[MD] So cometh MOQ, what next?

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Platt]
The question is, "Does the MOQ justify a social morality of public nudity? If
so, on what basis?"

[Arlo]
Initially, Platt made that the claim that Sweden's passing of laws FORBIDDING
teenage girls from wearing a veil was "victory for Intellect". The premise here
is freeing women from forcible concealment of body parts was "moral". I have
asked, if this is so, why is the same not applicable to the forcible
concealment of parts of women's bodies here?

Ham moved away from whether or not it was a victory for Intellect, and insisted
instead that the morality stems from a society's RIGHT to demand conformity to
its norms.

I believe the MOQ answers both of these questions.

To the first, as I've said elsewhere, society does have a moral right to control
behavior, but that does not give it carte-blanche to control it for reasons
that are immoral. "Public fornication" (which I suppose is the "absurd shift du
jour") and "bottomlessness" could be addressed by a de-sexual context that is
concerned about the transmission of bodily fluids and the spread of disease. In
this case, society does have a right to pass laws restricting behavior.

But toplessness, as much as Platt wants to employ the "slippery slope" device,
does not meet any criteria of public risk. Men go topless, and society has not
crumbled. Women in Europe go topless, and gauging from Horse's post Europe has
not disintigrated. That is, the MOQ provides from real, legitimate reasons for
the control of social behavior, but it also gives us a way to challenge when
those "laws" are just the antiquated remnants of property-driven,
sexually-immature attempts to control women.

But, we can reverse the question. Why is it "moral" for society to force women
to conceal their breasts? Is it because "they turn men on"? Is it because "they
are mine [meaning the man] and no one else can see them"? How would the MOQ
justifity THIS position? Should men also be forced to wear tops, even at the
beach, because men's chests turn women on? Why not? (Arlo apologizes for the
heteronormalizing dialogue).

Think about that last question long and hard. If the MOQ justifies laws forcing
women to conceal body parts that men find "sexually provocative", why does it
also not support laws forcing men to conceal body parts that women find
"sexually provocative"? Why are both men AND women not forced to wear tops? Why
is it only "what turns MEN on" that is the basis for "indecency"?

The next part of the initial "victory cry" for Platt included the premise that
"wearing veils sexualizes girls under the age of fifteen". My question would
be, if we support that statement as "Intellect over degeneracy", is why forcing
15 year old girls to wear a bathing suit top is any different? How does that
NOT sexualize young girls?

As for Ham's point, there is little to say to it here, since Ham also disavows
attempting to justify this position from a MOQ perspective. Whether or not the
MOQ supports the forcible conformity to all social norms is a question that
I'll leave for others. Suffice it to say that his logic is based exclusively in
crushing Islamic practices out of fear, leaving the diverse cultural practices
of Hare Krishnas and Hasidic Jews untouched.

[Platt]
Where do you get the idea I insist that every behave in the way I think is
correct? I have opinions. So do you.

[Arlo]
Your initial post did not argue for choice, it argued for LAWS that would FORCE
others to CONFORM to behavior that is LIKE YOU. That's why. As for other
examples, I leave it to anyone interested to search the archives.

[Platt]
How have I insulted Arlo that he hasn't insulted me?  Should I roll over and
play helpless every time he makes a snide personal remark?

[Arlo]
Arlo had criticized, as he always does, your tactics of evasion and distortion,
this time culminating with homosexual innuendo. I think everyone can see the
difference.

[Platt]
I don't except the premise that Muslims find a woman's face "sexually
provocative." Arlo has provided no evidence to support such a claim.

[Arlo]
Even if you don't accept this claim, it does not change the question. Why is it
immoral for a Muslim to demand a woman's face be concealed, but moral for an
American man to demand a woman's breasts be concealed? Consider the questions
above.

But let me back up and say I find nothing immoral about the cultural choice of
veiling. Unlike Ham's paranoic anxiousness about "not seeing someone's face", I
find veils can be beautiful and add a layer of mystery and exoticness (from a
western perspective). But all this assumes the woman is not FORCED to wear a
veil, or forced NOT to wear a veil.

[Platt]
Anyway, I don't see in the rules of MOQ discuss that one must answer every
question put to her or him. That would be silly. No one is on trial here.

[Arlo]
Of course you don't have to answer, but don't expect your inability or
unwillingness to face the poor logic, and warped application of the MOQ, to go
uncontested. And, don't expect the usual tactics of evasion and distortion to
go without continued reminder that that is just what they are.

I don't think Horse, or me, or anyone here actually expected you to answer...
then or now.