Making the law

[Archivist]

that still doesn't answer the question of who is the experts. Albert Hoffman is the LSD expert, John Lilly the Ketamine expert, Dennis McKenna the DMT expert. All of them would want said drugs to be legalized. Other experts on the same drugs would say that they would definitely want these drugs to remain illegal. Which experts do you listen to?

Look, the Bellman has given each of us the power to make whatever laws we want. When the Bellman figures out how to give me the power to institute these changes I will figure out what experts to appoint to my board that will make this determination. Because I do not yet have any authority, I don't have to name the experts now.

 

[Lifesaver]

Good luck with the quest to ban swimsuits, strapless party dresses and breast-feeding.

First: yes, some party dresses are very indencent indeed. But the law, as I have always maintained, should not repress all vices. It must repress them as long as it is reasonable to.
There is no doubt that certain clothes are very unbecoming to a girl's decency; and yet they shouldn't be forbidden. What should be forbiddened is nudity, be it of breasts or below the waist, the very thing some people are fighting against.
You also disregard the difference os situations. What is becoming on a sunny day may not be so in a formal dinner. I'm sure you are able to distinguish between different situations.
Nudity, however, crosses the line of the midly indecent and is straightforwardly vulgar and abusive to others.

And to think that in a few short paragraphs, you'll find the gall to accuse me of lacking "common sense."

But you have just shown your lack of common sense once more!
You think only of laws which treat everyone equally, in all situations. Such a notion leads to injustices, always contrary to right reason.

What rubbish. Beaches are generally safe, generally free of excessive sexual contact and you say it's because biology allows us to avoid being sexually aroused by only 90% of a breast? I can't believe you would even suggest such nonsense.

...?

We don't know what "reality" shows because society's been too busy telling us that we can't look at breasts with visible nipples because we'll turn into uncontrollable sexual werewolves.

"Society" doesn't "tell" anything to anyone, Randal.

No-one will turn incontrolable because of nudity. Men are rational creatures.
What does happen is the complete disregard for modesty and the sensibilities of others, when, for instance, women expose their breasts in public.

Of course, the rate of sexual violence is much greater in the US than, say, France, despite the fact that French television has shown nudity for decades, and French beaches have been clothing-optional for at least that long.

Of course USA has so many sexual assaults. People, at the same time, demand a prudish behaviour in public and yet they are the most avid consumers of pornography.
Could such a condition produce anything other than criminal actions of sexual frustration?

And to think, Janet Jackson of all people single-handedly (single-breastedly?) exposed the knee-jerk, backwards attitude toward sexuality that conservative Christianity has so thoughtfully imposed on US society.

No-one is imposing anything on you, Randal. They have not the right to.
And likewise, people don't have the right to impose the sight of their intimate parts on others.
Once again, I repeat, it is just like turning one's car's stereo to the max on a quiet street. A very authoritarian thing.

 

[The Bellman]

First: yes, some party dresses are very indencent indeed.

That is subjective opinion, one with which many would disagree. Even those who would agree would doubtless disagree on which dresses are the indecent ones.

But the law, as I have always maintained, should not repress all vices. It must repress them as long as it is reasonable to.

The law's job is not to repress vices; it is to prevent behaviour which harms others.

There is no doubt that certain clothes are very unbecoming to a girl's decency; and yet they shouldn't be forbidden.

There is a great amount of doubt about it. Obviously, the girls who are wearing those clothes don't. What you are doing is equating "I think they are indecent" to "There is no doubt that they are indecent."

What should be forbiddened is nudity, be it of breasts or below the waist, the very thing some people are fighting against.

Again, that is your subjective opinion, one with which many people (myself included) disagree.

Nudity, however, crosses the line of the midly indecent and is straightforwardly vulgar and abusive to others.

I have seen nudity and not found it either vulgar or abusive. The inevitable conclusion is that the problem lies with those who find it so, not with the nudity itself.

"Society" doesn't "tell" anything to anyone, Randal.

