope. I think we agree with a lot of
> > what the UN has to say. Just not everything.
>
> Yeah, well what about common law? Your assertion was that Marriage
> is not a right. By every account I can find, it is! It was a right
> in the English common law from which our systme of jurisprudence
> sprang. It has been affirmed as a right in American courts. And
> the United Nations, in arguably the most important declaration of
> human rights ever to be issued by the human specie, has explicitly
> asserted marriage (between a man and a woman, incidentally) as a
> right.
How can you call it a right when you can't even agree what it is?
People can *say* whatever they want. That's a right. They can claim
they're configured in a six partner arrangement and sign a contract
denoting who gets what in that arrangement for all I care. Just
don't use that contract as an excuse to shortchange someone else.
That's selfish and wrong.
> And yes, I do think, to the extent that we live in a free(ish)
> market society and that such a society makes sense, schools should
> be funded through user fees and philanthropy.
If that worked, I'd say sure. Unfortunately people are generally too
foolish for that to have any chance of ever working. Which is why
we have the clumsy institution of marriage and all the laws built
up around it. We don't live in an ideal world. I fear you see it
as closer to the ideal than it really is. Get a grip and face the
ugliness of reality. That's what you've gotta work with.
Don
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
