Survey Says by AnthonyT

Yes - to every single question.

-F

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

Wednesday, May 19, 2010 8:40 PM

RAHLMACLAREN

"Damn yokels, can't even tell a transport ship ain't got no guns on it." - Jayne Cobb

Alright! Simple stuff.

1.Y
2.Y - Would've put "N"... (I don't believe in an afterlife, heaven or hell. So, I don't think anyone should throw away their ONE and ONLY life if they don't have to.)..., but if a person truly wants to kill them self, they'll eventually find a way. No law is going to stop it.
3.Y
4.Y
5. Do you mean pregnant labor or work? Either way - Y
6.Y
7.Y
8.Y - But part of me wants a paper trail. I'd like to be able to look it up, say, if my nextdoor neighboor just bought nukes.
9.Y
10.Y

--------------------------------------------------
Find here the Serenity you seek. -Tara Maclay

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

Wednesday, May 19, 2010 10:28 PM

HKCAVALIER

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

I really don't worry about being insulted. Even if the insult were to my face, I'd be shocked if I actually cared.

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

Though I don't think a government should be allowed to make laws against suicide, I know myself well enough that if I was a witness to the process I would do whatever was in my personal power to prevent it.

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

Ack, well, sure. Do I think property is the best method of categorizing pretty much anything? Not so much.

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

Anything and everything short of vengeance.

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

Natch.

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

Without question.

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

Practically speaking, children are not in a position to give their consent to an adult. But if we're talking grown ups, well, duh!

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

Ideally that's the only folk with whom one would ever do business.

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

Allowed? Well, of course. But I wouldn't hang out with the guy.

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

I believe that when men are allowed to be nude in public without issue, the world will have healed some serious patriarchal wounds and be a better place. Looking forward to that one.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

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

Wednesday, May 19, 2010 11:31 PM

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

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

Allowed? Well, yeah, but it wouldn't make me like them very much. It would be preferable if it was questioning, rather than insulting. Insulting is generally just to be nasty and make someone feel bad. If you're just questioning something, it can open up a dialogue and people can learn something, instead of being nasty, though you might still insult someone. But if someone wants to be nasty, there's unfortunately not really a good way to stop them, you can just do your best to avoid them and keep them out of your space.

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

Yes. It might be a pretty stupid and selfish thing to do, in most cases, but if someone wants to go that badly there's no real point in stopping them. I would prefer it if the world wasn't so harsh that people would want to kill themselves in the first place, but that's likely asking too much.

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

Well, yeah.

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.

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

Yes.

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

Hm. Yes, so long as their business was not doing great harm. That would get into another area.

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

If that's the kind of person they want to be... You know what, though, I think that would kind of suck. Absence of action can contribute to misery and harming of other people just as much as being malicious. My whole deal is that folks should be allowed to do whatever doesn't cause demonstrable harm. Demonstrable physical harm is kind of my yardstick for right and wrong. I think, depending on the aide needed, being passive could contribute to demonstrable physical harm, so I don't think it would be right. It would upset me a bit to see that, but I wouldn't say lock someone up for it. I might hope for some karma.

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

Sure. The hang-ups about nudity are pretty fucking ridiculous. It shouldn't be weird to be naked. It shouldn't be weird to wear clothes, either, if that's what someone prefers. Again, it's a situation of... This doesn't really effect you. It's causing no demonstrable harm to you or others, and it shouldn't concern you. People should be able to wear what they want, without it being somehow weird or maligned or tabboo. It shouldn't even be a concern. Things and people who are causing harm should be a concern, everything else should be let alone.

[/sig]

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

Thursday, May 20, 2010 1:27 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)

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

Absolutely.

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

Yes. Certainly if they are suffering from a terminal disease.

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.

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

No. I believe that someone should be allowed to have sex with any ADULT who consents to it.

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

To a degree.

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

Yes.

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

In theory. In practice, the people who go nude in public are generally the people you really wish wouldn't go nude in public. :)

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 20, 2010 1:42 AM

And now, to delve into a couple of these questions a bit more...

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

This one bugs me. You fail to adequately define "consent". Should someone be allowed to have sex with five year-olds, as long as they "consent" to it? And before you say a five year-old can't consent, realize that you're then saying that they aren't "someone" when you put that constraint on children. I'm not down for having sex with children, so I'd put the "any ADULT who consents to it" restriction on that. Sorry if that offends.

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

I answered "To a degree", and here's why. I feel you should be ALLOWED to do business with whom you wish, but that runs into problems when you have people who REFUSE to serve some group based on nothing more than prejudice. The Civil Rights Act may seem quaint to some, but it came about because there were very real places where very real people were told things like, "You can come in, but your nigger's got to eat outside with the dogs." So, yeah, you should be allowed to refuse service, FOR CAUSE. If you're refusing to do business with someone because they have a history of not paying their bills, fine. If you refuse to let them into your restaurant because they have a history of being an ass to the staff and other customers, go for it. If you have a history of locking the doors when a black person comes to shop, that's an issue for me.

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 20, 2010 2:18 AM

AGENTROUKA

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

Yes.

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 - in proportion and within reason.

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. - Unless they breach the right to privacy or or human rights.

7) Do you believe that someone should be allowed to have sex with anyone who consents to it?
No. - Or rather: what is legal consent?

14-year-olds can have sex with each other and it doesn't bother me. 14-year-old having sex with her father or any other adult man.. no. No. NO! It may be consentual, in a way, but it's more abuse than it is not. I've seen it. It is NOT good. 25-year-old having sex with her father... murky. Certainly not if she has spent her youth being brainwashed and abused.

