NationStates

Kubumba Tribe wrote:The student should've gotten his way.

No, he shouldn't, because some religious practices are stupid taboos that need to be dropped.

Thanatttynia wrote:I'd imagine it's not very healthy or safe to walk around in bare feet, but I don't see that it's unhealthy for other people to be around someone in bare feet? They're probably cleaner than the soles of shoes. Seems to be a case of something socially abnormal being labeled a public safety issue because people are confused by it.

No they aren’t. Barefeet can transfer warts and other lovely things that shoes can’t

Valgora wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
It's a public health hazard. Verucas and so on. We shouldn't tolerate peoples religion if it's damaging to public wellbeing. Aztecs make for poor neighbors.

How is someone not wearing shoes a public health hazard?
Was he putting his feet on the tables? Was he using his feet to put food on his tray?

Bare feet transfer warts and so on.

I'd need to see more details on his religious convictions

afaik most of the religious doctrines that mandate barefeet do so as part of a vow of poverty - which begs the question of Why is he is in a cafeteria spending money

beyond that health regulations are a thing espcially in that country

(in my country barefootedness is very common so most shops ignore it - indeed theres at least one incident when a US citizen failed to get a job here after he publically criticised the locals for not wearing shows calling them dirty and uncivilized)

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Valgora wrote:
How is someone not wearing shoes a public health hazard?
Was he putting his feet on the tables? Was he using his feet to put food on his tray?

Bare feet transfer warts and so on.

To who? Who's touching his feet and/or what are his feet touching that'll transfer warts to other people?

I think the question we should be asking is what good religion bans wearing shoes?!?!?

And honestly, this is icky. On one hand could've just put shoes on, on the other hand the worker was quite rude in their refusing of service. Religion should be banned from public spaces but in terms of American law, I'd side with the workers

Thanatttynia wrote:I'd imagine it's not very healthy or safe to walk around in bare feet, but I don't see that it's unhealthy for other people to be around someone in bare feet? They're probably cleaner than the soles of shoes. Seems to be a case of something socially abnormal being labeled a public safety issue because people are confused by it.

This is a better argument than most. I'd argue that he's unnecessarily increasing the risk to those who would go barefoot temporarily for reasons outside their control, or increasing the background risk to people in general from things like broken shoes, worn socks and so on. It's like arguing "Well, only I suffer from refusing to immunize myself."

That's not true. You're fucking over people whose protections have failed. Doing it deliberately should not be tolerated.

Valgora wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
Bare feet transfer warts and so on.

To who? Who's touching his feet and/or what are his feet touching that'll transfer warts to other people?

See above. The floor.

Thermodolia wrote:

Thanatttynia wrote:I'd imagine it's not very healthy or safe to walk around in bare feet, but I don't see that it's unhealthy for other people to be around someone in bare feet? They're probably cleaner than the soles of shoes. Seems to be a case of something socially abnormal being labeled a public safety issue because people are confused by it.

No they aren’t. Barefeet can transfer warts and other lovely things that shoes can’t

Shoes can transfer germs, though, probably better than bare feet can, given all the extra surface area on the soles of shoes. And that wouldn't really be a problem if a) you keep your feet on the floor and b) others don't eat off the floor.

Cetacea wrote:I'd need to see more details on his religious convictions

afaik most of the religious doctrines that mandate barefeet do so as part of a vow of poverty - which begs the question of Why is he is in a cafeteria spending money

It's pretty obvious why he's in the cafeteria spending money - it's called buying food to eat.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Thanatttynia wrote:I'd imagine it's not very healthy or safe to walk around in bare feet, but I don't see that it's unhealthy for other people to be around someone in bare feet? They're probably cleaner than the soles of shoes. Seems to be a case of something socially abnormal being labeled a public safety issue because people are confused by it.

This is a better argument than most. I'd argue that he's unnecessarily increasing the risk to those who would go barefoot temporarily for reasons outside their control, or increasing the background risk to people in general from things like broken shoes, worn socks and so on. It's like arguing "Well, only I suffer from refusing to immunize myself."

