Survey Says by AnthonyT

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Hmm, not immediately in favour, no. Though that would certainly be a wise way to relax the law gently.

We're still asking society to swallow something that it probably doesn't want here, and subtly taking it back to these primitive cultures, so there has to be a good reason for it in my view. Arguably our culture's clothes wearing is one of the ways that we're more advanced than these tribes - and one of the ways in which they are less advanced than us. If not 'advanced' then definitely 'civilised', since civilisation is about removing ourselves from nature. I'm not an expert but I'd suggest that a drive to civilise in our cultural mindset, a desire to remove ourselves from nature and the other animals, has driven a lot of our progress as a civilisation. Perhaps it's an abstract argument but I think removing some of these civilised sensitivities, one could sensibly assume have evolved for a reason, could mean a subtle erosion of our civilisation in other ways. I can imagine a free-spirited, nature-oriented, more sex conscious society would be better in many ways, but might also lose something in terms of our civilisation's drive towards business and technology.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 23, 2010 2:50 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Would you be in favor of the limited nudity that is natural to human culture?

Let me answer this a bit more clearly (now that I've got it clearer in my head, I hope).

It's not that limited nudity is un-natural, it's that I don't think more modest clothes wearing is. Add to this that allowing limited nudity for people who want it is effectively imposing that nudity on everyone, and forcing a cultural change of sensitivities - it doesn't seem justifiable to me. I don't think the oppression some people feel in having to cover up a little bit is anything like the denial of freedoms to homosexuals before the repeal of the old anti-homsexuality laws for example. Laws are about protecting society, and I think this one does that - at relatively little cost to individuals' freedoms I think.

As a libertarian you don't like too many laws because they encroach on personal freedoms, is that right?

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 23, 2010 4:38 PM

DREAMTROVE

I'll dissent on the issue of social responsibility.

I think the right of each person to be their own person and do their own thing exists as long as it falls under the spirit of the law:

Your right to swing your arms ends where my nose begins.

I think the spirit of the law is applicable on all levels, whether it is your personal, corporate, or govt. Arms, and my personal, corporate or govt nose.

Suicide fails this test. You have responsibilities to others, so you are not an island, your death may cause other deaths. Similarly on the self defense, it's okay if your self defense is within reason, but committing a double murder in an effort to dodge six days community service seems harsh. I don't want anyone nuking anyone because they feel their liberties impinges on.

Social responsibility doesn't mean you have to help people in need, but if someone runs a society and doesn't want people who refuse to help in it, that's also understandable.

Ditto for offensive material. Sure, you can produce it, but how you distribute it is everyone's business. If you bombard my kids with threats, I suspect I'm going to be ticked about it. If you bombard my society with divisive lies because you intend to invade.. Then I may take issue with that.

Lastly, work is potentially a social responsibility. Anyone can work how they what when they want, provide they are doing their own thing, working for themselves. If you are working for someone else, sure, there are times when the emoloyee should get a lot more freedom than they do, but there are times when the job has to be done a certain way, either because doing it a different way will screw everyone else up and create chaos, or because employee created paths for a critical task could be risky or just plain suck.

Consider that you have been hired to clean up deepwater horizon. Now, lets say your employer is the president, and he suggests an means to you that has been set forth by a team of experts that he has assembled in a panel.

Now, suppose you as the worker come up with an alternative way; you will get coked up on crack, heroin and queludes, and then will try to stuff the well full of pipe cleaners with a dart gun and a supersoaker filled with glue, and you intend tl get it done by 2087.

In this case, I think the president has the right to hire someone else.

For the rest of it I don't have problems with people swinging their arms by themselves, or with people who have agreed to swing with them, or defend themselves on the same level as they are attacked, which is to say that they not overact in their defense, degenerate into a circle of vendettas or overreact by shooting someone who spills your drink.

And sure, folks have a right to swing their schlong, but remember, your right to swing your schlong ends where my nose begins. And if you swing your schlong into my nose, I'll probably come up with some innovative forms of self defense.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 23, 2010 10:45 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"As a libertarian you don't like too many laws because they encroach on personal freedoms, is that right?"

Hello,

This is how I feel. Laws exist only insofar as people need their freedoms protected. I wouldn't want a law forcing you to stare at naked people, but I wouldn't be in favor of a law forcing someone else to wear clothes, either. Since an observer can always choose to observe something else, I favor the protection of the individual to wear whatever pleases them. Nobody has to stare at the jangler. ;-)

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

"You can lose a quark you don't girth." -Dreamtrove's words to live by, translated by Ipad

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 23, 2010 10:48 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Suicide fails this test. You have responsibilities to others, so you are not an island, your death may cause other deaths."

Hello,

I'm not sure I can agree with this. I'm also not sure I'd favor deportation of citizens with apathy.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

"You can lose a quark you don't girth." -Dreamtrove's words to live by, translated by Ipad

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 24, 2010 2:01 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

I think we're having a fundamental misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "natural" when it comes to nudity. When you can show me a baby who was born clothed, I'll consider clothing to be our most "natural" state. Until then, let's call it a "societal" construct, not a natural one.

Some tribes cover their privates. Some others demand that their women cover their faces. Which is more "natural" than the other? Answer? Neither. They're both man-imposed constrictions on a natural state.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 24, 2010 3:26 AM

SHINYGOODGUY

1) Do you believe that someone should be allowed to insult you, your family, and your beliefs?

YES, sticks and stones.

2) Do you believe that someone should be allowed to kill themselves if they want?

Yes.

3) Do you believe that someone should be allowed to own property?

Yes.

4) Do you believe that someone should be allowed to defend themselves against violence with violence?

Yes.

5) Do you believe that someone should be allowed to choose when and how they wish to perform labor?

Yes.

6) Do you believe that someone should be allowed to create stupendously offensive media?

Yes - FoS.

7) Do you believe that someone should be allowed to have sex with anyone who consents to it?

Yes. I am assuming that the age of consent is implied by the question here.

8) Do you believe that someone should be allowed to do business with whom they wish?

Yes.

9) Do you believe that someone should be allowed to remain passive and unhelpful when someone else is in need of aid?

Yes, no one should be forced to do something.

10) Do you believe that someone should be allowed to be nude in public?

Yes, especially if it's Christina Hendricks.

Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose
Nothin' don't mean nothin' hon' if it ain't free........Me and Bobby McGee, 1970

SGG

Tawabawho?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 24, 2010 5:22 AM

Wow, these are not simple yes/no questions for me... I can't answer a lot of them with an unqualified yes or no. Anthony, I think you are getting some flack about them because the way these questions are listed implies that you have in mind a simple yes/no response to them. You stated, "I am wondering how many things our forumites agree upon" which implies you are looking for consensus and these are easy questions to tabulate a response to, as opposed to stating something like "I'm curious about the range of opinions on this forum. Please respond to the following questions, elaborating as necessary", or something. The way you asked your question and listed it out as if these were simple yes/no questions that we would easily be able to agree to, is coming across as being out of character for you (since you come across as more thoughtful/moderate/nuanced in your other posts). Most forumites are giving you the benefit of the doubt, but I can see why some might have their hackles raised.

I don't have time to approach all of the questions, so I'll pick the one that seems to be generating a fair amount of discussion:

The question of public nudity is a definite "no" for me if it means that we would suddenly mandate that everyone must go naked or that anyone who wants to can go out in public naked whenever and wherever they like. For starters, I agree with the intellectual arguments KPO (at least I think it was KPO) has already made.

My gut (read: non intellectual/id) response is: Sure, we might initially fantasize and say, "Yeah, let's get everybody naked!" But honestly, the only people I want to see naked are attractive females (several others on this thread have expressed similar wishes as well-- eg, whoever it was that expressed that they would hope the nudity rule would especially apply to Chritina Hendricks). But, attractive females being naked all the time would be quite distracting to me especially if I'm trying to work or do anything remotely uninteresting, so even that would have probably negative consequences (decreased work productivity, car accidents from looking out the window, etc). Sure, you might argue that I would eventually get desensitized to attractive women being naked (though if that were true, I would think people would have stopped buying Playboys by now), but I'm not sure that that would be such a good thing, either. I don't want to be desensitized to something I find exciting, doesn't cause harm to others, and isn't deviant. Who has the right to desensitize me to something I don't want to be desensitized to? (I suppose it might be acceptable to desensitize someone to pedophilia if such a thing were possible, but I think that is too big of a tangent for now).

