Survey Says by AnthonyT

Hey Kaneman,
You didn't ask, but I actually do agree with some of your posts. I agree with your point that the majority have said it is fine to be offensive, but I think the vulgarity gets in the way of communication. I often find that your posts are so offensive, that I end up trying to skip the offensive stuff so as to get to the point and may miss the point because I'm skipping or because I'm thinking, "Wow, this guy can really say some vulgar stuff". The vulgarity actually seems to initially make me so repelled that I don't want to look to explore your post further for the underlying message. I also am hesitant to actually agree with the point of your posts because I don't want to be associated with someone who can come across as hateful and misogynistic (sp?). But you are right, you can be as offensive as you want (according to the view of the majority of posters -- I still am in the minority in that I think that there should be some limits placed on that which is eggregiously offensive, even if there is no evidence of harm).

I was wondering if you could flesh out your point about finding male genitalia revolting and how people wouldn't want their daughters exposed to male genitalia. The main argument against this appears to be that there is no evidence of harm to you or the daughters. Any thoughts?

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

Thursday, June 3, 2010 5:47 AM

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

Quote:
All laws are unnatural.

Societal rules, and codes of behaviour are natural, and if you don't wear your loin cloth you'll be ostracised or kicked out of the tribe (or village or whatever). Most law is just an extension of this, and an improvement - more clearly defined and with a professional enforcement arm, instead of mob/vigilante justice. That's how it seems to me.

Quote:
In the nudist camp, there are many happy nudists. They are your evidence. There is no higher incidence of societal problems within the actual nudist camps than without. This makes clothing a neutral factor.

Well if there was one place we would expect public nudity to go down smoothly it would be in a self-selected nudist colony. So you could say it passes the first test. I personally want to test the proposed new system to its extreme though (like Malachite's example of new medicines that first have to be extensively tested), before I unleash it on the whole of society. That's why I talk about nudity in our schools, etc.

I've found a succint description of where UK law has evolved to in this article, which I'd like to hear your take on: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8235959.stm

This answers my question of overt provocative sexual dress I think - you can prosecute that as outraging public decency or indecent exposure, because a jury or whatever can decide that there was intent. Whereas nudists are free to just go about their business and can not be prosecuted.

Quote:
Heck, there's a whole genre of movies that focus on the gross-out factor. Fans seem to find them delightful. Now, if someone who were not a fan watched too many of them, would they then be traumatized? Would they eventually be inured? These are the questions.

That's a good example, society teaches us lots of different squeamishnesses... Bodily functions are not 'unnatural' and movies that revel in them are not morally corrupt or shameful - but if people with that particular squeamishness were forced to endure them they would have to adapt, and have that sensibility stripped from them.

But you can argue that there is something intrinsically revolting about bodily functions - and it is not really that healthy/natural for society to feel that way about the human body. I would argue that to some extent maybe it is...

Heads should roll

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

Thursday, June 3, 2010 6:11 AM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by Malachite:
Hey Kaneman,
You didn't ask, but I actually do agree with some of your posts. I agree with your point that the majority have said it is fine to be offensive, but I think the vulgarity gets in the way of communication. I often find that your posts are so offensive, that I end up trying to skip the offensive stuff so as to get to the point and may miss the point because I'm skipping or because I'm thinking, "Wow, this guy can really say some vulgar stuff". The vulgarity actually seems to initially make me so repelled that I don't want to look to explore your post further for the underlying message. I also am hesitant to actually agree with the point of your posts because I don't want to be associated with someone who can come across as hateful and misogynistic (sp?). But you are right, you can be as offensive as you want (according to the view of the majority of posters -- I still am in the minority in that I think that there should be some limits placed on that which is eggregiously offensive, even if there is no evidence of harm).

I was wondering if you could flesh out your point about finding male genitalia revolting and how people wouldn't want their daughters exposed to male genitalia. The main argument against this appears to be that there is no evidence of harm to you or the daughters. Any thoughts?

Vulgarity first, Words are just words. I look at it from a poetic view. If you read a poem just for the words that are written you will most likely miss the deeper meaning. You need to ferret out the Shakespearean rhythm for it to make any sense... Take a simple word like "ugly", usually when I use it, my intention is to mean "-mis, bad, wrong" not facially repugnant.

as for swinging dicks, Do we really need a study to show us that there would be a negative consequence to daughters, if men walked around with their balls sagging and their cocks going up and down all day(the average guy gets somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 hard-ons a day). Even savage peoples have found, through societal evolution, it best to cover ones genitals. I think some here are being naive and others are just wishing for nudity because they are hedonistic perverts or such nerds and only get nudity from movies.

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

Thursday, June 3, 2010 6:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
“The majority said someone has a right to be insulting.”

Hello,

You have made an error of logic.

Just because you have the right to be insulting does not mean that being insulting is right.

--Anthony"

Anthony,
(my tone = questioning and amused) Your response actually seems to be an error of logic to me. You started with right (in the sense of "a personal freedom") and ended with right (in the sense of morally correct). It is a cool statement, but the 2 parts of your statement are not logically connected. Though of course I am of the same opinion as you are here.

By your response, it sounds like you are in favor of using social means (admonishment) as opposed to laws to encourage pro-social behavior. What is the next step if social means don't work? Tolerance? Avoidance? Ignoring? I suppose these things might work to change behavior, but I'm also wondering that if social means fail, can a law still be useful? (Of course, the underlying assumption is that people have a right to try to correct each other's behavior either through social means, legal means or a combination of the two. Hmmm, do we have that right? In what situations? Could it be that when there is no demonstrable evidence of harm, you are to use social means, and if there is you could use legal means? I think I would still be stuck going, "Why can't we use legal means, if the social ones have failed, even though there is no demonstrable harm". As always, I'm back to questioning the opinion,"Something is wrong if it can be shown to cause demonstrable harm" and, "Laws can only be made to restrict something that shows demonstrable harm". I may have twisted everything up again, doh! We just declared that personal insults were wrong, though, and yet, they don't cause demonstrable harm (they might make a person feel bad). I'm wondering if there are other things we would declare as wrong, even though it flies under the radar of demonstrable harm? Does that mean that we could make a case for vulgarity being wrong, even though it has not been shown to cause demonstrable harm (though it sure can make a person feel bad)? In regards to nudity, people find male flashers to be offensive/vulgar and even traumatizing. Can this be an argument that nudity can be traumatizing and therefore demonstrably wrong? Or, in a society that allows nudity, would flashing still be illegal?

(I'm sorry, this became a musing post).

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

Thursday, June 3, 2010 6:21 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Social means are the only means to change this sort of behavior. It is each individual's right to display disapproval of things they don't agree with, and to use their free expression to encourage change.

No law is required to intervene.

--Anthony

"On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you." --Auraptor

"This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on." --Fremdfirma

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

Thursday, June 3, 2010 6:27 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"In regards to nudity, people find male flashers to be offensive/vulgar and even traumatizing. Can this be an argument that nudity can be traumatizing and therefore demonstrably wrong? Or, in a society that allows nudity, would flashing still be illegal?"

Hello,

Most likely 'flashing' is an issue because we have raised ourselves to think so. However, in some clothing-optional cultures the interjection of sex into nudity is what causes offense. The law then determines whether the display is neutral or sexually suggestive. Generally, fondling oneself to arousal in public is something disallowed.

