[MD] Intellect battles the (immigrant) barbarians

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Ham]
That has been the usual custom.  When in Rome....

[Arlo]
Well, to place this in context, the argument is that differing social
conventions are neither right nor wrong, and within the social context the
proper thing to do is to obediently conform to whatever those conventions may
be. This moves the question away from whether social conventions are in
themselves moral or immoral, but proposes that it is moral to obey social
conventions and immoral to oppose them. I wonder how Platt reconciles that with
his much heralded Zuni, who was a catalyst for DQ specifically because he
opposed those conventions. At any rate, this bring us back from contrasting
social patterns to the role of the individual in society. You are saying his
role is to adopt and conform to social conventions. Correct?

[Ham]
I find the phrase "forcible concealment" an impetuous reference to public
modesty that reflects the social mores of a civilized culture.

[Arlo]
Why is it "civilized" to forbid women from going topless, when men are allowed
to do so? Here you seem to drift away from "its just a socal convention, not
right or wrong" into declaring this social convention to be "natural" in a
"civilized culture". 

[Ham]
I'm willing to bet that should you see them in person wearing a mask, you would
have a problem.  (Unless, of course, it was at a Halloween ball.)

[Arlo]
Actually, I wouldn't care. You're projecting your hang-ups onto me. Stop it.

[Ham]
I don't know what a "kippot" is.  If it's a kind of hat, like the Hasidic Jews
wear, I see no problem.  But if it conceals the face, it generates anxiety.  As
usual, you're grasping at straws just to drag out an argument. The question is,
does the foreigner want to be accepted in his new community or not?   If not,
then it's deceitful and immoral to seek admittance.

[Arlo]
Like Platt, you can attempt to evade questions through rhetorical dismissal, but
that shows more about your position than mine. Here you seem to suggest that
obeying social conventions is only required when otherwise I would make others
"anxious". Your stance would seem to suggest that although I am supposedly
"free" in this country, I am not allowed to do anything that makes someone else
anxious.

I imagine then you'd have no problem doing business with a Christian woman in
mourning who happened to be wearing a black veil. Or an Indian dancer (such as
this, http://www.iainfisher.com/russell/russ2429.jpg) coming into your shop?

But back to your "when in Rome" comment. Let's say a Hasidic Jew moved into a
small, entirely Christian town in Smalltown, USA. The local residents were
offended, and made anxious, by his strange practices and odd kippot wearing. Do
they have a moral right to demand he "conform" to the local conventions? Or am
I allowed to flaunt local social conventions as long as somewhere else inside
the American borders my actions would be considered "okay"?

[Ham]
I don't envision a massive influx of Tibetans to this country, but see little
difference in their wearing apparel from the Hari Krishna cult which appears to
be well tolerated.

[Arlo]
Why do we tolerate their behavior? Are they allowed to be "different" and "not
conform" because they don't "make us anxious"? 

[Ham]
Americans are guaranteed freedom to practice any religion they choose, so long
as it does not threaten others.  They are not guaranteed freedom to walk the
streets nude, dehumanize women, or appear shrouded in public.

[Arlo]
In other words, everyone has the right to be like Ham.

I mean, I agree with your second point. Dehumanizing women is immoral beyond
social convention. But men forcing women to conceal body parts they find
offensive is immoral. And someone's freedom to choose to wear a veil, or not
wear a veil, should be what at issue. To force them to wear it, or force them
NOT to wear it, is immoral.