On the flip side, let's say I have a desire to not objectify women and I find that nudity makes me focus on their nakedness, rate their attractiveness even more, and tempts me to cheat on my wife, whereas modesty allows me to focus better on who they truly are as a person and how I can assist them in whatever capacity I'm working in. In that case, modesty would be the better option. I think that this society already tends to objectify/over-sexualize women, so mandating mass nudity seems like it would be counterproductive to me. In fact, I think a government mandating nudity would be a strong step towards dehumanizing us all. We get some of our identity from the clothing we wear. Others more articulate than myself could elaborate on this, but I would say that clothing plays an important role in society (not just in keeping us warm or protecting us from thorns), in identifying who people are and what their roles are, etc. For example, how do we distinguish the police officer from the robber from the termite inspector, from the village chief? Clothes, props and decorations certainly help.

Anyways, if we are discussing a nudity law that applies to everyone equally though and not just attractive females, I'd prefer they kept their clothes on as chances are, I'd find their nudity a bit repulsive and/or distracting in most settings. Those who disagree need to watch the end of "Observe and Report" and analyze their gut response. I personally cringed and had to cover my eyes. Again, one might argue that I might get desensitized to it, to which I would say, what gives you the right to desensitize me? I would also say that I doubted it, because if everyone were naked, I would try that much harder to find the attractive females (because it would be that much rarer to find them). It is like gambling -- the best way to reinforce the behavior is with intermittant, unpredictable rewards.

Now certainly, if people want to go live in a nudist colony, that can be their choice and they are welcome to it -- but I certainly don't want to be exposed to it in the context of a normal day.

Overall, I think we may have rights to express ourselves however we want, but other people have rights on what they do or do not want to be exposed to. That belief applies to several of the questions you listed above.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 24, 2010 6:06 AM

I think you're conflating "allowing" a thing with "mandating" a thing. If I start a clothing-optional apartment complex, I'm not dictating that NOBODY can wear clothing when in the complex. I'm saying that you're ALLOWED to NOT wear clothing if you so desire.

You can say that this is offensive, or that it is "inflicting" something on you, but no more than allowing people to be morbidly obese "inflicts" the horrific sight of 400-pound women in Spandex on the rest of us, which I might find personally offensive and obscene. Which leads us back to the question: Do you have a fundamental right to not be offended?

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 24, 2010 7:10 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I think you're conflating "allowing" a thing with "mandating" a thing. If I start a clothing-optional apartment complex, I'm not dictating that NOBODY can wear clothing when in the complex. I'm saying that you're ALLOWED to NOT wear clothing if you so desire.

You can say that this is offensive, or that it is "inflicting" something on you, but no more than allowing people to be morbidly obese "inflicts" the horrific sight of 400-pound women in Spandex on the rest of us, which I might find personally offensive and obscene. Which leads us back to the question: Do you have a fundamental right to not be offended?

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

Hello,

Well put, Mike. To me, outlawing nudity is very much like outlawing ugliness. You're outlawing something that might visually offend you.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

"You can lose a quark you don't girth." -Dreamtrove's words to live by, translated by Ipad

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 24, 2010 7:28 AM

Yes, Anthony - and we seem to have conceded (at some point in the conversation; where, I have no idea, because certainly *I* never conceded the point) that any nudity "inflicted" upon children or the uncomfortable would likely somehow traumatize them. And I have to ask: Did any of you breastfeed? Have you gotten over the trauma of seeing the female lactation gland (aka, boobs) in a natural, naked state?

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 24, 2010 7:32 AM

I can see your point about mandating vs allowing but I think they are going to be more intertwined if we are going to talk about how this discussion be fleshed out (no pun intended) in the real world. When I saw the word "allowed", I figured someone was having to make a mandate about what is allowed, otherwise, how do you know what is allowed? I think when we start talking about what is or is not allowed, laws/mandates certainly start to come in to play.

As far as nudity goes, aren't we already allowed to do whatever we want in the privacy of our own homes? Where else do you want nudity to be allowed? If it is in a private dwelling, that will be one thing, but as soon as it impacts the public, someone is going to have to make a judgment or even a mandate about what is allowed. (I think) For instance, in your clothing optional apartment, you will probably still be mandated to post something on the wall or in the rental agreement indicating that it is clothing optional and that the tenant has been made aware of that.

Your question about having a right not to be offended is a good one. Has it been addressed yet?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 24, 2010 7:38 AM

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Almost all religions/societies...even the very primitive ones?

So-called 'primitive' societies and religions did not and do have the same idea, no.
You even make that point when saying that clothing separates civilized from uncivilized, or primitive. To which I disagree. To civilize is "to make civil." There are, of course, various definitions of what "civil" means, but I most often take it to mean: "marked by benevolence." Especially when talking about behavior, and not just the state of being a citizen and/or the laws and rights governing the same.

Quote:
brain scans pick up psychological trauma - do they pick up negative cultural/social attitudes, things like for e.g. mysogony, selfishness, xenophobia, materialism etc. etc...?

Actually, yes. Williams syndrome, for example, is a documented chromosome and brain structure that eliminates xenophobia. Those with the syndrome have no inherent distrust of unknown persons, or those who are different. There are also some interesting findings on violence and empathy in the brain. A brain more developed towards empathy literally has less room to develop towards violence.
http://www.news-medical.net/news/20100415/Brain-regions-play-a-fundame
ntal-role-in-empathetic-and-violent-situations.aspx
-"Techniques for measuring the human brain "in vivo", such as functional magnetic resonance imaging, are making it possible to find out more about the structures of the brain that regulate behaviour and psychological processes such as empathy."
So yes, these specifics can be measured, more and more every year. I hope to see more and more studies linking behavior to certain parts of the brain and how they're individually structured. The function of genetics is also currently being studied on a large scale, and I predict some very interesting findings on how genes adapt to different situations and change our individual structures and chemistry. I think it could have great benefit to raising more healthy kids, rehabilitating criminals, and the overall health of society.

Quote:
]Perhaps the social change should come from the bottom up not the top down?

How can it come from the bottom if there are laws against it at the top? if the laws were repealed, and everyone continued to wear clothing as much as they did now, you might have an argument that it's how people really want to live. But, since there are areas where social nudity is allowed, and thousands of people happily exercise that right in parks and beaches, I don't think such arguments really hold water.

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Children are also initially very selfish and anti-social, and have no concept of cleanliness.

Uh... I disagree. For one, 'anti-social' is a very harsh term, and in no way correct. Children are social creatures. They give hugs and follow their parents around and learn a lot of behavior that way. Little kids don't sit in the dark and brood, they like to play and be around people. The kids I've dealt with were mostly being curious when they got grabby, not selfish. I've also known kids who would cry if they got ink all over their hands or something, while others would fingerpaint with it and just be fascinated. Again, I think that's a function of curiosity, having nothing to do with being clean or not. I personally loved water as a kid, and would probably have stayed in the bath all day if I could have. Most children who reject bathing are just rejecting being told what to do. If they truly enjoy being itchy and covered in grime, I've not seen evidence of that.

Quote:
Originally posted by Malachite:
if it means that we would suddenly mandate that everyone must go naked...

I don't think that was ever implied.

Quote:
...or that anyone who wants to can go out in public naked whenever and wherever they like.

That's more what's being implied. And why shouldn't that be allowed if someone happens to be more physically comfortable (less restricted and/or hot) without clothing?

Quote:
the only people I want to see naked are attractive females

Well, that's an emotional response from you that has nothing to do with the physical comfort of someone who might not want to wear clothes on a hot day. Your reaction, by your own admission, is based on a gut response that has nothing to do with logic, while someone's choice to go nude is more likely to come from the logic of a physical reality, like the heat of the sun or the uncomfortable binding sensation of many clothes.
I find that things get more and more murky and ridiculous when what is and isn't okay is dictated based on the emotional response of some people, rather than what does or does not cause any demonstrable physical harm. If something is causing demonstrable harm, then it's wrong. If it's not hurting anything, then it's fine. Some people may not like it, but it's not harming them directly. Once something is in the realm of demonstrable harm, a closer look should be taken, possibly and probably followed by steps to solve the problem.

Quote:
let's say I have a desire to not objectify women and I find that nudity makes me focus on their nakedness, rate their attractiveness even more, and tempts me to cheat on my wife...

