Is "Nudity" Actually Something Immoral or Bad?

[-Arabiyyah-]

Islam destroyed the Soviet Union Afghanistan bankruppted them.

You almost make it sound like the fall of the Soviet Union was a good thing and that the radical Islamics in Afghanistan weren't financed and organized by American and its allies. Allah apparently needed Uncle Sam's help to stand up to the USSR.

I'd burn a Soviet Flag.

[Kiruri]

It's not bad or immoral, to the contrary, it's completely natural. The Tafú body is something to admire and to embrace, but there are places for such things. I surely would like to go the the supermarket and view Tafú stark nude, but I wouldt mind seeing nude people in a park.

Exactly! I seriously don't think there's sound and logical arguments supporting the "no-nudity" taboo

[Montesardo-East Adanzi]

It's not bad or immoral, to the contrary, it's completely natural. The human body is something to admire and to embrace, but there are places for such things. I surely wouldn't like to go the the supermarket and view people stark nude, but I wouldn't mind seeing nude people in a park.

So, why is a park okay, but not a supermarket?

A park is connected to nature, or most should be. There is grass, tree and whatnot. A supermarket, stores, government buildings,etc. would be rather indecent and frowned upon. Why? Because these places are meant for specific services.

[Thafoo]

It's not bad or immoral, to the contrary, it's completely natural. The human body is something to admire and to embrace, but there are places for such things. I surely wouldn't like to go the the supermarket and view people stark nude, but I wouldn't mind seeing nude people in a park.

So, why is a park okay, but not a supermarket? In fact, I would suggest that all people should be nude in the supermarket to prevent shoplifting.

And what if you're having a nude stroll in the park one day and a woodpecker swoops down from the sky and begins pecking at your pecker because, after all, it's wood?

[Kiruri]

So, why is a park okay, but not a supermarket? In fact, I would suggest that all people should be nude in the supermarket to prevent shoplifting.

And what if you're having a nude stroll in the park one day and a woodpecker swoops down from the sky and begins pecking at your pecker because, after all, it's wood?

Who finds nature sexually exciting in the first place? xP

[Melfar]

So, why is a park okay, but not a supermarket? In fact, I would suggest that all people should be nude in the supermarket to prevent shoplifting.

And what if you're having a nude stroll in the park one day and a woodpecker swoops down from the sky and begins pecking at your pecker because, after all, it's wood?

Darn the bad luck!

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

So, why is a park okay, but not a supermarket?

A park is connected to nature, or most should be. There is grass, tree and whatnot. A supermarket, stores, government buildings,etc. would be rather indecent and frowned upon. Why? Because these places are meant for specific services.

In a market, it is to buy things, and if all people were nude in a supermarket, there would be no shoplifteres.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

And what if you're having a nude stroll in the park one day and a woodpecker swoops down from the sky and begins pecking at your pecker because, after all, it's wood?

Who finds nature sexually exciting in the first place? xP

Trees are beautiful.

[4years]

You almost make it sound like the fall of the Soviet Union was a good thing and that the radical Islamics in Afghanistan weren't financed and organized by American and its allies. Allah apparently needed Uncle Sam's help to stand up to the USSR.

I'd burn a Soviet Flag.

So would I. Do you have a point?

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

You almost make it sound like the fall of the Soviet Union was a good thing and that the radical Islamics in Afghanistan weren't financed and organized by American and its allies. Allah apparently needed Uncle Sam's help to stand up to the USSR.

I'd burn a Soviet Flag.

Remember who brought down the Soviet Union while burning that flag...that's right, us, America!

[Thafoo]

Who finds nature sexually exciting in the first place? xP

Trees are beautiful.

Scenery-beautiful or Gerard Way-beautiful? Profound difference, lad.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Trees are beautiful.

Scenery-beautiful or Gerard Way-beautiful? Profound difference, lad.

If there was an image of Gerard Way carved into the bark, both.

[Montesardo-East Adanzi]

A park is connected to nature, or most should be. There is grass, tree and whatnot. A supermarket, stores, government buildings,etc. would be rather indecent and frowned upon. Why? Because these places are meant for specific services.

In a market, it is to buy things, and if all people were nude in a supermarket, there would be no shoplifteres.

Understandable, but it would be indecent. Also, it would be very probable that you won't get attended. I'm not against it, but would be surprised and maybe disgusted having to observe it.

[4years]

I'd burn a Soviet Flag.