So.. no. Not unless "consent" is defined as a big complex web full of qualifiers and conditions.

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?

No. - Within reason, of course. And only if "in need of aid" is defined as physical emergency and threat to life and safety.

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

Yes!

I can only wish. Not for lecherous reasons, but for the mental health aspect of seeing something as normal as an average human body outside of a sexual or medical context.

So, are we going to discuss the results, or is this really just a survey?

Edited because the quotes make the post way too big.

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

Thursday, May 20, 2010 3:45 AM

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

I agree with the concensus, don't think these were difficult questions, unless there's a twist...

Apart from 10), I say No, I think sexual modesty is natural in humans, and subverting it shouldn't be allowed just anywhere.

Heads should roll

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

Thursday, May 20, 2010 4:09 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

Great questions Anthony. This illustrates one of the frustrating things about this great place: there's the ethical semi-fantasy world of The Forum, and there's The Real WorId. To illustrate, I have some follow up questions...

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

Up to a point. Every day? For months? To my face or to the world? No.

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

How old are they? What's their state of health? Have they just lost a loved one?

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

Yes. Bombs? No.

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

Yes, violence + 1 so long as you are not the instigators.

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

If "Yes" then do you believe the Gov should support people who don't want to work? For how long? How much? Should the Gov be responsible for providing work for those that want it?

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

Not "yes" or "no." I believe in community standards. I could do almost anything in NYC, but not in Des Moines, and I'm fine with that.

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

Nes! But what if they are married?? Or a minor?

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

Yes/No - explain pls, this has hidden agenda written all over it! I bid on a Gov contract and they tell me who to work with if I get it and I'm ok with that.

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

Yes, but explain aid...

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

I confess I wouldn't be comfortable if I was shopping for veggies and Don King rounded the corner in the nude. We are all beautiful inside and out, we are all just as nature made us, but there's a time and a place and the produce section isn't it. There may come a time that it's fine and normal but I like the heightened sensation that limited viewing of nudity creates. If you woke up in the Sistine Chapel every morning you'd probably get kind of blase about it.

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

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

Thursday, May 20, 2010 4:41 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

1-6 Yes.

7. Too open. Does that include children? Or teenagers? Be more specific.

8 Yes.

9. No.

10. Yes... with the caveat that I just HOPE they are SOMEWHAT attractive.. :)P

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

Thursday, May 20, 2010 5:40 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well, I'm gonna answer your questions mostly "yes" and come out with a totally opposite conclusion than you assume.

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

Insult? Yes. Incite? No. Threaten? No. Harrass? No. Have a negative effect on my job, my earning power, my reputation? No. Invade my privacy? No. Bully? No.

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

Yes. But, like HK, I would do everything in my power to stop it. Usually suicide is happens as a result of a temporary situation ... like that girl in high school who was relentlessly bullied, or the mom in the ER cubicle next to us who went under the kitchen sink and drank everything she could find, leaving two little kids alone because her boyfriend left her. Suicide, like drug addiction, is not always "victimless".

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

Yes. Personal property.

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

Yes, but only at the moment of threat, and hopefully with SOME sense of proportionality.

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

Yes, provided it is a choice made when BOTH parties- the hiring party and the party being hired- have equal power in the negotiation. That eliminate minors, the mentally retarded, and other signifciantly disadvantaged people from freely entering into a contract. Otherwise its a screw job. Also, you cannot contract away your civil rights... for example, you cannot agree to become someone's permanent property.

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

I think people have the right to stupendously offensive opinions. I do not believe that anyone should have the power to monopolize the media, though.

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

Same caveat as HK, but extended: people of significantly lesser power- minors, mentally retarded, the very poor- may wind up in situations of coercion or prostitution because their choice was not freely made. (Same caveats as performing labor.)

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

Yes, which is why it would be so nice if we didn't have to deal with monopolies.

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

No. But that's the Pope John XXIII Catholic in me. "Give him your cloak also".

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

Sure, why not?

So, you see, I'm for freedom. Just not the freedom YOU envision when you set up this list of biased questions.

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

Thursday, May 20, 2010 8:03 AM

I think most of those were implied, Siggy, and you may be seeing a bias that isn't there, honestly.
(Heaven knows, we're all a bit touchy about such things, and often for a reason!)

But when I hear "Consent" I take it to mean exactly that, rather than coercion or manipulation, so I didn't think I needed to qualify any of the answers, but clarity is good, sure.

Don't even get me started about disproportionate retribution though... had a funny (in a dark sorta way) conversation with some locals earlier this morning about the irony of a black community considering lynching a white cop, told em, hell, why not just wear black hoods and robes and torch a cross for effect, neh ?

That took em aback a bit, at which point I told em SOMEONE has to be an adult about this shit, and it oughta be YOU.

That's a statement I think oughta be carved in granite for the ages.

-Frem

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

Thursday, May 20, 2010 8:40 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well, Frem, when you can make people blink and pull back their heads a bit, you've done a great service. It means they've run into their assumptions head-on from a different direction, and have had to stop and think.
Kudos.

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

Thursday, May 20, 2010 8:48 AM

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

...Frem is always so much more concise than me :)

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
...may wind up in situations of coercion or prostitution because their choice was not freely made.