If you don't want to objectify, then don't. If you don't want to cheat on your wife, then don't. Control yourself. Everything you mention here is behavior controlled by you. Blaming the state of another for your behavior is what leads to things like putting women in beekeeper suits to "hide the temptation they represent." It's not the woman's fault, but she's the one who must completely cover herself, whether she likes it or not. Also, those measures don't work for that. Instead of eliminating temptation, the only thing being achieved is repression, dehumanization, and misery. This leads back to demonstrable harm.

Quote:
I think a government mandating nudity would be a strong step towards dehumanizing us all.

It's interesting to me that you think going uncovered is more dehumanizing than mandated hiding of the human form. Where are you getting this idea? I'm genuinely curious.

Quote:
We get some of our identity from the clothing we wear ... clothing plays an important role in society

That's an emotional construct.

Quote:
how do we distinguish the police officer from the robber from the termite inspector, from the village chief? Clothes, props and decorations certainly help.

That is a legitimate point. I will say again that I'm not advocating the total ban of clothing. if someone wishes to wear it, that should be just as allowable as if someone doesn't. The trappings of a uniform could be whittled down for those who might prefer to wear less. In law enforcement, though, wearing the kevlar might be a good idea.

Quote:
chances are, I'd find their nudity a bit repulsive and/or distracting in most settings.

Emotional construct. Kwicko poses good questions about those.

[/sig]

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 24, 2010 8:02 AM

Quote:
Your question about having a right not to be offended is a good one. Has it been addressed yet?

It's been addressed over and over in our nation's 230 year history, but never really been ironed out once and for all.

And I think ALL of Anthony's questions are good ones. This one about nudity seems to be the stickiest, though.

For myself, I have no issues if others want to go nude, or at least topless. I'm not likely to do so myself (except at home), because as mentioned before, I've got some body image issues and some amazingly horrendous scarring that tends to send people screaming.

But should kids be allowed to go nude? Is that too much temptation for the local pedophiles? Should the clothing-optional thing be only for adults? What happens when children of clothing-mandatory parents see topless or nude people going about their business? Who gets to explain to them? (I have a suspicion that's why there ARE so many rules and laws about behavior already - because uptight parents don't want to have uncomfortable, honest conversations with their children about these things)

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 24, 2010 8:17 AM

Quote:

If you don't want to objectify, then don't. If you don't want to cheat on your wife, then don't. Control yourself. Everything you mention here is behavior controlled by you. Blaming the state of another for your behavior is what leads to things like putting women in beekeeper suits to "hide the temptation they represent." It's not the woman's fault, but she's the one who must completely cover herself, whether she likes it or not.

Oooooh THANK YOU, ROSE!! You put it so well.

Yes, blaming your reactions and feelings on the other person sounds rather like blaming the rape victim for wearing hot pants and a tube top, ergo "asking for it".

Nobody can "make me" cheat on my wife. I either will or I won't, and that's all on me. The idea that someone could tempt me into it implies that I have little to no self-control, and is more than a little insulting.

And haven't we seen enough of other cultures demanding that people - women, especially - hide every inch of themselves, lest they "tempt" some poor man to break his vows? What do we generally think of such societies?

There are some clothing-optional areas in Austin. Hippie Hollow is the most famous, but there are places at Zilker Park (Barton Springs Pool has an area) and along the Green Belt where clothing is optional. And yes, we have a clothing-optional apartment complex here as well. To my knowledge, there have never been any reported sexual assaults at any of those locations, so the temptation must be much less than we've been led to believe.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 24, 2010 9:24 AM

"If you don't want to objectify, then don't. If you don't want to cheat on your wife, then don't. Control yourself. Everything you mention here is behavior controlled by you."

Phoenix, thanks for your response. I agree with your sentiment that people being offended by something shouldn't automatically lead to its being outlawed and that things get murky when emotions are taken into account. I also agree that we are ultimately in control of our actions -- I did not mean to imply otherwise (especially for the big stuff, like murder, rape, or even adultery), but I would say that part of the human condition is not doing the things you want to do and doing some things you don't want to do. I'm not sure if you mean to but you are coming across as if 1)you think it is easy for humans to control their negative impulses and emotions and 2)emotions don't have much, if any, validity (you dismiss some of what I say as being an "emotional construct"). It sort of sounds like we are supposed to be a Vulcan society or something. Have a problem with lust? Don't. Have a problem with smoking? Quit. Have a problem with depression? Feel better. Have a problem with anger? Don't say anything mean or offensive. That is all very logical but it isn't that easy. If it were, I think the world would already be a much better place. I'm of the opinion that we all have negative impulses and tendencies within us which some people can control better than others based on a variety of factors, some of which are under our control (who we hang out with, places we go,decisions we make to better ourselves, etc) and some of which aren't (genetics, trauma inflicted upon us -- particularly as children,the parenting styles we experienced, sad events like deaths of family/friends, etc). While of course, we are ultimately responsible for our own actions, some people will genuinely have a harder time controlling their impulses than others and temptation avoidance is one means they may utilize to try to curb negative actions. In your example, you state that the requirement that a woman must have at least some clothes on is harming her, because she is uncomfortable in the heat. Hmmm... that justifies her getting naked? I'm sorry, but being a little bit sweaty and having something chafe really doesn't sound like a great reason for her to allowed to be naked since she that really doesn't cross a threshold of significant demonstable harm to me -- but it seems to for you (uh oh, things are getting subjective already...). To me, that sounds like she could be considered just as much of a whiner about her minimal physical distress just as much as the person who is complaining about the emotional distress of being tempted or offended. But in this example, you would value a person's experience of physical discomfort over another person's experience of emotional discomfort I'm not sure that works all that well.

Let me clarify that when you tell me I need to deal with temptation by controlling myself, you don't actually mean that objectifying women is bad or cheating on my wife is bad, right? Those things don't cause any measureable physical harm, right, so aren't they okay? (If they aren't okay, does that mean I'm not allowed to do it? Who mandates that?) What if someone decides to ogle all the naked women with binoculars, send them harassing letters with the pictures they've taken, post videos of them on the internet, etc? That doesn't cause physical harm to her, it just makes her feel "dirty" or uncomfortable, but who cares about feelings? Some of those women might even feel a bit physically threatened by the stalker's actions, but no literal threats have been sent. Are their feelings invalid? No. Is the stalker behavior still allowable -- by your reckoning, yes, because it isn't causing her physical harm. But I would think that her emotions are quite valid in this instance. I think I would have a hard time deciding whose emotions or physical sensations are more valid in any given situation, but I know it wouldn't always be the person with the physical complaints who would be "right".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 24, 2010 10:05 AM

"Yes, blaming your reactions and feelings on the other person sounds rather like blaming the rape victim for wearing hot pants and a tube top, ergo "asking for it".

Nobody can "make me" cheat on my wife. I either will or I won't, and that's all on me. The idea that someone could tempt me into it implies that I have little to no self-control, and is more than a little insulting.

And haven't we seen enough of other cultures demanding that people - women, especially - hide every inch of themselves, lest they "tempt" some poor man to break his vows? What do we generally think of such societies?"

I guess I need to clarify:

No, no, no... I certainly don't mean to be implying that rape and adultery would be out of one's control or that the victim is the one who should be blamed. I'm talking more about the fact that many men have lustful thoughts for attractive women (not just their wife or girlfriend), and that for the man who considers such thoughts impure/undesirable (because he doesn't want to see women as objects or because he wants his wife to be the only one he desires, or whatever) having a bunch of naked people running about would make it difficult for him to keep his mind on other thoughts.

Also, I'm not advocating for all people to hide every inch of themselves (but, if a society wants to do that and people have the right to move away if they don't like it, who am I to dictate that they can't?) and I'm also not advocating for just women to be entirely covered because that seems oppressive (to me), too. All I'm saying is, why does it necessarily follow that everyone has to get naked? I've already said people can do what they want in their own residence -- there are things I just don't want myself or my family to be exposed to in a normal day and I should be allowed to voice/vote etc. my displeasure at seeing things I find offensive/scary/inappropriate etc. Again, watch the end of "Observe and Report" and tell me I'm too easily offended for not wanting that to be a part of my day... The question that remains is, is my desire not to be exposed to things I deem grossly offensive (not just minorly offensive) a right? I'm going to have to say, "yes". The problem is coming up with how to determine what is offensive for a given country, given that everybody's tastes differ and everybody's judgment and morals are subjective. That is where voting and mandates/laws/judgments come into play and a reasonable standard of decency concept is made, I guess.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 24, 2010 10:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Your question about having a right not to be offended is a good one. Has it been addressed yet?

