Naturism should be legal. Period

[JuNii]

I have an even better idea -- in the interests of convenience, let's make the covers in separate layers.

For instance, there can be one cover that protects your back and chest, then a separate one protecting everything from the waist to the legs.... and maybe another, longer form of cover to cover up the legs themselves, if it gets cold....

That way, for instance, if it's cold out in the morning, you can start out with layers protecting your arms and legs, then when it gets warmer, remove those layers so that you've got only the layers protecting your back, torso, rear end, and front end. Which, of course, you'd keep on, for hygiene's sake. Genius!

great Idea... If we can design it... we could make a fortune!

different designs, cuts... even have "themed" ones so that people can explore their individuality...

[Saint Clair Island]

I have an even better idea -- in the interests of convenience, let's make the covers in separate layers.

For instance, there can be one cover that protects your back and chest, then a separate one protecting everything from the waist to the legs.... and maybe another, longer form of cover to cover up the legs themselves, if it gets cold....

That way, for instance, if it's cold out in the morning, you can start out with layers protecting your arms and legs, then when it gets warmer, remove those layers so that you've got only the layers protecting your back, torso, rear end, and front end. Which, of course, you'd keep on, for hygiene's sake. Genius!

great Idea... If we can design it... we could make a fortune!

different designs, cuts... even have "themed" ones so that people can explore their individuality...

we could have, like, "formal" covers for important business meetings and stuff, with ties and the like, and then more "casual" ones you can just wear while out and about.

it'll revolutionize the industry!

[Al Shire]

Society isn't ready for it. Society has barely figured out that having a different skin color is no basis for deteriming a person's personality. And we will destroy ourselves long before we figure it out.

You make a good arguement, but it'll never happen in america. Europe mabye. But never america.

[Al Shire]

I have an even better idea -- in the interests of convenience, let's make the covers in separate layers.

For instance, there can be one cover that protects your back and chest, then a separate one protecting everything from the waist to the legs.... and maybe another, longer form of cover to cover up the legs themselves, if it gets cold....

That way, for instance, if it's cold out in the morning, you can start out with layers protecting your arms and legs, then when it gets warmer, remove those layers so that you've got only the layers protecting your back, torso, rear end, and front end. Which, of course, you'd keep on, for hygiene's sake. Genius!

great Idea... If we can design it... we could make a fortune!

Oh yea like loinclothes! That would be awesome. We could all demolish our houses and live in teepee's and smoke weed all day while we're at it!
different designs, cuts... even have "themed" ones so that people can explore their individuality...

we could have, like, "formal" covers for important business meetings and stuff, with ties and the like, and then more "casual" ones you can just wear while out and about.

it'll revolutionize the industry!

[S C R U S]

A bunch of naked girls swimming around is very erotic to me.

Welcome back Secruss. It's nice to agree with your about something.

I have no objection to naked girls. In fact, I approve nudity for everyone!

yesm

[Bitchkitten]

It should be restricted to certain places. I want some sort of warning if I'm likely to see a man whose gut hangs down past his dick naked.

[Natapoc]

What would you do about homeless people? As the law stands it is a crime for them to change clothes, to clean themselves, ect.

Such laws just further the cycle of poverty. Legalizing nudity is only right. If just because some people don't have the privilege of privacy.

[Rikese]

I'd rather not see naked hippopotamii romping around in front of the local McDonalds. These types of horrifying experiences tend to ruin appetite y'know.

[Allied Governments]

What would you do about homeless people? As the law stands it is a crime for them to change clothes, to clean themselves, ect.

Such laws just further the cycle of poverty. Legalizing nudity is only right. If just because some people don't have the privilege of privacy.

Because the homeless defecating and urinating in public areas is TOTALLY sanitary.

[Natapoc]

What would you do about homeless people? As the law stands it is a crime for them to change clothes, to clean themselves, ect.

Such laws just further the cycle of poverty. Legalizing nudity is only right. If just because some people don't have the privilege of privacy.

Because the homeless defecating and urinating in public areas is TOTALLY sanitary.

I never said anything about urination or defecation in public areas. But I do think there needs to be more public toilets for this reason also.

I Only mentioned changing clothes and cleaning up. Do you think a homeless person should go to jail for changing his or her clothes?

[Lucky Bicycle Works]

I'd rather not see naked hippopotamii romping around in front of the local McDonalds. These types of horrifying experiences tend to ruin appetite y'know.

That's your problem.

For one thing, the extremely obese are quite unlikely to want to get around naked. Consider how few of them already, opt for skintight and revealing clothing. If people are looking at one's body and visibly reacting like "ewww" then of course one favours loose-fit clothing.

Furthermore, you're already seeing all the things you don't want to see. The rolls of fat, the shape of bodies. Even if you don't go to the beach or a swimming-pool, you see big bellies and other body fat. How is it so different to see that shape in skin-colour instead of an artificial clothing colour ?

