Total Posts:169|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Public Nudity

threelittlebirds
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2009 3:10:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Should people be thrown in jail/fined for not wearing clothes in public? Should women continue to have unequal rights when it comes apparel?

Why or why not?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2009 3:25:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Thrown in jail? No. Fined? Sure.

Is it subjugating rights of women or the minority nudists? No.

Lets be clear, here; as far as I know, the majority are in agreement with nudity laws as they currently stand. The minority of nudists disagree with this law, for good reason; they have rights and they aren't really hurting anyone. But, you can't simply ignore the wishes of the majority either; which is why nudists are afforded full rights to do as they please where it is deemed that they will not clash with the majority.

The laws are not forcing nudists to wear clothes all the time; the laws simply state that in public areas where other individuals are, nudists cannot be nude - that is the sign of recognition on the part of the minority. In return, the majority recognizes the minority's rights by granting them both public and private property where they can practice as they please.

I see nothing wrong with this arrangement; it is a compromise, and both sides get their recognition of rights.

I'm a little fuzzy on the idea of allowing women to walk bare-chested in public; the idea that they can't is really written in conservative traditions of the past. I'd probably be in favour of it (not just speaking as a man, either), but you have to ask whether or not they would even consider exercising those rights - a lot of women don't want to go topless out in public. So it is a tricky situation.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2009 3:44:49 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/7/2009 3:25:59 PM, Volkov wrote:
Thrown in jail? No. Fined? Sure.

Is it subjugating rights of women or the minority nudists? No.

Lets be clear, here; as far as I know, the majority are in agreement with nudity laws as they currently stand. The minority of nudists disagree with this law, for good reason; they have rights and they aren't really hurting anyone. But, you can't simply ignore the wishes of the majority either
Rightfully you can. It's only guns that stop you.

I see nothing wrong with this arrangement; it is a compromise, and both sides get their recognition of rights.
By what right is nudity prevented? How is it not a violation of rights to force clothing upon people?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
threelittlebirds
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2009 3:53:45 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/7/2009 3:25:59 PM, Volkov wrote:
but you have to ask whether or not they would even consider exercising those rights - a lot of women don't want to go topless out in public. So it is a tricky situation.

Do you have a subscription to National Geographic, or have you ever been to any foreign beaches?
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2009 3:54:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
The obsession with civil rights usually clouds people's judgement, especially when combined with the liberal attitude of "It's older than I am? Question it!"

When humans began operating in a society, it became prudent that sex not be on people's minds 24/7. Breast protrusion evolved as an indicator of sexual maturity after humans began to walk upright, in order to replace the buttocks, which have become less visible after humans became bipedal. Biologically, they are used to attract mates. Covering them up helps to keep male members from being too distracted with mating so that they can aid in the construction and maintenance of the society.

On the flip side, loincloths became common in order to avoid awkward and dangerous social situations. The alpha male or tribal chief, or whoever, gets the pick of female mate. He would take offense to a lower level, subservient male getting an erection upon seeing his chosen mate.

Both biological and sociological necessity. What next? Should we all rise up against eating food or drinking water, because it stomps on our rights to live without consuming nutrients >.>?

Sheesh.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2009 4:09:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/7/2009 3:44:49 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Rightfully you can. It's only guns that stop you.

See, the idea is not to promote violence; you can get recognition for minority rights through other means than violence, and vice versa. I've said it before, and I'll say it again; violence is so passe.

By what right is nudity prevented? How is it not a violation of rights to force clothing upon people?

I already explained this.

The majority believes that nudity in the public sphere is wrong; the minority believes it is not. Both sides have rights that need to be recognized, and are as such; the majority's right to bar public nudity in some areas is countered by the minority's recognized right to be nude in some areas. Both sides are allowed to do whatever they want in private quarters.

This is a much better situation that what would happen if neither side decided to recognize the other's rights; the majority would oppress the minority, the minority could try to counter with violence, etc. - not a needed or welcome situation when there is compromise and stability available.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2009 4:20:07 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/7/2009 4:13:44 PM, threelittlebirds wrote:
The minority's still being suppressed though, and what the minority wants wouldn't hurt anyone.