Of course it does. Any member of society is told any number of things by that society.

No-one will turn incontrolable because of nudity. Men are rational creatures.
What does happen is the complete disregard for modesty and the sensibilities of others, when, for instance, women expose their breasts in public.

No, what happens is the complete disregard for what YOU think of as 'modesty'. Nor will complete disregard for the sensibilities of others occur. If nudity were commonplace, in a very short time, we would become used to it...it is not something that would continue to be noticed, much less found offensive. And even if it is, the problem lies with those who find it offensive, not with those who are naked.

Of course USA has so many sexual assaults. People, at the same time, demand a prudish behaviour in public and yet they are the most avid consumers of pornography.
Could such a condition produce anything other than criminal actions of sexual frustration?

The issue is WHY the US is such an avid consumer of porngraphy. The contention - one I agree with - is that it is precisely because of the prudish public behaviour that pornography - and violent sex crime - is so big in the US. Nations which do not have such prudish public behaviour do not have the same issues with either sexual assault or pornography consumption.

And likewise, people don't have the right to impose the sight of their intimate parts on others.

My being nude is not 'imposing' the sight of anything on anyone. You don't like it? Easy. Don't look. How hard is that? It's just like anything else you might see in public that you don't care to look at - a hideously scarred person, somebody wearing particularly flamboyant clothing, an offensive t-shirt message...you have control of the ultimate form of censorship. Don't look.

Once again, I repeat, it is just like turning one's car's stereo to the max on a quiet street. A very authoritarian thing.

No, it's not. You can look away from any sight you find objectionable - you cannot 'hear away'. The two are not analogous.

 

[Archivist]

What should be forbiddened is nudity, be it of breasts or below the waist, the very thing some people are fighting against.

If you were consistant you might have a point. If you were to prohibit everyone--male and female--from going topless in public I wouldn't agree with you, but I would at least have respect for your position.

Prior to World War I it was considered equally unacceptable for men or women to go topless in public in the US. Bathing suits for both sexes included tops. What changed was that after the war some of the men decided to remove their shirts when they were at the beach as it was a very hot summer. The police refused to arrest these veterens even though they were violating the laws, and the laws prohibiting men from going topless in public were repealed.

So, what we are discussing is not some long-standing practice, but rather a societial practice less than 100 years old. My proposal is simply to restore both sexes to the equality that they enjoyed prior to the 1920s only I am doing so by giving women the right to go topless rather than restricting the ability of men to do so.

Now, when you talk about your right to not have to look at an "intimate part:" Way should women be forced to loook at your bare chest, or the chest of any man? You stated that "people don't have the right to impose the sight of their intimate parts on others." Well less than 100 years ago the male chest was considered an "intimate part." Why should you or any male have the right to impose that sight on women???? Aren't you violating their rights??? Aren't you and other men forcing them to see things that they might not want to see???

 

[Lifesaver]

I have seen nudity and not found it either vulgar or abusive. The inevitable conclusion is that the problem lies with those who find it so, not with the nudity itself.

Many people don't think sex in public or child pornography is vulgar or abusive.
See how fallacious your argument is?

Nations which do not have such prudish public behaviour do not have the same issues with either sexual assault or pornography consumption.

First of all, this fact is plain false. My nation does not have such a behaviour and sex crimes are huge.

Second, you try to fix the problem of sexual violence by enforcing sexual perversion.
Instead of fighting against the disease, you advocate that it is allowed to take over the body, and cease the uncomfortable symptoms of the body's defensive reactions.

My being nude is not 'imposing' the sight of anything on anyone. You don't like it? Easy. Don't look. How hard is that? It's just like anything else you might see in public that you don't care to look at - a hideously scarred person, somebody wearing particularly flamboyant clothing, an offensive t-shirt message...you have control of the ultimate form of censorship. Don't look.