That is not consent, by definition. If there is any force or coercion involved, there is no consent, by definition.
And Kwicko might disagree with me pretty harshly here, but no, children who have not reached sexual maturity cannot consent to sexual acts. It's not because they aren't people or can't make any decisions about what they want, it's because they haven't gotten to a point in their lives where they can truly comprehend it. That's not a bad thing and it's not dismissing the overall capacity of children. The desire for sex is natural in humans; it's built in that we want to reproduce, otherwise the species would have died out instead of taking over the world. And, you know, sex can be pretty awesome. It can also be messy, and have some physical and emotional ramifications. Part of childhood is not having to deal with that. I truly believe that. Children should not be subjected to something that they're not ready for. Nobody should be subjected to something they aren't ready for, before they can really appreciate the scope of something like having sex. Children also shouldn't have to work for a living or things like that. Children should be cared for and offered guidance and allowed to thrive, and then they can start dealing with messy adulthood.

[/sig]

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

Thursday, May 20, 2010 11:15 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Ooo, fun one. Gonna answer without reading further, so as not to be swayed (yet) by anyone else's answer. Then I'll read.

1. Yes. I may hate it, but yes.

2. On the fence. If the situation is truly hopeless, yes; if there's any hope and anyone can work with them to fight, no. If chosen by totally free will and not coersion, manipulation or interference, yes.

3. Yes.

4. Yes.

5. Yes.

6. Yes. Just my belief; I wouldn't like to see it censored, I can just ignore it. Doesn't mean I have to like it.

7. Yes, providing the "consent" is real.

8. On the fence. In general and for almost every situation, yes; doing business with our enemies in time of war; no.

9. No. Most definitely, but you can't force them.

10. Absofrigginlootely.

Now I'll read:

The "consent" thing describes my feelings. As to doing business, I agree, if by "doing business" you mean choosing not to "do business" because of discrimination--I thought of it in terms of business-to-business, not business-to-person.

KPO, I find it interesting that you feel anyone going around nude is "subverting" modesty, given your views are open to other freedoms.

The "owning of property" thing I took to mean real estate "property". As to owning dangerous property like bombs, etc., that's a "no" from me.

I don't think there's a bias there, I think the questions are so general that one can read into them what one wants or unmindfully does (like the thing about 'property'), and is obvious here, some people read thing one way, some another.

The "do business" is tricky, as I saw. But if taken at face value, it already SAYS anyone can do business via free will, so the opposite holds; if one does NOT want to do business with another for reasons of business coercion, that also constitutes "with whom they choose".

IF you take each question at face value, that "consent" means valid consent, "insult" doesn't mean anything except "insult", "violence" only means "violence" and doesn't nitpick how MUCH violence, it's pretty straightforward. If it's only "yes" or "no", one has to think about all the parameters. But as is obvious also, most people didn't do "yes" or "no", they gave caveats, asked questions and questioned definitions.

So I'll ssk what others haven't: Reason for questions? I can't believe it's just to see how we believe, because for the most part, it's easy to see most of us here would say "yes" to almost all of them, with caveats. So is there something about the generalization, IS there a trick or bias, or what?

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

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

Thursday, May 20, 2010 12:15 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"So, you see, I'm for freedom. Just not the freedom YOU envision when you set up this list of biased questions."

Hello,

A somewhat insulting assumption and comment, sir, but also well within your rights, as per my view of 'yes' to all the above questions.

The 'trick' to these questions isn't a trick at all, but was expressly stated at the outset: "I am wondering how many things our forumites agree on."

It seems that most of us agree on most of the answers to these ten general questions. A few people peel away on issues of personal morality, but there is a consensus on the majority of items. Right, Left, up, down, sideways. We're all pretty similar when you boil it down to basics. It's something I wanted to explore. With all the shouting, name-calling, insults and insinuations that float around here, it's easy to think that we were all born on different planets with vastly different concepts of morality, rights, and social order.

I'd like to explore the caveats, exceptions, and cases of disagreement in follow-up discussions.

--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

Thursday, May 20, 2010 12:25 PM

Quote:
And Kwicko might disagree with me pretty harshly here, but no, children who have not reached sexual maturity cannot consent to sexual acts. It's not because they aren't people or can't make any decisions about what they want, it's because they haven't gotten to a point in their lives where they can truly comprehend it. That's not a bad thing and it's not dismissing the overall capacity of children. The desire for sex is natural in humans; it's built in that we want to reproduce, otherwise the species would have died out instead of taking over the world. And, you know, sex can be pretty awesome. It can also be messy, and have some physical and emotional ramifications. Part of childhood is not having to deal with that. I truly believe that. Children should not be subjected to something that they're not ready for. Nobody should be subjected to something they aren't ready for, before they can really appreciate the scope of something like having sex. Children also shouldn't have to work for a living or things like that. Children should be cared for and offered guidance and allowed to thrive, and then they can start dealing with messy adulthood.

Now Rose, why on Earth would I disagree with that? That was kind of my point in my *conditional* agreement with the question posed, and why I conditioned it with ADULT consent. As far as I'm concerned, consenting adults can do whatever the hell they want as far as sex goes. It may not be *MY* cup o' tea, but that's my business, not theirs. When you get underage kids involved, we've got a problem, though, because they can't LEGALLY consent, and they're really not in a place where they can give an INFORMED consent, either.

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 20, 2010 1:37 PM

RAHLMACLAREN

"Damn yokels, can't even tell a transport ship ain't got no guns on it." - Jayne Cobb

*waits for the "liberterians'" answers*

--------------------------------------------------
Find here the Serenity you seek. -Tara Maclay

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

Thursday, May 20, 2010 2:14 PM

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

Quote:
KPO, I find it interesting that you feel anyone going around nude is "subverting" modesty, given your views are open to other freedoms.