It is entirely possible that nudity *might* be harmful in our society because we have created a society where nudity is harmful. If I teach someone that hats are horribly disgusting, and then wear a hat, they might be traumatized.

This is something I have considered. We may be setting ourselves up for injury.

Spain returns as an interesting area of study.

--Anthony

"On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you." --Auraptor

"This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on." --Fremdfirma

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

Thursday, June 3, 2010 6:35 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Anthony,

I really like your style. Anyways, I think I am ignorant about what you are referring. Did the people in Barcelona vote to remove all restrictions on nudity?"

Hello,

As of the last time I looked into it, Barcelona, Spain was a society of 1.6 million souls living in a city with no nudity laws. Indeed, nudity is a recognized right there. The mechanism by which these laws were overturned is unknown to me, as is the length of time Barcelona has been clothing-optional. I think learning more about this might better inform the debate.

--Anthony

"On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you." --Auraptor

"This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on." --Fremdfirma

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

Thursday, June 3, 2010 6:38 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Also, there would still be a big difference between having a population vote to remove a mandate versus suddenly ending the mandate without popular consent."

Hello,

Barring dictatorship, this is the only practical way to remove the law, I think. ;-)

The alternative would be a Supreme Court appeal, and winning such an appeal would simply mean that the anti-nudity laws were never Constitutional to begin with. I doubt such an appeal would be successful.

--Anthony

"On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you." --Auraptor

"This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on." --Fremdfirma

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

Thursday, June 3, 2010 6:55 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Societal rules, and codes of behaviour are natural, and if you don't wear your loin cloth you'll be ostracised or kicked out of the tribe (or village or whatever). Most law is just an extension of this, and an improvement - more clearly defined and with a professional enforcement arm, instead of mob/vigilante justice. That's how it seems to me."

Hello,

Saying laws should enforce social etiquette is like saying I should be arrested for using the wrong fork at dinner, or talking with my mouth full, in my opinion.

--Anthony

"On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you." --Auraptor

"This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on." --Fremdfirma

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

Thursday, June 3, 2010 6:56 AM

Kaneman: Thank you! I'm glad I am not the only one who is failing to grasp the assumption that things have to be demonstrably harmful in order to be wrong. (eta: though perhaps I'm not understanding the demonstrably harmful argument properly. Perhaps it does allow for other things to be wrong, but that those things cannot be the basis of laws)

Anyways, it sounds like you treat your verbal vulgarity as if it is an art form. Fascinating. Is there such a thing as vulgar poetry, or are you the inventor? You are saying that though your post to Phoenix came across as extremely offensive, vulgar, personal and insulting to the rest of us, there is kind of a secret code of meaning underneath it. Layers upon layers. I still think it is morally wrong to be so over the top disrespectful to someone, personally though. I don't agree that "words are words", either. I think words have powerful effects on the human psyche to heal (therapy) or harm (hate speech, facebook bullying, etc),among other things. You have certainly given me something to think about.

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

Thursday, June 3, 2010 8:14 AM

Hey Anthony,
So I just made a crazy brain connection that seems like it argues against the demonstrably harmful principle:

It started with Kaneman stating "words are words". I disagreed, saying that words can be used for good (that is therapy actually can be shown to make changes in SPECT or PET scans) and words can be used for harm (maybe Phoenix knows of the specific studies indicating that verbal abuse can lead to changes -- for now, I would point to cases where peoples written words in the form of cyberbullying have caused or at least worsened depression and even at least one suicide reported from Facebook bullying; I think I could shown that verbal bullying is linked to depression, suicide and homicide, too -- think school shootings). I'm wondering that if we decide abusive speech can cause demonstrable harm, would we be obligated to make a law against it because it is wrong. If not, why not? Does the demonstrable harm prinicple only work one way? That is, if not harmful then no law, but not in the other direction -- if harmful then law. What I'm wondering is, is it too simplistic to say, "If not harmful, no law", just as it is too simplistic to say, "If harmful, then law". There are other beliefs that can impact the relevance/importance of law besides harm, evidently, because surely we don't want to be banning everything that is harmful. Could it be that there are things we are missing that impact the relevance/importance of not having some laws that aren't related to whether they are harmful or not? ("If not harmful, then no law") I'm having a hard time coming up with examples, because everything has "not" in front of it. What do you think? Thanks.

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

Thursday, June 3, 2010 8:32 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"is it too simplistic to say, "If not harmful, no law", just as it is too simplistic to say, "If harmful, then law"."

Hello,

I see you appreciate the complexity of the issue.

This is simple truth: "If not harmful, no law." Okay, check.

This is not truth: "If harmful, then law."

A more accurate statement would be, "If harmful, maybe law."

The law itself has to be gauged as to the potential harm it will create. All laws have the potential to create harm. Sometimes this is due to the fallible nature of human machinery (government) and sometimes this is simply a natural balance of evils.

Free speech is very much a place where we balance harms. Obviously it 'hurts' when you are exposed to 'ugly' speech. This emotional distress is the 'cost' of the speech. However, there is also a cost to outlawing 'ugly' speech, and that cost is considered greater. There is a real concern that laws that would prohibit rude speech might also prohibit valid speech and create a 'thought control' culture of a reprehensible nature, where people are afraid to speak their minds due to government goons who might arrest them for it.

So I would say that while absolutely no law should be created in the absence of harm, the presence of harm should not automatically kneejerk a law response. The harm created by the behavior must be weighed against the harm created by the law itself.

--Anthony

"On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you." --Auraptor

"This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on." --Fremdfirma

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

Thursday, June 3, 2010 8:59 AM

Quote:
I'm still wondering if revulsion at seeing something can be considered a harm. Perhaps if someone could demonstrate that it is traumitizing?

I've been wondering that very thing.

Heck, there's a whole genre of movies that focus on the gross-out factor. Fans seem to find them delightful. Now, if someone who were not a fan watched too many of them, would they then be traumatized?

Well, do children count? Children who are exposed to horror films can develop nightmares, fear of the dark, fear of bad things happening to them and their family, which can be quite demonstrable to someone observing them. They can be quite grossed out and freaked out by gross things. (This is just my personal experience, though). But those are horror films, not necessarily gross-out films (though I'm not sure how we'd separate the two). Is the act of flashing considered vulgar? It is certainly shocking and could illicit anxiety and trauma (especially if the person has a history of trauma). A person could conceivable develop panic attacks as a result. If you think it counts, I might try to track down some studies (though my stupid internet at home is down, so it may be awhile). I'm wondering if, given that so many negative emotions can lead to demonstrable effects, that constant revulsion would eventually lead to it, too. Revulsion may be harder to study, though, because, usually a person chooses it, or can block out its effects because it may be fleeting. I'm not sure it would be ethical to conduct a study about the effects of revulsion. I'm also wondering if people who were chronically exposed to revolting things exist...