Remember who brought down the Soviet Union while burning that flag...that's right, us, America!

Actually, the Stalinist bureaucracy itself was the prime factor leading to the fall of the USSR, but that's another thread.

[Kiruri]

Scenery-beautiful or Gerard Way-beautiful? Profound difference, lad.

If there was an image of Gerard Way carved into the bark, both.

Yeah! staahp trying to earn brownie points! I'm the one that gets the cream filling >:[

[Cyllea]

um.. how did a thread about nudity transfer to a religious/ideological bitch-fit?
(Before anyone thinks I'm flaming, its a White Chicks reference)

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Remember who brought down the Soviet Union while burning that flag...that's right, us, America!

Actually, the Stalinist bureaucracy itself was the prime factor leading to the fall of the USSR, but that's another thread.

It is another thread, but, then again, this whole discursion into Islamic fundamentalism and the USSR belongs to another thread.

[Herskerstad]

Is nudity Immoral? No, is nudity bad? Generally not.

Is the nude body of an overweight individual in his 70's something I want to be within viewing range of while eating at a restaurant or walking down the street? No.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Also, calling a twelve year old a whore. Stay classy.

She is a bitch and a peice of trash I wish I could go back in time a brutally murder her.(Is this post allowed I have a feeling it is if it isn't I do apologize)

Arabiyyah: First off, no that post is not allowed. The fact that you edited this and failed to remove any of the offensive content baffles me, since it demonstrates that you knew you were probably violating the rules but chose to leave it. Second you keep throwing around kafir at people after having been told twice already not to do so. Considering those two factors, take a *** Seven Day Ban for Trolling ***

[4years]

Actually, the Stalinist bureaucracy itself was the prime factor leading to the fall of the USSR, but that's another thread.

It is another thread, but, then again, this whole discursion into Islamic fundamentalism and the USSR belongs to another thread.

Fair enough:

Very well then, the bureaucratic degeneration of the young Soviet republic, resulting from the isolation of the revolution in conditions of extreme backwardness, was certain to lead to the collapse of the Soviet economy in the long term. As Trotsky point out, a planned economy needs democracy to properly function and the Soviet bureaucracy absorbed an ever-increasing share of the surplus product of society. The whole Stalinist system was clogged up and doomed to collapse at some point. Furthermore, the colossal stupidity of the representatives of the bureaucracy served to hasten the fall of the USSR by a significant degree; the idiocy of forced collectivization, for example, damaged Soviet agricultural to such an extant that it never really recovered. In Afghanistan specifically, the bureaucracy's need to stifle the actually socialist elements of the Saur Revolution destroyed the credibility of the USSR as a revolutionary and progressive force in Afghan society enabling the Islamists to gain enough popular support to become a significant force in Afghanistan. One might also remember that it was the (former) Stalinist bureaucrats who cheerfully presided over the dissolution of the USSR and seized the newly privatized state enterprises as spoils for themselves. Putin and all the rest used to carry 'Communist' Party cards and, as Trotsky predicted, they slipped back over to market capitalism without a whisper.

[Dalcaria]

It has nothing to do with your religious freedom, it has everything to do with you being a prude and thinking that your prudishness and personal opinions should translate into love.

Oh cry me a river! This has nothing to do with my personal opinions on love, this has to do with me not wanting to see another human naked without my permission. And bringing up being a "prude" is such an archaic and intellectually devoid argument to make. In fact, if you knew anything about me, you'd know I'm actually not a prude, I just don't want to be subjected to something so imposing that I didn't ask to be subjected to.

By the way, good job on ignoring the fact that you claim that public nudity infringe on your religious freedom when it clearly does not, you can go to your church, you can pray to your god, you can sing in your choir with or without a nude man. Not only do you falsify my argument, but you have the cheeks to ignore your own, congrats.

Does having religious freedom not mean that I am free to not have others force their own beliefs on me? I was under the impression it did. Someone walking around naked is essentially them forcing their own A) beliefs, and B) practices on me. It'd be like someone from the Catholic Church grabbing me by the arm and trying to drag me into Mass with them. So no, I didn't falsify your argument, nor did I ignore my own, but congrats on having yet another doublethink on this. Religious freedom now no longer includes freedom from the enforcement of someone else's beliefs upon me. Wonderful. And if this wasn't covered already by most constitutions and charters of rights and freedoms, then it very well should be.