As I said; the compromise is what is best at the moment. The minority is afforded full rights in private, and is also afforded recognition and status in public. You cannot simply override the rights of the majority, you can only try to level the playing field the best you can for the minority.

When the majority becomes less stuck with this view against nudity, which they steadily are, then it will most likely change, but until then - compromise is better than overruling.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2009 4:24:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/7/2009 4:13:44 PM, threelittlebirds wrote:
The minority's still being suppressed though, and what the minority wants wouldn't hurt anyone.

Read my above post.

I want $300,000. If everyone in America gave me a penny, I'd have it.

What are the chances that I'm going to get it?

I really wish that we didn't live in such a free country. It seems that people really take things for granted. Living in America doesn't give you the right to flip anything and everything upside down in order to perfect this obnoxious western obsession with "civil liberties".

On my list of "people who irk me", these people rank #2, preceded by Young Earth Creationists at the top.

These are the same type of people who moan about seat belt laws >.>
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2009 4:25:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/7/2009 4:20:07 PM, Volkov wrote:
You cannot simply override the rights of the majority, you can only try to level the playing field the best you can for the minority.

What rights of non-nudists are being violated by topless women in public?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2009 4:30:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/7/2009 4:25:53 PM, JBlake wrote:
At 9/7/2009 4:20:07 PM, Volkov wrote:
You cannot simply override the rights of the majority, you can only try to level the playing field the best you can for the minority.

What rights of non-nudists are being violated by topless women in public?

Had you read my earlier post, I noted that it was not the same case, and that I believed I would side with the idea of allowing women to be topless in public, or at least giving women the same rights men have in certain public spaces in regards to nudity.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2009 4:35:40 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/7/2009 4:30:38 PM, theLwerd wrote:
I hate seat belt laws :P

You're just saying that to mess with me ><;;
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
threelittlebirds
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2009 4:36:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/7/2009 3:54:29 PM, Kleptin wrote:
When humans began operating in a society, it became prudent that sex not be on people's minds 24/7. Breast protrusion evolved as an indicator of sexual maturity after humans began to walk upright, in order to replace the buttocks, which have become less visible after humans became bipedal. Biologically, they are used to attract mates. Covering them up helps to keep male members from being too distracted with mating so that they can aid in the construction and maintenance of the society.
Breasts don't stop African tribes from functioning.
On the flip side, loincloths became common in order to avoid awkward and dangerous social situations. The alpha male or tribal chief, or whoever, gets the pick of female mate. He would take offense to a lower level, subservient male getting an erection upon seeing his chosen mate.
How well do loincloths really hide erections?

I really wish that we didn't live in such a free country. It seems that people really take things for granted. Living in America doesn't give you the right to flip anything and everything upside down in order to perfect this obnoxious western obsession with "civil liberties".
Wtf is wrong with you?
ToastOfDestiny
Posts: 990
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2009 4:38:50 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Although my endocrine system will probably hate me for this, I'm against public nudity. Nude beaches = ok. Cooking nude = ok (watch out for bacon!). Jogging nude = WTF?! People get freedoms, but they end at a certain point for society's good.

On a similar note, though men can go topless, women have far more accepted diversity in terms of clothing. Men can wear pants, shorts, and varying degrees of shirts. Women have all of that plus 'women's clothing'. Somehow, I'd almost say that's MORE freedom.

A women can wear the pants in the household. A dude can't wear the skirt.
At 10/11/2009 8:28:18 PM, banker wrote:
Our demise and industrial destruction
At 10/11/2009 10:00:21 PM, regebro wrote:
Only exists in your head, as already shown.

At 10/11/2009 8:28:18 PM, banker wrote:
reveal why you answer with a question mark
At 10/11/2009 10:00:21 PM, regebro wrote:
Because it was a question.