Anyways, I'm not going to be able to post links to some of the news articles regarding nudity causing traffic, so I'll just summarize. I don't think the articles contribute much though, because they don't go into detail and aren't fully applicable. 1) The billboard suddenly displaying porn in Russia caused traffic and one death from a heart attack. 2) A woman in Ojai, CA likes to go around topless and tends to cause traffic 3)Nudity on Calvin Klein billboards in Time Square tends to cause of traffic (that's all I got -- pretty weak, I know)

What I would like to pursue is some court cases in which someone gets in a car accident and blames it on being distracted by some topless pedestrian. I think the topless pedestrian can even be prosecuted as being a (I forget the exact word)contributing factor to the accident. Maybe Hero could provide something...

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

Thursday, June 3, 2010 9:13 AM

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

I could not have said it better myself, Anthony

Quote:
Originally posted by Malachite:
I would point to cases where peoples written words in the form of cyberbullying have caused or at least worsened depression and even at least one suicide reported from Facebook bullying; I think I could shown that verbal bullying is linked to depression, suicide and homicide, too -- think school shootings). I'm wondering that if we decide abusive speech can cause demonstrable harm, would we be obligated to make a law against it because it is wrong. If not, why not?

You are correct, I believe, in your surmises here.

So, kpo posted a very interesting article on nudity and intent, and the cases being judged one at a time. Perhaps, in the area of bullying, clear intent to cause the inflicted harm could be shown. And actually the free speech laws in the U.S. have already resulted in cases being looked at where harm was caused and intended, to determine if that sort of thing goes beyond the bounds of free speech and into criminal territory.
Ongoing harassments are likely intended to harm the target of them. Depending on the nature of the situation, they can often succeed in this. Most especially in schools, where there is little recourse to escape a harassing situation.
Bullying often doesn't stop with words either, again depending on the situation, but let's assume for a moment that it does.
There are several ways that words can cause harm. They can, as you mentioned, increase strain, depression, and suicide rates. They can also direct violence towards a target, though the people saying the inciteful things might do no violence themselves. There have been a few cases brought to court where this was the premise.
Taking things on a case-by-case basis is the most logical way to uphold the rights, but discourage abuse. If it's determined that behavior goes beyond the boundaries of the given rights due to the intent to cause harm, then a crime has been committed.
I'm glad there's already some foundation for this. Maybe it's making some of my stance more clear?

ETA:

Quote:
Originally posted by Malachite:
Children who are exposed to horror films can develop nightmares, fear of the dark, fear of bad things happening to them and their family

True. Many children have nightmares and fear of the dark regardless, though. Does the possible correlation between horror films and nightmares equal causation? I was never exposed to horror films as a small child, but I had nightmares of bad things happening to my family. Where did they come from? What is the causation?

Quote:
But those are horror films, not necessarily gross-out films (though I'm not sure how we'd separate the two).

Horror films can be gross, but not all gross films are horror.

Quote:
Is the act of flashing considered vulgar? It is certainly shocking and could illicit anxiety and trauma (especially if the person has a history of trauma). A person could conceivable develop panic attacks as a result.

Flashing is considered vulgar, in some cases. If it's done with intent of sexual assault, it is considered a sex crime. On the other hand, a woman pulling her top up at a concert or a party is defined as "flashing" but I've never seen it referred to as a sex crime. Actually, there are people who pay good money to see it on tape. Make of that what you will.

Quote:
usually a person chooses it, or can block out its effects because it may be fleeting.

I concur.

Quote:
1) The billboard suddenly displaying porn in Russia caused traffic and one death from a heart attack.

I wonder, could it be confirmed that the billboard caused the heart attack? Heart attacks happen every day. Was this one truly causation, or was there just a correlation made?
Also, what kind of 'porn' was this? Many things are referred to as porn. How would it compare to, say, some of the ads Levi has done, picturing couples wearing only the jeans? Was it a naked woman? A naked man? A naked woman straddling a naked man? Visible penetration? Something more... unusual? In other words, how potentially shocking was it? How many heads reflexively turned? How many eyes were taken off the road? How would the number of eyes taken off the road compare to other billboards, which are all trying their best to be seen?

Quote:
2) A woman in Ojai, CA likes to go around topless and tends to cause traffic

How much? Have there been any accidents?
Would the situation be the same if she were not the only one?

Quote:

3)Nudity on Calvin Klein billboards in Time Square tends to cause of traffic

Times Square is kind of a capitol of traffic. Has it been shown to be more so when said billboards are up?

Quote:

What I would like to pursue is some court cases in which someone gets in a car accident and blames it on being distracted by some topless pedestrian. I think the topless pedestrian can even be prosecuted as being a (I forget the exact word)contributing factor to the accident. Maybe Hero could provide something...

That sounds like something out of Seinfeld. Which isn't to say there's no basis in reality

[/sig]

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

Thursday, June 3, 2010 10:35 AM

Hey Phoenix,

(Just so you know, my tone is calm and not angry -- I'm glad we've been able to continue our discussion. I just wanted to say that up front, because on one point I will disagree with you and I know it is hard to read tone into a passage)

As far as the news articles go: Like I said, there is a dearth of evidence that cannot easily be explained away. I'm wanting to find actual studies, but they don't exist: either for or against suddenly allowing nudity in a society.

To the question of horror films causing nightmares. I don't find your correlation not equal to causation argument compelling. Yes, there are multiple possible causes to nightmares, but if a child has a nightmare about some scary thing he saw in a movie the night after watching the movie, it seems pretty reasonable to conclude that exposure was a factor. This one is pretty easy to google as it seems like it is common knowledge to parents, anyway. While this doesn't expressly mention horror films or grossness, it does talk about media violence images contributing to nightmares.

Quote:
"From the American Academy of Pediatrics: Policy statement--Media violence.
Council on Communications and Media.

Abstract
Exposure to violence in media, including television, movies, music, and video games, represents a significant risk to the health of children and adolescents. Extensive research evidence indicates that media violence can contribute to aggressive behavior, desensitization to violence, nightmares, and fear of being harmed. Pediatricians should assess their patients' level of media exposure and intervene on media-related health risks. Pediatricians and other child health care providers can advocate for a safer media environment for children by encouraging media literacy, more thoughtful and proactive use of media by children and their parents, more responsible portrayal of violence by media producers, and more useful and effective media ratings. Office counseling has been shown to be effective.

Also, the psychiatric community is becoming more aware of how aversive images/exposures can contribute to trauma. This may just be be an understudied area. Point 4 in the DSM-V proposed criteria for what causes PTSD reflects a growing awareness of how gross/disturbing exposures can be traumitizing. (Just so you know, "extreme" is in the eye of the beholder. If the patient says it was "extreme", it was extreme until proven otherwise -- which is difficult)

Quote:
Posttraumatic Stress Disorder *

A. The person was exposed to the following event(s): death or threatened death, actual or threatened serious injury, or actual or threatened sexual violation, in one or more of the following ways: **

1.Experiencing the event(s) him/herself2.Witnessing, in person, the event(s) as they occurred to others
3.Learning that the event(s) occurred to a close relative or close friend; in such cases, the actual or threatened death must have been violent or accidental
4.Experiencing repeated or extreme exposure to aversive details of the event(s) (e.g., first responders collecting body parts; police officers repeatedly exposed to details of child abuse); this does not apply to exposure through electronic media, television, movies, or pictures, unless this exposure is work related.