Because it is entirely irrational to make public nudity illegal,

Uh, already is in a lot of places???? People seem to be getting along fine.

it expands the freedom that everyone has, while your opinon restricts.

The exact opposite of what you said is true. By legalizing public nudity, you restricts someone's freedom to not be subjected to someone else's nudity. What I ACTUALLY suggest expands people's freedom quite well as it allows nudists to go nude in places set aside for it (thereby pleasing both nudists and non-nudists).

No one is forcing you to go about nude,

But forcing me to see someone nude is somehow more acceptable?

but there may be some that do want to go about the public with nothing on.

And that desire is easily satisfied by allowing them to enjoy this freedom in private locations, like their home, nude beaches, etc.

Just as no one is forcing me to wear flannel, but some people may want to wear flannel.

Wearing flannel =/= being nude. Clearly you don't understand this concept.

I am saying that wearing flannel infringes on my right to not see people wearing flannel, and ought to be banned.

You're saying this for the sake of an argument. But if you DO feel that way, then why should we accept such an irrational desire? You have no justification, no reason for not wanting to see flannel other than your personal dislike for a particular kind of clothing style. Again, this in NO WAY equates to nudity, so your comparison is completely flawed.

I am comparing an article of clothing that I find so obscene and disgusting, that it should be banned, to the fact that complete nudity, seems to you, so obscene and disgusting that it should be banned.

Strawman, strawman, strawman. I do not believe that complete nudity should be banned in the slightest, I believe it is a private matter and should be enjoyed in private places (your home, nude beaches, etc). And you finding an article of clothing disgusting has no basis in anything other than your taste in a material. Since when have we made laws regarding the aestheticism of different kinds of material?

You are willing to hold my opinion as irrational, but then again, your opinion is, by the same logic, equally irrational, because what they choose to wear, if they so choose to wear anything, does not infringe on anyone's right, nor should any article of clothing be banned.

Except it does infringe on their rights, which I already covered at the beginning of this post, so refer yourself there. Flannel does not infringe on anyone's rights. So no, my logic is not irrational, your failed attempt at a pseudo-strawman very much is however.

Because we live in a free country, where people are allowed to try to convert you, to set up stalls or hand out phamplets on the sidewalk, and you are free to ignore them.

Right, and they are NOT allowed to try and force you into their religion (or at least they shouldn't be). Likewise, nudists are free to invite people to their nudist beaches and such, but they shouldn't be allowed to force their belief/actions on other people, that is the opposite of freedom.

Some people may genuinely want to hear their gospel, some people may want to hear them because they find that sort of thing as good entertainment. No one is being forced to do anything, no one is being held at gun point and told that they should convert. They are protected.

You don't need to be held at gun point for someone to try and force their religious beliefs on you. Threats, physical force (trying to drag you into mass), and harassment (trying to continue to promote their religion to you when you have made it very clear you are not interested and you wish to hear no more) are different ways of trying to force it on people. Walking around completely naked isn't much different from that in the sense that you can't simply say "no" and they'll go somewhere else.

Mothers against Flannel Wearers

Society for the Protection of Children against Flannel

Anti-Flannel United

In what mythical Narnia land do these exist exactly?

Banning the wearing of Flannel in public is equivielnt to banning public nudity. Come back when you have a rational argument as to why wearing flannel is okay in your book where wearing nothing isn't.

Banning flannel isn't something anybody is asking for, and they are in no way equivalent because wearing flannel is part of your right to wear what you want, being nude is not (as far as I have heard in most nations). I'd tell you to come back when you have a more rational argument again, but clearly your brain has only developed to the point of understanding empty rhetoric and inaccurate comparisons, so don't bother coming back, go back to school instead. Before I go though, let me answer your question.

why wearing flannel is okay in your book where wearing nothing isn't.

Because flannel is clothing, nudity is no clothing. Flannel doesn't offend people in anyway, nudity does. If you don't like flannel, it's a matter of fashion opinion, and fashion opinions rarely need to become a matter for law. Nudity is not fashion, therefore it should not be treated as equal to fashion. Since your only justification for your opinion is your opinion, you've blatantly ignored the fact that public nudity does offend people (and frankly, some of them aren't even religious, nor does this even have to boil down to religious beliefs, I bring it up only as a SMALL reason why public nudity infringes upon people), and that you've even strawmanned me by basically saying I think all nudity should be banned (when I'm still saying to keep it at home or at private places set aside for that stuff) I think there's nothing left for you to say here. So, that in mind, I recommend you exeunt stage left and take up another form of keyboard heroics.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

To those involved in this thread, and for the past several pages of utter threadjacking crap that got posted, a note - thank you, please stay on topic going forward.