It's been addressed over and over in our nation's 230 year history, but never really been ironed out once and for all.

And I think ALL of Anthony's questions are good ones. This one about nudity seems to be the stickiest, though.

For myself, I have no issues if others want to go nude, or at least topless. I'm not likely to do so myself (except at home), because as mentioned before, I've got some body image issues and some amazingly horrendous scarring that tends to send people screaming.

But should kids be allowed to go nude? Is that too much temptation for the local pedophiles? Should the clothing-optional thing be only for adults? What happens when children of clothing-mandatory parents see topless or nude people going about their business? Who gets to explain to them? (I have a suspicion that's why there ARE so many rules and laws about behavior already - because uptight parents don't want to have uncomfortable, honest conversations with their children about these things)

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

You are okay with people going topless but not bottomless. Why? To me is seems there would be something inappropriate/gross/hygienically unclean/cringe inducing/insert negative word here. You also don't want people getting scared by your scars. Why? It sounds like you are trying to be considerate towards others in that you don't want to frighten anyone. In an ideal world, people would sort of "know" what they could/should expose to the population at large and in what venue it could be expressed (eg. some art is very offensive, but still expresses a sentiment or idea that is worth expressing so it should still have a proper venue). And no, I don't think children should be going around naked in general, because it only opens them up to exploitation and provides more fodder for deviantism.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 24, 2010 10:39 AM

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by Malachite:
I agree with your sentiment that people being offended by something shouldn't automatically lead to its being outlawed and that things get murky when emotions are taken into account.

But then you go on to lambaste me for saying that some things are emotional constructs, saying that implies I put no stock in emotion. Really, dude? Have you met me? Do you really think I would say emotions are totally invalid and we should all be Vulcans? How do you get from me saying that laws should not be based on emotional reactions to me saying that emotions are invalid? It's vastly irritating to have my words twisted that way.
Emotions are totally valid. And great, great amounts of emotional distress do result in demonstrable harm. As I've said repeatedly, there are many effects on brain chemistry and structure. Someone who was being harassed or stalked would show evidence of the stress in a chemical imbalance that might result in depression, insomnia, anxiety, or something along those lines. These things, as I have said again and again, have marked effects on one's chemistry. They can be traced and measured. The harm is demonstrable. Same could go for being cheated on, or in some other way betrayed. These things do have reactions that can be measured and demonstrated. I've said so repeatedly, and I'm speaking very much from personal experience. I have had such effects measured and traced. It saved my fucking life, so don't you dare say I would dismiss that sort of harm, or think emotions are inadmissible in all things.
What I said was that a negative emotional reaction wasn't a good basis for disallowing something. Same goes for something that is basically an emotional construct, which is why I pointed out some of the things in your argument which were exactly that. If you feel repulsed by the sight of the average naked man, but it causes no marked harm to you, up to and including imbalance of your brain chemistry due to stress, then saying it's wrong just because you don't like it makes for a rule stemming from emotion.
I will use, as an example, the vast controversy surrounding same-sex relationships and marriage. Ultimately, the existence of such relationships does no harm. But some people find the idea repulsive, including some people who got it into certain religious dogmas. It's an emotional reaction that became a rule, and it's caused years of legal battles because so many people will stand by that emotional discomfort or repulsion or whatever that also got into their dogma. This is an emotional response to something with no demonstrable harm. It's a rule because there are people who don't like it, and go from not liking it to saying it's wrong. If those same people thought about how they might feel about being told they weren't allowed the relationships they had, they might re-think it, but they don't consider that because they're coming from that place of emotional construct.
There is a HUGE difference between emotional constructs and emotional trauma. Emotional constructs or emotional reactions (that are not trauma, though that should be implied) should not be a basis for right and wrong. Something causing emotional trauma can absolutely be a basis for right and wrong. It's wrong to cause trauma. Discomfort is not trauma. I don't see what's difficult about that distinction.

And yes, physical discomfort could be demonstrable harm. It's mild, but it could be harm. Especially in cases that might lead to heat stroke, unlikely as that might be. Chaffing, too, could lead to harm, if the skin became raw or started bleeding. These things do, in fact, trump whatever emotional response might result from a lack of clothes. Unless you can show me anything proving trauma from simply seeing someone in an unclad state. The trauma can't result from childhood repression or abuses, it must result simply from seeing someone naked. Show me proof of that, and I will back down on my argument.

[/sig]

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 24, 2010 11:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
Quote:
Originally posted by Malachite:
I agree with your sentiment that people being offended by something shouldn't automatically lead to its being outlawed and that things get murky when emotions are taken into account.

But then you go on to lambaste me for saying that some things are emotional constructs, saying that implies I put no stock in emotion. Really, dude? Have you met me? Do you really think I would say emotions are totally invalid and we should all be Vulcans? How do you get from me saying that laws should not be based on emotional reactions to me saying that emotions are invalid? It's vastly irritating to have my words twisted that way.
Emotions are totally valid. And great, great amounts of emotional distress do result in demonstrable harm. As I've said repeatedly, there are many effects on brain chemistry and structure. Someone who was being harassed or stalked would show evidence of the stress in a chemical imbalance that might result in depression, insomnia, anxiety, or something along those lines. These things, as I have said again and again, have marked effects on one's chemistry. They can be traced and measured. The harm is demonstrable. Same could go for being cheated on, or in some other way betrayed. These things do have reactions that can be measured and demonstrated. I've said so repeatedly, and I'm speaking very much from personal experience. I have had such effects measured and traced. It saved my fucking life, so don't you dare say I would dismiss that sort of harm, or think emotions are inadmissible in all things.
What I said was that a negative emotional reaction wasn't a good basis for disallowing something. Same goes for something that is basically an emotional construct, which is why I pointed out some of the things in your argument which were exactly that. If you feel repulsed by the sight of the average naked man, but it causes no marked harm to you, up to and including imbalance of your brain chemistry due to stress, then saying it's wrong just because you don't like it makes for a rule stemming from emotion.
I will use, as an example, the vast controversy surrounding same-sex relationships and marriage. Ultimately, the existence of such relationships does no harm. But some people find the idea repulsive, including some people who got it into certain religious dogmas. It's an emotional reaction that became a rule, and it's caused years of legal battles because so many people will stand by that emotional discomfort or repulsion or whatever that also got into their dogma. This is an emotional response to something with no demonstrable harm. It's a rule because there are people who don't like it, and go from not liking it to saying it's wrong. If those same people thought about how they might feel about being told they weren't allowed the relationships they had, they might re-think it, but they don't consider that because they're coming from that place of emotional construct.
There is a HUGE difference between emotional constructs and emotional trauma. Emotional constructs or emotional reactions (that are not trauma, though that should be implied) should not be a basis for right and wrong. Something causing emotional trauma can absolutely be a basis for right and wrong. It's wrong to cause trauma. Discomfort is not trauma. I don't see what's difficult about that distinction.

And yes, physical discomfort could be demonstrable harm. It's mild, but it could be harm. Especially in cases that might lead to heat stroke, unlikely as that might be. Chaffing, too, could lead to harm, if the skin became raw or started bleeding. These things do, in fact, trump whatever emotional response might result from a lack of clothes. Unless you can show me anything proving trauma from simply seeing someone in an unclad state. The trauma can't result from childhood repression or abuses, it must result simply from seeing someone naked. Show me proof of that, and I will back down on my argument.

[/sig]

Phoenix,
I apologize if I came across as lambasting. I certainly didn't mean to. It seemed to me in your first response that you were proposing the idea that physical harm was the primary means for determining whether something was wrong. Here is one of your quotes which led me to this assumption:

"I find that things get more and more murky and ridiculous when what is and isn't okay is dictated based on the emotional response of some people, rather than what does or does not cause any demonstrable physical harm. If something is causing demonstrable harm, then it's wrong. If it's not hurting anything, then it's fine. Some people may not like it, but it's not harming them directly. Once something is in the realm of demonstrable harm, a closer look should be taken, possibly and probably followed by steps to solve the problem."