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

Thursday, June 3, 2010 10:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

"I told em, not a word, not even one, we're just going to silently disapprove, ok ?

Heads nodded, and off we went, to quietly surround them and link hands (that was spontaneous too) all the while offering silent condemnation of their profanity, hostility, and demeanor.

The effect was pretty dramatic...
-Frem

Frem, that is just too great. I was especially gladdened to see that somehow it came across as not being threatening( I was wondering if surrounding them was going to make them feel threatened).

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

Thursday, June 3, 2010 11:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"is it too simplistic to say, "If not harmful, no law", just as it is too simplistic to say, "If harmful, then law"."

Hello,

I see you appreciate the complexity of the issue.

This is simple truth: "If not harmful, no law." Okay, check.

Anthony,
I agree with Phoenix: That was a beautifully worded response.

I guess what I'm wondering is, is harm avoidance the only reason for law? Could there be other reasons for having a law? (so it would change to, "If not harmful and there is no other rationale for the law, then no law") I'll have to ponder this further. I'm thinking something along the idea of promoting structure and stability or something. It would be interesting to hear a libertarian lawyer versus a democratic/republican lawyer's perspective on this.

Anyways, I have to go.

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

Thursday, June 3, 2010 11:28 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"is harm avoidance the only reason for law? Could there be other reasons for having a law?"

Hello,

I can't think of a single reason to threaten someone with violence if they are not doing harm to others.

--Anthony

"On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you." --Auraptor

"This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on." --Fremdfirma

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

Thursday, June 3, 2010 1:41 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by Malachite:
Frem, that is just too great. I was especially gladdened to see that somehow it came across as not being threatening( I was wondering if surrounding them was going to make them feel threatened).

Honestly, at the time I was wondering it too, but these were kids, most of em, the eldest about fifteen, and not a one of us physically imposing whatever, I dunno what impulse caused the circle, but the linking of hands was cause THEY were scaring some of us, they were pretty vehement, yanno.

One of the kids suggested trying this stunt on a politician, and imma be explaining to em prolly monday why that's not so good an idea as it sounds, cause politicians are fearful critters, and as such tend to lash out with their bodygaurds and the law to percieved threat no matter how miniscule.

-Frem
ETA: Spain has a long history of deeply rooted anarchist-type behavior, and so culturally they've always leaned more in that direction than we do, so take that into account there when discussing cultural norms.

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

Thursday, June 3, 2010 2:54 PM

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

Quote:
I think you need to read a bit deeper into my posts. Things are not always what they appear.

Well if that's true I've got you wrong twice and I apologise. I don't think I've directly encountered you much on these boards before, and so I think I've mostly been going off your name, Jayne pic and 'offensive' tag. And overtly racist remarks.

Hidden layers of meaning are cool though, I'll watch out for yours in the future.

Heads should roll

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

Thursday, June 3, 2010 8:12 PM

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

Quote:
Originally posted by Malachite:
I don't find your correlation not equal to causation argument compelling.

Well, I don't take that personally, but I have to point out that the fields of scientific study and statistical research find it very compelling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
http://stats.org/in_depth/faq/causation_correlation.htm
http://www.statistics-help-online.com/node50.html
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-cause-and-corre
lation.htm

I can keep going. This particular statement is not unique to me, it's a standby in researching. To get to the bottom of what causes what, one must examine what is cause and what is more of a tie-in. Correlations might lead to causations, but it's unwise to make the leap from one to the other. I was just questioning what the actual cause might be for childhood nightmares, and indeed adult nightmares. A zombie movie might give someone zombie-themed nightmares. A bad day at work might give someone work-themed nightmares. A perfectly normal day might still leave someone with nightmares, particularly people with recurring nightmares. It's fallacious to say a horror movie is the cause of nightmares when there are so many roots of fear and nightmares. It might be a contributing factor to the content of the dream, as all aspects of our days can be. The important factor there is what any given person latches on to as emotionally important. There is a part of our brains that tag things as important or not. This can, at times, be a thing that is completely not important, but get tagged anyway. Something tagged as such will have more vivid memories and sensations attached to it, which likely makes it good dream fodder.
This may or may not lead to phobias or trauma. The individual nature of such things makes it difficult to predict what one person will respond to compared to the next. There are some common threads running through the majority of the population, such as the sound of your child's voice or the shape of your name, but even those aren't tagged as important 100% of the time.
Anyway, the cause of something like nightmares or a phobia might be an emotional tag, but what will always cause an emotional tag is much harder to pin down.
If someone watches a zombie movie when they're little, and throughout their life they have zombie nightmares and a very real fear of zombie apocalypse, trauma may well have occurred. The question then is how often that happens.

Quote:
Also, the psychiatric community is becoming more aware of how aversive images/exposures can contribute to trauma. This may just be be an understudied area.

Doubt it's under-studied. They've been trying to prove images=causation since violent videogames made their media debut.

Quote:

PTSD
A. The person was exposed to the following event(s): death or threatened death, actual or threatened serious injury, or actual or threatened sexual violation, in one or more of the following ways:
1.Experiencing the event(s) him/herself2.Witnessing, in person, the event(s) as they occurred to others
3.Learning that the event(s) occurred to a close relative or close friend; in such cases, the actual or threatened death must have been violent or accidental
4.Experiencing repeated or extreme exposure to aversive details of the event(s) (e.g., first responders collecting body parts; police officers repeatedly exposed to details of child abuse); this does not apply to exposure through electronic media, television, movies, or pictures, unless this exposure is work related.

Actually, most of it doesn't even seem to address images. And it mostly addresses violence. Exposure to grim realities of violence could very well traumatize someone. Learning myriad ugly details, being threatened or assaulted, having to gather body parts... Ugh. That would be horrible.

I'm definitely in agreement that exposure to a lot of violence can be damaging, most especially if it's up close and personal in the way they're describing here. I'm less sure of media violence causing levels of trauma, but this does lead me to beg the question that Europeans often ask: Why do we in the U.S. allow so much violence in the general media, but a mere flash of a topless female on film garners an R rating? Is it really worse to see boob than it is to see someone beaten to bloody pulp? Why allow so much of one and none of the other?

I also have a question that popped into my head yesterday: How many of you here accidentally walked in on someone in a state of undress when you were little kids wandering the house? Did it traumatize you? Did you have nightmares about it? Did you just ask some questions that made your parents blush and then move on? Did you even notice enough to ask questions? Some other response?

[/sig]

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

Friday, June 4, 2010 3:55 AM

"AnthonyT wrote:
Thursday, June 03, 2010 11:28
"is harm avoidance the only reason for law? Could there be other reasons for having a law?"

Hello,

I can't think of a single reason to threaten someone with violence if they are not doing harm to others.

--Anthony "

Hey Anthony,
I'm noticing that you didn't actually answer my question.

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

Friday, June 4, 2010 4:04 AM

Phoenix,
You misunderstand me. I don't find your correlation is not equal to causation argument compelling in the instance of frightening images causing nightmares in children. I also notice you ignored my post of the Pediatricians general recommendations on violence in the media causing demonstrable harm to children. Are you going argue with the established pediatric guidelines here? Of course correlation is not equal to causation is an established principle (eta: to keep in mind when evaluating a study). I'm not arguing that.