RFDs Pl0x:
http://www.debate.org...
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2009 4:42:20 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/7/2009 4:36:29 PM, threelittlebirds wrote:
Breasts don't stop African tribes from functioning.

African tribes =/= Western countries.

Wtf is wrong with you?

Kleptin has a point, though I don't necessarily agree with how he presented it; people expect every single whim and desire to be recognized by everyone else without taking into account that those others also have rights that must be recognized and respected for what they are.

No one wants to compromise; people seem to believe that they should be recognized automatically, and that is simply not how reality works.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2009 4:49:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/7/2009 4:36:29 PM, threelittlebirds wrote:
Breasts don't stop African tribes from functioning.
African tribes have gone hundreds of years desexualizing the female breasts. Their society and their culture happens to be able to deal with it. They still hide their genitalia, however, lending credence to my point.

How well do loincloths really hide erections?

Well enough. Can you suggest a better reason why men have covered their genitalia since the earlies records of human history? And don't say "protection", because if you're going to suggest that the loincloth is too flimsy to over an erection, it probably doesn't protect much either.

Wtf is wrong with you?

I knew I would elicit this kind of response. The question isn't what is wrong with me, the question is why you think it is so obvious in a discussion where two people disagree, that I have to be the one with the problem.

I just think that complete and total freedom is the irrational wet dream of every immature, armchair politician/philosopher fresh out of college. To hold an ideal without practicality is kind of hard to respect. Especially when the only reason that certain people seem to have for suggesting things like legalizing nudity, is to class themselves as liberal freethinkers who are crusading against any and all transgression of civil liberties, regardless of the fact that freedom is to be sacrificed when people join together into a society.

I for one, am against arresting and fining anyone walking around nude in public. I think that instead, they should be escorted to the nearest psychiatric facility and housed overnight until they are examined by a government employed psychiatrist. The same goes for public masturbation and other forms of public indecency, with some exceptions for public urination.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
threelittlebirds
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2009 4:56:46 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/7/2009 4:42:20 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 9/7/2009 4:36:29 PM, threelittlebirds wrote:
Breasts don't stop African tribes from functioning.

African tribes =/= Western countries.

Yeah, but why couldn't it work for us if they're doing it? I seriously doubt that enough women would exercise the right for it to stop production (or that nudity would halt production anyways).
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2009 4:57:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I for one, am against arresting and fining anyone walking around nude in public. I think that instead, they should be escorted to the nearest psychiatric facility and housed overnight until they are examined by a government employed psychiatrist. The same goes for public masturbation and other forms of public indecency, with some exceptions for public urination.

You use the term public indecency, but all you do is build yourself a slippery slope. Indecent to who, the general public? Shall we then hold a public consensus on what is "indecent", however vague that term is, and make laws accordingly? If so, why aren't we entitled to apply this same reasoning with many other issues?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2009 4:58:22 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/7/2009 4:56:46 PM, threelittlebirds wrote:
Yeah, but why couldn't it work for us if they're doing it? I seriously doubt that enough women would exercise the right for it to stop production (or that nudity would halt production anyways).

Learn a little bit about Western history, culture and general sociological patterns, and you'll figure it out.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2009 5:01:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/7/2009 3:54:29 PM, Kleptin wrote:
The obsession with civil rights usually clouds people's judgement, especially when combined with the liberal attitude of "It's older than I am? Question it!"

When humans began operating in a society, it became prudent that sex not be on people's minds 24/7. Breast protrusion evolved as an indicator of sexual maturity after humans began to walk upright, in order to replace the buttocks, which have become less visible after humans became bipedal. Biologically, they are used to attract mates. Covering them up helps to keep male members from being too distracted with mating so that they can aid in the construction and maintenance of the society.
Nudity isn't as arousing by itself when you are constantly exposed to it.


On the flip side, loincloths became common in order to avoid awkward and dangerous social situations. The alpha male or tribal chief, or whoever, gets the pick of female mate. He would take offense to a lower level, subservient male getting an erection upon seeing his chosen mate.
This is false. Loincloths, indeed, clothing as such, evolved as physical protection. Genitals are vulnerable. This,however, is a private judgment, no one is harmed by the error of leaving them exposed but the one doing so.


