[MD] So cometh MOQ, what next?

[Platt Holden]

Hi Horse,

> >> Platt Holden wrote:
> > 
> > No. I'm saying what we all learned in MOQ 101 -- that the survival of
> > higher levels depends on the well-being of all the levels below them.
> 
> So how does public nudity damage the well being of the social level? As
> long as health concerns are taken into consideration as Arlo suggests
> why would going naked be a problem?

Not being a social scientist I don't know why going naked in public 
would be a problem. Health concerns seem minor. All I know is as long 
as there have been human societies, there have been clothed humans. It 
appears to be a universal social value. Perhaps it has to do with an 
instinctive "right to privacy" that you mentioned in regards to peeping 
Toms.

> >>>> But how come all of a sudden you seem to be supporting
> >>>> the will of the majority and eschewing the wish of the individual.
> >>>> Would you accept this sort of reasoning in other areas as well?
> >>> I'm sure you agree that individual liberty doesn't mean license to
> >>> do whatever you feel like doing anytime and anyplace you get the
> >>> urge. With freedom comes responsibility. Right?
> >> As an individual I should have the liberty to do as I please and
> >> express myself as I see fit as long as I don't harm others or take
> >> away their liberties etc.
> > 
> > Agree. You are expressing intellectual values. The key word is "harm."
> >     For example, some governments have laws against "hate speech." Do
> > you consider such laws justified because hate speech is harmful? If
> > so, where is the harm?   
 
> The harm I referred to was physical harm. As the key word is harm and
> public nudity physically harms no-one why do you object to public
> nudity.

I  object on the grounds that society since time immemorial regards 
clothing as serving a social need.  But my question remains, what is 
the harm in hate speech if, as you say, harm means physical harm?
Or, what is the harm in patting a strange woman on her rear end as a 
sign of approval?  

> >>>> I think the more
> >>>> important question is why would people find public nudity offensive
> >>>> and even more importantly why would mere offense be a reason to ban
> >>>> public nudity.
> >>> We ban a lot of things because we find them offensive, laws against
> >>> peeping Toms, for example.
> >> Laws against peeping toms aren't made because it causes offense, they
> >> are made because it violates the right to privacy.
> > 
> > Good point. But under the "harm" test, what is the harm done by
> > violations to the "right of privacy?" The government violates my
> > privacy every time it requires me to give them information about me
> > and my family. (The morality of a right to privacy could start a whole
> > new thread.) 
 
> As the harm I referred to was physical harm, the harm test here is not
> applicable. What information would you not wish your government to have?

Everything about me and my family. To government I'd like to say, "None 
of your business." But, then I'd be hauled off to the slammer or the 
funny farm. 
 
> >>>> There's all sorts of practices, ideas and attitudes that I find
> >>>> offensive but as long as no-one is being physically harmed or
> >>>> having something forced on them i can't see that this is a good
> >>>> justification for prohibition.
> >>> Agree. I'm offended a hundred times a day by the liberal bias of the
> >>> media, but I can't justify forcing them off the air. However, I
> >>> think society is justified in prohibiting broadcasts of  pornography
> >>> over the public airwaves. Don't you? 
> >> No, with proviso's. As long as the channels used are specific to
> >> pornographic material and not on mainstream transmissions, the actors
> >> are not forced into participating, children or animals are not
> >> involved etc.
> > 
> > Why ban pornography on "mainstream transmissions?" 
 
> So that watchers can choose whether they watch porn or not.

Don't you choose what not to watch by simply turning the dial or 
clicking the clicker? I do. In fact, there's so much crap on TV that's 
about all I do -- click the clicker -- the vain hope of finding a 
worthwhile program. 

 >> It
> >> also depends on what you call pornography as the definition varies
> >> from place to place. What was indecent/pornographic 50 years ago is
> >> little more than titillation now, if that. I notice that you didn't
> >> say anything about violence which I consider to be much more harmful
> >> than sex when it's shown on television. Would you consider banning
> >> violence on TV and don't you consider the portrayal of violence to be
> >> more harmful than nudity and sex.
> > 
> > Applying your "harm" test, I see no reason to ban violence from TV
> > provided actors are not harmed, children and animals are not involved,
> > etc.
 
> So you're ok with porn on TV then? And as that's the case there's no
> reason to object to public nudity.