I think your question about why we tolerate nudity but not violence is an interesting one. I personally think we should be limiting exposure to both (again, see the Pediatric guidelines post for violent images, anyway. And for nudity, I think our general social norms are lax enough and don't need further relaxing. That is, you can be exposed to all the nudity you want in private settings or in certain other settings, like a movie theatre or strip club).

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

Friday, June 4, 2010 4:39 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Hey Anthony,
I'm noticing that you didn't actually answer my question."

Hello,

I did. There is no reason to have a law other than harm.

I will connect my thought processes:

All law is forced compliance under threat of violence, property theft, or loss of freedom.

There is no reason to threaten anyone with these things unless they are doing harm.

Ergo, no. I can't think of a single other reason for law.

--Anthony

"On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you." --Auraptor

"This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on." --Fremdfirma

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

Friday, June 4, 2010 4:58 AM

Phoenix,
Re: correlation not necessarily equal to causation. I think it would be worth googling, "How to evaluate a study", or something like that, since it will go into much more detail than I will. When evaluating a study, there are several things to keep in mind when assessing whether or not a study accurately does what it says it was planning to do and whether its results are actually applicable to everyone, or just a few. Assessing for whether the principle of correlation is not equal to causation is one of the means of determining a study's validity. Sometimes, it is determined that it is pretty obvious that x factor contributes to y result or x factor does not contribute to y result, but sometimes all you can say is that x factor is associated with y result, but that the x factor doesn't actually cause y result as far as one can tell from the study. I've already mentioned another tool for evaluating a study, which is assessing for selection bias. Some studies will have a selection bias, which calls into question their applicability to the general population and some studies don't have a selection bias which makes their results more likely to be generalizable to the population. You have to assess various aspects of the study to know, though.

There is a parallel to the freedom of speech concept. You have to determine on a case by case basis whether a given speech is excessively harmful and whether there should be judgment against a person for expressing their freedom of speech. To make this judgment, you have to consider various aspects of the case. This is similar to evaluating a study, in that there are several aspects in a given study that merit consideration before passing the judgment that the study is applicable or not.

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

Friday, June 4, 2010 6:49 AM

Anthony,
I'll have to get back to you on this, as I have friends coming in on the weekend. Have you taken a political philosophy class? (I haven't). I was talking with a lawyer friend of mine and he notes that the question of what laws are for and whether they are only to address harm is a common discussion topic with opinions on both sides. Perhaps Hero, or any non libertarian lawyer(or is he libertarian? Isn't he a lawyer?) could describe to you the other side while I'm away for the weekend. Perhaps you could pm him to get his take on things... I think it could be quite interesting to hear both sides. Thanks.

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

Friday, June 4, 2010 6:58 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Malachite,

I hope your friends' visit is a jolly affair. No rush. I have no schooling in philosophy beyond what you get in High School (which is woeful) and some tangential stuff from a stab at college. Nothing specific, but more of a general knowledge affair.

I would be interested in hearing another point of view, because the scope of my imagination is limited in that regard.

--Anthony

"On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you." --Auraptor

"This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on." --Fremdfirma

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

Friday, June 4, 2010 8:54 AM

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

Quote:
Originally posted by Malachite:
Phoenix,
Re: correlation not necessarily equal to causation. I think it would be worth googling, "How to evaluate a study", or something like that, since it will go into much more detail than I will. When evaluating a study, there are several things to keep in mind when assessing whether or not a study accurately does what it says it was planning to do and whether its results are actually applicable to everyone, or just a few. Assessing for whether the principle of correlation is not equal to causation is one of the means of determining a study's validity. Sometimes, it is determined that it is pretty obvious that x factor contributes to y result or x factor does not contribute to y result, but sometimes all you can say is that x factor is associated with y result, but that the x factor doesn't actually cause y result as far as one can tell from the study. I've already mentioned another tool for evaluating a study, which is assessing for selection bias. Some studies will have a selection bias, which calls into question their applicability to the general population and some studies don't have a selection bias which makes their results more likely to be generalizable to the population. You have to assess various aspects of the study to know, though.

There is a parallel to the freedom of speech concept. You have to determine on a case by case basis whether a given speech is excessively harmful and whether there should be judgment against a person for expressing their freedom of speech. To make this judgment, you have to consider various aspects of the case. This is similar to evaluating a study, in that there are several aspects in a given study that merit consideration before passing the judgment that the study is applicable or not.

...Did you just lecture me on the importance of critical thinking in research and re-make the point I made about free speech cases in this country? Or is this your way of agreeing with me?

Quote:
Originally posted by Malachite:
I also notice you ignored my post of the Pediatricians general recommendations on violence in the media causing demonstrable harm to children.

Well, I touched on it when I said they've been trying to prove something about it since the introduction of violent videogames. If you're looking for my opinion on the matter, it's that parents need to be parents. Children should not be baby-sat by media that is violent or otherwise. Lack of parental interaction due to electronic babysitting could be shown to be the cause of aggressive behavior just as much or more than what a child sees on screen. There need to be further and expanded studies into all the factors. If a pediatrician is looking at media exposure, they are looking just as much at levels of human interaction. There's a correlation there. But no, I don't think they've concretely proved causality.
...Which is why I said "I'm less sure of media violence causing levels of trauma." Are you sure you read my whole post and ignored nothing?

[/sig]

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

Monday, June 7, 2010 4:10 AM

Anthony,

So I’m still stuck on this seeming absolute truth you have declared: “if no harm, then no law”. The primary implication of this statement is that “laws are only for harm prevention”, yet you are not able to flat out agree or disagree with this implication. Why is that? I’m thinking that it is because if you say, “No, laws are for more than just harm prevention”, you will immediately introduce uncertainty into your statement “if no harm, then no law” (because it would mean there are other factors in determining whether or not a law should exist besides, “Does it cause harm”). But, you also know that you can’t say, “Yes, laws are only for harm prevention”, because part of you knows that laws serve other purposes (I’ll try to describe some of them in another post, if you would like), too (which then also introduces uncertainty into your maxim of “if no harm, no law”). I’m wondering if my question, “is the law only for harm avoidance” a bit too threatening to a libertarian’s political philosophy? (eta: I hope this isn't coming across as confrontational. I'm curious is all).

1) One discussion point on the topic of laws and harm prevention. Some laws (income tax, for example), cause me personal economic harm, but are justifiable because the funds are for the greater good (public education, maintaining state hospitals, maintaining the roads, providing for national defense, etc) (Now it would be nice if they actually spent my money efficiently, but that is a different gripe…) By taxing individuals, the government is able to pool everyone’s financial resources together to then apply to some monumental project, like the national highway system. Wealthy individuals alone acting out of the goodness of their hearts are not going to be able to come up with that kind of money. In similar fashion to the application of freedom of speech law, the benefits and costs need to be weighed out before making a law. Could public nudity laws fall under this category? That is, they may cause someone to be personally uncomfortable, but they are for the greater good? (More on this in point 3) Also, I’m wondering about another thing. In the case of freedom of speech, we decided to allow it for everyone and then decide on a case by case basis when the use of freedom of speech cost too much. Is there something inherently wrong with applying the reverse principle to nudity? That is, banning public nudity in general, but allowing it in certain instances where people can choose whether to be exposed to it (like a topless beach in Florida, some half marathon in San Francisco, a festival in Seattle in which bikers ride nude, Mardi Gras, etc)?