Both biological and sociological necessity. What next? Should we all rise up against eating food or drinking water
Against LEGALLY REQUIRING people to do these things?

See, the idea is not to promote violence; you can get recognition for minority rights through other means than violence, and vice versa. I've said it before, and I'll say it again; violence is so passe.
You're the one promoting violence (armed robbery, i.e. fines) in this thread. It is not violent to be nude, it is violent to stop it :).

I already explained this.The majority believes that nudity in the public sphere is wrong

Ad populum fallacy. Stating "The majority believes x" is not an explanation for why the majority is right.

the minority believes it is not. Both sides have rights that need to be recognized
I believe I ought to be able to roast you alive for my dinner, you believe I should not. Are we both within our rights?

As I said; the compromise is what is best at the moment.
It is not a superior option to the majority being moral enough to leave people alone, just like they did when women started showing ankles.

The minority is afforded full rights in private, and is also afforded recognition and status in public. You cannot simply override the rights of the majority
That's just it. The majority does NOT have a right in the situation. No one has a right to anyone's body except that person, unless that person grants it.

I want $300,000. If everyone in America gave me a penny, I'd have it.
The premise that that is "right" requires taking pennies from people. The premise that it is right to be nude has no such requirement.

African tribes have gone hundreds of years desexualizing the female breasts.
The experience of nudist communities shows that people adapt MUCh faster.

I just think that complete and total freedom is the irrational wet dream of every immature, armchair politician/philosopher fresh out of college. To hold an ideal without practicality is kind of hard to respect.
What is impractical about it?

Especially when the only reason that certain people seem to have for suggesting things like legalizing nudity, is to class themselves as liberal freethinkers who are crusading against any and all transgression of civil liberties, regardless of the fact that freedom is to be sacrificed when people join together into a society.
No such "Fact" involved, unless you can prove that every possible society sacrifices freedom, starting with the one resulting from the political system I advocate :).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2009 5:10:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/7/2009 4:57:57 PM, TheSkeptic wrote:
I for one, am against arresting and fining anyone walking around nude in public. I think that instead, they should be escorted to the nearest psychiatric facility and housed overnight until they are examined by a government employed psychiatrist. The same goes for public masturbation and other forms of public indecency, with some exceptions for public urination.

You use the term public indecency, but all you do is build yourself a slippery slope. Indecent to who, the general public? Shall we then hold a public consensus on what is "indecent", however vague that term is, and make laws accordingly? If so, why aren't we entitled to apply this same reasoning with many other issues?

See Public Indecency:
"The exposure of one's body, especially one's genitals, in a public place and in a way considered offensive to established standards of decency."

If the law required people to sign the current year onto any legal document, should we hold a public consensus on what year it currently is (2009), then have all the documents in 2010, 2011, etc. dated with the year 2009?

A slippery slope included in the law won't destroy the legal system, because lawyers, judges, and jury members are all human and literate. A rational judge and jury can easily answer the question "Was this exposure indecent?" without needing a concrete definition, especially if the legal clause involves something that changes, and that the change is identifiable by people being tried, the judge, and the jury.

Just as how we don't need an exact year in the legal clause because people know that years change, we don't need an exact definition for what is decent or not because people know that definitions for decent and indecent also change. It's up to society to figure out whether or not a person's behavior deviates to the point that it shows there is something a little too odd about the person. It's one thing to wear a skimpy top and a microskirt. It's another to wear nothing at all.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2009 5:12:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/7/2009 5:10:53 PM, Kleptin wrote:
At 9/7/2009 4:57:57 PM, TheSkeptic wrote:
I for one, am against arresting and fining anyone walking around nude in public. I think that instead, they should be escorted to the nearest psychiatric facility and housed overnight until they are examined by a government employed psychiatrist. The same goes for public masturbation and other forms of public indecency, with some exceptions for public urination.

