The Muslims are Taking Over The World

[dan2100]

Dan:

Two children. Did not kill either one of them, lol. However, the first time my son stepped into the batters box at the age of nine (9), cocky, crowding the plate. Now this was a solid wiffle ball, not the soft ones with the holes/slots in them.

I have great control. I said, "You're crowding my plate kid!" He dug in a little harder and crowded it more.

As he was picking himself up from the floor after getting out of the way of a very fast pitch literally right under his chin...a light went on.

Now, is that child abuse?

I can see some folks believing that that is child abuse.

I will take up your other excellent points a little later.

Adam

I'm not sure of the case you mention.

I think we should create another topic for this discussion as it really has little to do with the current topic title.

[Libertarian Muslim]

Kidding right? Just in case you're not, here's why:

Because if a man wants to, he DOES SO (think Speedo). So if a womant wants to, she should damn well be able to. In my country, men have a right to be topless, so do women. Anything else is completely unacceptable.

Bob

I'm sorry but I don't consider women walking around topless to be equality at all and if that's your definition of equality then I'm sorry, it's silly..

It's indecent.. A man can walk around topless because he doesn't have breasts.. A woman shouldn't because she does.. It's public nudity and not really appropriate at all..

People should be free to be able to do what they want, providing that their actions aren't harming others.. Public nudity as you've described can be harmful to society.

[Selene]

Kidding right? Just in case you're not, here's why:

Because if a man wants to, he DOES SO (think Speedo). So if a womant wants to, she should damn well be able to. In my country, men have a right to be topless, so do women. Anything else is completely unacceptable.

Bob

I'm sorry but I don't consider women walking around topless to be equality at all and if that's your definition of equality then I'm sorry, it's silly..

It's indecent.. A man can walk around topless because he doesn't have breasts.. A woman shouldn't because she does.. It's public nudity and not really appropriate at all..

People should be free to be able to do what they want, providing that their actions aren't harming others.. Public nudity as you've described can be harmful to society.

Oh Oh!

Whops there goes another libertarian rubber plant - ker plop!

Adam

[Libertarian Muslim]

Kidding right? Just in case you're not, here's why:

Because if a man wants to, he DOES SO (think Speedo). So if a womant wants to, she should damn well be able to. In my country, men have a right to be topless, so do women. Anything else is completely unacceptable.

Bob

I'm sorry but I don't consider women walking around topless to be equality at all and if that's your definition of equality then I'm sorry, it's silly..

It's indecent.. A man can walk around topless because he doesn't have breasts.. A woman shouldn't because she does.. It's public nudity and not really appropriate at all..

People should be free to be able to do what they want, providing that their actions aren't harming others.. Public nudity as you've described can be harmful to society.

Oh Oh!

Whops there goes another libertarian rubber plant - ker plop!

Adam

I have to be honest.. I just don't understand what the point was of that?

Sorry Adam..

Can you explain please? It's been a long day for me.

[Selene]

Adonis:

No problem.

Although I understand your general argument that public nudity harms society, most libertarians that are out there would break with you and claim that your position denies "freedom."

The song was just my being satirical as your position would be rejected by libertarians.

Adam

[dan2100]

Kidding right? Just in case you're not, here's why:

Because if a man wants to, he DOES SO (think Speedo). So if a womant wants to, she should damn well be able to. In my country, men have a right to be topless, so do women. Anything else is completely unacceptable.

Bob

I'm sorry but I don't consider women walking around topless to be equality at all and if that's your definition of equality then I'm sorry, it's silly..

It's indecent.. A man can walk around topless because he doesn't have breasts.. A woman shouldn't because she does.. It's public nudity and not really appropriate at all..

People should be free to be able to do what they want, providing that their actions aren't harming others.. Public nudity as you've described can be harmful to society.