And what the hell is with this "not while I'm eating" thing? It seems quite a common phobia, but it's irrational. Can't people separate what they are seeing with their eyes (because apparently they don't have the self-control to not look) from the smell and taste of their food? The fat person is over there at another table, for x's sake, not on your plate!

Honestly I think this might be a symptom of childhood audiovisual indulgence. Without interaction (as occurs with real vision and real hearing) children's brains are badly programmed to "sense" the world without being able to separate the inputs which come from the different senses. You see it even among the relatively literate folk of NSG: quite a few of us are persuaded (or at least enthused) by the brain-candy of video, even when it puts a weaker and less explicit case than written words.

Culture, technology, ethics are all built on the written word. That's what got us where we are, and if the trend away from reading and towards watching/hearing continues ... we are fucked. Civilization declines, billions starve, war and the permanent destruction of culture ensues. Barbarism, here we come. And rampant in the destruction will be religion, including new and more virulent religions based on faith in "science." People will stop doing science, and instead worship it. And that will be a more terrible religion than any which has come before, because the "facts" it holds as gospel will be real facts, which we can no longer verify, unless we are of the priest/scientist caste. Instead of "grandpa died from eating a bad lobster" being the basis of a religious prohibition, it will be "energy is equal to mass at rest, times the square of the speed of light" and the ignorant mass who cannot read maths will kill for that when ordered to.

No, I don't think the above is hysterical. The human brain is optimized for language, and while a verbal culture (of story-telling and song) is viable, it does not have the flexibility and the opportunity for individual contribution, which a written culture does. A person can listen to one oratory at a time, or read one book at a time. Because the book bypasses the senses, its meaning is far more concentrated and explicit. To those seeking knowledge, the written word is far more clearly what the want to know, or not. It is far less prone to the "well that was interesting, what was I trying to find out anyway, now?" effect of audio entertainment. Throw moving pictures into the mix, and you have a product which simply brainwashes instead of educating.

Readers and writers rule the world. By the poisoned chalice of democracy, the leaders must look nice and talk well ... but when they make law, they make it in writing. Law is enforced, ultimately, in writing.

Democracy will fail, it will become a sham and a pretence, if the people are not literate ... and I mean actively literate, in that they read at least an hour a day, and write to be wred by others.

Oh, I'm just Chicken Little. My apologies, Rikese, for hanging this rave on your little post.

One final point. Calling obese people "hippopotami" is childish and offensive. Calling any person by the name of a non-human species is potentially offensive, but your intent is clearly hateful: you deliberately dehumanize your fellow humans because you don't enjoy the sight of their bodies.

That is disgraceful. It is oafish, and selfish, and beneath your dignity as a human being.

[S C R U S]

I'd rather not see naked hippopotamii romping around in front of the local McDonalds. These types of horrifying experiences tend to ruin appetite y'know.

That's your problem.

For one thing, the extremely obese are quite unlikely to want to get around naked. Consider how few of them already, opt for skintight and revealing clothing. If people are looking at one's body and visibly reacting like "ewww" then of course one favours loose-fit clothing.

Furthermore, you're already seeing all the things you don't want to see. The rolls of fat, the shape of bodies. Even if you don't go to the beach or a swimming-pool, you see big bellies and other body fat. How is it so different to see that shape in skin-colour instead of an artificial clothing colour ?

And what the hell is with this "not while I'm eating" thing? It seems quite a common phobia, but it's irrational. Can't people separate what they are seeing with their eyes (because apparently they don't have the self-control to not look) from the smell and taste of their food? The fat person is over there at another table, for x's sake, not on your plate!

Honestly I think this might be a symptom of childhood audiovisual indulgence. Without interaction (as occurs with real vision and real hearing) children's brains are badly programmed to "sense" the world without being able to separate the inputs which come from the different senses. You see it even among the relatively literate folk of NSG: quite a few of us are persuaded (or at least enthused) by the brain-candy of video, even when it puts a weaker and less explicit case than written words.

Culture, technology, ethics are all built on the written word. That's what got us where we are, and if the trend away from reading and towards watching/hearing continues ... we are fucked. Civilization declines, billions starve, war and the permanent destruction of culture ensues. Barbarism, here we come. And rampant in the destruction will be religion, including new and more virulent religions based on faith in "science." People will stop doing science, and instead worship it. And that will be a more terrible religion than any which has come before, because the "facts" it holds as gospel will be real facts, which we can no longer verify, unless we are of the priest/scientist caste. Instead of "grandpa died from eating a bad lobster" being the basis of a religious prohibition, it will be "energy is equal to mass at rest, times the square of the speed of light" and the ignorant mass who cannot read maths will kill for that when ordered to.