[Dalcaria]

It isn't, if I find you incrediably offensive to look upon, and everyone else in my community seems to agree, that is still no reason to lock you up.

Firstly, no rational human would do something like that in the first place. Secondly, plenty of rational humans are saying public nudity should be banned, go to your house or a nude beach if you want it. And thirdly, what you're describing is a human rights abuse, what I'm suggesting is that people take their private business somewhere private. There's nothing remotely similar in what I am saying to locking up an unattractive person. At all. You can make that conflation all you want, but it's still a conflation.

If you, your neighbour, and your neighbour's cousin seem to think that being nude is offensive in some way, then that is no reason why we should ban public nudity.

It's probably something closer to me, my neighbor, my neighbor's cousin, and 8 billion other people find public nudity offensive. That's nearly (nearly) 8 billion reasons to not allow public nudity. And given that we're willing to let you enjoy yourselves in the privacy of your homes and nude beaches, I'd say that's pretty fair. Nudity isn't about a fashion statement, it's about being naked. The two have no connection in the slightest for your debate.

People can put on clothes, they should be able to walk around without clothes,

People can go to nude beaches too, so what's your point? I can murder people, does that mean I should be able to murder someone? Being capable of doing something is irrelevant to this discussion. If you can put on clothes, then you can take them off somewhere else.

because it is simply irrational to hold that you should be allowed to walk around in public and offend me and everyone in my community,

If me being ugly offends you, then that's an issue of human rights and prejudice. Banning public nudity does not, in any way, equate to a human rights abuse or prejudice.

whereas people who want to walk around nude should be forced to wear clothing because they offend you and your buddies. Both are equally irrational.

Me, my buddies, and 8 billion people. And no, it's not irrational. You can go to your house, or to a nude beach to enjoy nudity. Not a force on Earth is stopping you from that. And nobody is forcing them to wear clothing, not a soul. If you don't wear clothing, good for you, just be ready to be arrested and charged for public indecency. Make what choices you will, but it will come with consequences. Of course, just going to nude beaches kind of negates all this stuff and nobody ends up unhappy. I'm really confused why this has to be such a big issue.

We are talking about public nudity by analogy, unless the word "analogy" is foriegn to you.

Listen, just because you cannot come up with any kind of a decent analogy doesn't mean I don't know what it means. Don't blame me for your faults.

I find your very presence offensive and disgusting, say, and so does many member of my community, that is not a rational reason to keep you inside the house unless you are willing to cover your face with a paper bag.

That's a human rights abuse. Telling you to keep your clothes on isn't. You have the freedom to be naked in your house or at nude beaches and other private places, please feel free to make use of that right.

You are right, no one will be negatively affected by your supreme ugliness, even if they find it offensive, just as no one will be negatively affected by public nudity.

We've already been over this. It offends people on a religious point, a moral point (would it surprise you to know even many atheists are against public nudity too?), and the fact that your nudity is being forced on us without our consent. Why should we have to see someone naked when they can go to a private place? And AGAIN, this does NOT equate to the "ugliness" thing because that is a human rights abuse issue and has NOTHING to do with public nudity! I'd say you're comparing apples to oranges, but this should already be BLATANTLY obvious.

YAs to your last statement, no, you are wrong, being offended by nudity is exactly like being offended by unattractive people, it is irrational.

There is nothing irrational about it, if someone doesn't want to see someone naked they shouldn't have to. If you're forcing someone on anyone, they have every right to be offended by it. And at any rate, let's pretend being offended by public nudity is irrational, how does that make it equal to being offended by unattractive people? Being offended by unattractive people is prejudice, and trying to lock them up is a HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE. Telling people they can't walk around naked is no different than telling someone he can't harass people into joining his religion (note, inviting someone to your religion is quite different from trying to force it on someone by harassing them incessantly) because they should have a right to be protected from that, but obviously they don't with public nudity if you're walking around buck naked for all to see.

No, my point isn't irrational in the slightest. Feeling that you need to walk around naked in public when you could just as easily do it at a nude beach and not offend anyone is irrational, especially given that most people (religious or not) do not wish to see someone naked in public.