I think there are a few problems here, but let me focus on two. One is that you seem to presume women are only sex objects and that topless women can only cheapen them, making men go wild for their breasts. Actually, my guess is saturation with topless women would eventually lead to few men being distracted by breasts. Their open display would become little different than displays of legs or hair -- which, just a few decades or centuries ago, was almost forbidden in every nation.

The other is the problem of public spaces. If all spaces were treated under natural rights, we'd only end up with two types of just spaces: privately unowned and unowned. (The former include jointly owned spaces too, but there'd be nothing owned by the public as such.) In such spaces, the owners would decide what's proper behavior regarding display of chests and the like. So, the issue wouldn't likely arise of "public nudity." (Of course, what's done in unowned spaces would, again, be decided by natural rights. There would be no natural rights violation, in my mind, to people walking around naked on unowned land.)

Also, talk of "society" here means what? Obviously, you mean some people are harmed, but not "society." After all, those who would prefer to see topless women and women who'd prefer to go topless are not harmed. So, who do you mean and what exactly do you mean by "harm" here?

[tjohnson]

Also, talk of "society" here means what? Obviously, you mean some people are harmed, but not "society." After all, those who would prefer to see topless women and women who'd prefer to go topless are not harmed. So, who do you mean and what exactly do you mean by "harm" here?

And while you're at it, what do you mean by "mean"? Just kidding.

[Libertarian Muslim]

I think there are a few problems here, but let me focus on two. One is that you seem to presume women are only sex objects and that topless women can only cheapen them, making men go wild for their breasts. Actually, my guess is saturation with topless women would eventually lead to few men being distracted by breasts. Their open display would become little different than displays of legs or hair -- which, just a few decades or centuries ago, was almost forbidden in every nation.

Well no I'm not saying women are only sex objects, although I do find it disturbing that in trying to prove equality he brought up the fact that in his country, both men and women could walk around topless.. Is that a real indication of equality between the sexes? Sounds more to me like gloating rather than protecting women and their rights..

How about things like equal pay for women? That's a far better indication of equality.. Because it benefits men in no way whatsoever..

I am however saying though that it would indeed cheapen women, making that which a woman has been given freely available will have far reaching consequences on the whole of society and none of it would be positive.

Those would include:

1. Increased sexual assaults on women

2. Children to be exposed to a more sexualized society than they already are which would lead to further problems.

I personally wouldn't want my (future) children to have to walk around seeing the sexual parts of any man or woman until such a time that they are ready to be educated about it with sound minds.

Also, what about young girls? Are we then saying it's okay for young teenage girls to walk around and show their breasts in public? Do you think that's safe to do? If not, then certainly it shouldn't be appropriate for grown women to do in public.

Also, even if it were legal I doubt that the majority of women would want to walk around bare breasted and I think you'd find that the changes that you suggest due to saturation wouldn't occur.

But suppose you're right and the majority do expose their breasts in public for a certain amount of time (years perhaps), it may indeed lead to men no longer find a woman's breasts sexually attractive.. But is that actually a good thing? How do you think that would effect intimacy between couples?

The other is the problem of public spaces. If all spaces were treated under natural rights, we'd only end up with two types of just spaces: privately unowned and unowned. (The former include jointly owned spaces too, but there'd be nothing owned by the public as such.) In such spaces, the owners would decide what's proper behavior regarding display of chests and the like. So, the issue wouldn't likely arise of "public nudity." (Of course, what's done in unowned spaces would, again, be decided by natural rights. There would be no natural rights violation, in my mind, to people walking around naked on unowned land.)

By public places I'm referring to places that citizens of a nation can freely go into without need for permission, ie local markets, streets, malls, beaches etc. While on public property I shouldn't have to be exposed to such things, however private property is private property, I have to be aware that on going onto private property I may see certain things if that is what the owner likes.

Also, talk of "society" here means what? Obviously, you mean some people are harmed, but not "society." After all, those who would prefer to see topless women and women who'd prefer to go topless are not harmed. So, who do you mean and what exactly do you mean by "harm" here?