It's always about whether exercising those freedoms is harmful to others or not (note a distinction between harmful and offensive). The question is whether public displays of nudity might be damaging to other individuals (e.g. children?) and society at large. And thus the question becomes 'Is public nudity healthy for human society?' Which to me equates to 'Is it natural for human society?'

To summarise, human psychology would undoubtedly be changed by a 'nudist revolution' - but would it be liberated? I'm not so sure.

Heads should roll

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

Thursday, May 20, 2010 2:17 PM

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

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Now Rose, why on Earth would I disagree with that?

Because you said:

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
before you say a five year-old can't consent, realize that you're then saying that they aren't "someone" when you put that constraint on children.

Which I didn't think was strictly true. Children are certainly "someone" but that doesn't mean they can consent. I was pretty positive we would both agree that children should not be having sex, but I wanted to clarify that saying they cannot consent isn't meant to dehumanize them. Quite the contrary, I think it's part of being a young, small human. Young, small humans should be protected, and later given the information they need to make good choices about sex. They shouldn't be confronted with it before they can understand it. What I think a lot of people fail to recognize is the point when information should start flowing, which causes quite a few problems. There is a point at which children stop being 'innocent' and that's kind of the way it should be. And then there's a point when they stop being children, and that's also the way it should be. Destroying their innocence can be a terrible thing. Trying to preserve it, when it can't be preserved, is kind of terrible, too.
I'm kind of rambling again, sorry. I just wanted to clarify that I would never say a child isn't "someone" just because I don't think they can consent.

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
The question is whether public displays of nudity might be damaging to other individuals (e.g. children?) and society at large.

I don't see how nudity would cause any demonstrable harm. Molestation causes harm, but nudity is not molestation. Nudity is not sex, either. If you can show stats on brainscans or even behaviors of children raised in a less clothes-obsessed society showing that it causes demonstrable harm, I would consider it, but I don't think such evidence exists. I think more harm is caused by repression and having a complex about being a sexual human creature. I've seen it, with stats and brain chemistry sometimes, and behaviors a lot more. Depression, anxiety, guilt, self-loathing, the list goes on. There's nothing wrong with being human or being a sexual adult. Children don't sexualize nudity, because they don't know to. Unless something untoward has happened to them, which I think I cover above. So unless it was made into a deal and children were given a complex about it, what harm would it do?

[/sig]

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

Thursday, May 20, 2010 2:42 PM

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

Quote:
If you can show stats on brainscans or even behaviors of children raised in a less clothes-obsessed society showing that it causes demonstrable harm, I would consider it, but I don't think such evidence exists.

Whatever the effects I doubt they would turn up on brain scans, as the child's brain will accomodate and get used to what they see. But of course there are effects.

Quote:
I think more harm is caused by repression and having a complex about being a sexual human creature. I've seen it, with stats and brain chemistry sometimes, and behaviors a lot more. Depression, anxiety, guilt, self-loathing, the list goes on.

You theorise that nudity in society (or a general consciousness of our sexuality) would liberate humans from a lot of this - perhaps you are right. You don't ask if there would be downsides though. I always tend to think that human society (and human nature?) has constructed itself in certain ways for a reason.

Quote:
Children don't sexualize nudity, because they don't know to.

I disagree, I believe humans begin to sexualise nudity long before they are consenting adults.

Heads should roll

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

Thursday, May 20, 2010 2:51 PM

Consent requires comprehension, children cannot comprehend, and therefore cannot consent.

ETA: Re Nudity - of course there's a downside, no pockets!
Where the hell am I gonna carry all my stuff?!

-F

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

Thursday, May 20, 2010 3:00 PM

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

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
the child's brain will accomodate and get used to what they see. But of course there are effects.

No. You can't say "of course there are effects" when there is no evidence of effects. You also can't say the lack of evidence is because a child's brain can accommodate, because that is patently untrue. There are miles and miles of research into what has an effect on childhood development. There are blood tests and brain scans and vast behavior research backing it all up.
Demonstrable harm has been shown for a whole range of childhood abuses, from neglect to beatings to repression. If no demonstrable harm can be shown in a child raised in a so-called primitive society where nudity is common, you're standing on pretty shaky legs.

[/sig]

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

Thursday, May 20, 2010 3:00 PM

Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Now Rose, why on Earth would I disagree with that?

Because you said:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
before you say a five year-old can't consent, realize that you're then saying that they aren't "someone" when you put that constraint on children.

Which I didn't think was strictly true. Children are certainly "someone" but that doesn't mean they can consent. I was pretty positive we would both agree that children should not be having sex, but I wanted to clarify that saying they cannot consent isn't meant to dehumanize them. Quite the contrary, I think it's part of being a young, small human.

Yup, we're on the same page, Rose. We're just looking from slightly different angles. I was remembering Frem's stand on children - they ARE someone, whether we like it or not - and thinking from that standpoint, which I find to be a good idea in most circumstances.

Your answer reinforces my belief that it's NOT okay to have sex with "anyone who consents", because unless you're an adult, you CAN'T consent - but that certainly doesn't mean you aren't a person with rights.

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 20, 2010 3:02 PM

There seem to be plenty enough people in the world who haven't shown the ill effects of being exposed to nudity throughout their lives. Shame about such things tends to be a more recent invention, usually tied to religions.

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

Thursday, May 20, 2010 3:46 PM

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

Quote:
No. You can't say "of course there are effects" when there is no evidence of effects.

I said 'effects' not 'harm'. You have listed some of the positive effects that you foresee yourself. You insist that all the psychological and sociological effects of a nudist revolution would be good and liberating for humanity? I say that's an open question.