2) For the case of public nudity, I still think that we need to address whether our current nudity restrictions are excessively harmful. Are we really hurting people by expecting that they wear some basic clothing (and it really doesn’t have to be much) in public? Does this law place an excessive burden on people.

3) On to the topic of “if no harm then no law” as it applies to nudity laws. If this absolute truth holds, (and I question whether it does), we need to establish that suddenly allowing public nudity would be harmful. We’ve already discussed how there isn’t a lot of solid evidence to say whether suddenly allowing public nudity would be harmful (or helpful, for that matter), because most society’s don’t allow it, and the people that do allow it (nudist colonies, clothing optional apartments,) are not adequate representatives of the general population in this regard, due to selection bias. (Your point about Barcelona is an interesting one, and could be a nice starting point towards at least gathering more data. It may be hard to apply their results to a US population though, given that we have such different views on nudity, evidently.). The best evidence we have is a few case reports (newspaper articles) describing how some billboard or nude person caused worse traffic than usual. (Would someone mind googling “underwear billboard accident” and seeing if that pops up anything useful? My home internet is still down). And case reports can be easily explained away. So we are left with trying to make reasonable predictions about whether there would be harm from repealing public nudity laws. I’m a heterosexual male, so most of my points below are going to in reference to naked females.

a) Public nudity would be excessively harmful because it would be a distraction to drivers. First off, excessive distractions to drivers are recognized as a bad thing. In the most recent example, texting while driving has been made illegal in NC due to the increased correlation of texting just prior to vehicle accidents. As far as nudity goes, I can speak from personal experience that it is distracting – it is hard not to look at a beautiful woman, already, but having naked women walking along the sidewalk? This seems like it would be a disaster to me… I would maintain that it is common knowledge that nudity is a potent attention grabber. Just look at all the advertising that uses nudity to draw the eye to the ad. They will use a scantily clad human to sell anything, because they know we will look, (and, I suspect, they know that gawking at a beautiful woman will subvert our higher reasoning processes -- that is, we won’t think rationally about the product, because we will be associating the product with the very desirable, attractive woman and decide we want it, just like we want the woman. I’m looking at you, Axe Men’s hygiene products… and you godaddy.com… and, the list goes on). I would maintain that if we increase the nudity (in ads or in people just walking down the street), we will take more of our focus off the road and on to everything else around us, (the sidewalk, other car passengers, billboards, etc) where we hope to find some naked, beautiful human – and once we’ve found her, we’ll have difficulty pulling our eyes off of her. Yes, a beautiful, naked woman is that magnetic, in my opinion, and I am that distractible…
b) Public nudity would be excessively harmful due to hygiene issues. Do we really want to be exposing ourselves to various genitourinary and gastrointestinal microorganisms such as rotaviruses and other enteroviruses (very common and highly contagious causes of diarrhea which can last for days and will limit work productivity and perhaps cause increased hospitalizations/death for the elderly. The hospital I’m familiar with will not let employees diagnosed with rotavirus come to work, due to its contagiousness) and stds (I’m thinking things like genital herpes, genital warts, and chlamydia/gonorrhea, which might maintain some infectious potential if it were hanging around in a bit of discharge. I’m not sure, though, as I don’t know exactly which stds are the most contagious. I’m not so worried about HIV for this, btw) when we sit down on public transportation, a public restaurant, the dmv, the movie theatre, etc? Once we touch that seat, we have the potential to transfer it to our eyes/nose (rubbing), mouth (by touching our food), or any open wound and also on to the people around us such as the children with us (feeding them, touching them, etc). (And, of course, small children who are with us are going to have even less good sense about what should and shouldn’t be touched, so even if the adult is smart, the child is still going to be impulsively touching things and touching themselves and others…) How does Barcelona deal with this? Do they mandate clothing in certain public settings? Do they mandate certain cleaning protocols after any nude person sits anywhere? If so, then there are still going to be plenty of new laws to create and enforce, so repealing the current nudity law won’t make much sense even from the “let’s have one less law on the books” standpoint.
c) Public nudity would increase the amount of sexual harassment charges and the amount of harassment charges in general. Walking in a crowd, sometimes a person may get accidently bumped. I’m betting an attractive naked female is going to get bumped quite a bit more while waiting in line. I’m betting that she is going to feel harassed as she finds more and more people taking pictures of her. I’m betting there will be more verbal harassment, as men overtly stare/leer and make comments (but by the woman exposing themselves, I think they open themselves up to comments about it and then have less firm ground to stand on if they don’t like what is said. Even the polite-ish comment, “You have beautiful breasts,” is harder to make sound innocent than, “That’s a nice sweater”. Some are going to feel it is harassing. Yes, most men will probably know not to make any comment at all, but there will be those who don’t, and there will be less legal recourse for the female). Women already complain that men stare at their chest to much. Do you think that is going to get better when women opt not to wear clothing at all? My bet is that the more nudity is shown, the more overt stares a person will get and some of these stares will make the person quite uncomfortable – possibly uncomfortable enough to file a harassment charge (which would then be that much harder to enforce/pronounce judgment on. For example, women: I ride this subway everyday, and I frequently see him staring at my chest and looking longingly. He even licked his lips. Man: I also ride this subway every day. She has a beautiful chest and was exposing it in public. Why can’t I look at it? It isn’t causing her any harm. Also, I have chapped lips.) Now, HK Cav’s point about social norms is a good one. Chances are, most people are still going to wear clothes, or they will learn pretty quickly that it is uncomfortable not to wear clothes, but, for those who do choose to go naked, these are going to be relevant points. Also, as we all know, laws aren’t just made for the people who are going to follow them, they are also made to provide some consequence to the people who don’t. So, lets say, a mom is sitting on the subway with their 5 year old daughter. A naked man, sitting across from the daughter stares at her and gets an erection and scratches it with his hand. Mom gets freaked out and thinks he is leering at her daughter. Daughter gets the creeps, or is curious, or is reminded of the time her teacher asked her to touch his privates and panics, or whatever. Man says he was just having an erection, which is a normal part of his day, and at the same time, he happened to have an itch. Do we really want to create a system where that scenario exists and you can’t enforce a consequence?

Again, all this is just my opinion. A lawyer is going to better be able to argue the legal ramifications (and whether they are that significant) for point c. An epidemiologist would better be able to describe the risks of point b. To me, the opinion seems pretty rational, and I would want some powerful counter opinions before I am going to be ready to vote for public nudity.

Also, sorry for the long post.

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

Monday, June 7, 2010 4:13 AM

(Tone = friendly)

Phoenix: Hmmm, I suppose I was sort of lecturing you on the importance of critical thinking in research, but that was a secondary issue. You had already demonstrated your critical thinking skills in the topic of freedom of speech and being able to weigh risks and benefits of regulating it. I wanted to confirm you knew that you have to use those same skills in weighing a study and its results as well, because you might not have received that specialized education. (Your incorrect use of correlation not equal to causation indicated to me that you have not received specialized education in designing research studies, editing research journals, or in evaluating a study for validity and applicability – or, if you had, you weren’t properly applying your knowledge, so it seemed that some "lecturing" was prudent, either to educate or at least establish we were on the same page).