This is yet another proof of how authoritarian your stance is. "Whoever doesn't like it, move."
Next thing you'll be telling people to cover their ears in order not to be abused by sounds.
But that is not how a democratic society works. The public space is of everyone, and as such no-one can act in it as if they were in their private homes; if anything else is allowed, you'll have the authoritarian ones completely blocking the access of those whom they abuse.
Or you will have a seggregated society, where different groups are always separated.

As usual, you think that because you have no problems with something, no-one should have problems with it. And you have no problem in flaunting in everyone's faces, and if someone is annoyed, you wouldn't move one inch; no, it is those who are under abuse that should turn the other way.

But in a truly public space, no-one is forced to keep their eyes fixed on the ground.

 

[Lifesaver]

If you were consistant you might have a point. If you were to prohibit everyone--male and female--from going topless in public I wouldn't agree with you, but I would at least have respect for your position.

Of course you would. You are a socialist, who believes everyone should be treated equally. So you respect anyone who agrees with that.

I'm sorry, I will not buy into ideological socialist doctrines concerning equality, which, in reality, makes no sense.

So, what we are discussing is not some long-standing practice, but rather a societial practice less than 100 years old. My proposal is simply to restore both sexes to the equality that they enjoyed prior to the 1920s only I am doing so by giving women the right to go topless rather than restricting the ability of men to do so.

Indeed, your goal is to promote equality. An equality which you wrongly assume that ever existed in the past (when it was indeed possible to tell a person's gender by looking at their clothing, much unlike today's trend) and which you seem to be so eager to enforce in the future.

Now, when you talk about your right to not have to look at an "intimate part:" Way should women be forced to loook at your bare chest, or the chest of any man?

I agree, men should not walk around without a shirt. On beaches and other circumstances, it is different, though.
For it is a very different thing for a man and a woman to expose their chest/breasts.

 

[Randall McNally]

Many people don't think sex in public or child pornography is vulgar or abusive.
See how fallacious your argument is?

Terrible analogies. Sex in public exposes others to unwanted bodily fluids and child pornography entails a lack of consent for one party.

This is yet another proof of how authoritarian your stance is. "Whoever doesn't like it, move."

Huh? Authoritarianism entails legislation or decree that restricts personal freedom. You can't just draw arguments from bizarro political world and pretend they're meaningful.

Next thing you'll be telling people to cover their ears in order not to be abused by sounds.

I think he's already covered the difference between visible and audible.

But that is not how a democratic society works. The public space is of everyone, and as such no-one can act in it as if they were in their private homes; if anything else is allowed, you'll have the authoritarian ones completely blocking the access of those whom they abuse.
Or you will have a seggregated society, where different groups are always separated.

This isn't a democratic society. We don't repress individual rights on a majority whim.

As usual, you think that because you have no problems with something, no-one should have problems with it. And you have no problem in flaunting in everyone's faces, and if someone is annoyed, you wouldn't move one inch; no, it is those who are under abuse that should turn the other way.

What's the alternative? Ban everything that offends anyone?

It's pretty obvious where you're going with this - values and mores that align with Christian morality are inherently right, therefore it's okay to impose them on society-at-large.

 

[Norea]

It's real easy to criticize what others belief. So instead of doing that, tell us what laws you would like to changed or enacted.

1. Self-ownership enacted in full form. Meaning the government cannot regulate your consentual acts. If you wanna suicide, fine but it does mean your family foots the bill for the clean. If you wanna smoke twenty packs, drinking 80 proof all the while eating a Big Mac and having unprotected sex, don't call the state to pay for your screw-ups. I hope that gives you the jist of that position.

2. Free-trade. No more protectionist tariffs to protect industries we cannot sustain. If they can't make it on their own they probably weren't the best for the job.

3. Make a uniform excise[tax] code. That means State governments not competing with Federal excises and etc. Making sure people don't get double taxed.

4. Abolish marriage as a civil institution, allow for formalization through existing contract law.

5. A call for reform in the UN. It doesn't have the teeth nor the ethical backing for its actions...

6. Expand education, basing it on Socratic method rather than pure rote rehearsal learning. If a child cannot think for him or herself how in the world do you expect them to understand the rote rehearsal? Oh yea I forgot that little nagging part about that we want 'good citizens' rather than 'good thinkers' issue...