That's not true. You're fucking over people whose protections have failed. Doing it deliberately should not be tolerated.

I mean, as risks go, that's a pretty minor and inconsequential one. I think erring on the side of greater personal freedom is the way to go unless there is a significant public safety risk.

Thanatttynia wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:No they aren’t. Barefeet can transfer warts and other lovely things that shoes can’t

Shoes can transfer germs, though, probably better than bare feet can, given all the extra surface area on the soles of shoes. And that wouldn't really be a problem if a) you keep your feet on the floor and b) others don't eat off the floor.

I'd guess one thing a business who doesn't want people to walk around barefoot is also safety. They don't want to liable if a barefooted buy steps on something in their place.

But that's a really specific thing, it doesn't sound like an attack on religion as it is someone not wanting to get sued. Otherwise it isn't really hurting anyone expect the people going around barefoot's feet.

Thanatttynia wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
This is a better argument than most. I'd argue that he's unnecessarily increasing the risk to those who would go barefoot temporarily for reasons outside their control, or increasing the background risk to people in general from things like broken shoes, worn socks and so on. It's like arguing "Well, only I suffer from refusing to immunize myself."

That's not true. You're fucking over people whose protections have failed. Doing it deliberately should not be tolerated.

I mean, as risks go, that's a pretty minor and inconsequential one. I think erring on the side of greater personal freedom is the way to go unless there is a significant public safety risk.

I'm prepared to accept arguments about freedom revolving around your right to clothe yourself mostly as you see fit. But the second this guy used religion as his reason without secular back up I have to reject it out of hand.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Thanatttynia wrote:I'd imagine it's not very healthy or safe to walk around in bare feet, but I don't see that it's unhealthy for other people to be around someone in bare feet? They're probably cleaner than the soles of shoes. Seems to be a case of something socially abnormal being labeled a public safety issue because people are confused by it.

This is a better argument than most. I'd argue that he's unnecessarily increasing the risk to those who would go barefoot temporarily for reasons outside their control, or increasing the background risk to people in general from things like broken shoes, worn socks and so on. It's like arguing "Well, only I suffer from refusing to immunize myself."

That's not true. You're fucking over people whose protections have failed. Doing it deliberately should not be tolerated.

Valgora wrote:To who? Who's touching his feet and/or what are his feet touching that'll transfer warts to other people?

See above. The floor.

This is nothing like someone not immunizing themself.

The number of people who's shoes are broken to the point of lots of contact between the floor and skin is pretty low - at that point, one might as well be going barefoot.
Really, the only people in any really danger are others who are going barefoot.

Ithreland wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Just like cafes.

I didn't mean that a place in public because it is physically accessible, I mean that a place is public if people are allowed to walk in.

So if I have guests over, it's semi-public. Interesting. Never thought of it that way.

Yes, inviting people into your home is the same as being a cafe.

Sure.

Whatever.

---

Thermodolia wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Places of worship are public places. Anyone can walk in off the street, just like they can walk into a cafe.

Places of worship are held to a different standard and aren’t considered public places

Ah, so no freedom of religion in public places except how organised religions get to have special rights in public places.

Freedom of religion shouldn't exist as a human right.
All it does is violate other human rights.

Valgora wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
This is a better argument than most. I'd argue that he's unnecessarily increasing the risk to those who would go barefoot temporarily for reasons outside their control, or increasing the background risk to people in general from things like broken shoes, worn socks and so on. It's like arguing "Well, only I suffer from refusing to immunize myself."

That's not true. You're fucking over people whose protections have failed. Doing it deliberately should not be tolerated.



See above. The floor.

This is nothing like someone not immunizing themself.

The number of people who's shoes are broken to the point of lots of contact between the floor and skin is pretty low - at that point, one might as well be going barefoot.
Really, the only people in any really danger are others who are going barefoot.

