Re: Nudism is never wrong.
goo...@rock.com
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 08:35:20 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
>
>
>
>
>
> <cr...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >All four are minorities in the United States. The Jews and Hari-
> >Krishnas are minorities world-over.
>
> ><JS>
>
> >All four taken together are the largest group of people anywhere.
>
> >But, so what?
>
> >Your argument tying them to nudists is specious.
>
> >Nudists the world over comprise a smaller number than the smallest of any of
> >the religions you listed. As annoying as it is to run into a Hare Krishna at
> >the airport, my guess is that running into a nudist at the airport would be
> >worse. Searches at the Security Station would go faster though ...
>
> Once again, the notion that there are no "absolute"
> rights crops up
You have absolute rights until your absolute rights violate someone
else's absolute rights. Nudism does not violate anyone else's
absolute rights. The alternative to the philosophy of absolute rights
is _no rights_, which means that "society" can do anything it wants at
all, and outlaw anything it wants at all; give the death penalty for
anything it wants at all, and a common murder is just as legitimate if
there are "no rights." "Society" being a king, a dictator, an elected
minority, a majority, or a supermajority, a criminal who's seized
power. A Mafioso, a tyrant, a murderer. Without a principle and
philosophy of absolute rights, your argument merely become "NO
RIGHTS." With a philosophy of no rights, common murder becomes as
legitimate as any penalties imposed by those in power. Common
murderers have power too. You either believe in righteousness, or you
believe in murder. How is society righteous if its philosophy is "no
rights?"
> The reason why nudists do not have a "right" to
> practice their "religion" (so to speak) is the fact
> that it falls within those behaviors and activities
> that CAN
Obviously any behaviors CAN be regulated by those willing to impose
destructive power.
> (and should be) regulated (or forbidden) by
> the society where it occurs.
But in the absence of a philosophy of "rights" how does one determine
what _should_ be regulated... Does your philosophy even support the
sparse civil rights recognized in the United States Bill of Rights?
Or how do you justify this Bill of Rights? The rights recognized
there are as follows:
1st Amendment: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of
Peaceful Assembly, Freedom of the Press, Right to petition the
government for a redress of grievances.
2nd Amendment: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
3rd - 8th Amendments: The (all too sparse) rights of the accused.
9th and 10th Amendment: All other rights inherent in the people
suggested. This would easily include the right to wear (or not wear)
clothing.
> Public Nudity in (I believe) some of the Scandinavian
> countries is accepted---public parks, beaches, lakes
> etc.
>
> You get shot in Arab Emirates for the same.
Yes and they force you to be Muslim, pray to Allah, prohibit kite
flying and music playing. And women have no rights at all. Can you
view them as anything other than criminal murderers for this? Or do
you suggest that a murderer who successfully seizes power, and kills
innocent citizens for his own whims, is right by virtue of his power?
What if some common murderer today in our society merely says he is
king - how is he any different. Do you suggest that someone's actions
are automatically righteous, until they are penalized for them? What
if your supposed "king" after murdering is subsequently assassinated -
does this mean that his actions are no longer right? What if his
assassins declare themselves the new authority, does that make him
wrong? The simplicity and transparency of what I am saying is
hopefully evident to all. Might does not make right. Our opinion of
what is right and wrong is based on our moral philosophy which may be
arrived at and refined through principles and reason.
This is not subjective morality, though with incomplete knowledge,
opinions may differ until reason has educated all. But you would hope
that it would be simple. For when one begins to justify destructive
actions based on indirect violations, one may begin to justify
destructive action against anyone, and one becomes no better than a
murderous Nazi who believes himself to be "right."
This is what is happening with legislation in our government. With
the smallest reason, the law may justify kidnapping, and imprisonment,
and even the death penalty. Some in our government must either be of
the opinion that their destructive laws are Just, or they must be evil
people who do not care about the unalienable rights of others or
liberty and justice for all.
For some people, morality may be a blind belief system based on
dogmatic principles and doctrine. Or it may be that we are merely
followers of others for a time, regardless of whether they explain
their morality through reason, or doctrine or hope to appeal to the
despotic authority of their destructive power. Certainly it must be
stupidity to believe that might makes right by itself. For criminals
use might to commit actions all day, and no one is of the opinion that
these actions are "right" Certainly no one views the unjustified
attack and murder of an innocent person as anything other than wrong.
And for those who appeal to doctrine and resort to their religion to
justify their harmful actions against others. For these
fundamentalist hypocrites, I may resort too, to scripture, and quote
both the old and new testaments:
Jesus:
"Hypocrites! "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, as it is written:
'These people draw near to Me with their mouth,
And honor Me with their lips.
But their heart is far from Me.
And in vain do they worship Me.
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men."
Mark 7:7, Isaiah 29:13
I guess I'd have to read the Koran to reason with fundamentalist
deluded crazy Muslims. Some people apparently believe their religion
justifies taking violent actions against others. For going nude for
instance. I believe this is obviously immoral and that I have a right
to live in the public universe wearing any clothing I please. I
believe violent action is generally justified only against violent
action. I believe this, because I believe I have unalienable RIGHTS,
without which, nothing can be justified or found to be unjustified
either. Without rights, there is no reason for the law. But I
believe in these rights and I believe there is a reason for the law,
that the law is supposed to be humane and just. Without rights I am
merely a psycho-tyrant who does not recognize other's wills, other's
liberties, other's lives, or other's freedoms and abilities. Without
rights the law degenerates into psychotic tyranny. The law is then
imposed upon people against their will, it can not be something they
could support. It is then a form of war which teaches death in
opposition to life and freedom, and begets poverty through the theft
of our righteous liberties, and at taxpayer expense, ultimately likely
leading to revolution and civil war which has brought about the
downfall of tons of governments in the last 232 years save those
scrapped in peaceful processes, no governments existing today being as
old as the original one that was supposed to be founded on this
philosophy of liberty and justice for all and is now heading towards
the same legal degeneracy.