You use the term public indecency, but all you do is build yourself a slippery slope. Indecent to who, the general public? Shall we then hold a public consensus on what is "indecent", however vague that term is, and make laws accordingly? If so, why aren't we entitled to apply this same reasoning with many other issues?

See Public Indecency:
"The exposure of one's body, especially one's genitals, in a public place and in a way considered offensive to established standards of decency."

If the law required people to sign the current year onto any legal document, should we hold a public consensus on what year it currently is (2009), then have all the documents in 2010, 2011, etc. dated with the year 2009?

A slippery slope included in the law won't destroy the legal system, because lawyers, judges, and jury members are all human and literate. A rational judge and jury can easily answer the question "Was this exposure indecent?" without needing a concrete definition, especially if the legal clause involves something that changes, and that the change is identifiable by people being tried, the judge, and the jury.
When standards change, and one doesn't find out exactly how until one is charged, that's called retroactive law
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2009 5:22:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/7/2009 5:01:24 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
You're the one promoting violence (armed robbery, i.e. fines) in this thread. It is not violent to be nude, it is violent to stop it :).

Says the person that has implied guns are the only way to obtain rights...

When you start ignoring the rights of one side for the rights of another, you're pushing them to take extreme measures to obtain their rights when that can be avoided.

Ad populum fallacy. Stating "The majority believes x" is not an explanation for why the majority is right.

Again - argument from reality. You cannot ignore the rights of the majority. When you do, you're asking for them to take out their resentment on the minority - you're advocating violence.

I believe I ought to be able to roast you alive for my dinner, you believe I should not. Are we both within our rights?

Trying to bloat this to the extreme is not going to work.

You are within your right to want to roast me, but I'm within my right to be protected from harm. In a legal court, my right would be protected because it is pertinent to my right to exist; your right to roast me is not pertinent to your existence, especially with the ability to eat other foods. The compromise is still there; I'm allowed to live, you're still allowed to eat. We both go home satisfied.

It is not a superior option to the majority being moral enough to leave people alone, just like they did when women started showing ankles.

That is not up for you to decide; the majority will progress when it does. You can try to sway opinion if you want, but you still must recognize the rights of the majority until they believe it is alright to be nude in public.

That's just it. The majority does NOT have a right in the situation. No one has a right to anyone's body except that person, unless that person grants it.

The person does grant it, as they abide by the law of the land they are in; they are also recognized and afforded rights due to the fact that they respect the majority's right against nudity in public.

It is this mutual recognition that gives people rights and avoids violence.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2009 5:23:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/7/2009 5:01:24 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/7/2009 3:54:29 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Nudity isn't as arousing by itself when you are constantly exposed to it.

Addressed below

This is false. Loincloths, indeed, clothing as such, evolved as physical protection. Genitals are vulnerable. This,however, is a private judgment, no one is harmed by the error of leaving them exposed but the one doing so.

Addressed below

Against LEGALLY REQUIRING people to do these things?

It's called "attempted suicide" and we do put people away for that. Not in jail, but in a hospital and possibly a psych ward.

"Ad populum fallacy. Stating "The majority believes x" is not an explanation for why the majority is right."

Improper use of the fallacy. We're not discussing a logically valid truth or the conclusion of a rigid proof. We're discussing laws in a democratic government in which the majority rules.

That's just it. The majority does NOT have a right in the situation. No one has a right to anyone's body except that person, unless that person grants it.

It's not restricting a person's right to do with their body what they please, its a compromise to respect the rights of people who do not wish to be subject to something that is forced upon them.

I want $300,000. If everyone in America gave me a penny, I'd have it.
The premise that that is "right" requires taking pennies from people. The premise that it is right to be nude has no such requirement.

I'll equate the discomfort a person has to endure to be worth a penny.

The experience of nudist communities shows that people adapt MUCh faster.
Do you have a scientific study to back you up?