No, I don't think the above is hysterical. The human brain is optimized for language, and while a verbal culture (of story-telling and song) is viable, it does not have the flexibility and the opportunity for individual contribution, which a written culture does. A person can listen to one oratory at a time, or read one book at a time. Because the book bypasses the senses, its meaning is far more concentrated and explicit. To those seeking knowledge, the written word is far more clearly what the want to know, or not. It is far less prone to the "well that was interesting, what was I trying to find out anyway, now?" effect of audio entertainment. Throw moving pictures into the mix, and you have a product which simply brainwashes instead of educating.

Readers and writers rule the world. By the poisoned chalice of democracy, the leaders must look nice and talk well ... but when they make law, they make it in writing. Law is enforced, ultimately, in writing.

Democracy will fail, it will become a sham and a pretence, if the people are not literate ... and I mean actively literate, in that they read at least an hour a day, and write to be wred by others.

Oh, I'm just Chicken Little. My apologies, Rikese, for hanging this rave on your little post.

One final point. Calling obese people "hippopotami" is childish and offensive. Calling any person by the name of a non-human species is potentially offensive, but your intent is clearly hateful: you deliberately dehumanize your fellow humans because you don't enjoy the sight of their bodies.

That is disgraceful. It is oafish, and selfish, and beneath your dignity as a human being.

i really dont to see some guy with his di** hangen out while he stares at me. i may just have to bust a cap in his naked ass.

[Allied Governments]

I'd rather not see naked hippopotamii romping around in front of the local McDonalds. These types of horrifying experiences tend to ruin appetite y'know.

That's your problem.

For one thing, the extremely obese are quite unlikely to want to get around naked. Consider how few of them already, opt for skintight and revealing clothing. If people are looking at one's body and visibly reacting like "ewww" then of course one favours loose-fit clothing.

Furthermore, you're already seeing all the things you don't want to see. The rolls of fat, the shape of bodies. Even if you don't go to the beach or a swimming-pool, you see big bellies and other body fat. How is it so different to see that shape in skin-colour instead of an artificial clothing colour ?

And what the hell is with this "not while I'm eating" thing? It seems quite a common phobia, but it's irrational. Can't people separate what they are seeing with their eyes (because apparently they don't have the self-control to not look) from the smell and taste of their food? The fat person is over there at another table, for x's sake, not on your plate!

Honestly I think this might be a symptom of childhood audiovisual indulgence. Without interaction (as occurs with real vision and real hearing) children's brains are badly programmed to "sense" the world without being able to separate the inputs which come from the different senses. You see it even among the relatively literate folk of NSG: quite a few of us are persuaded (or at least enthused) by the brain-candy of video, even when it puts a weaker and less explicit case than written words.

Culture, technology, ethics are all built on the written word. That's what got us where we are, and if the trend away from reading and towards watching/hearing continues ... we are fucked. Civilization declines, billions starve, war and the permanent destruction of culture ensues. Barbarism, here we come. And rampant in the destruction will be religion, including new and more virulent religions based on faith in "science." People will stop doing science, and instead worship it. And that will be a more terrible religion than any which has come before, because the "facts" it holds as gospel will be real facts, which we can no longer verify, unless we are of the priest/scientist caste. Instead of "grandpa died from eating a bad lobster" being the basis of a religious prohibition, it will be "energy is equal to mass at rest, times the square of the speed of light" and the ignorant mass who cannot read maths will kill for that when ordered to.

No, I don't think the above is hysterical. The human brain is optimized for language, and while a verbal culture (of story-telling and song) is viable, it does not have the flexibility and the opportunity for individual contribution, which a written culture does. A person can listen to one oratory at a time, or read one book at a time. Because the book bypasses the senses, its meaning is far more concentrated and explicit. To those seeking knowledge, the written word is far more clearly what the want to know, or not. It is far less prone to the "well that was interesting, what was I trying to find out anyway, now?" effect of audio entertainment. Throw moving pictures into the mix, and you have a product which simply brainwashes instead of educating.

Readers and writers rule the world. By the poisoned chalice of democracy, the leaders must look nice and talk well ... but when they make law, they make it in writing. Law is enforced, ultimately, in writing.

Democracy will fail, it will become a sham and a pretence, if the people are not literate ... and I mean actively literate, in that they read at least an hour a day, and write to be wred by others.

Oh, I'm just Chicken Little. My apologies, Rikese, for hanging this rave on your little post.

One final point. Calling obese people "hippopotami" is childish and offensive. Calling any person by the name of a non-human species is potentially offensive, but your intent is clearly hateful: you deliberately dehumanize your fellow humans because you don't enjoy the sight of their bodies.

That is disgraceful. It is oafish, and selfish, and beneath your dignity as a human being.

Like Scientism from Isaac Asimov's Foundation.