That, along with your seeming dismissal of some of the things I wrote with the words, "emotional construct" and "control it" led me to believe that you gave physical harm much more validation/value than emotional complaints for this discussion of exercising personal freedoms. I'm sorry if I misinterpreted what you said.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 24, 2010 11:43 AM

Quote:

You are okay with people going topless but not bottomless. Why? To me is seems there would be something inappropriate/gross/hygienically unclean/cringe inducing/insert negative word here. You also don't want people getting scared by your scars. Why? It sounds like you are trying to be considerate towards others in that you don't want to frighten anyone. In an ideal world, people would sort of "know" what they could/should expose to the population at large and in what venue it could be expressed

Yeah, there's definitely something to do with cleanliness involved. F'rinstance, I don't want someone putting their dirty naked ass on my new couch. Or in my restaurant's chairs. :)

As for the scars, I *say* it's about scaring people, but that's a cover. It's about my own self-consciousness more than anything else, and not wanting to be stared at. I get enough of that already because of my height. But with the height, it's more of a reaction of awe, while with the scars, it's more of a reaction of pity, which I just can't take.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 24, 2010 3:54 PM

FREMDFIRMA

It's vanity, is what it is, Mikey, just admit it.

Y'all done stole all my thunder, especially PR, surprisingly, although the Williams thing is interesting, though I am not sure that's the cause of me rejecting my families racism, I just found it tremendously stupid.

You're right though, kids learn most of their behaviors from us, mostly from what we do, versus what we say because they can observe and react before they develop language skills, and are in earlier points of development more focused on body language than we are.

And, of course, they don't labor under the heavy rationalisations we use to insulate ourselves from unpleasant realities, which can lead to other uncomfortable discussions than the ones mentioned here - like when the little munger notices the homeless wino you've trained yourself to not even see and asks you what's wrong with him, or what's so scary about that dark skinned person after watching your reaction to them.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 24, 2010 4:23 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
brain scans pick up psychological trauma - do they pick up negative cultural/social attitudes, things like for e.g. mysogony, selfishness, xenophobia, materialism etc. etc...?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, yes.

Well, I'm still a bit sceptical - but if you're right this is an excellent progression of science. And good for your argument - you should be able to show how riddled with psychological complexes the typical 'healthy and well-adjusted' child from a clothes-wearing culture is, compared to ones from these naked tribes.

Quote:
How can it come from the bottom if there are laws against it at the top?

Oppressive and restrictive laws can be repealed if there are popular movements against them. Your problem is that society does not want public nudity enforced on it. Society likes the law because it feels protected by it, and one could argue that it is.

Quote:
Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by kpo:
Children are also initially very selfish and anti-social, and have no concept of cleanliness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Uh... I disagree.

Remember we're talking about children at the age before they start to feel modesty - so toddlers really. Society teaches children modesty, but it also teaches them cleanliness and socialness. Feral children lack all of these things (unless they learn them from animals I guess).

Quote:
, since there are areas where social nudity is allowed, and thousands of people happily exercise that right in parks and beaches,

Good for them - so you see your social idea is being given freedom to catch on and be a popular movement. If it's not taking off it can't be *that* much of a more natural and liberating lifestyle, I would say.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 24, 2010 4:47 PM

Quote:
Oppressive and restrictive laws can be repealed if there are popular movements against them. Your problem is that society does not want public nudity enforced on it. Society likes the law because it feels protected by it, and one could argue that it is.

You keep saying that "allowing" a thing equates to "inflicting" a thing or "mandating" a thing on us.

So I take it you'd agree that we should not allow religion in this country, correct? After all, why should we inflict idiocy like christianity (replete with all its rape, incest, and murder life lessons) on society?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 24, 2010 5:10 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
When you can show me a baby who was born clothed, I'll consider clothing to be our most "natural" state. Until then, let's call it a "societal" construct, not a natural one.

I could say the same thing about a newborn talking baby. Is speech un-natural to humans, since it is something learnt? No it is natural AND learnt.

But we can agree to disagree on terms.

Quote:
and we seem to have conceded (at some point in the conversation; where, I have no idea, because certainly *I* never conceded the point) that any nudity "inflicted" upon children or the uncomfortable would likely somehow traumatize them.

Not traumatise (though I don't rule it out, until I hear about these tribes). The way I see it there is trauma that can be inflicted on individuals, but then other types of negative effects that can be inflicted on society.

An example, a policy or experiment mandating young children to watch pornography I think would inflict serious psychological trauma. That same policy applied to 13 year olds - enforced regular viewing of hardcore pornography - I think would not necessarily cause trauma, because their brains have developed more but it would undoubtedly have some effects on that society. So I'm suggesting there's a point when 'trauma' stops, but other negative effects continue.

Quote:
no more than allowing people to be morbidly obese "inflicts" the horrific sight of 400-pound women in Spandex on the rest of us, which I might find personally offensive and obscene.

It's not the same, visual 'offence' and offence of ones moral or cultural sensibilities. A naked human body on display can be *far* from ugly, but still offend people's sensibilities. The only way for a culture to cope with open offence of its sensibilities is to lose those sensibilities. Good, some of you may say - but you are changing society against its will here, and we are yet to establish if for the better.

I think a law that stops individuals from influencing an unwilling society with their expression (inadvertently or not), I think is a good one. I think free-speech must come with freedom for others to cover one's ears and ignore, if they want to (which incidentally is my protest against PirateNews), and there is no realistic freedom to ignore public nudity.

Quote:
I wouldn't want a law forcing you to stare at naked people

It's not so easy as that, I would have to adapt and learn to live with the new reality. And I would have to accept my children being influenced as I have no choice of stopping them from staring. So I can't cover my own ears and I certainly can't cover my children's. I can hope that the change in society is for the better... but if not, do I (and society at large) have a right to be pissed?

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 24, 2010 5:13 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
You keep saying that "allowing" a thing equates to "inflicting" a thing or "mandating" a thing on us.

Yes. Paradoxical I guess.

Quote:
So I take it you'd agree that we should not allow religion in this country, correct? After all, why should we inflict idiocy like christianity (replete with all its rape, incest, and murder life lessons) on society?

People must be allowed to block their ears, and the ears of their children. As far as I'm aware they are.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 24, 2010 5:15 PM

And yet they are completely unable to block their eyes, or the eyes of their children?

How's that work?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 24, 2010 5:21 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

I despise fox news, but I can easily block it out of my life, and the life of my children. By switching it off. I can't do the same with nude people walking around in my community... That I have to get used to as a new part of my life, and my children's lives.

Luckily all these ideological people reassure me it will only do me good.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 24, 2010 5:27 PM

I despise morbidly obese people. They cause me emotional distress. They cause me societal stress. I cannot simply not see them. Why shouldn't being obese be illegal? We *know* it has drastic unhealthy effects on people.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 24, 2010 5:37 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
They cause me emotional distress. They cause me societal stress. I cannot simply not see them.

Luckily this is not a cultural sensibility (not quite). This is just your sensibility. We can't have a law to protect just you.

Do you agree that being sight-offended is not the same as being sensibility-offended (a beautiful naked woman in public could offend one and not the other)?

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 24, 2010 5:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
They cause me emotional distress. They cause me societal stress. I cannot simply not see them.

Luckily this is not a cultural sensibility (not quite). This is just your sensibility. We can't have a law to protect just you.

Do you agree that being sight-offended is not the same as being sensibility-offended (a beautiful naked woman in public could offend one and not the other)?

Heads should roll

But you're arguing for a law that would protect JUST YOU. You claim others need protection, but everything you've offered is your own emotional baggage about nudity. And obese people don't just offend my sight; they offend my sensibility.

Or are you arguing that any law which most people want is automatically a good law?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 24, 2010 5:47 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
But you're arguing for a law that would protect JUST YOU. You claim others need protection, but everything you've offered is your own emotional baggage about nudity.

Nah, you misunderstand my motivations. And it seems clear to me that a majority in society wants the law, and feels that it protects them.

Quote:
And obese people don't just offend my sight; they offend my sensibility.

I'm not sure it's possible to develop or maintain such a sensibility in America!

Quote:
Or are you arguing that any law which most people want is automatically a good law?

