[MD] So cometh MOQ, what next?

[Platt Holden]

Hi Horse,

> Platt Holden wrote:

> > 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!

No. I'm saying what we all learned in MOQ 101 -- that the survival of 
higher levels depends on the well-being of all the levels below them.

> >> 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.

Agree. You are expressing intellectual values. The key word is "harm."     
For example, some governments have laws against "hate speech."
Do you consider such laws justified because hate speech is harmful? If so,
where is the harm?   

> >> 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.

Good point. But under the "harm" test, what is the harm done by violations 
to the "right of privacy?" The government violates my privacy every time 
it requires me to give them information about me and my family. (The 
morality of a right to privacy could start a whole new thread.) 

> >> 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.

Why ban pornography on "mainstream transmissions?" 

> 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.

Applying your "harm" test, I see no reason to ban violence from TV 
provided actors are not harmed, children and animals are not involved, 
etc.

> >>   > 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.

Again, it seems our discussion about social morality seems to revolve 
around the concept of "harm," suggesting perhaps that that's the key to 
the whole argument about Muslim women wearing veils. The harm in that
case, as some have argued,  is female oppression and violation of 
religious freedom. I see the harm as a threat to intellectual values from 
a radical, fundamentalist theology.  

> >> 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.

How would you "frame" such a laws?.

> > [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.

In other words, I don't answer a dumb question and have given reasons why 
the question is dumb instead of indulging in intellectually empty 
judgmentalism like some contributors to this site who throw around words 
like "idiotic," "ridiculous," "stupid," etc. with nary an bit of evidence
or attempt at reason. .  

> >> 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.

Unrelated? You said women are encouraged to cover themselves so men
are not aroused. What kind of "aroused" were you referring to if not 
sexual? But in a broader sense I have to laugh because many here have
expressed their belief (based on Zen I guess) that everything is related. 
 
> 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.

And the type and style of the women. :-)

> 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.

The question is do Moslem women freely adopt hiding their faces or is it
forced upon them by  a non-intellectual theology. 

> 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.

As I have said repeatedly, individual liberty doesn't mean individual 
license. Certain societal rules must be obeyed for society to survive, 
like stopping at red lights. 

> To take a leaf from your book, why not let
> the market decide?

In a democracy, the market (meaning the free choice of individuals)  
decides many things by voting. If a legislature decides to overturn laws 
banning indecent exposure, I have no objection. However, thanks to our 
Constitution, there are certain individual rights that intellect has 
insulated from the "market,"  namely free speech, freedom of religion, 
freedom of travel, etc.  
  
> Good talking to you Platt

My pleasure as always.

Platt