Making the law

[repentandbelieve]

What would harsher drug laws accomplish? Look at alcohol prohibition in the 20's, it did nothing, what makes you thing marijuana prohibition is gonna do better?

Alcohol prohibition did something. It provided an environent for organized crime to flourish. A few people got rich and a lot of people died. It also proved that it is much more difficult to make someting illegal after it has been legalized.

 

[Caylin]

Go watch The Untouchables to see what prohibition was like.

 

[Archivist]

A very interesting thread, as usual, Bellman.

Here are a few of the things that I would do if I had the power:

1) Abolish the drinking age for alcohol--allow parents to determine whether their children can drink. European nations where alcohol is a part of the culture and children grow up with alcohol served at each meal have fewer problems with alcohol abuse.

2) Legalize most drugs. Tax drug sales heavily. As was stated in an earlier post, the money saved from the drug war--which we are loosing--and the increased tax revenues would go a long way towards paying off the debt.

3) Require that within 10 years all automobiles be hybrid and/or hydrogen powered. Increase government funding in hydrogen research.

4) Restore a constitutional monarchy in the State of Hawaii. Hawaii was an independent kingdom until US Marines helped overthrow the existing government; restoring the monarchy would go a long way towards making up for past injustices.

5) Adopt a Constitutional amendment forever guaranteeing a woman right to choose.

6) Increase funding for National Parks.

7) Adopt the Equal Rights Amendment.

8) Abolish all laws that prohibit women from going topless anywhere men can go topless.

9) Increase funding for Space exloration, with the goal of having settlements on Mars within the next 100 years.

10) Allow individuals to privately invest a portion of their Social Security.

 

[philosopherthales]

hmm, everyone would exercise being a dictator if they could....hmmmm.

I want to respond to:

8) Abolish all laws that prohibit women from going topless anywhere men can go topless.

I saw another thread on this but I haven't responded to it. The thread starter talked about how having topless-ness outlawed only for women is gender discrimination. You can write the law without any gender discrimination in this case. Ex: no sexual organ can be displayed in public. See, no reference to how women and men should be treated differently.

 

[Randall McNally]

The thread starter talked about how having topless-ness outlawed only for women is gender discrimination. You can write the law without any gender discrimination in this case. Ex: no sexual organ can be displayed in public. See, no reference to how women and men should be treated differently.

This is slightly confusing. Is the intent to allow all toplessness or preserve the status-quo? Because the female breast is not a sexual organ in the sense that it is necessary for sex.

Oh, and Archivist is a pretty smart fellow.

 

[Lifesaver]

1- legalize all non-medicinal drugs, with heavy taxes, but not so heavy that would comepensate sellers and producers the cost and risks of going underground.
(I'm the first to condemn drug usage, but it is a completely personal vice, and we waste billions trying to fight it to no avail, only with more deaths).

2- prohibit all day and early night portrayal of erotic or pornographic material in the media. Prohibit erotic or pornographic billboards, magazine covers and ads.

3- open trade and immigration borders.

4- Institute the death penalty for the more serious crimes.

5- make the government officially Catholic, and a promoter of Catholicism.

6- teach Catholicism in public schools.

7- drop most or all subsidies to companies.

8- end minimum wage, public pensions and some excessive labour laws.

9- cease all governmental support for unions (though workers would still be free to organize themselves however they wish to).

10- prohibit abortion in all cases, euthanasia and the production of fetuses for scientific purposes.

11- ensure that even the poorest have access to public education, clean and safe shelter to sleep and decent food.

 

[philosopherthales]

Because the female breast is not a sexual organ in the sense that it is necessary for sex.

It is an organ designed for procreation(feeding new borns) and it is extensively used in sexual activity. If an organ is in the reproductive system, then it is a sexual/reproductive organ.

 

[repentandbelieve]

This is slightly confusing. Is the intent to allow all toplessness or preserve the status-quo? Because the female breast is not a sexual organ in the sense that it is necessary for sex.

Oh, and Archivist is a pretty smart fellow.

Changing the law to allow for toplessness would lead to an increase in traffic accidents.