Heads should roll

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

Thursday, May 20, 2010 3:50 PM

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

If the effects aren't harmful, there should be no issue. Your original point was that of doing harm. If you're going to change your horse here and say your argument is based purely on effect and not harm, you need to clarify what you mean, and what exactly your issue is with the question at hand.

[/sig]

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

Thursday, May 20, 2010 4:22 PM

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

Hmm, I said harm (negative effects) was possible, and effects of some kind (good or bad), certain - about which I think we agree. Harm could mean demonstrable psychological trauma (Are there any fully nude cultures I can compare with? If not perhaps there's a good reason...), or it could also mean a slightly changed mentality and outlook that humans would develop. For example perhaps us being 'closer to nature' would make us less driven to create and advance civilisation - what separates us from nature.

Quote:
what exactly your issue is with the question at hand.

There's a whole host of ideological social experiments (including communism etc.) that I don't want imposed on me but am willing for other people to try and see if they work.

Heads should roll

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

Thursday, May 20, 2010 4:49 PM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
7) Do you believe that someone should be allowed to have sex with anyone who consents to it?

This one bugs me. You fail to adequately define "consent". Should someone be allowed to have sex with five year-olds, as long as they "consent" to it? And before you say a five year-old can't consent, realize that you're then saying that they aren't "someone" when you put that constraint on children. I'm not down for having sex with children, so I'd put the "any ADULT who consents to it" restriction on that. Sorry if that offends.

Kwicko,

It ain't that children aren't "someone," it's that the power differential between adult and child gives the adult too much influence over the child's choices to make an agreement struck up between them really consensual. A child "consenting" to sex with an adult is not, in terms of power, unlike a prisoner "consenting" to sex with her warden, or a patient "consenting" to sex with his therapist. Children, prisoners and patients do not become non-someones, they are simply not in a position to grant their consent because consent implies a level of self-determination that their condition does not afford them. This is also true of children with their parents throughout life, so I'd say sex with your own child, even if your child has passed some arbitrary "age of consent" is never legitimately consensual.

The fact is, children are dependent on adults for survival. I think we adults have a tendency to gloss over this rather bracing fact. Some number of adults must commit significant resources to a child's well-being for the child to flourish. No child can opt out of this dependence without directly putting her survival at risk. In terms of power, children are pretty much in the same boat as slaves.

Compounding this dependence is the fact that children know no other kind of condition--they're born into this state. How can a prisoner who has never known freedom, make a choice concerning his freedom? He is completely dependent on his life-long captors for any information on the subject--the very information he will base his choices on.

Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
And Kwicko might disagree with me pretty harshly here, but no, children who have not reached sexual maturity cannot consent to sexual acts. It's not because they aren't people or can't make any decisions about what they want, it's because they haven't gotten to a point in their lives where they can truly comprehend it. That's not a bad thing and it's not dismissing the overall capacity of children. The desire for sex is natural in humans; it's built in that we want to reproduce, otherwise the species would have died out instead of taking over the world. And, you know, sex can be pretty awesome. It can also be messy, and have some physical and emotional ramifications. Part of childhood is not having to deal with that. I truly believe that. Children should not be subjected to something that they're not ready for. Nobody should be subjected to something they aren't ready for, before they can really appreciate the scope of something like having sex. Children also shouldn't have to work for a living or things like that. Children should be cared for and offered guidance and allowed to thrive, and then they can start dealing with messy adulthood.

Hi PheonixRose,

I want to take issue with an implication of what you've said here. I recognize that you present the idea that children cannot comprehend sex out of kindness and consideration for the special needs of children, but I don't believe it is, fundamentally, respectful of the child's reality. Children are sexual beings. They play with themselves in the tub, play doctor with other children and experiment sexually with other teenagers at that time of life. Your formulation that children cannot comprehend sex seems to blank out this reality of childhood, and I think blanking out childhood sexuality can lead to extraordinary and, unfortunately, all too common abuse of children's boundaries. I agree that they are not prepared as adults are prepared to comprehend sex with an adult, but I strongly believe that they can and do comprehend sexuality at their own developmental level.

Also, in my work and owing to my own history, I've had occasion to get to know many young gay people and survivors of incest and other childhood sexual abuse and a lot of these kids comprehend far more of the nature of human sexuality than some of the grown men and women I know. I hope you can imagine how they might hear your kind words spoken on their behalf.

That's why I stress the power differential as the determining factor in deciding that adult sex with children should not be allowed.

See what I'm saying?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

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

Thursday, May 20, 2010 5:00 PM

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

Negative effects have evidence. We might agree that effects are certain, but not that harm is certain. My argument is based on the harm done by repression, the people who grow up with a complex about their sexuality. If the cause were to go away, so would the harmful effect. So yes, I do argue that there would be benefit. Why shouldn't I?
I asked for brainscans or something else concrete because psychological trauma has very marked effects on the brain. You can check the miles of research and proof of that yourself, if it interests you.
If psychological trauma comes of seeing the human body in its unclad state, a lot of repression has likely gone before. Most of us think nothing of seeing a rabbit without clothing on, but if someone were raised being told it was evilevilevil for a rabbit to be unclad, there might be a problem if they saw one. Some trauma is just trauma, but some trauma comes of repression.

There are cultures remaining in the Amazon rainforest where nudity is the norm. The Zo'e tribe, to give a specific example, wear nothing but lip piercings. The Yanomamis in Roraima decorate their bodies soley with flowers and dye from fruits. The Tupari tribe wear nothing, unless it's to decorate themselves for a ritual. They never think to cover themselves because the weather is always warm.
None of the essays written on any of these various tribes suggest that the cultural nudity has any detrimental effects to the social structure or the children. Quite the contrary, there have been more than a few statements on the detriment to these societies when they are 'modernized' by trinkets, modern gadgets, outside disease, and clothing.

