[MD] Intellect battles the barbarians

[pholden at davtv.com]

Quoting ARLO J BENSINGER JR <ajb102 at psu.edu>:


> [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.

Notice Arlo wants to tell us how moral it is for women to go topless (according to
the MOQ), but refuses to use the same argument for women and men to go bottomless.
Hmmm. Wonder why. :-)

 
 


-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/