[MD] So cometh MOQ, what next?

[Platt Holden]

Hi Horse, 

> >> 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.

Sorry I didn't make myself clear. I'm not uncomfortable in the presence of 
exposed genitals in public. But I know many people who would be, including 
my wife. And I'll wager if there was poll taken of a sizeable sample of 
the world's population, the vast majority would consider public nudity 
offensive, too. Otherwise we would see a lot more public nudity than we 
do. Do you agree?

> 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.

Again, apologies if I misled you. I don't assume public nudity leads to 
public fornication. I asked the question to determine where you would 
draw the line. If public nudity is OK, how about public fornication? If 
not, why not. Would it make you uncomfortable? Or  would prefer to avoid 
the question? :-)

[snip]

> >> 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!

Do you mean "IF it is relevant to the argument?"

> >> 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.

To coin a cliche, you're entitled to your opinion. But, I hope you noticed 
in Khaled's post that he suggests the head scarf is a "religious 
declaration,." a far cry from Arlo's unsubtantiated assertion that the 
cover is a response to Muslim mem's sexual fascination with women's faces. 
That assertion is becoming increasingly bizarre.

Regards,
Platt