[MD] So cometh MOQ, what next?

[Horse]

Hi PLatt

Good to hear from you also.

Platt Holden wrote:
> Hi Horse,
> 
> Great to hear from you. 
>  
>> Platt Holden wrote:
>> <SNIP>
>>> Well, we can see one contributor who uses the MOQ to justify his view
>>> that it would be OK if sanctions against public nudity were removed. 
>>> Personally I don't agree that a world full of naked people would
>>> constitute a pragmatic application of the MOQ. But, I could be wrong. :-)
>> Platt, what is it about public nudity that frightens you so much? 
> 
> Frighten? What makes you think public nudity frightens me? The question
> is, "Does the MOQ justify a social morality of public nudity? If so, on 
> what basis?"
> 
>> Personally I couldn't care less if other folk choose to wander around
>> without clothes - why would you?
> 
> Well, I generally support laws against indecent exposure. Many find 
> exposing one's genitals offensive. Would you approve of fornicating in 
> public? If not, why not?

This is why I asked why public nudity frightened you - perhaps 'make you 
uncomfortable' would have been a better way to put it. From your comment 
above you seem to make the assumption that public nudity leads to public 
fornication. It doesn't and as far as I know there is no evidence that 
one would lead to the other. Public fornication could just as well occur 
when people are clothed - a bit more awkward perhaps but I'm sure you 
get my point. The worrying thing here is that you equate nudity with sex 
and assume that when people go naked this is the bottom line.


> 
>> What I find a lot more worrying is the
>> strange need to insist that everyone behaves in the way that you think is
>> correct.
> 
> Where do you get the idea I insist that every behave in the way I think is
> correct? I have opinions. So do you. 

Fair enough.

> 
>> It would also be a good idea to at least attempt to answer Arlo's
>> question without recourse to insult.
> 
> 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? 

Not at all but as Arlo has put the question a number of times and it is 
relevant to the argument it would seem like plain courtesy to provide an 
answer rather than evading. If you can answer that is!

> 
>> Arlo's Question:
>>
>> "Why is it "moral" for American men to forbid women from exposing their
>> breasts in public based on these same men finding breasts "sexually
>> provocative", but its not moral for Muslim to do the same with other body
>> parts?"
> 
> 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. 
> 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. 

It seems entirely relevant to the discussion, in my opinion, and saying 
that Arlo has provided no evidence for his statement seems like a cop 
out. However, if you have no good argument to put forward then why not 
say so.


Horse