Now, please don't bother responding to any of this unless you can come up with something better than comparing keeping public nudity illegal to an abuse of another human being's rights.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Oh cry me a river! This has nothing to do with my personal opinions on love, this has to do with me not wanting to see another human naked without my permission. And bringing up being a "prude" is such an archaic and intellectually devoid argument to make. In fact, if you knew anything about me, you'd know I'm actually not a prude, I just don't want to be subjected to something so imposing that I didn't ask to be subjected to.

No, I know that you have not a whit of intelligence about you and that you are, in fact, prudish. But all this by and by, I see of no reason why they would require your permission for you to look upon them, in fact, if there is any claim to 'permission to look' it wouldn't be the permission to look at, but the permission to be looked upon. As for you not wanting to be subject to another person's naked body (or clothes for that matter), just don't look, it is as simple as that.

Does having religious freedom not mean that I am free to not have others force their own beliefs on me?

No, religious freedom mean that you should have the freedom to practice your religion, and having a naked guy doesn't infringe upon that.

I was under the impression it did.

Not going to make a great attorney, you're not.

Someone walking around naked is essentially them forcing their own A) beliefs, and B) practices on me.

Someone forcing you to strip would be forcing their belief and practices upon you. Otherwise, they would simply be wearing nothing.

It'd be like someone from the Catholic Church grabbing me by the arm and trying to drag me into Mass with them.

No, it is not, it would be like a Catholic wearing a rosary around their neck.

So no, I didn't falsify your argument, nor did I ignore my own, but congrats on having yet another doublethink on this.

Yes, yes you did. Not only did you falsify my argument, but now you try to pretend that you actually addressed it. So, congrats on your intellectual dishonesty.

Religious freedom now no longer includes freedom from the enforcement of someone else's beliefs upon me.

Religious freedom means that you can practice your religion however you please, you may even try to proselyte (it is also protected under freedom of speech), being nude does not hinder any of these.

Wonderful. And if this wasn't covered already by most constitutions and charters of rights and freedoms, then it very well should be.

The world would be a sorry place if you had anything to do with law, seeing as you have nothing to do with sense.

Uh, already is in a lot of places???? People seem to be getting along fine.

And the current state of affair is irrational, regardless of how "fine" people get alone.

The exact opposite of what you said is true. By legalizing public nudity, you restricts someone's freedom to not be subjected to someone else's nudity. What I ACTUALLY suggest expands people's freedom quite well as it allows nudists to go nude in places set aside for it (thereby pleasing both nudists and non-nudists).

So, by making speech which criticize the government illegal, by that logic, I am freeing people from having to hear these things. That is not how freedom work.

If people want to walk in the street with nothing on, fine, and if you don't want to see that, then don't fucking look. Simple as that.

But forcing me to see someone nude is somehow more acceptable?

No one is forcing you to see someone nude, just as no one is forcing you to see any pedestrian in any type of clothing.

And that desire is easily satisfied by allowing them to enjoy this freedom in private locations, like their home, nude beaches, etc.

Or in the park, on the street, waiting for a bus.

Wearing flannel =/= being nude. Clearly you don't understand this concept.

No, it is you that do not understand the concept of "analogy".

You're saying this for the sake of an argument. But if you DO feel that way, then why should we accept such an irrational desire? You have no justification, no reason for not wanting to see flannel other than your personal dislike for a particular kind of clothing style. Again, this in NO WAY equates to nudity, so your comparison is completely flawed.

It doesn't matter if I feel that way or not, because it has no bearing on the argument. How is the irrational hatred of flannel wearer different from the irrational disgust over public nudity. You have no justification, no reason for not wanting to see other people naked than your personal dislike for that particular form of dress (or, rather, lack of dress). Again, this is in every way like wearing flannel, and the only flaw in it is that you refuse to accept that both are irrational to the same degree.

Strawman, strawman, strawman. I do not believe that complete nudity should be banned in the slightest, I believe it is a private matter and should be enjoyed in private places (your home, nude beaches, etc). And you finding an article of clothing disgusting has no basis in anything other than your taste in a material. Since when have we made laws regarding the aestheticism of different kinds of material?

It isn't. You don't like nudity in a public setting, I don't like flannel in a public setting. You accuse me of setting up a strawman, but then you set up a strawman against my argument. Now, if you say that I am irrational because there has never been a case where we banned clothing made out of a certain type of material (the biblical laws do, however, suggest that there were laws against such thing in at least one civilisation), but that is not the point, the point is that there is no difference in banning flannel in public and banning public nudity, and while one is allowed, the other isn't, showing the irrationality of that particular law.

