[MD] Fw: No more SOM and no more money!

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Arlo]
I've been quite busy lately,  but could not let this pass.

[Platt to Laird]
What I find interesting about the group is that some of those  who advocate 
going around nude in public as an example of the morality of free choice

[Arlo jumps in]
For the record, this discussion emanated from Platt's claim that it was a 
"victory for Intellect" to PROHIBIT BY LAW the wearing of veils by Muslims. 
In other words, Platt's lauded "free choice" only extends to those willing 
to "choose to be like him", as Muslim women apparently should lack the free 
choice to wear veils (and American women should lack the choice to be able 
to go topless). Ham had supported this saying it is our culture's RIGHT to 
demand to see the faces of those we "do business with". (Let me be clear, 
of course, as I am as against the forced wearing of veils as I am against 
the forced NOT wearing of veils). This discussion ended with Platt's claim 
that a society has a right to force women to conceal themselves out of fear 
of rape. Given that, one wonders why he opposes veils? Some questions left 
unanswered in that exchanged, based on "reasons" proposed by Platt and Ham. 
Don't expect an answer, of course, as pushing empty rhetoric is a lot 
easier that having to defend it.

If we propose that "society is morally justified in laws that cover women's 
body parts that men find sexual", then we must ask why society also is not 
morally justified in passing laws that force men to conceal body parts 
women find sexual.

If we propose that "society is morally justified in laws that cover women's 
body parts out of fear that men may rape her", then we must ask why society 
is also not morally justified in passing laws that conceal other body parts 
to even more lessen the chance of rape.

If we propose that "society is morally justified in laws that force the 
exposure of faces because we must see faces", then we must ask if we would 
also forbid, by law, a severely disfigured individual from wearing a 
mask/veil if they were uncomfortable about their appearance.

If we propose that "society is morally justified in laws that forbid 
veiling based on demanding conforming behavior", then we must ask why 
society is also not justified in outlawing kippots or bindis, or mohawks or 
dreadlocks.

If we propose that "society is morally justified in forcing a greater deal 
of conformity from people who scare us", then we must wonder when "we" will 
become the source of fear as well.

[Platt continues]
and become advocates for universal health care where one's free choice in 
selecting a doctor is barred.

[Arlo]
Don't believe the hype. Although I do believe that anyone who is sick 
should have the ability to see a doctor, I do not believe this equates with 
a system that eliminates choice. Certainly, we can provide health care to 
everyone and still allow people to choose their doctor.

[Platt went on]
Of course any society must have restrictions against someone's free choice 
to physically damage another person's body or property.

[Arlo]
What physical damage to your body or property do bikini tops and veils (or 
lack thereof) inflict? Using this reasoning, justify a law that forces 
women to wear tops when at a beach (for one example).