If you have any concrete evidence proving me wrong, present it.

ETA: HK, teenagers are not children, so that is inadmissible. And I never said children were completely unaware of sexuality, I said they could not fully comprehend or appreciate sex, and its consequences. I said that a child who was not sexually mature could not consent to mature sex. I said they shouldn't be subjected to something they weren't ready for. I'm not sure where exactly you think our opinions differ.

[/sig]

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

Thursday, May 20, 2010 7:40 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
The 'trick' to these questions isn't a trick at all, but was expressly stated at the outset: "I am wondering how many things our forumites agree on."

You may not realize it, but your questions reveal your biases, which are mostly centered around government's potential interference in contractual agreements between people.

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

Thursday, May 20, 2010 8:22 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
The 'trick' to these questions isn't a trick at all, but was expressly stated at the outset: "I am wondering how many things our forumites agree on."
You may not realize it, but your questions reveal your biases, which are mostly centered around government's potential interference in contractual agreements between people.

Hello,

Only two out of ten questions are related to that kind of business. So I'm not sure how they are mostly centered around government's potential interference in contractual agreements between people.

I think you are currently speaking more to your biases than mine, Signy. You seem particularly suspicious. I'm trying to learn and open a dialogue.

And in case you were wondering, it wouldn't be the first time that discussing things with people here has enlightened me. So while I have my own freely expressed opinions on these matters, I am prepared to learn from someone who has better logic than mine.

More than anything, I believe that there are very small spaces of opinion that separate we forumites, instead of the vast gulfs one might imagine from the tenor of some discussions here.

--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

Friday, May 21, 2010 2:47 AM

RIVERLOVE

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

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?...NO

6) Do you believe that someone should be allowed to create stupendously offensive media?...NO

7) Do you believe that someone should be allowed to have sex with anyone who consents to it?...NO

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

10) Do you believe that someone should be allowed to be nude in public?...NO

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

Friday, May 21, 2010 3:24 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Hello, Only two out of ten questions are related to that kind of business. So I'm not sure how they are mostly centered around government's potential interference in contractual agreements between people.

No, they ALL do. "Contractual" was too narrow a term. But all of the questions you asked concern matters of established law. And you've framed your questions in such a general way, using fuzzy words that sound good, (Do you all agree that people should be free?) so as to overturn general law.

So, how about a different set of questions? I only have time for one example, so here it is

1) Do you believe that your neighbor has a right to pollute your air and your water, destroying your ability to enjoy your backyard and making you and your family sick?

Quote:
You seem particularly suspicious. I'm trying to learn and open a dialogue.

I'm not "suspicious" Anthony, just observant. Your questions are a kind of "push poll", centered around a particular answer. You're looking for a kumbaya moment. What you got instead was "dialog". It just happens not to be the dialog you were looking for.

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

Friday, May 21, 2010 5:18 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Signy,

You sure seem to enjoy telling me who I am and what I want and don't want.

I can't agree with your assessment. My survey is not "Do you all agree that people should be free" but rather, "Which freedoms do you all agree on?" And I'm planning on discussing the places where people don't agree. A dialog. The dialog I'm actually looking for. I wish you'd spend less time talking at me and more time talking with me.

Assuming your query is serious, I'll give you a serious answer.

1) Not to the degree indicated in the question.

--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

Friday, May 21, 2010 5:49 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I'll be interested in seeing that promised response, Anthony, I have a feeling it will be interesting.

As to nudity, Rose has covered how I feel in depth and with clarity. There are no civilizations (that I know of) which go totally naked, but it's more to do with protection of the body than anything else. Many primitive societies (i.e., not influenced by religious or other constrictions) wear very, very little clothing, and in almost all of them, the women's breasts are exposed. Yet in America in particular, nudity is not allowed, and even women's breasts MUST be covered, even on TV. It's the result of our origins (remember, Puritans?), not natural behavior, and it contributes to the salacious nature of our society. We're fascinated with things sexual, yet on the surface we frown on them.

I think a natural society would be far more healthy in that respect. The Muslim extreme is an obvious corollary, for me; by covering the woman's ENTIRE body, it has helped keep them subservient; by punishing ANY exposure, it keeps their society norrower and more easily exploitated, AND the instances of secrecy makes sex and nudity even more salaciously enjoyed (privately)!

I believe if one were to examine in depth the attitude of children in places where nudity is acceptable on beaches, one might find a different mentality toward nudity in general and sex specifically than places where nudity is severely prohibited. Just a guess, but it seems to follow that a society less hung up on exposure of the human body might well be more natural in other ways. I'd love to see studies done on this.

River's answers are very telling. Preaching personal freedoms yet believing people should be not free on a number of issues. Follow-up question would be "would you enforce those beliefs"? But the answers given are things I should keep in mind when discussing issues, as they are very informative as to attitudes.

I also tend to disbelieve Anthony has any hidden motives or biases. I accept his explanation that he was interested to see if our attitudes here are all that different, given how much we disagree on things...I've never seen Anthony to be devious and almost invariably open and polite. I'll accept someone as I find them until proven otherwise, and his explanation makes perfect sense to me.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

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

Friday, May 21, 2010 7:47 AM

Well, he has the occasional, very occasional, bit of mild deviousness, but never any malice behind it, despite it blowing up in his face spectacularly at least once, over a gently loaded question which provoked a firestorm which had nothin to do with the actual issue at hand, but he felt rather mortified over.