 

[Randall McNally]

It is an organ designed for procreation(feeding new borns) and it is extensively used in sexual activity. If an organ is in the reproductive system, then it is a sexual/reproductive organ.

It's an accessory organ. The breast is not strictly necessary for reproduction, thus it is not part of the reproductive system proper.

In any case, you didn't answer my question.

 

[Lifesaver]

The sexuality or not of organs left aside, allowing people to be naked in public is a great affront to most people's liberty.

In the privacy of their homes, people can dress however they want, listen to whatever music they want to and speak however they like.
But when walking in the street, or in any public place, everyone has the right not to be tormented by loud noises, cursing and swear words and nudity.

Many have the unbearable habit of thinking of public space as if it were a continuation of their own private sphere. So they see no problem in going around in underwears, speaking loudly, spitting, setting their car's stereo sound to the maximum and other practices which present an affront to everyone who does not share their tastes.
It is a very rational and good rule, to prohibit such undecent and authoritarian behaviours.

 

[Archivist]

The sexuality or not of organs left aside, allowing people to be naked in public is a great affront to most people's liberty.

In the privacy of their homes, people can dress however they want, listen to whatever music they want to and speak however they like.
But when walking in the street, or in any public place, everyone has the right not to be tormented by loud noises, cursing and swear words and nudity.

Many have the unbearable habit of thinking of public space as if it were a continuation of their own private sphere. So they see no problem in going around in underwears, speaking loudly, spitting, setting their car's stereo sound to the maximum and other practices which present an affront to everyone who does not share their tastes.
It is a very rational and good rule, to prohibit such undecent and authoritarian behaviours.

I never said that people should be going naked in public, only that women should have the right to go topless anyplace that a man can go topless.

Being topless and being naked are two different things.

 

[Lifesaver]

It is the public exposure of a body part that should remain hidden, for the woman's dignity and modesty. Plus, it easily leads men into lustful thoughts.
No-one should be subjected to this without consent; and this means that it ought to be banned from the public sphere.

 

[Archivist]

It is the public exposure of a body part that should remain hidden, for the woman's dignity and modesty. Plus, it easily leads men into lustful thoughts.
No-one should be subjected to this without consent; and this means that it ought to be banned from the public sphere.

Four points:

1) Who are you to say that the breasts are "a body part that should remain hidden?" Do you have references to back this point?

2) Shouldn't it be up to each individual woman, not you, to decide if exposing her breasts violates her own dignity and morality?

3) I notice that you are male. Have you ever gone topless in public? If so, why don't you want to give that same right to women?

4) There is currently a thread on topless beaches, and I believe that your comments would be more in line with the topic there.

 

[Randall McNally]

It is the public exposure of a body part that should remain hidden, for the woman's dignity and modesty. Plus, it easily leads men into lustful thoughts.
No-one should be subjected to this without consent; and this means that it ought to be banned from the public sphere.

What's the difference between this argument and the one that says Islamic women must wear Burqas? Some men are foot fetishists and are easily led into "lustful thoughts" by the sight of a woman's bare foot. Should we make shoes mandatory for that reason? Who gets to decide which unclothed parts of a woman's body are sufficiently lust-inducing to mandate covering?

This is a legitimate slippery slope, by the way. According to John Ashcroft, for example, old statues with bare female breasts are lust-inducing to the point that they need covering.

 

[Lifesaver]

1) Who are you to say that the breasts are "a body part that should remain hidden?" Do you have references to back this point?

Canonists have condemned the wearing of clothes which do not cover the body properly since old times.
I cannot give you a direct reference, but a reference to one such text can be found in http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm

2) Shouldn't it be up to each individual woman, not you, to decide if exposing her breasts violates her own dignity and morality?

No, and in two ways:
first, because if something is harmful to the person's modesty, the opinion of the person on the matter doesn't matter.
And secondly, it is also not up to the person because wearing undecent clothes affects people other than the wearer; just like listening to loud music in one's car affects everyone who is around the car.

3) I notice that you are male. Have you ever gone topless in public? If so, why don't you want to give that same right to women?