The primary issue I was lecturing you on was the concept of correlation versus causation and how to apply it. You were applying it universally, (that is, simply stating, “correlation is not equal to causation” even in instances where it is pretty obvious that correlation does equal causation, such as scary movies causing nightmares), instead of using your critical thinking skills to apply on a case by case basis (so I needed to point out the proper means of applying the concept). Correlation has to equal causation in at least some instances, otherwise we would never be able to “prove” anything with a study. Does that make more sense?

Also, I am definitely with you on the whole "parents need to be parents" topic (eta: but I'm going to have to agree with the Pediatricians recommendations on exposure to violence in the media until there is compelling evidence to suggest that their recommendations and the research it is based on is bogus...).

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

Monday, June 7, 2010 5:58 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Mal,

I'll see what I can do to focus my responses.

Your preamble about the purpose of laws needs some example. I wonder if there are any laws that do not focus on harm prevention that I would agree with. I still haven't been able to imagine any.

1) Income Tax is to support the government we decided was necessary to prevent us from coming to harm. It does other things, and we can discuss the validity of those things. I will freely admit my duality on some issues, (and have, elsewhere) such as the Arizona water sharing law and public health care, both of which conflict with my philosophy.

On your freedom of speech example, I think you understand that allowing something in general (free speech) and disallowing something in general (public nudity) are very different things.

2) The law only burdens people who would choose to wear less and are forced to wear more. Asking whether the burden is excessive is simply asking whether any burden is necessary at all in this regard.

3) I wonder if a billboard displaying a popular sports event or television show wouldn't garner a similar result? The point is that people yearn to see what is on display. The question is, what have we, as a society, done to create this yearning? If the display was no longer rare, would the yearning still exist? When something is no longer exceptionally noteworthy, what happens?

a) Nude beauty would doubtless grab the eye, as would beautiful women in lingerie and string bikinis. This is a zero change event. Beauty will always grab the eye.

b) There are already laws regarding the donning of protective gear in the case of contagious disease. Masks are a commonly understood practice. I'd imagine this being extended to include seeping pussy contagions. Really, is this a nudity issue, or don't we want everyone with seeping wounds and contagious discharges to cover them? What if they had one on their arm? This is a CDC issue, and ought to be addressed in the absence of nudity. As for fecal matter/related bacteria, we already face this problem as a culture. I do not expect it to be greatly exacerbated by nudity laws. Ask yourself what the great health difference is between nudity and g-string bikinis, and then ask yourself if the concern is really a nudity concern.

c) This is essentially the Muslim or Puritan argument of modesty. Women already face these problems. Some women who wear low-cut tops or short cut skirts are said to be 'asking for it' in terms of sexual harassment. Culture evolves to accommodate social norms. The woman who wears short skirts and lots of cleavage already deals with sexual harassment from men who lack self control. Nude people would suffer similar harassment. This is already a problem and the solution to it is not mandating modesty.

Your further example of an erect man scratching himself is not a new situation. This same situation can happen currently. An (obviously) erect man can scratch his balls through his biker shorts while leering at little girls. Nothing new there. Nothing added by the specificity of nudity.

I think you will find that all of your concerns really exist already in our clothed society.

--Anthony

"On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you." --Auraptor

"This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on." --Fremdfirma

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

Monday, June 7, 2010 6:36 AM

Sorry Anthony,
My internet is down and I haven't read your response yet. You mentioned my preamble, which is what I wanted to apologize about. It sounds like we are getting logical wires crossed. If I am understanding your second to last post, you are saying that the only point of laws is to prevent harm. Right? Which now leaves it up to me (or someone else, please (?)) to come up with other reasons for having laws. Right? Again. Sorry about the miscommunication. Will talk again on Wednesday or Thursday.

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

Monday, June 7, 2010 7:03 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Mal,

Yes, I mean that I can not rationalize using force or imprisonment or theft of property to coerce people unless harm is involved.

Does that make sense?

We can continue this at your leisure. It's a learning discussion, not a race. :-)

--Anthony

"On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you." --Auraptor

"This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on." --Fremdfirma

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

Monday, June 7, 2010 7:34 AM

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

Quote:
Originally posted by Malachite:
Your incorrect use of correlation not equal to causation indicated to me that you have not received specialized education...You were applying it universally, (that is, simply stating, “correlation is not equal to causation” even in instances where it is pretty obvious that correlation does equal causation...Correlation has to equal causation in at least some instances, otherwise we would never be able to “prove” anything with a study.

You're right, that would mean that nothing is proven with studies. And, in fact, things are not conclusively proven with studies. Studies of correlation can lead to predictions, theories, speculation. Educated guesses, if you will. Correlation not equaling causation is, in fact, a universal truth in research. Correlation is never accepted as proof of causation, only as a guide to a possible theory or hypothesis. Controlled experiments provide proof of causations and confirmation of hypotheses. That's why some things are theories and some are proven hypotheses.
Predictions can be made based on correlation, but that does not mean one factor is the cause of another, only that they often show up in the same place. For instance, many people who are drinkers also smoke, or vise versa. A tendency towards alcoholism can be predicted in someone who is a regular smoker, but the smoking does not cause the drinking. They happen independently of each other, but often have factors in common, so they often show positive correlation.
In your example of nightmares this also applies. Since nightmares show up in instances that exclude the independent variable of horror movies, they cannot be said to be dependent variables, caused by exposure to horror movies. The two happen independently of each other, so it is a flawed hypothesis to say that one is caused by the other.
In some instances, studies show multiple correlations all triangulating on a conclusion. Sometimes this is taken as proof of causation, such as with the link between cigarettes and cancer. This was also paired with biological plausibility, taken from years of experiments and observation.
I hope that was specialized enough for you.

Quote:
I'm going to have to agree with the Pediatricians recommendations on exposure to violence in the media until there is compelling evidence to suggest that their recommendations and the research it is based on is bogus...).

That's fine, but you need to recognize that it is a theory, and not a proven hypothesis. I have no problem with observational theories, but they can often disregard other influences, especially in behavioral science. The research isn't bogus just because it doesn't prove causation, but it is bogus to claim causation when there haven't been any controlled experiments run to confirm it.
There have been many controlled experiments on the role of parental involvement in development. That is why I think less parental involvement (which can have a correlation with increased exposure to the media, in whatever form that might take) is the cause of behavioral problems more than TV or video games are the cause of behavioral problems. A child playing Fluffy Bunny Rainbow Princess for nine hours a day would still not be getting nurturing interaction and guidance. Many children who are not watching TV or playing video games at all don't get consistent nurturing interaction and guidance, and they have issues. The independent factor of parental interaction has high levels of influence on the dependent factor of development and behavior. It has been observed, studied, controlled, and tested. There is proof of causation, which is why I am always of the opinion that parents need to be parents before I am of the opinion that video games (or whatever else people like to blame) should be banned.

[/sig]

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

Monday, June 7, 2010 11:05 AM

Yes, I think we are on the same page here, now. Your explanation is exactly why I put the word "prove" in quotations.