No, I said before that I was tempted to make exceptions for things like gay marriage. Where there is a strong moral argument, and where it is clear that the change in law conforms to nature (as homosexuality is natural). I don't rule out that there would be negative effects on society though.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 24, 2010 6:19 PM

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by Malachite:
It seemed to me in your first response that you were proposing the idea that physical harm was the primary means for determining whether something was wrong.

It is, or at least should be. But assuming that meant I was unaware of the physical effects that emotional distress could have... Well, I accept your apology on that count. Trauma manifests itself, of this I am aware. Emotional trauma does cause demonstrable harm. My position on right and wrong is that something is wrong if it causes demonstrable harm, and I thought I'd been pretty clear on that. Demonstrable harm extends far beyond a bleeding wound or a broken bone. Damage can be done to the brain without any damage being done to the skull, and it takes observation and testing to find that kind of thing, just as with chemical imbalance or brain structure alterations stemming from emotional trauma.
I call attention to emotional and societal constructs because I don't think those things should be used as a basis of right and wrong. Because they have no evidence of causing harm. There are some voices here saying that societal constructs are important and to ignore them causes harm, but I have to disagree with that generalization until I see some data on what harm is caused. The more clothing-liberal areas of Europe are doing just fine. No harm to anything but a certain set of sensibilities, which have never been shown to be anything but an idea, a construct, something based on a purely emotional but non-traumatic response. That sort of response is what leads to dogma being written and laws being passed that inflict restrictions on those who are "different" and elicit a (rather illogical) response of fear or repulsion or whatever. For these things women are stoned to death for showing their faces; and no, they can't just move away if they don't like it. For these things both genders have been subjected to genital mutilations. For these things people are ostracized simply for being in love. For these things the humanity of someone who is "different" has been ignored and the result was slavery. Not just here, everywhere. These thing do not take a logical approach, such as "How would I feel if my life was like this?" or even observing the misery and trauma caused. They're not based on empathy or on logic, they're based on negative emotional constructs.
I do not call that civil. I don't call it civilization. If right and wrong is going to come from emotion, they should come from empathy and not irrational fears.
And before you say it, yes, I empathize with your possible emotional distress. But that distress is based mostly on an emotional and societal construct, and I give more weight to something that can cause demonstrable harm, however slight.
Like I said, if there is any proof that legal nudity causes more harm than it avoids, I'll of course consider it. But I've found no such evidence, and I think I've presented a lot more objective evidence for my arguments than you have for yours. And, as more trauma is studied and our understanding of the brain becomes more sophisticated, I expect that evidence to only grow.

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
a policy or experiment mandating young children to watch pornography I think would inflict serious psychological trauma.

You're equating nudity with pornography a lot. Why? I mean, the two might have some overlap, but they are very different things.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Y'all done stole all my thunder, especially PR

Yeah? That makes my day, yay for me

[/sig]

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 24, 2010 8:01 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Aww, good to know I put a skip in yer step, PR.

Mikey and KPO are doin a good job of volleyin this ball back and forth to boil down and refine the arguments both ways without coming to knives, and I been holding my two pence cause it's right informative to watch, a regular learnin experience...

But one point I just *GOT* to mention.

As long as you got other people in your society, you are *going to have to deal* with certain unwanted crap getting inflicted on you - you mentioned religion, which you couldn't print my opinion about in a family magazine, and yet we're drenched in it, everything from slogans on paper money to JW's at my freakin door, but it ain't all bad cause holiday celebrations are kinda fun even if you're not a believer in whichever specific religion (and you can get more of em that way!) - so there's this thing called tolerance....

I don't like it, but meh, it makes em happy, fine - but try ramming it down my throat on a bayonet, or with a law book especially (blue laws) and then there's gonna be fightin words!

Same with Faux news, and those stupidass TV shows like survivor - I don't watch em, but at long as there's other people... especially that stupid show, since everybody was always goin on about it, but hey, that's ok... sure, I find it annoyin, but hell, I'm sure some folk find my anarchic attitudes about stuff annoyin too, my ex certainly, so there's tolerance, yanno ?

Consider it the grease that keeps society's gears from grinding.

ETA: Oh yes, and this, cause it's very, VERY appropriate to something Mikey said earlier.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 25, 2010 12:03 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

To their own peril, sure

Yep

Yep

Yep

Yep

Sadly, yep

Yep

Yep

9 - If by doing nothing, you mean allow someone to drown, or die in a fire w/ out making an effort to call for help ? No

Yes. As long as that "someone" is Jessica Alba

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 25, 2010 8:01 AM

PR: I have nothing left to say. You've just summed up everything I've been trying in vain to articulate. I bow to you. Hell, I'd even disrobe to do it, as a sign of honor. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 25, 2010 8:11 AM

Quote:

Mikey and KPO are doin a good job of volleyin this ball back and forth to boil down and refine the arguments both ways without coming to knives, and I been holding my two pence cause it's right informative to watch, a regular learnin experience...

I appreciate that, Frem. And I appreciate the civility of the debate and discussion going on in this thread. I referenced above either KPO or Malachite's argument as being tantamount to saying a rape victim was "asking for it" by dressing too provocatively; what I intended was not to say that they (whichever one it was addressed to; I forget) were making that argument, but that the WAY they were wording things could be interpreted in that way if someone read it from a certain point of view.

I meant to clarify that earlier, because I don't think anyone here is making that argument that scantily-clad (or even nude) women are "asking" for rape.

And I'm not arguing for nudity to be accepted simply because I'm a dirty old man who wants to ogle the supple young college girls here in town; I'm saying it shouldn't even be an issue. And yes, it likely WOULD be an issue at first. But in no time it would be no big deal. Anyone remember when men wore hats with their suits? Anyone? Were you shocked when they stopped? Were you traumatized or caused emotional distress when you had "casual Fridays" inflicted upon you? Or did you just say, "How novel", and roll with it.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 25, 2010 4:18 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
That sort of response is what leads to dogma being written and laws being passed that inflict restrictions on those who are "different" and elicit a (rather illogical) response of fear or repulsion or whatever. For these things women are stoned to death for showing their faces; and no, they can't just move away if they don't like it. For these things both genders have been subjected to genital mutilations. For these things people are ostracized simply for being in love. For these things the humanity of someone who is "different" has been ignored and the result was slavery.

Well I can see why you're quite passionate about this, since you link sexual modesty to so much human evil. To my mind modesty is an easy scapegoat, and a natural cultural sensibility - you can call it a 'societal construct' - but it is one that is rooted in the human soul. I'm nervous about people's ideas to rip it out, as I'm nervous in general of people who are willing to reshape society for ideology's sake (true of libertarians/anarchists as well I think...).

Quote:
You're equating nudity with pornography a lot.

No, not equating. I could've used violent/horror movies for my example just as well I guess. The idea is that some things can erode or undermine parts of society without necessarily 'traumatising' individuals.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 25, 2010 6:49 PM

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
PR: I have nothing left to say. You've just summed up everything I've been trying in vain to articulate. I bow to you. Hell, I'd even disrobe to do it, as a sign of honor. :)

Heh, whichever you're more comfortable with

Really, though, I have a lot of respect for you and Frem both, and it just tickles me to hear that I'm making some of your points for you, and doing it well.
I haven't always had much emotional stamina for debates here. I think this one has been much more civil than most, allowing me to make a lot of points I wanted to make without it all being washed away in a tide.
Also, having recently had some things crystalize for me in how I see the world, and what is right and wrong, I can come at things from a less emotional place. Funny how that works.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I'm not arguing for nudity to be accepted simply because I'm a dirty old man who wants to ogle the supple young college girls here in town; I'm saying it shouldn't even be an issue.

That's it exactly. I think we're in pretty close agreement on the whole issue.

My boyfriend made a good point today, though, that I thought I'd share: If someone is preparing food, they should be wearing clothes. And gloves. And a hairnet. Hell, saran wrap would probably work for that purpose, but from a hygenic perspective it might be... preferable. We could always try to make sure there was some kind of sanitary shower or something, to be used consistently throughout the day, but it might be less hassle to go with a covering. And, on the topic of clothing for protective purposes, being around hot grease certainly qualifies.

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
you link sexual modesty to so much human evil.

