[MD] Intellect battles the barbarians

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Platt]
Arlo is indifferent to publich nudity. He has no objection to laws against
indecent exposure. He admits to having no "sexual proclivities." He is
indifferent to any sex appeal the human body might present. Is this the
intellectual view of how our society ought to be--men and women running around
naked? Or is it a degenerate decline back to the jungle level, like Pirsig
pointed out happened to the hippie movement.

[Arlo]
Apparently Platt still refuses to do nothing but offer rhetorical, and
distortive, filler. How silly of me to think otherwise.

"He has no objection to laws against indecent exposure." Why are we moral in
demanding women cover parts of their body we find "indecent", but Muslims are
immoral for doing the same? In what way is the breast "naturally sexual", so
that OUR laws are based not on cultural but something "objective", while the
sexual provocativeness of faces to Muslim men cultural?

"Is this the intellectual view of how our society ought to be--men and women
running around naked?" According to Platt's post, the intellectual view of
society should be to free women from having to wear veils, even if Muslim men
enacted those laws because they found such exposure "sexually provocative". Why
does Platt then consider it not an intellectual view of society to free women
from having to wear tops? Is it because laws are moral when they appease
Platt's sexual proclivities, but immoral when they do not? So much for
"intellect", just another example of social posturing. But, I understand your
inability to answer these questions, and your retreat again into rhetorical
evasion and distortion. Good luck with that.

What "readers" will no doubt see is your hypocritical misuse of the MOQ.