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

Monday, June 7, 2010 2:20 PM

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

Quote:
There is no reason to have a law other than harm.

I will connect my thought processes:

All law is forced compliance under threat of violence, property theft, or loss of freedom.

There is no reason to threaten anyone with these things unless they are doing harm.

That seems fair enough, my problem with insisting on absolute *proof* of harm is that:

1) The science may not be 100% certain - the damage to society may be complex/subtle, and therefore difficult to perceive.

2) The evidence may be mercifully scant - society shouldn't have to *prove* that certain things like horror movies/pornography are harmful to children before laws/regulations protecting them are put in place. Imagine an alternative libertarian universe where the television has recently been invented and a new tv station immediately begins transmitting hard core sex/violence throughout the day when children are likely to be watching. As a citizen of this society do you ask for immediate regulation, or just say "there's no evidence of harm *yet*, let's see how this plays out."?

Heads should roll

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

Monday, June 7, 2010 2:44 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

As a parent, I don't need evidence of harm in media. My own theory is sufficient. (Much of parenting is done based on shoot-from-the-hip theories, in fact.) As someone who controls my child, I can control their exposure to media I find inappropriate. I can even control their access to places where this media might be available, like Sports Bars. This is what would happen in a Libertarian society. I would merely screen shows ahead of time, and determine what was appropriate. They might even develop a technology in this theoretical society that allows me to screen media according to my preferences based on some kind of rating criteria. In such a society, there is little cause for an FCC to be censoring media. I can choose for myself what to censor. If I care at all, then it's my responsibility to remain engaged enough to perform that censorship for myself and my children.

Now, when you leave the realm of television, things become more complex. Should children be exposed to people having sex in public? It's not as though I can keep them from seeing it if it's happening on the side of the road. I grant this is an issue worthy of further discussion and study. I have my theories, but no real data to support them, making them merely one man's opinion.

But nudity is neither sex nor violence. Every child is necessarily exposed to nudity, and they aren't bothered by it until we teach them to be. In particular I find it baffling that toplessness is against the law, and disproportionately so. There can be little question that very young children are exposed to naked breasts as a matter of routine nature. It is we who later introduce the idea that this exposure is wrong. Topless men, meanwhile, are not considered 'indecent' because we never programmed people with that bias.

--Anthony

"On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you." --Auraptor

"This vile and revolting malice - this is their true colors, always has been, you're just seeing it without the mask of justifications and excuses they hide it behind, is all. Make sure to remember it once they put the mask back on." --Fremdfirma

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

Monday, June 7, 2010 3:59 PM

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

Quote:
Now, when you leave the realm of television, things become more complex. Should children be exposed to people having sex in public? It's not as though I can keep them from seeing it if it's happening on the side of the road. I grant this is an issue worthy of further discussion and study.

You're an honest man, making my arguments for me. I would add erotic/pornographic billboards to this example, as here also I wouldn't be able to practicably cover the eyes of my (hypothetical) children. That's why I say (as of about 100 posts ago) that one man's freedom of speech has to end at another man's ability to cover his ears - otherwise it's a form of harrassment. This to me is safely distinct from extinguishing that free speech altogether - I'm not for outlawing pornography. But if you imagine a world where it is on billboards everywhere you go, or if you visit Paris - then you might see that it can become as I say, a form of harrassment! I'm interested to hear your theories though.

Quote:
I can choose for myself what to censor. If I care at all, then it's my responsibility to remain engaged enough to perform that censorship for myself and my children.

That's all very well if you have good parents, but for those children in society who don't, this is an extra thing to damage them. Libertarianism is all very well and good for the strong/self-sufficient in society it seems to me, but awful for the weak/vulnerable... (though here speaks an anti-libertarian)...

Alternatively in this case government can make simple legislation (watersheds, movie certificates etc.) that effectively removes 95% of the danger, lessening the burden on good parents and lessening the damage to children of bad parents. I'm strongly pro-government when it's as powefully incisive and effective as this.

Heads should roll

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

Monday, June 7, 2010 6:33 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Well problem with it is a society that leaves no time for parenting as would-be parents are scratching to survive, or at least maintain the payments on those phony carrots they'll likely never live to actually own, running on the treadmill 60-80 hours a week on a 40 hour salary paid to avoid having to pay overtime, a dodge used by every company up here, so it's not like you can jump ship to one who doesn't do it cause they all collude in that way, much like banks do on loan rates, you understand ?

Americans in particular get screwed, most get at best one week of paid vaction, if the company doesn't come up with some contrived emergency to prevent them from actually using it, and most of the few days off for sick/personal reasons are inadequate for the purpose if even paid at all.

Comparitively, we get less non-work time than most other countries and as a result even a parent who desires to be involved and tries to do so has a difficult time of it, especially if they do not share the values of the media, government and society who has more access to their child, for more time, than they do.

And if those values divererge from our sociopathic, sadistic "normal" too significantly, then there's the additional worry of being labelled a cultie and having them seized from you by force.. "for their own good", which happens in such a hit or miss fashion with the slapdash sledgehammer approach, there's never any way to know if one is at risk of it, leading to a certain parental paranoia on top of it.

This is not a new problem, remember, all those "latchkey kids" are now parents themselves, often as not never having an example of how parenting should be done, and all too vulnerable (especially those with an RWA bent) to accepting solutions that sound good on paper, but happen to be disastrous in practice, like Ezzo, Dobson, and other lunatics - and then THOSE kids grow up and have kids...

And you have the national nightmare we live today.
Thank you, corporate america.

-Frem

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

Monday, June 7, 2010 8:06 PM

OPPYH

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

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

Yes. I lost my virginity when I was 15, and as it stands it is still the best sex I have had. Fierce passionate exploratory sex...the girl was 16 and had been around the block a few times. Rocked my world.

-------------------------------------------------

70's TV FOREVER

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

Tuesday, June 8, 2010 7:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

I think you will find that all of your concerns really exist already in our clothed society.

--Anthony

Hey Anthony,
Yes, I agree, my concerns already exist in our clothed society. I think it is more an issue of to what degree these problems already exist in society and do I want these problems to increase and provide less legal recourse for the person who experiences the problems. For example, in the banning of text messages while driving law. One could argue that there are already plenty of things out there that distract a driver, including billboards, cd players and cellphones. But, I think, in the case of text messaging while driving, the degree to which that particular problem causes worse distraction and more accidents is significant enough to warrant banning it while driving (Now, mind you, I haven't reviewed whatever "research" they used to come to this conclusion -- it could be totally bogus. It just seems like an obvious correlation, is all, and my point is mainly that we should be allowed to limit things that may be reasonably surmised to cause even worse harm). In the nudity example, we don't have solid data because it isn't allowed, so we are left with supposition. I think it is reasonable to think the problems will worsen to a significant degree to warrant not expanding our current clothing rights. You don't. It's fine, though, since we both support the democratic process. If/when our society gets to the point where we think public nudity is not harmful and votes for it, we'll see how it goes. And you are right, maybe all this concern about nudity is just a current social norm and by the time we are ready to repeal nudity laws, the population's mentality will have changed such that it won't actually cause any harm. But maybe not. These are just opinions and suppositions, after all.

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

Tuesday, June 8, 2010 8:08 AM