What is impractical about it?
Because the ideal isn't worth the effort to attain. Would you like to fund a multi-billion dollar, government funded research project into developing magic glasses that puts virtual clothes on naked people for all the citizens who don't wish to be offended by something forced on them? It's easy to complain about something, it's easy to point at the notion of civil liberties and claim oppression, but when it comes time to suggest a remedy, the same whiners don't even have the intellectual capacity to suggest a compromise because they're so focused on that ideal.

No such "Fact" involved, unless you can prove that every possible society sacrifices freedom, starting with the one resulting from the political system I advocate :).

Sure, and I'll just prove that God DOESN'T exist while I'm at it XD

Rephrase your challenge with a reasonable burden and I'll respond.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2009 5:25:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
See Public Indecency:
"The exposure of one's body, especially one's genitals, in a public place and in a way considered offensive to established standards of decency."

If the law required people to sign the current year onto any legal document, should we hold a public consensus on what year it currently is (2009), then have all the documents in 2010, 2011, etc. dated with the year 2009?

A slippery slope included in the law won't destroy the legal system, because lawyers, judges, and jury members are all human and literate. A rational judge and jury can easily answer the question "Was this exposure indecent?" without needing a concrete definition, especially if the legal clause involves something that changes, and that the change is identifiable by people being tried, the judge, and the jury.

Just as how we don't need an exact year in the legal clause because people know that years change, we don't need an exact definition for what is decent or not because people know that definitions for decent and indecent also change. It's up to society to figure out whether or not a person's behavior deviates to the point that it shows there is something a little too odd about the person. It's one thing to wear a skimpy top and a microskirt. It's another to wear nothing at all.

An erroneous analogy. People can accurately predict when, how, and why years change. The movement of celestial bodies is not dependent on the whims of the public, but is part of the uniformity of nature.

On the other hand, look at your definition of public indecency. Saying something is "offensive to established standards of decency" is to put the definition of decency right into the whims of the public. Heck, "decency" itself is a concept contingent on the whims of the public. If you have a law that is based on a concept such as this, then you need to seriously reconsider this law.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2009 5:28:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/7/2009 5:12:38 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
When standards change, and one doesn't find out exactly how until one is charged, that's called retroactive law

It's not really a change in standard. It goes by what any competent civilian can view as right or wrong. Sure, given the black and white of the law, you can plead stupid, but it's up the the jury to decide whether or not you were aware that your being a fat, balding man, walking around the town square in nothing but your birthday suit, constitutes INDECENCY.

If you do, you've knowingly committed a crime. If you don't, you match the definition for insanity. I am proposing that there be no incrimination for this behavior, only a mandatory visit to a psychiatric facility where you are examined by a court-appointed psychiatrist to determine whether or not you are insane.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2009 5:36:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 9/7/2009 5:25:00 PM, TheSkeptic wrote:
An erroneous analogy. People can accurately predict when, how, and why years change. The movement of celestial bodies is not dependent on the whims of the public, but is part of the uniformity of nature.

Your rejection doesn't match up with the purpose of my analogy. The ability to predict when, how, and why is irrelevant. The only part of the analogy that matters is that people are up to date with what the answer to the question is. But for the sake of compromise, I'll change the analogy. Instead of the year, it should have the name of the president currently in office. Is this irrational?

On the other hand, look at your definition of public indecency. Saying something is "offensive to established standards of decency" is to put the definition of decency right into the whims of the public. Heck, "decency" itself is a concept contingent on the whims of the public. If you have a law that is based on a concept such as this, then you need to seriously reconsider this law.

I'm not sure what you're arguing. The definition of decency DOES change according to the whims of the public. Thankfully, it is a term that any normal, functioning, cognitive human being can define. A person who cannot tell decent from indecent behavior needs to be under supervision. You need to grasp the fact that now all law is Black and White, there is elasticity in law because it is interpreted by humans, not by computers.

Until we find a way to resolve that between us, we won't get anywhere. I don't understand why you are holding onto this incorrect notion that every legal term has to have an objective and unchanging definition, when the things that the law deals with frequently change.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.