Except it does infringe on their rights, which I already covered at the beginning of this post, so refer yourself there. Flannel does not infringe on anyone's rights. So no, my logic is not irrational, your failed attempt at a pseudo-strawman very much is however.

It is, if being nude in public infringes upon your supposed right not to see them naked, then wearing flannel in public infringes upon my right not see them wearing flannel. We can go one with that same line of argument, but you aren't willing to address that argument because they are somehow differnt. They aren't.

Right, and they are NOT allowed to try and force you into their religion (or at least they shouldn't be). Likewise, nudists are free to invite people to their nudist beaches and such, but they shouldn't be allowed to force their belief/actions on other people, that is the opposite of freedom.

No, forcing you to be nude is forcing their belief on other people, being nude in public is not. I am not sure you are aware but being a Catholic, with the rosary and the ashen cross on the forehead every Ash Wenesday, is not forcing their belief upon you. Chaining you up, forcing you to be baptised within their Church, and dragging you to Mass every Sunday is. Not going to make it very far in law school, I can tell you that.

You don't need to be held at gun point for someone to try and force their religious beliefs on you. Threats, physical force (trying to drag you into mass), and harassment (trying to continue to promote their religion to you when you have made it very clear you are not interested and you wish to hear no more) are different ways of trying to force it on people. Walking around completely naked isn't much different from that in the sense that you can't simply say "no" and they'll go somewhere else.

When someone preach to you, you have the ability to walk away, when you see someone that is nude in public, you can simply avert your eyes or walk away. It is not that hard to wrap your head around.

In what mythical Narnia land do these exist exactly?

The same world where being nude in public is considered an infringement upon the viewer's right to not see naked people.

Banning flannel isn't something anybody is asking for, and they are in no way equivalent because wearing flannel is part of your right to wear what you want, being nude is not (as far as I have heard in most nations). I'd tell you to come back when you have a more rational argument again, but clearly your brain has only developed to the point of understanding empty rhetoric and inaccurate comparisons, so don't bother coming back, go back to school instead. Before I go though, let me answer your question.

Why is flannel legal, and public nudity not? It doesn't matter how it is, because that is not what I am arguing for, it is about how it ought to be. Then you follow that with a series of ad hominems, at which point, I suspect you are running out of arguments after repeating the same thing over and over again without actually substantiating it in any way.

Because flannel is clothing, nudity is no clothing.

Both are manner of dress (or lack of dress, in the case of nudity), there is no difference.

Flannel doesn't offend people in anyway, nudity does

I am offended by flannel.

If you don't like flannel, it's a matter of fashion opinion, and fashion opinions rarely need to become a matter for law.

Glad you agree.

Nudity is not fashion, therefore it should not be treated as equal to fashion.

That is where you are wrong. Nudity is just as much a choice in dress habit as wearing flannel is.

Since your only justification for your opinion is your opinion, you've blatantly ignored the fact that public nudity does offend people (and frankly, some of them aren't even religious, nor does this even have to boil down to religious beliefs, I bring it up only as a SMALL reason why public nudity infringes upon people),

Since your "people's" opinion is that nudity is offensive towards them for some unknown reason, my "people" find flannel offensive for the same reason. Of course, "people" here is only used to mean "segement of the population that agrees with me.

and that you've even strawmanned me by basically saying I think all nudity should be banned (when I'm still saying to keep it at home or at private places set aside for that stuff)

Which I didn't say. I may have used "nudity" rather than "public nudity", but it was clear from the context that I meant "public nudity" and "nudity" was simply a shorthand for it. So, no, you are strawmanning me, and making a non-point.

I think there's nothing left for you to say here. So, that in mind, I recommend you exeunt stage left and take up another form of keyboard heroics.

And you decide to end this as your have went through this, with ad hominem attack to cover for your lack of rational argumentation or reason.

[Dalcaria]

tldr

I'm not wasting 4 hours to sift through this. It's clear that you think banning public nudity is the same as banning flannel (which has no rational basis to it, it's literally just your opinion), and that it's also equivalent to a legitimate abuse of another human's rights (mobility rights, rights against imprisonment, etc). I'll try and debate the last few points though, to show I made a slight effort.

Since your "people's" opinion is that nudity is offensive towards them for some unknown reason, my "people" find flannel offensive for the same reason. Of course, "people" here is only used to mean "segement of the population that agrees with me.