I think the above that I've written goes into this.

[tjohnson]

I have a feeling that much of man's attraction to women's breasts is to do with the fact that our lives are sustained by them when we are infants.

[Libertarian Muslim]

I have a feeling that much of man's attraction to women's breasts is to do with the fact that our lives are sustained by them when we are infants.

I dunno.. What about bottle fed children?

I like breasts for entirely different reasons :-P

[bmacwilliam]

Kidding right? Just in case you're not, here's why:

Because if a man wants to, he DOES SO (think Speedo). So if a womant wants to, she should damn well be able to. In my country, men have a right to be topless, so do women. Anything else is completely unacceptable.

Bob

I'm sorry but I don't consider women walking around topless to be equality at all and if that's your definition of equality then I'm sorry, it's silly..

It's indecent.. A man can walk around topless because he doesn't have breasts.. A woman shouldn't because she does.. It's public nudity and not really appropriate at all..

People should be free to be able to do what they want, providing that their actions aren't harming others.. Public nudity as you've described can be harmful to society.

First of all that's wrong - harmful - nonsense, but even if it was that's not the point. It's harmful to society for a man or woman to espouse and promote communism. But the fact is men and women CAN do this in a free society.

It is also more dangerous/harmful for a woman to go walking late at night in a bad neighbourhood, but they CAN DO SO if they wish because they are equal and have the same choice - goofy as it may be.

You want to remove this choice (topless) for women under some ridicilous notion of "harm" that is irrelevant anyway. You claim that they're still equal, you're lying.

Bob

[dan2100]

I have a feeling that much of man's attraction to women's breasts is to do with the fact that our lives are sustained by them when we are infants.

I dunno.. What about bottle fed children?

I like breasts for entirely different reasons :-P

My guess is you're right here and GS is wrong. Also, what about women who were breast-fed as infants? Wouldn't we expect them to be more inclined to be attracted to other women's breasts were his theory correct? And what about men who are not attracted to women's breasts? We'd have to settle this empirically, of course, but my guess is we wouldn't find them being more represented among the bottle-fed.

[Libertarian Muslim]

First of all that's wrong - harmful - nonsense, but even if it was that's not the point. It's harmful to society for a man or woman to espouse and promote communism. But the fact is men and women CAN do this in a free society.

It is also more dangerous/harmful for a woman to go walking late at night in a bad neighbourhood, but they CAN DO SO if they wish because they are equal and have the same choice - goofy as it may be.

You want to remove this choice (topless) for women under some ridicilous notion of "harm" that is irrelevant anyway. You claim that they're still equal, you're lying.

Bob

I'm sorry, but it is harmful to society.. I explained the reasons why above.. Address those points Bob..

[Brant Gaede]

Last I heard men have breasts.

--Brant

correct me if I'm wrong

[tjohnson]

Last I heard men have breasts.

--Brant

correct me if I'm wrong

Yeah, why is that? Men don't have mammary glands do they? But they have nipples, weird! Does it mean at one time their was asexual reproduction in our ancient ancestors?

Edited March 22, 2010 by general semanticist

[bmacwilliam]

First of all that's wrong - harmful - nonsense, but even if it was that's not the point. It's harmful to society for a man or woman to espouse and promote communism. But the fact is men and women CAN do this in a free society.

It is also more dangerous/harmful for a woman to go walking late at night in a bad neighbourhood, but they CAN DO SO if they wish because they are equal and have the same choice - goofy as it may be.

You want to remove this choice (topless) for women under some ridicilous notion of "harm" that is irrelevant anyway. You claim that they're still equal, you're lying.

Bob

I'm sorry, but it is harmful to society.. I explained the reasons why above.. Address those points Bob..

You seem to have serious reading comprehension issues. As I said, the idea of "harm" is irrelevant. What's important is whether or not there's a double standard. Topless "teenage girls" seem to really be threatening to you for some reason but there's only inequality if teenage boys can go topless and girls can't. It doesn't matter whether it's a good idea or whether you think there's some nonsensical notion of "harm".