If he's going barefoot he is probably doing it all the time and in all places he goes. He has drastically increased the risk that the area is infected and is spreading that infection wherever he goes.

Borinsa wrote:Freedom of religion shouldn't exist as a human right.
All it does is violate other human rights.

Freedom of religion should exist.
It should only cease to exist when it starts to violate the rights of other people.

And freedom of religion also keeps people from being forced to practice a religion they don't want to practice.

Ifreann wrote:

Ithreland wrote:
So if I have guests over, it's semi-public. Interesting. Never thought of it that way.

Yes, inviting people into your home is the same as being a cafe.

Sure.

Whatever.

---

Thermodolia wrote:Places of worship are held to a different standard and aren’t considered public places

Ah, so no freedom of religion in public places except how organised religions get to have special rights in public places.

Can you go be pedantic somewhere else?

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Valgora wrote:
This is nothing like someone not immunizing themself.

The number of people who's shoes are broken to the point of lots of contact between the floor and skin is pretty low - at that point, one might as well be going barefoot.
Really, the only people in any really danger are others who are going barefoot.

If he's going barefoot he is probably doing it all the time and in all places he goes. He has drastically increased the risk that the area is infected and is spreading that infection wherever he goes.

An infection that will unlikely affect enough people to become even close to a public safety hazard.

Valgora wrote:

Borinsa wrote:Freedom of religion shouldn't exist as a human right.
All it does is violate other human rights.

Freedom of religion should exist.
It should only cease to exist when it starts to violate the rights of other people.

And freedom of religion also keeps people from being forced to practice a religion they don't want to practice.

Ditto.

Valgora wrote:

Borinsa wrote:Freedom of religion shouldn't exist as a human right.
All it does is violate other human rights.

Freedom of religion should exist.
It should only cease to exist when it starts to violate the rights of other people.

And freedom of religion also keeps people from being forced to practice a religion they don't want to practice.

They should be practicing atheism.

Valgora wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
This is a better argument than most. I'd argue that he's unnecessarily increasing the risk to those who would go barefoot temporarily for reasons outside their control, or increasing the background risk to people in general from things like broken shoes, worn socks and so on. It's like arguing "Well, only I suffer from refusing to immunize myself."

That's not true. You're fucking over people whose protections have failed. Doing it deliberately should not be tolerated.



See above. The floor.

This is nothing like someone not immunizing themself.

The number of people who's shoes are broken to the point of lots of contact between the floor and skin is pretty low - at that point, one might as well be going barefoot.
Really, the only people in any really danger are others who are going barefoot.

Dude have you heard of the Anti-Vaxx movement?

Valgora wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
If he's going barefoot he is probably doing it all the time and in all places he goes. He has drastically increased the risk that the area is infected and is spreading that infection wherever he goes.

An infection that will unlikely affect enough people to become even close to a public safety hazard.

Even infecting one person with a verruca necessitates minor surgery to remove it.

The United Lands of Ash wrote:

Thanatttynia wrote:Shoes can transfer germs, though, probably better than bare feet can, given all the extra surface area on the soles of shoes. And that wouldn't really be a problem if a) you keep your feet on the floor and b) others don't eat off the floor.

I'd guess one thing a business who doesn't want people to walk around barefoot is also safety. They don't want to liable if a barefooted buy steps on something in their place.

But that's a really specific thing, it doesn't sound like an attack on religion as it is someone not wanting to get sued. Otherwise it isn't really hurting anyone expect the people going around barefoot's feet.

In which case I think there should be some way for establishments to notify people that should they choose to go without shoes, they cannot be held responsible for injury that may occur on their premises, similar to the noticeboards in parking lots that state people park there at their own risk.

Thermodolia wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Yes, inviting people into your home is the same as being a cafe.

Sure.

Whatever.

---

Ah, so no freedom of religion in public places except how organised religions get to have special rights in public places.

Can you go be pedantic somewhere else?

*checks founding date*
Signs point to no.