7. Abolish the Selective Service. The Federal government already has your SSI number and thusly can form an ad hoc Draft if it's needed without the implicit claim that you have obligations/fealty to the State.

8. Abolish most foreign military bases. The Cold war is OVER, it's time to enter into the modern age along with the UK and France, mobile military is the future not the past.

9. Abolish aggressive foreign policy. If we let others decide for themselves what they will do then we react accordingly if it is proven to be hostile to us or our allies, if it's not based on an ethical reaction[e.g. freedom fighters trying to stop oppression and etc], then it's none of our business to tell others how to live.

That's about it...

-- Bridget

 

[Norea]

Of course you would. You are a socialist, who believes everyone should be treated equally. So you respect anyone who agrees with that.

I'm sorry, I will not buy into ideological socialist doctrines concerning equality, which, in reality, makes no sense.

Wrong, socialism isn't the basis of equatibility. It's based on the views of John Locke, whom I will remind you that he was a Christian as yourself.

Indeed, your goal is to promote equality. An equality which you wrongly assume that ever existed in the past (when it was indeed possible to tell a person's gender by looking at their clothing, much unlike today's trend) and which you seem to be so eager to enforce in the future.

So women shouldn't own property or go outside and have jobs, correct?

I agree, men should not walk around without a shirt. On beaches and other circumstances, it is different, though.
For it is a very different thing for a man and a woman to expose their chest/breasts.

It's not different, it's the same thing. You got breasts too, or we wouldn't be called MAMMALS.

-- Bridget

 

[The Bellman]

Many people don't think sex in public or child pornography is vulgar or abusive.
See how fallacious your argument is?

It's not fallacious. You cannot draw a comparison between an act such as sex, which entails transfer of body fluids, etc., a forced act, and nudism. We are born nude; it is our natural state. If someone has a problem with it, it's THEIR problem.

First of all, this fact is plain false. My nation does not have such a behaviour and sex crimes are huge.

Sorry, it's true. Do some research. Nobody said that places which don't have a strong nudity taboo don't have sex crimes; such places don't have as many sex crimes as places with a strong nudity taboo.

Second, you try to fix the problem of sexual violence by enforcing sexual perversion.
Instead of fighting against the disease, you advocate that it is allowed to take over the body, and cease the uncomfortable symptoms of the body's defensive reactions.

lol, being nude isn't a 'perversion'. I'm very keen to fight against the disease - by removing one of the causes. That cause is the unnatural and irrational fear of seeing the naked body.

This is yet another proof of how authoritarian your stance is. "Whoever doesn't like it, move."
Next thing you'll be telling people to cover their ears in order not to be abused by sounds.
But that is not how a democratic society works. The public space is of everyone, and as such no-one can act in it as if they were in their private homes; if anything else is allowed, you'll have the authoritarian ones completely blocking the access of those whom they abuse.
Or you will have a seggregated society, where different groups are always separated.

There's nothing authoritarian about it, any more than it's authoritarian to tell people that blacks have the same rights whites do, and if they don't like it, move. I made the point in my previous post that sounds are not comparable; you can 'look away', you cannot 'hear away'. My being nude in public harms nobody; if someone has a problem with it, it's THEIR problem.

As usual, you think that because you have no problems with something, no-one should have problems with it. And you have no problem in flaunting in everyone's faces, and if someone is annoyed, you wouldn't move one inch; no, it is those who are under abuse that should turn the other way.

No, I think that when there is no rational reason to have a problem with it, those who do have a problem with it are at fault. It's their problem, they should deal with it.

Me being nude in public is no form of abuse. That is ludicrous.

But in a truly public space, no-one is forced to keep their eyes fixed on the ground.