And yeah, I believe the stated intent as well, he's tryin to find some common ground, see where it ends, and discuss the feasibility of buildin a few bridges, which is a commendable effort, even if many folks like to fortify the edge of their common ground and and viciously attack any such effort - but you can't let that prevent you from tryin, or what's the point of it all, really ?

Besides, I tend to give Anthony the benefit of the doubt, cause our first "discussion" here (which you weren't here for, Niki) involved me coming on all fire and fury, all but tearing his head off, only to be met with reasoned, polite debate, even in the face of a fullisade of verbal brutality... something which firmly convinced me of the earnestness of his intentions prettymuch on the spot.

So I always try to keep an extra fistfull of the leash on my mouth when discussin with him, out of respect for his determined efforts to have a polite, respectful discourse no matter the level of disagreement.

Ain't to say we always agree, mind you, and I don't think much of his chances with this idea, but I can respect the tryin, and if we do wind up in disagreement, at least it'll be civil.

And that alone is worth the effort he puts into it.

-Frem

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

Friday, May 21, 2010 11:28 AM

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

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
There are no civilizations (that I know of) which go totally naked, but it's more to do with protection of the body than anything else.

I'm glad to hear I covered how you feel so well, Niki

I did list at least three tribes that go totally naked. The Zo'e tribe I mentioned, I have seen photos of, and they wear nothing aside from the wooden lip piercings. In the photos I've seen, they look like a mostly serious people, but the children looked neither traumatized nor freaked out.

There is a very long list of places where 'social nudity' on beaches and in parks is practiced. It can be pretty easily found on wikipedia. I haven't found any specific studies on the effect of that, but it would be interesting to find out.

[/sig]

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

Friday, May 21, 2010 1:43 PM

Re: Nudity as a natural state.

Any of y'all ever had to watch kids of the age right around 1-3 years ?

A very common thing for em to do, no matter their social status, upbringing, culture, what have you, is to fling off all their clothes while running in a happily screeching circle, seriously.

My eldest neice was watching a neighbors kid who happened to do that while I was bringing her lunch, and she's like "WTF, is that normal?!" - to which I am "Oh yeah, they do that - heck, I know some adults do it, but usually with them, there's a bonfire..."

I think american culture is really ridiculous and tremendously hypocritical about it, but pffth, it ain't like that's the only thing they're that way about.

Myself, I prefer pockets though.

-F

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

Friday, May 21, 2010 3:21 PM

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

Quote:
My argument is based on the harm done by repression, the people who grow up with a complex about their sexuality. If the cause were to go away, so would the harmful effect.

But that's a massive unproved claim. That the 'cause' of all human repression, or any of it, is wearing clothes. It's not established science, just hippy philosophy as far as I know... but if you have some burning evidence by all means share it. What you're essentially saying is that the typical, healthy, 'well-adjusted' child on Earth would be repressed and complex-ridden compared to children from these three naked tribes, because of growing up in an 'unnatural' clothes wearing society... Well can you present evidence of this?

After all the burden of proof is on you, as the one advocating radical social change. I don't have to prove why we shouldn't do it.

Quote:
I asked for brainscans or something else concrete because psychological trauma has very marked effects on the brain.

Yep I know, but I doubt the kinds of negative psychological/sociological effects I'm thinking of would turn up on individual brain scans, like molestation trauma.

Niki,

Quote:
It's the result of our origins (remember, Puritans?), not natural behavior, and it contributes to the salacious nature of our society. We're fascinated with things sexual, yet on the surface we frown on them.

I think a natural society would be far more healthy in that respect.

And this is the real, unanswered question for me. Is it more natural? Is it UN-natural for humans to adopt the practice of wearing clothes? Because I agree quite a lot with your first bit.

I think aliens, much more advanced than us, visiting Earth to study our species might reasonably conclude that for humans, wearing clothes is a very natural practice. It's a very widespread, historical pattern of behaviour. To attribute it just to religion is I think a stretch, and in any case where does religion come from but man answering his own questions in the way that seems most satisfying? And so why should religion be modest about sex, unless there's an inclination in human nature to have those kinds of feelings?

Heads should roll

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

Friday, May 21, 2010 7:09 PM

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

You are dong an excellent job of taking everything I say to the extreme and then making it something it's not, i.e. clothing = repression. I never said that. I said that nudity should not be a big deal, and that nudity being a big deal could very well = repression. Saying that the lack of clothing is 'indecent' instills a certain taboo and repression in a lot of people who hear such things regularly as children. That sort of thing manifests in adults. Clothing itself makes perfect sense if the environment warrants it. Making it about something other than that makes far less sense.
As to the religious ties, I could make myriad arguments on how best to control people and make sure their worship stays on the church. Sex is a big thing that could draw worship away, and making it more and more taboo was a good way for them to consolidate their power.
But you probably aren't going to take my word for that. You can say the 'burden of proof' is on me all you want, but maybe you should just google "sexual repression" and see what yo come up with. Clearly my many researched statements on the matter have done nothing to sway you, while you have presented no research of your own, saying only that "the effects you're talking about would not show up on brain scans" which in essence says that there are no effects at all. There is very little that doesn't show up on a brain scan or a chemistry analysis. When things have pretty much gotten to a point where whether or not someone was held as a baby will show up in the structure of the brain, you're getting into some pretty specific stuff. But if you want to insist that the state in which we are all born would inflict untraceable trauma on unspecified children, it's well within your right to think that and be wrong.