What a minute. I can turn off porn on TV. I can't turn off public 
nudity. But since you and others seem to have no objection to public 
nudity, can I expect to see your naked selves posted on the Internet? 
If not, I'll  be in a position to accuse you of Arlo's greatest sin --
hypocrisy. :-)  

> >>>>   > Again, apologies if I misled you. I don't assume public nudity
> >>>>   > leads to
> >>>>> public fornication. I asked the question to determine where you
> >>>>> would >
> >>>> draw the line. If public nudity is OK, how about public
> >>>> fornication? If
> >>>>> not, why not. Would it make you uncomfortable? Or  would prefer to
> >>>> avoid > the question? :-)
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm not trying to avoid the question. I just don't see where the
> >>>> link is made or why you should get from one to the other in any
> >>>> society that has a healthy attitude towards the body and its
> >>>> various bits.
> >>> As I said, the question is a legitimate. It's about about drawing
> >>> lines, something morality is very much concerned with. Otherwise,
> >>> anything goes.
> >> Just because something offends but does no actual harm or infringes
> >> on the liberty of others why would you make laws against it? Those
> >> lines should only be drawn where there is legitimate harm caused or
> >> likely to be caused.
> > 
> > Again, it seems our discussion about social morality seems to revolve
> > around the concept of "harm," suggesting perhaps that that's the key
> > to the whole argument about Muslim women wearing veils. The harm in
> > that case, as some have argued,  is female oppression and violation of
> > religious freedom. 
 
> So you're ok with veils if women choose to wear them and you agree that
> society forcing men and women to cover up body parts is wrong? Why stop
> at female oppression?

What makes you think I stop there? What other "oppression" do you think 
I support? 

> > I see the harm as a threat to intellectual values from 
> > a radical, fundamentalist theology.  
 
> Such as Christians forcing nuns to wear habits?

Same difference.

> >>>> To answer your
> >>>> question about public fornication I would say that I'm not in
> >>>> favour of it, as I really don't fancy stepping over copulating
> >>>> couples in the middle of the high street, but I wouldn't
> >>>> necessarily ban it outright. I also doubt it would be necessary to
> >>>> ban it outright unless it could be shown that, as per Arlo's
> >>>> comments on health reasons, there was some _physical_ reason to do
> >>>> so. OK Platt, even though it isn't relevant to the conversation,
> >>>> I've taken the time and trouble to answer your question. So how
> >>>> about answering Arlo's question:
> >>> Your answer is "I'm not in favor of it, but I wouldn't ban it" So
> >>> would you vote to rescind laws prohibiting public fornication?  
> >> It would depend on how the laws were framed.
> > 
> > How would you "frame" such a laws?.
 
> With care, taking into account public health and safety.

OK. No reason to get too specific. :-)

> >>> I disagree. But, if the practice of women covering themselves so men
> >>> will not be sexually aroused is universal as you suggest, it would
> >>> appear it's human nature for men to react in a randy manner to the
> >>> naked female form, reason enough for society to impose prohibitions.
> >>> Rape is prevalent enough without further encouragement don't you
> >>> think? 
> >> Again you go to something completely unrelated as you did with nudity
> >> and public fornication.
> > 
> > Unrelated? You said women are encouraged to cover themselves so men
> > are not aroused. What kind of "aroused" were you referring to if not
> > sexual? 

> As Ron has commented, rape is a hate crime and unrelated to lust.

Not always. Ask young girls about date rape.

> >> Men can get just as randy seeing a clothed woman as
> >> they can seeing a naked woman, depending upon the type and style of
> >> clothing.
> > 
> > And the type and style of the women. :-)
> 
> :)
> 
> > 
> >> As this is certainly the case you should be applauding the total
> >> covering of womens bodies and faces as per the full body cover that
> >> some Moslem women adopt.
> > 
> > The question is do Moslem women freely adopt hiding their faces or is
> > it forced upon them by  a non-intellectual theology. 
 
> I don't know about the US but in the UK it is generally through choice
> in the same way that Catholic women used to cover their heads with a hat
> or similar during mass.

OK.

> >> At the very least, according to your reasoning, you
> >> would support government mandated (i.e. legal) modes of dress - which
> >> doesn't seem to mesh well with you previously held ideas about the
> >> individual and their freedoms.
> > 
> > As I have said repeatedly, individual liberty doesn't mean individual
> > license. Certain societal rules must be obeyed for society to survive,
> > like stopping at red lights. 
 
> Sure, some rules make sense and protect everyone - other rules do not.
> So where is the problem in disobeying rules that cause no physical harm
> to others etc.

But is "physical harm" the standard? I'm not so sure, as in the 
examples of hate speech and unwelcome body contact, to cite just two 
examples.
 
> >> To take a leaf from your book, why not let
> >> the market decide?
> > 
> > In a democracy, the market (meaning the free choice of individuals) 
> > decides many things by voting. If a legislature decides to overturn
> > laws banning indecent exposure, I have no objection. However, thanks
> > to our Constitution, there are certain individual rights that
> > intellect has insulated from the "market,"  namely free speech,
> > freedom of religion, freedom of travel, etc.  
   
> And which are now being eroded at a rate of knots thanks to the politics
> of fear.

Are you talking about global warming, second-hand smoke, and Arlo's 
fish kill ?

> Cheers Platt
> Horse

Always a pleasure, Horse. Best wishes to you.
Platt