> In America, (I suppose) there are some nudist beaches,
> but are under license, managed and regulated---mostly
> private I suspect.
There are many nude beaches in the states of California and Florida.
In the state of New York toplessness is legal everywhere.
But why should there be any restrictions on clothing choices anywhere
in a "Free World?" Apparently some in government must believe they
may prohibit you from wearing makeup in public. But I do not believe
that this is consistent with the Founding Father's conception of
America. And I do not view such laws as anything other than criminal
impositions such as those imposed by the Taliban before our invasion
of Afghanistan.
We shall overcome, for let us remember that "the arc of the universe
is long but it bends towards justice." - Martin Luther King
-----
You wouldn't want someone to take a shit, not wipe their ass, and sit
down on a public bench. This could potentially spread bacteria and
endanger.
Something should only be a crime if it endangers or violates someone.
Flying a kite is a right, but flying a kite over other people's heads
in such a way that it may endanger them is not a right. You have
absolute rights until you violate or endanger other's absolute rights.
Thus it should only be illegal to fly a kite in a manner that may
endanger others. Flying a kite in an open park does not endanger.
Owning an M-16 does not endanger.
Owning drugs does not endanger.
Drinking Alcohol in public does not endanger
Nakedness in public does not endanger.
Having sex in public does not endanger.
Buying child pornography does not endanger - Paying someone before the
fact to abuse their children would make one an accessory to a crime.
Buying child pornography after the fact, should be seen as no
different from buying the news. Neither does obscenity endanger, and
you have a right and NEED to see everything, and to know what exists
and is occurring in this world!
Shooting guns off in public towards the ocean generally does not
endanger.
Shooting guns off in public into the sky does endanger.
Thus it should only be illegal to shoot off guns in public in a manner
that may endanger others - usually it may but that doesn't mean that
it's okay to make it illegal to shoot off guns in public in a safe
manner!! (Noise pollution by your house at night is another
consideration as it likely violates your right to sleep).
Hitting golf balls in someone's direction endangers.
Hitting golf balls in an open field or towards the ocean generally
does not endanger.
Lighting off fireworks too close to someone's house may endanger.
Lighting off fireworks in an open parking lot does not endanger - if
they are safely regulated fireworks.
Driving must always be done safely because you are traveling and do
not know what is up ahead. Reckless driving may always endanger.
Thus driving is a right, but driving dangerously is not a right.
The government should regulate commerce because commerce is inherently
exploitative. The government should not be allowed to ban commerce at
the higher levels. It should only be allowed to regulated it with
product bundling, advertising requirement and restrictions, and
quality controls. Cities should perhaps be allowed to ban storefront
commerce. This could include casinos, gun stores, brothels, and drug
bars. You could merely drive to the next city or out into the county
to get your guns, drugs, prostitutes, or gambling. Driving to the
next state or county is too far.
But cities should not be allowed to ban non-commercial, non-dangerous,
peaceful actions.
Cities should not be allowed to ban possession of substances not
dangerous to those around you, nor even non-store front private
commerce, including internet and catalogue purchases.
All weapons should likely be legal up to bombs which should require
safe transport and storage. For guns, I would consider bundling the
sale of all guns with a locking metal box one would be able to, though
not required to, store them safely in. Pointing a gun at someone
endangers them.
You have absolute rights until you violate or endanger other's
absolute rights. This includes violating public property, such as
driving a smog producing car and littering. The punishment should fit
the crime. Thus endangering should usually be merely an infraction.
Violating for real is more serious, also depending on whether it was
intentional or not and possibly upon the nature of the crime.
The rights of the accused should be expanded. Currently it is
dangerous to get thrown in jail. Many innocent people have gotten
beat up and murdered when thrown in jail for minor offenses. This
must be changed. When a crime is committed against someone in the
government's custody, the government becomes an accessory to the
crime. The government is an accessory to murder. People should not
be coerced into plea bargaining. Perhaps there should be no
interrogation allowed after arrest. Perhaps everyone should be forced
to plead innocent and be found guilty in a court of law.
The war on drugs is probably more degenerative to our society than
legalized drugs would be. Drug prohibition is exactly the same as
alcohol prohibition in the 1920s. And just as in the 1920s, drug laws
have caused a tremendous increase in crime and violence. The victims
and the taxpayers bear the cost. As do aproximately 1,000,000
incarcerated for drug crimes. Gangs and the money from drug dealing
fuels further crime and criminal lifestyles as those who would
otherwise be good citizens may turn into criminals. Drugs are pushed
on people including minors, and these individuals are not informed of
the potentially harmful side effects. There are no quality controls,
so there are overdoses resulting in death and drugs are sometimes
split with dangerous substances. People who want to do drugs and
alcohol are going to do the drugs anyhow.
Also I wonder if druggies who steal to support their drug habit only
have to do so because illegal drugs are so expensive. Most alcoholics
don't have to steal to support their habit, so I wonder even if we
taxed drugs at 100% perhaps they would be so much cheaper that there
would be no theft by drug addicts.
If we spend half the money on holistic solutions that we spend on
reactive solutions we could probably solve the problem. Over $500
billion a year is spent on criminal "justice."
There are over 2 million people in jail or prison, over 7 million in
the system including those on probation or parole, and 30-50 million
convicts in the United States. How can America be called "the land of
the free?"