Dalcaria wrote:
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.
Firstly, you are not rational, so your opinion on what "rational people would do" have little bearing. Yes, it is not rational for people to do so, but a rational person may not always be rational. Secondly, just because plenty of people say so, doesn't mean that it is a rational course of action. There is nothing rational in saying that you are allowed to dress however you want...so long as you are dressed. Third, that is the necessary and obvious consequence of your majoritarian views. Is it a conflation, it is, but it is a conflation that naturally follows from your views that if the majority of people don't like something, it should be banned, and, in the end, that is all your argument against public nudity reduce to.
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.
If 100 billion people find you so monstrously unattractive that you should be locked up, that is 100 billion reasons to lock you up by that logic. But it isn't logic.
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.
If people want to be nude in public, then they should, if people want to dress however they want, they should. There is an obvious connection, but to make that connection would be to weaken your argument so considerably, that it becomes impotent.
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.
No, you are ignoring the context of that statement, you said that people can very well put on clothes, and I agree, they can do that. But they should be able to freely walk around in the nip if they so desire.
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.
It is not as severe as forbidding you to walk around because you are offensive to us in this community, but, then again, your reasoning behind banning public nudity is of the same argument as my forbidding you to walk around at all. Suppose that the vast majority in the world agree that you deserve no human right, and that your ugliness warrants your locking up. Then, we should, by all rights, be able to following the logic that since a majority of people find nudity offensive, they should not be allowed to be nude.
Me, my buddies, and 8 billion people.
When did number matter when it came to the rationality of an arrangement? A majority of Americans thought that slavery was just fine.
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.
Well, nobody is forcing me to wear clothing, except, they are, by imposing a punishment for nudity outside certain places.
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.
Or, maybe they want to be nude in the public, regardless of where they are. Maybe there shouldn't be consequence for what is, ultimately, an irrational arrangement. Maybe it isn't a big deal in itself, but it is a big deal in principle.
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.
And just because you keep on denying the validity of that analogy, without providing a reason why beside "but...but...it's different, there is clothes in one and none in the other..."
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.
It is a right that does not currently exist, if people have the right to dress however they want, they should well have the right to not dress at all, regardless of what you and your 8 billion people think, because the majority opinion is not always a rational one, and it is easy to imagine a world where 100 billion people think you don't deserve any right by virtue of your extreme ugliness.
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.
It doesn't offend anyone any more than your ugliness is offensive. My nudity is not forced upon you, you can turn your head any time, and, by that logic, everytime you go outside, your ugliness is being forced upon us without our consent. It doesn't make it any less irrational.
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.
Why shouldn't we see your ugliness when you can go be ugly in a private place. Again, your argument is based upon various fallacy which can be applied to locking you up inside your house unless you put a paper bag over your head, which you have not over turned but only assured us that it is "blatantly obvious that it is different". It is, only in that one cannot choose to be ugly and one can choose to wear clothes. But you can still choose to put a bag over your head if you are ugly, just as the nudist can choose to cover his body.
There is nothing irrational about it, if someone doesn't want to see someone naked they shouldn't have to.
If I don't want to see someone ugly, I shouldn't have to.
If you're forcing someone on anyone, they have every right to be offended by it.
If you are forcing your ugliness 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?
In that both are irrational?
Being offended by unattractive people is prejudice, and trying to lock them up is a HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE.
They can very well go outside if they put a baggie over their head, I really don't see why people are making a big issue of it. I mean, you can go to select areas where you can remove that bag, such as your home, or in a private area amongst friends who are comfortable with your ugliness, but you shouldn't have to force your ugliness upon people.
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 obviously nudist are out to convert people into their lifestyle by being nude, and their being are very incessant in making you want to become a nudist, which is the secret to how they harrass other by simply being.
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.
Quite the opposite, people should have the right, should they so choose, to go aroud in the nip.
No, my point isn't irrational in the slightest
It is completely irrational, there is absolutely nothing rational about it.
. 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,
Believing that people should be able to go about in the nude in public, if they so choose, is as rational as thinking that people who are offensively ugly should be able to walk around in public with their faces uncovered, and wearing flannel shouldn't be illegal.
especially given that most people (religious or not) do not wish to see someone naked in public.
Public opinion should not dictate people's right, majoritarianism is not any functioning society would work.
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.
Now, please don't bother to respond unless you have a reasoned argument, that is to say, don't respond at all.