Because men and women have many relevant differences. Why should I take the irrational stance of wanting the same exact rights to both?
Do you think, by any chance, that both man and woman should be granted maternity rights when their children are born?

Surely, many male clothes are also indecent, but for a woman to be dressed in such a way is a lot easier than for a man.

 

[Lifesaver]

What's the difference between this argument and the one that says Islamic women must wear Burqas? Some men are foot fetishists and are easily led into "lustful thoughts" by the sight of a woman's bare foot. Should we make shoes mandatory for that reason? Who gets to decide which unclothed parts of a woman's body are sufficiently lust-inducing to mandate covering?

Once again, you are deceived by the notion that everyone's opinion is equivalent.
The standard we should use is that of truth, independent of anyone's opinion.
It is very much estabilished that human beings are naturally atracted to certain parts of the female body, and that areas such as breasts play a big role in that. There may be some variation depending on the culture, and likewise the law in each country should be different to acomodate that.

The fact that some individuals may be sexually aroused and entertain lustful fantasies with the sight of hair, or that others may be completely uninterested in sex does not change that.

 

[Randall McNally]

Once again, you are deceived by the notion that everyone's opinion is equivalent.

Why are they not equivalent in this case?

The standard we should use is that of truth, independent of anyone's opinion.

So it's not true that some people find bare feet sexually arousing?

It is very much estabilished that human beings are naturally atracted to certain parts of the female body, and that areas such as breasts play a big role in that. There may be some variation depending on the culture, and likewise the law in each country should be different to acomodate that.

Hello? Heterosexual males are generally attracted to the whole female body.

Here's a relevant question: Why is female breast + nipple generally so much more arousing than breast with nipple covered? Is the nipple really that much more arousing that the rest of the breast is inherently mundane in comparison? Or are we just not surprised when we see non-nipple breast flesh because the nipple is the part society's been telling us we can't see for the last 50 years?

The fact that some individuals may be sexually aroused and entertain lustful fantasies with the sight of hair, or that others may be completely uninterested in sex does not change that.

So give me a number. What percentage of people have to be aroused by a certain body part in order to mandate its covering?

 

[Lifesaver]

Here's a relevant question: Why is female breast + nipple generally so much more arousing than breast with nipple covered? Is the nipple really that much more arousing that the rest of the breast is inherently mundane in comparison? Or are we just not surprised when we see non-nipple breast flesh because the nipple is the part society's been telling us we can't see for the last 50 years?

Any exposure of the breast, even without the nipple, in public, is indecent.

And the arouseness of it has nothing to do with "what society tells us" either; it is mainly biological.

So give me a number. What percentage of people have to be aroused by a certain body part in order to mandate its covering?

...?
No statistical study is needed. Nor will it be changing.

If sexual deviances grow in the population, as they are growing today, the only remedy is the Christian faith, and not hiding even more possibly arousing things, or else the only solution would be to remove their eyes.

Mainly, what you are missing in this discussion is common sense, and thus you cling to some useless sceptic strategies to deny that any legislation can possibly be made, when reality blatantly shows the contrary.

 

[Randall McNally]

Any exposure of the breast, even without the nipple, in public, is indecent.

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

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

And the arouseness of it has nothing to do with "what society tells us" either; it is mainly biological.

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.

If sexual deviances grow in the population, as they are growing today, the only remedy is the Christian faith, and not hiding even more possibly arousing things, or else the only solution would be to remove their eyes.

Your ignorance of human sexuality is astonishing for someone who makes such otherwise authoritiative pronouncements.

Mainly, what you are missing in this discussion is common sense, and thus you cling to some useless sceptic strategies to deny that any legislation can possibly be made, when reality blatantly shows the contrary.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Norea]

It is the public exposure of a body part that should remain hidden, for the woman's dignity and modesty. Plus, it easily leads men into lustful thoughts.
No-one should be subjected to this without consent; and this means that it ought to be banned from the public sphere.

Lustful thoughts, I love this! So you as a man cannot control your cognitive narrative[consciousness]? You are that weak? So a man would jump a lass' bones if she was walking around her birthday suit huh? Man stop reading Freud, he was wrong and was refuted decades ago!

-- Bridget