I wish you'd read the entirety of what I say before you say something like this, since I wasn't discussing "human modesty" in the paragraph you quoted, but rather the determining of right and wrong based on a surface emotional response, rather than empathy and analyzation. I link that sort of irrationality becoming dogma to a lot of human evil, yes. And "modesty" can go too far, based on the same sort of thing. You're going out on a limb to say I consider it to be some kind of root to all evil, though. Just to clarify. My stance is not that clothing is a root of evil, just that the lawful requirements we have might be kind of unnecessary, and could lead to more repression. Such as, you know, shrouding in heavy veils.
But then again if you want to shroud yourself in heavy veils, rock on with your bad self, so long as it's a free and clear choice. And by that I of course mean free and clear of the threat of death.

[/sig]

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 26, 2010 1:21 AM

Quote:

Well I can see why you're quite passionate about this, since you link sexual modesty to so much human evil. To my mind modesty is an easy scapegoat, and a natural cultural sensibility - you can call it a 'societal construct' - but it is one that is rooted in the human soul.

Now what if I tried that same passage this way?

"Well I can see why you're quite passionate about this, since you link nudity to so much human evil. To my mind nudity is an easy scapegoat, and an unnatural cultural sensibility - you can call shame a 'societal construct' - but nudity is rooted in the human soul."

You seem to have a very negative emotional response to the idea of nudity, while many others here seem to have quite a positive emotional response to it, and find it a natural state.

I'd take issue with your idea of having to teach babies to speak, too. Babies WILL speak. They have to learn the right words. You have to TEACH them to dress themselves, and you have to TEACH them to keep their clothes on, because to most toddlers, it seems being out of their clothes is the more natural way to be.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 26, 2010 2:20 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

I'm so very pro clothing for many reasons:

1. hygiene (butt on couch - good one)
2. safety (fry cook)
3. psychology (fry cook!)
4. Comfort (Minneapolis in February)
5. Learning from children... worms for dinner.
6. Women in t-shirts and blue jeans.
7. Self expression! How boring would the world be if everyone was naked?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 26, 2010 2:30 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
I'm nervous in general of people who are willing to reshape society for ideology's sake (true of libertarians/anarchists as well I think...).

Indeed, I get into it with other anarchists about it, like wall to wall brawls, cause blowing the supports out from under a society people are unwilling to part with is as dumbass as gunpoint government, and in the end the same thing.
But oh try tellin em that!

Oh, and PR, yah, I once went to cook breakfast (bacon and eggs) shirtless on one of the rare summer days it actually gets hot around here, and still half asleep didn't see the flaw in that plan right off... YEOWTCH.

I ain't doin THAT again, nuh-uh-never!

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 26, 2010 12:53 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
I wasn't discussing "human modesty" in the paragraph you quoted, but rather the determining of right and wrong based on a surface emotional response, rather than empathy and analyzation.

Oh I see, your post was more of a general appeal to enlightened thinking. Ok.

Quote:
You seem to have a very negative emotional response to the idea of nudity,

No, as I explained I'm resistant to ideological people deciding that they know what is natural for a society better than the society itself, and proposing appropriate re-shaping of it.

Quote:
You have to TEACH them to dress themselves, and you have to TEACH them to keep their clothes on, because to most toddlers, it seems being out of their clothes is the more natural way to be.

You have to TEACH young children to wash themselves and tidy their toys after them. So is being unwashed and untidy the natural way to be? These are sensibilities that are TAUGHT - just like modesty. The fact that they all FEEL right once they have been learnt, shows to me that they are natural instincts that just need to be cultivated. And it turns out that every advanced and successful society does so.

Quote:
Indeed, I get into it with other anarchists about it, like wall to wall brawls, cause blowing the supports out from under a society people are unwilling to part with...

Yeah that's a good analogy, I get the impression from anarchists sometimes that they want to remove laws just to watch society squirm.

With libertarians I get the impression that they want to remove laws not so that it will damage society, but if in doubt they'll err on the side of damaging society rather than intruding on personal freedoms.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 26, 2010 4:56 PM

Quote:
No, as I explained I'm resistant to ideological people deciding that they know what is natural for a society better than the society itself, and proposing appropriate re-shaping of it.

And I'm resistant to ideological society deciding that they know best what is natural for ME better than I myself, and proposing appropriate re-shaping of my sensibilities.

See, it works both ways. If you pass laws telling me I *must* wear clothing, you've forced me to comply, at gunpoint, with threat of force. That's what laws are - the threat of force. If you pass laws saying that I can wear clothing or not, you've threatened no one with a gun, or with force. You can wear clothing, or you can not.

Quote:
The fact that they all FEEL right once they have been learnt, shows to me that they are natural instincts that just need to be cultivated. And it turns out that every advanced and successful society does so.

That's a lot of feel-good crap that's really nothing more than your opinion and say-so. They "FEEL right" - to who? To you? So you're the final arbiter of what's right for others, going off what "FEELS right" to YOU? Nice work if you can get it, I guess. There but for the grace of God, goes God, eh? Every advanced and successful society also goes to war, too. I guess war just "FEELS right", huh? War must be good, because so many people do it; it's a natural instinct to want to kill other people, it just needs to be cultivated, according to your logic.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 26, 2010 6:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
Quote:
Originally posted by Malachite:
1: It seemed to me in your first response that you were proposing the idea that physical harm was the primary means for determining whether something was wrong.

"It is, or at least should be"

2:"Like I said, if there is any proof that legal nudity causes more harm than it avoids, I'll of course consider it."

Okay, I don't know how to do all of the fancy quote post and response techniques you do, so I just labeled them 1 and 2.

Let me ask a quick question about #2 first. You are asking me to provide proof that legal nudity causes more harm than good. How can I, if there aren't any studies in which several random US cities suddenly have clothing laws repealed and the results are then objectively recorded, analyzed and published? I think sometimes we still have to use logic and reason for these kind of discussions when studies allude us. I might have missed it: have you already provided proof that our current US society clothing standards (ie do what you want in the privacy of your own home, choose for yourself whether you want to live in a nudist colony/clothing optional apartment, choose whether or not you want to go to a topless beach in Florida/topless tanning area in Las Vegas, or how much or how little clothing within reason you want to wear in your average public area -- and, as far as I can see, people can get away with wearing pretty little in lot of public settings) cause more harm than good when people follow them? If you already provided a link to the study in an earlier post, I missed it -- which isn't surprising seeing as I seem to be getting more and more adhd as I get older...

Now to #1. I'm going to try to be concise. First off, I think it is kind of neat to have the general principle that physical harm be the primary means of determining whether something is wrong. That being said, I still don't think it works well. Examples I can think of would be noise pollution (such as a neighbor playing their stereo too loud and too long, or letting their dog bark all night, when I would like peace and quiet). No it doesn't cause me physical harm, and, with earplugs, I might not lose too much sleep, but it is annoying and I should have some lawful means at my disposal to have it addressed. Other examples of this could be sexual harassment (or any kind of harassment, including racist comments or sexual jokes). I don't think I can demonstrate that squeezing some girl's behind or saying something inappropriate is physically harmful to the woman, but doesn't she have some right to not be harassed? What about stereotypical images used in the media, like advertisments? Ethnic rights groups tend to get upset about them and call for them to be changed or stopped. I don't think it can be demonstrated that the Frito Bandito really caused anybody physical harm, though. Negative stereotypes may reinforce wrong notions, but the act of stereotyping doesn't cause measurable physical harm as far as I know. It is still wrong, though, right? And, I know, with the nudity example, it doesn't do me any physical harm, but I still don't want to be exposed to male genitals on a regular basis and I don't want to be exposed to anyone's fecal matter if I sit somewhere they just sat (like a bus, or a restaurant seat) and I don't want to have my office furniture stained with said grossness, but I also don't want a people mad at me for "discriminating" against them when I post the sign, "no shirt, no shoes, no pants, no service". I also wonder if the rule applies to animal cruelty. I'm not causing anyone physical harm, it is "only" an animal. If the physical harm principle applies to animals as well, though, then we are in trouble, because many people kill and eat meat. Would we have to mandate vegetarianism and make hunting illegal?

You may answer that the physical harm principle is only one tool to determine wrongness and therefore dismiss my right to animal cruelty on other grounds. In that case, I'm wondering how we decide when to apply the rule primarily, and when not to. For instance, we can use this principal of physical harm determines wrongness to address other issues. One of these examples would be abortion. Abortion causes measurable physical harm (death) to a human fetus/baby -- it also is physically harmful to the mother (at the very minimum it hurts, but there can be life threatening consequences as well). Does the woman's right to choose trump the fact that it leads to the death of another human? No. No matter what the circumstances of the abortion (even the ones that might be necessary to save the mother), the child ends up dead. By the principle of demonstrable harm, abortion would be wrong in most, if not all circumstances.

