[MD] So cometh MOQ, what next?

[Horse]

Hi Platt

Platt Holden wrote:
> Hi Horse,
> 
>> Platt Holden wrote:
>>> 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?
>> I think you're probably correct but all you seem to be saying here is that
>> many cultures have a taboo against nudity and that, as most people go along
>> with the mores of their culture, they would support that which they are
>> expected to support!
> 
> Maybe so. But I think it's in the survival interest of an individual to go 
> along with the mores of their culture. It's not simply a matter of  
> irrational acceptance as you suggest.  

So you think that the individual should be of less importance than 
society? You did say a while back that the intellectual level should be 
replaced by the individual level didn't you?
I thought that the MoQ placed Intellectual values above social values. 
Yet here you are saying that we should place social values above the 
values of the individual. Hmmm!

>> But how come all of a sudden you seem to be supporting
>> the will of the majority and eschewing the wish of the individual. Would
>> you accept this sort of reasoning in other areas as well?
> 
> I'm sure you agree that individual liberty doesn't mean license to do 
> whatever you feel like doing anytime and anyplace you get the urge. With 
> freedom comes responsibility. Right?

As an individual I should have the liberty to do as I please and 
express myself as I see fit as long as I don't harm others or take away 
their liberties etc.

> 
>> I think the more
>> important question is why would people find public nudity offensive and
>> even more importantly why would mere offense be a reason to ban public
>> nudity.
> 
> We ban a lot of things because we find them offensive, laws against
> peeping Toms, for example.

Laws against peeping toms aren't made because it causes offense, they 
are made because it violates the right to privacy.

> 
>> There's all sorts of practices, ideas and attitudes that I find
>> offensive but as long as no-one is being physically harmed or having
>> something forced on them i can't see that this is a good justification for
>> prohibition.
> 
> Agree. I'm offended a hundred times a day by the liberal bias of the 
> media, but I can't justify forcing them off the air. However, I think 
> society is justified in prohibiting broadcasts of  pornography over the 
> public airwaves. Don't you? 

No, with proviso's. As long as the channels used are specific to 
pornographic material and not on mainstream transmissions, the actors 
are not forced into participating, children or animals are not involved 
etc. It also depends on what you call pornography as the definition 
varies from place to place. What was indecent/pornographic 50 years ago 
is little more than titillation now, if that. I notice that you didn't 
say anything about violence which I consider to be much more harmful 
than sex when it's shown on television. Would you consider banning 
violence on TV and don't you consider the portrayal of violence to be 
more harmful than nudity and sex.

>>   > 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? :-)
>>
>> I'm not trying to avoid the question. I just don't see where the link is
>> made or why you should get from one to the other in any society that has a
>> healthy attitude towards the body and its various bits.
> 
> As I said, the question is a legitimate. It's about about drawing lines,
> something morality is very much concerned with. Otherwise, anything goes.

Just because something offends but does no actual harm or infringes on 
the liberty of others why would you make laws against it? Those lines 
should only be drawn where there is legitimate harm caused or likely to 
be caused.

>> To answer your
>> question about public fornication I would say that I'm not in favour of it,
>> as I really don't fancy stepping over copulating couples in the middle of
>> the high street, but I wouldn't necessarily ban it outright. I also doubt
>> it would be necessary to ban it outright unless it could be shown that, as
>> per Arlo's comments on health reasons, there was some _physical_ reason to
>> do so. OK Platt, even though it isn't relevant to the conversation, I've
>> taken the time and trouble to answer your question. So how about answering
>> Arlo's question:
> 
> Your answer is "I'm not in favor of it, but I wouldn't ban it" So would  
> you vote to rescind laws prohibiting public fornication?  

It would depend on how the laws were framed.

> 
> [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?"
> 
> Arlo's question makes several unsubstantiated assumptions. 1) men forbid 
> women from exposing their breasts in public, and 2) Muslim men find the 
> female face sexually provocative. So his question is like, "Have you  
> stopped beating your wife?" When he provides valid evidence for his  
> assumptions, I'll respond. 

In other words you prefer to dodge the question.

> 
> [snip]
>>
>> Whether this is a religious declaration or not it would seem to make 
>> reference to covering up parts of the body in order to prevent arousal of
>> others - OK to get the husband going though. There are other historical
>> references to the hijab and a good scout around the 'net can give you a bit
>> more background. The impression I get though is that women are encouraged
>> to cover themselves in order that men are not aroused. This type of
>> attitude also seems to crop up in other religions so the theme is a general
>> one and not particular to Islam. So Arlo's statement in the question is not
>> unreasonable as far as I can see. Of course you can continue to duck the
>> question if you wish - that's your choice.
> 
> I disagree. But, if the practice of women covering themselves so men will 
> not be sexually aroused is universal as you suggest, it would appear it's
> human nature for men to react in a randy manner to the naked female form, 
> reason enough for society to impose prohibitions. Rape is prevalent enough 
> without further encouragement don't you think? 

Again you go to something completely unrelated as you did with nudity 
and public fornication. Men can get just as randy seeing a clothed woman 
as they can seeing a naked woman, depending upon the type and style of 
clothing. As this is certainly the case you should be applauding the 
total covering of womens bodies and faces as per the full body cover 
that some Moslem women adopt. At the very least, according to your 
reasoning, you would support government mandated (i.e. legal) modes of 
address - which doesn't seem to mesh well with you previously held ideas 
about the individual and their freedoms. To take a leaf from your book, 
why not let the market decide?

Good talking to you Platt

Horse