[/sig]

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

Saturday, May 22, 2010 2:32 AM

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

Quote:
I said that nudity should not be a big deal, and that nudity being a big deal = repression.

Ok fine, and who knows you might be right. There is the question of whether a law legalising public nudity, effectively enforcing nudity on everyone is the right way to enact a cultural shift in attitude like this. Perhaps the social change should come from the bottom up not the top down?

Quote:
As to the religious ties, I could make myriad arguments on how best to control people and make sure their worship stays on the church. Sex is a big thing that could draw worship away, and making it more and more taboo was a good way for them to consolidate their power.
But you probably aren't going to take my word for that.

Almost all religions/societies in human history has had this same insidious idea, even the very primitive ones? Because wearing clothes has been VERY common throughout human history... It seems to me there is an inner human compulsion towards sexual modesty, and that manifests consistently in religion/culture (as do all aspects of the human soul). Just my opinion but I think you have cause and effect backwards.

Quote:
saying only that "the effects you're talking about would not show up on brain scans" which in essence says that there are no effects at all.

No, because 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...? Not to say that legalised public nudity will encourage any of these, but implement social change on a population in this form and you will undoubtedly change the culture. You would argue in beneficial ways: less materialism, more environmental consciousness, less sexual repression etc.? But you have so far refused to concede the possibility of negative social effects - or of society losing some of the positive effects of a sexually modest (note modest and not 'repressive') society, which I've pointed out appears to be the natural thing for humans.

Quote:
But if you want to insist that the state in which we are all born would inflict untraceable trauma on unspecified children

Not trauma (though I don't rule it out, have extensive studies been carried out on these 3 tribes and are they similar enough to our own society that the comparison is useful, e.g. men and women not kept separate in their nudity?). And don't worry the effects would manifest in society and culture if not in individual brain scans, so not untraceable. Society and culture would be different as a result - would we lose anything, or do you predict it would be all gain, with no downsides?

Heads should roll

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

Saturday, May 22, 2010 3:07 AM

Quote:
Ok fine, and who knows you might be right. There is the question of whether a law legalising public nudity, effectively enforcing nudity on everyone is the right way to enact a cultural shift in attitude like this.

So do you have a right to not be offended?

Quote:

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

Just the way you put that, it sounds like either way, someone's losing their clothes!

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

Saturday, May 22, 2010 3:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Riverlove:

5) Do you believe that someone should be allowed to choose when and how they wish to perform labor?...NO

So should they just stay at their present job, never try to better themselves, never be able to quit or move on? Whose choice should it be?

Quote:

6) Do you believe that someone should be allowed to create stupendously offensive media?...NO

So... No cartoon depictions of Mohammed, I take it? What's stupendously offensive to YOU, might be stupendously hilarious to ME. Does your right to not be offended trump my rights to free speech and freedom of expression?

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

Saturday, May 22, 2010 4:40 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Well, mostly you've done it again, Rose, made my points for me. Nonetheless:

KPO, a couple of things. The idea that clothing is something natural to humans because it's been there historically, I question. We "began" as a race in Africa, where minimal clothing still exists among the natives. We spread to other places...virtually all of them requiring some covering of our vulnerable flesh. Those who remained isolated from society and in regions where clothing isn't necessary for protection, tended to stay that way. Africa, the tropical islands, South America, Australia. Where untouched by "civilization", virtually all tribes in those regions still use minimal clothing, and a large number of them, women don't cover their breasts.

I think Rose is far closer to the truth; children have no constraints about clothing and show it, and children are humans at their most elementary stage, n'est pas? I think we only have to look to them for the answer. Society imposes many restrictions on children as they grow to adulthood...many necessary for society's safety, etc. I don't think clothing is one of them, except where necessary to protect the body.

As to religion, again I agree with Rose. ALL organized religions are a form of control, and the people who wrote the Bible and other religious texts were humans...primitive and although maybe not originally, nonetheless headed up by people who want control over the population. Power. Given the Bible was written in a region where clothing was necessary for protection, and sex IS a way religion controls people, I'd say that our religious texts reflect all of the above.

I'm assuming you won't say why did the people of that region, given its heat, wear clothes, as I assume you understand the difference between a hot, desert climate and a warm, humid one where clothing is concerned.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

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

Saturday, May 22, 2010 1:24 PM

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

Quote:
Africa, the tropical islands, South America, Australia. Where untouched by "civilization", virtually all tribes in those regions still use minimal clothing,

But you make my case, even when not practically necessary (as far as I know) clothing, however minimal, is the norm. Why is that? Religion every time?

Quote:
children have no constraints about clothing and show it, and children are humans at their most elementary stage, n'est pas? I think we only have to look to them for the answer.

Children are also initially very selfish and anti-social, and have no concept of cleanliness. Is social co-operation and a sense of cleanliness unnatural in humans? No, it is something that is natural AND learnt. Like speech. We have instincts for all these things when we're born that still have to be cultivated and taught to us. I think sexual modesty is one of them.

Heads should roll

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

Saturday, May 22, 2010 1:58 PM

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

Quote:
So do you have a right to not be offended?

Hmm, I'll have to think about this...

Heads should roll

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

Saturday, May 22, 2010 3:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
So do you have a right to not be offended?

Hmm, I'll have to think about this...

Heads should roll

I feel your pain. And I wasn't trying to be snarky. (I know, with me it's hard to tell...

)

Smarter people than you and I have been thinking, writing, and talking about this for hundreds of years. They can't seem to come to a consensus, either. It's okay if we can't agree or figure it out.

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

Sunday, May 23, 2010 5:52 AM