Since your "people" don't exist but mine actually kinda do, I'm going to say no, you're people don't find flannel offensive for the same reason and they can't. Making up a false scenario is irrelevant, and more than that, nobody thinks we should ban flannel on the basis of your personal fashion sense. Banning public nudity is based on the fact that it offends people morally (and possibly emotionally, mentally, and physically if it makes them sick or something, but that's not really the point) and that nudity can be enjoyed in private. Nobody loses here except for the group of people who is so desperate to let their genitals flap around in the air for all to be offended and unimpressed by, when they could just go to a nude beach, be happy, and offend no one. It's not like we're asking you to remove a religious symbol, or to not wear flannel, we're telling you to keep your body to yourself or those who wish to see it. Forcing it on us is just that; forcing it on us. The whole concept of that means it infringes on our freedoms and our right to not have to be exposed sexually without our consent (and you're buck naked, so most people will take that as being pretty sexual).

Why is flannel legal, and public nudity not?

Because no social, cultural, or moral values exist that view flannel negatively.

It doesn't matter how it is, because that is not what I am arguing for, it is about how it ought to be.

Well, that's exactly what I'm arguing too. Public nudity ought to be illegal, flannel ought to be legal.

Then you follow that with a series of ad hominems, at which point, I suspect you are running out of arguments after repeating the same thing over and over again without actually substantiating it in any way.

Says the man who keeps bringing up flannel! Also might I add, you haven't substantiated in anyway that public nudity isn't offensive to people, or justified offending people for the sake of fulfilling the wish of a minority that already have their wish fulfilled with nude beaches. You're the one claiming that banning public nudity is somehow unnecessary, or it's somehow limiting people's freedoms. Well, give us some better reasons than flannel. I've already stated the case that I and most others would be offended, and given that offense can be avoided by using nude beaches, it really just makes it look like you're being an uncompromising jerk who just wants to show off his junk to the world. That's not ad hominem either, you've just failed to give a convincing reason for why we should legalize public nudity, and that's your responsibility, not mine.

Both are manner of dress (or lack of dress, in the case of nudity), there is no difference.

Your opinion has about as much merit and value as my own. No, you don't get to say that without proving it. Keep in mind, all I have said is that public nudity offends many (if not most) people, which is very possibly true (though I don't know what studies exist on it). If you want me to provide evidence, I'll try and find some, but meanwhile there is still the burden of proof on you to suggest your rhetoric isn't just rhetoric.

I am offended by flannel.

Your sense of fashion is irrelevant and does not equate to moral, social, and cultural values. Sorry that I consider those things as being more prominent and significant in the world than your personal opinion.

That is where you are wrong. Nudity is just as much a choice in dress habit as wearing flannel is.

Again, more rhetoric. Back it up with some evidence. Nudity, from most people's opinions, is not a choice of fashion, it's being naked. Period. And given that most nations do not accept their people doing their daily business totally naked, I'm going to assume cultural, social, and moral values are all pretty similar to the statement I've made. I may be wrong, and your welcome to prove me wrong, but do bring some evidence, I hate rhetoric.

Which I didn't say. I may have used "nudity" rather than "public nudity", but it was clear from the context that I meant "public nudity" and "nudity" was simply a shorthand for it. So, no, you are strawmanning me, and making a non-point.

Well then I apologize for the misunderstanding. Regardless though, there is no reason why you can't simply enjoy nudity in private, it really boggles me why it has to be public for you to enjoy it. You can get the same enjoyment from the beach, and no one gets offended. Win-win.

And you decide to end this as your have went through this, with ad hominem attack to cover for your lack of rational argumentation or reason.

Ad hominem means I'm making a personal attack against you to further my argument. My argument was over before that line, what I said was advice. If your best arguments are flannel and human rights abuses, both of which do not equate to banning public nudity, and you have failed at proving they do in any rational sense. No, rhetoric and your opinion do not count, and telling people they won't get offended, when they undoubtedly will, also do not count either. Therefore, find some better arguments, because you've done nothing to defend your own side of the debate, especially given that there are special outlets designed to allow nudists to enjoy their nudity without offending anyone. It's a compromise, and one that makes most people happy. If you're that set on letting your genitals hang out in front of everyone, then fine, but don't expect anyone else to want that, and with that in mind, don't expect anyone else to support public nudity.