Another example I wonder about is school prayer. If one can use the principle to determine that gay marriage should be legal (because it harms no one), can one use it to say that school prayer is fine? The child is exposed to something that a parent might find objectionable but which can't be demonstrated to be doing physical harm. The child can choose whether or not to actually pray. Does that mean it is okay for prayer in school at the teacher's discretion (ie they can choose to only have one religious prayer type represented and others ignored, because it can't be demonstrated that ignoring the budhist prayer is physically harmful to the child)?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 26, 2010 6:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Malachite:
Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
Quote:
Originally posted by Malachite:
1: It seemed to me in your first response that you were proposing the idea that physical harm was the primary means for determining whether something was wrong.

"It is, or at least should be"

2:"Like I said, if there is any proof that legal nudity causes more harm than it avoids, I'll of course consider it."

Okay, I don't know how to do all of the fancy quote post and response techniques you do, so I just labeled them 1 and 2.

Let me ask a quick question about #2 first. You are asking me to provide proof that legal nudity causes more harm than good. How can I, if there aren't any studies in which several random US cities suddenly have clothing laws repealed and the results are then objectively recorded, analyzed and published? I think sometimes we still have to use logic and reason for these kind of discussions when studies allude us.

That would be fine, IF you were using logic and reason. You aren't; you're using intuition, supposition, superstition, and opinion, and trying to pass them off as logic, reason, and fact.

Quote:
I might have missed it: have you already provided proof that our current US society clothing standards (ie do what you want in the privacy of your own home, choose for yourself whether you want to live in a nudist colony/clothing optional apartment, choose whether or not you want to go to a topless beach in Florida/topless tanning area in Las Vegas, or how much or how little clothing within reason you want to wear in your average public area -- and, as far as I can see, people can get away with wearing pretty little in lot of public settings) cause more harm than good when people follow them? If you already provided a link to the study in an earlier post, I missed it -- which isn't surprising seeing as I seem to be getting more and more adhd as I get older...

Didn't you just point out that such studies are impossible, since no area of the U.S. has tried it? What would you be comparing it to? "Compare and contrast societal attitudes towards nudity in two different areas, both of which outlaw nudity." Yes, that sounds like a scintillating study. (Yes, I'm being sarcastic. Some people can't quite tell.)

Now, what if we compare areas of the world with markedly more lax attitudes about nudity? I'll bet you money you'd see less violent crime, less murders, less shootings, less rapes. Does that prove anything to you? I doubt it; you'll no doubt lay out a raft of other reasons why those people, who are so much less uptight about nudity, would also be less uptight about most of the other things in their lives.

Quote:
Now to #1. I'm going to try to be concise. First off, I think it is kind of neat to have the general principle that physical harm be the primary means of determining whether something is wrong. That being said, I still don't think it works well. Examples I can think of would be noise pollution (such as a neighbor playing their stereo too loud and too long, or letting their dog bark all night, when I would like peace and quiet). No it doesn't cause me physical harm, and, with earplugs, I might not lose too much sleep, but it is annoying and I should have some lawful means at my disposal to have it addressed. Other examples of this could be sexual harassment (or any kind of harassment, including racist comments or sexual jokes). I don't think I can demonstrate that squeezing some girl's behind or saying something inappropriate is physically harmful to the woman, but doesn't she have some right to not be harassed? What about stereotypical images used in the media, like advertisments? Ethnic rights groups tend to get upset about them and call for them to be changed or stopped. I don't think it can be demonstrated that the Frito Bandito really caused anybody physical harm, though. Negative stereotypes may reinforce wrong notions, but the act of stereotyping doesn't cause measurable physical harm as far as I know. It is still wrong, though, right? And, I know, with the nudity example, it doesn't do me any physical harm, but I still don't want to be exposed to male genitals on a regular basis and I don't want to be exposed to anyone's fecal matter if I sit somewhere they just sat (like a bus, or a restaurant seat) and I don't want to have my office furniture stained with said grossness, but I also don't want a people mad at me for "discriminating" against them when I post the sign, "no shirt, no shoes, no pants, no service". I also wonder if the rule applies to animal cruelty. I'm not causing anyone physical harm, it is "only" an animal. If the physical harm principle applies to animals as well, though, then we are in trouble, because many people kill and eat meat. Would we have to mandate vegetarianism and make hunting illegal?

Or worse, would you have us put pants on our dogs and cats, so you aren't traumatized by their nakedness?

Quote:

Another example I wonder about is school prayer. If one can use the principle to determine that gay marriage should be legal (because it harms no one), can one use it to say that school prayer is fine? The child is exposed to something that a parent might find objectionable but which can't be demonstrated to be doing physical harm. The child can choose whether or not to actually pray. Does that mean it is okay for prayer in school at the teacher's discretion (ie they can choose to only have one religious prayer type represented and others ignored, because it can't be demonstrated that ignoring the budhist prayer is physically harmful to the child)?

Are you okay with me leading the class in a Satanist prayer, even if your kids are Christian? It won't do any physical harm, after all. Can I decide that this month we'll be observing Ramadan in accordance with Muslim beliefs, and your kids will fast from sun-up to sundown? It doesn't do them physical harm, and they'll get to pray five times a day to Allah, which you should be very happy about.

Seems the only people who want school prayer are the ones who want you praying to THEIR god, but sure as hell don't want their kids praying to anyone ELSE's god.

Besides, kids have plenty of chances to pray in school already. Many a girl prays that they aren't pregnant, and many a boy prays that his coach will die a horrible death. Is that the kind of prayer you were talking about?

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 27, 2010 3:33 AM

Mike -- Yes, exactly!

My question about whether there had been studies demonstrating that there was harm caused by our current society's clothing requirements is quite silly. That was the point. If one side says, "show me a study", the other side can say it, too. I personally think the burden of proof is going to be on the person who wants to make a radical change to society. In fact, the same study that I have been asked to provide which would show if there were harm done in making nudity in public optional also needs to be provided by the other side in order to demonstrate that it actually does some good -- otherwise, why make the change? It sounds ridiculous, but if we are going to use the "show me a study" argument, I think it has to apply both ways and it is still kind of pointless since the studies don't exist, and even if they do, one side or the other can just dismiss them as not being applicable to our current situation in the US, showing evidence of correlation but not causation, or displaying bias.

In regard to your point about whether I want my kids taught Satanism in school, my answer is "no". But guess what? I'm allowed to object, because I still am convinced I'm allowed to object to something based on emotional reasons (not just reasons that have to be physically demonstrable). My point is that the physically demonstable harm principle is a double edged sword that then can be used to justify things we "feel" are wrong.

Also, just so you know, I think I am using logic and reason to discuss the ideas at hand, so I'm not sure personal insults (your quote, "That would be fine, IF you were using logic and reason. You aren't; you're using intuition, supposition, superstition, and opinion, and trying to pass them off as logic, reason, and fact.")to the contrary are necessary or productive... Just sayin'...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 27, 2010 4:00 AM

Quote:

Also, just so you know, I think I am using logic and reason to discuss the ideas at hand, so I'm not sure personal insults (your quote, "That would be fine, IF you were using logic and reason. You aren't; you're using intuition, supposition, superstition, and opinion, and trying to pass them off as logic, reason, and fact.")to the contrary are necessary or productive... Just sayin'...

Mal, I didn't mean it to be personally insulting. Snarky, maybe. But also, true. You might THINK you're using logic and reason, but you're presenting your feelings and opinions, and you really HAVEN'T presented anything in the way of facts or logic. You have your opinions, and you're fully entitled to them, as are we all to ours. But to lay them out as incontrovertible facts and claim they're logical and reasoned is misleading and disingenuous. I'm sorry if you take that as an insult. You can voice your opinion all you want, but I won't accept your opinion or feelings as anything more logical or reasoned than they are. Feelings are real, but it doesn't make them logical.

Now, where were we?

Oh, and sorry if things took a less-than-civil turn. I'll take the blame for that, but a few posts ahead of mine seemed a bit snarky, and I tend to snark back, harder. :)

Now back to your regularly-scheduled debate...

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 27, 2010 5:57 AM