And they're not forced to do so if I'm naked around them. They are forced to do so if they don't want to see me naked - that's their problem. It's exactly the same with any other thing that people mightn't like to see. If I have a problem with black people and don't think they should be allowed to walk around in a society of whites, that's MY problem - not theirs. By your logic, they shouldn't be allowed to do so, lest I be offended.

 

[psychedelicist]

Lifesaver, you seem to be saying that if it offends someone, we should not be allowed to do it. That is silly. But lets go along with it. You offend me beause you are a christian. So we have 2 choices:

1. You go hide in a cave because I find you offensive.
2. I deal with it.

Which one would you pick? Common sense says #2, because it is not your fault that I am offended by you, it is my fault and I just need to grit my teeth and bear it. Now lets do it again with nudity:

1. I go hide in a cave because I like to be nude but it offends you.
2. You deal with it.

Unless you are a hypocrite, you will agree that #2 is once again the most sensible option, would you not?

You cannot ban something on grounds that some may find it offensive, because someone is going to take offense at just about anything. You are proposing a world in which no one can express themselves because that may offend others. Sounds a bit Orwellian to me.

 

[Archivist]

Of course you would. You are a socialist, who believes everyone should be treated equally. So you respect anyone who agrees with that.

I'm sorry, I will not buy into ideological socialist doctrines concerning equality, which, in reality, makes no sense.


Indeed, your goal is to promote equality. An equality which you wrongly assume that ever existed in the past (when it was indeed possible to tell a person's gender by looking at their clothing, much unlike today's trend) and which you seem to be so eager to enforce in the future.


I agree, men should not walk around without a shirt. On beaches and other circumstances, it is different, though.
For it is a very different thing for a man and a woman to expose their chest/breasts.

You know that people are getting despirate when they start making personal attacks. So, now I'm a Socialist because I believe that women should have the same rights as men. Well, since I'm now a Socialist I guess that I'd beter sell all the stock that I own.

Your statements show the weakness of your position, not only because you resorted to personal name-calling but because you ignored my points. Let's try this again:

Until the 1920 it was considered indecent for either sex to go topless in public. Men's bathing suits had tops. Neither sex pubically exposed their chests to the other. Then after World War I men stopped wearing their tops at beaches. It was illegal and, under the standards of the day, immoral, but the men weren't arrested because no police officer wanted to arrest veterens from the war. Instead the laws prohibiting men from going topless were repealed.

Now, the points that you ignored were these: "Why should women be forced to loook at your bare chest, or the chest of any man? You stated that "people don't have the right to impose the sight of their intimate parts on others." Well less than 100 years ago the male chest was considered an "intimate part." Why should you or any male have the right to impose that sight on women???? Aren't you violating their rights??? Aren't you and other men forcing them to see things that they might not want to see???"

In reply you said that men should have every right to go topless "on beaches and in other circumstances." WHY???????? If it was considered equally immoral until the 1920s why should it be permitted today? I'm simply trying to restore the equality that once existed.

Finally, you seem to have a real problem with equality. I notice that you are not from the United States and maybe things are different where you are. Here we believe in the equality of opportunity. Thy reading Dr. Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech to understand this.

 

[jesusfreak3786]

I would make welfare reform. I have been poor all my life, and I've needed services before.(food stamps, and medicade.) Since I have experienced the system I have found one mager problem in the long term development of the poeple and the system itself. There are certian eligability reqiurments you have to have in order to receive benifits, I think that is a very strong point in welfare, but as time goes on and the client trys to get on thier feet the reqiurments stay the same, meaning you have to be that poor to sustian a signifigent income. I think the benifits should be allowed at the same volume as they were at entry into the system, so poeple could better get on thier feet, get off welfare quiker, and have less of a chance of going back on it. There would be no increase of the volume of poeple origanly going on it, since the primary reqiurments would stay the same. And if the parents of the children are well off, there is a better chance that they won't need the system when they grow up. The way welfare is now it forces poeple to be in the same poverty level to continue to obtian benifets, making them just as bad off at the end of the 5 year limit as they were when they started.