If you don't think men have breasts, you certainly haven't been to a beach in a while. Your "points" are nonsense.

Bob

I

[tjohnson]

I have a feeling that much of man's attraction to women's breasts is to do with the fact that our lives are sustained by them when we are infants.

I dunno.. What about bottle fed children?

I like breasts for entirely different reasons :-P

My guess is you're right here and GS is wrong. Also, what about women who were breast-fed as infants? Wouldn't we expect them to be more inclined to be attracted to other women's breasts were his theory correct? And what about men who are not attracted to women's breasts? We'd have to settle this empirically, of course, but my guess is we wouldn't find them being more represented among the bottle-fed.

I think we are instinctively interested in them whether we are bottle fed or female or whatever - the instinct for food is very strong. Look at all the women getting breast implants, they seem quite interested in breasts.

[Libertarian Muslim]

You seem to have serious reading comprehension issues. As I said, the idea of "harm" is irrelevant. What's important is whether or not there's a double standard. Topless "teenage girls" seem to really be threatening to you for some reason but there's only inequality if teenage boys can go topless and girls can't. It doesn't matter whether it's a good idea or whether you think there's some nonsensical notion of "harm".

If you don't think men have breasts, you certainly haven't been to a beach in a while. Your "points" are nonsense.

Bob

I

I have no problem comprehending.. Harm is not irrelevant because I live in the real world.. Not a delusional fantasy world like you..

Topless teenage girls concern me because I know how much danger they'd be in for walking around topless and how they'd be a victim to pedophiles who would prey on them.. So if you want equality, you must agree that equality must be across the board here and that if a woman can walk around topless, so can a girl and it's bound to happen because younger girls look older girls and women as examples to follow..

Is what you want? Teenage girls walking around topless? Do you think that's safe?

Also, men have 'breasts' because during the pregnancy these are developed before the sex of the child is determined.. With women they develop more for function but undoubtedly men find womens' breasts far more sexually attractive than women find mens..

Address the points I made properly..

[tjohnson]

Uh oh, we're getting dangerously close to teen porn here.

[bmacwilliam]

I have no problem comprehending.. Harm is not irrelevant because I live in the real world.. Not a delusional fantasy world like you..

Topless teenage girls concern me because I know how much danger they'd be in for walking around topless and how they'd be a victim to pedophiles who would prey on them.. So if you want equality, you must agree that equality must be across the board here and that if a woman can walk around topless, so can a girl and it's bound to happen because younger girls look older girls and women as examples to follow..

Is what you want? Teenage girls walking around topless? Do you think that's safe?

Also, men have 'breasts' because during the pregnancy these are developed before the sex of the child is determined.. With women they develop more for function but undoubtedly men find womens' breasts far more sexually attractive than women find mens..

Address the points I made properly..

You really are skilled at missing the point. I am not arguing for the equality between young female children and adult females, I am arguing for gender equality - that would be between males and females, do you get it now? We protect our children, rightly, and have laws regarding this, but that's not the point.

I happen to be a 230lb bodybuilder. It is much less dangerous for me to walk anywhere at anytime than it is for my wife. Does that mean she should not be allowed? What about my skinny little male friends for that matter? Is it harmful if they have the right to walk late at night? Yeah, it might certainly be harmful or dangerous, but again, that's right, that's not the point - and not because it's a "fantasy world". In my "very real" world, people have the right to do harmful and dangerous things - to a point - but certainly not differentiated by gender - which is the real point.

You just can't restrict female behaviour and pretend they're equal. The civilized world figured this out a while ago.

Bob

[dan2100]

I think there are a few problems here, but let me focus on two. One is that you seem to presume women are only sex objects and that topless women can only cheapen them, making men go wild for their breasts. Actually, my guess is saturation with topless women would eventually lead to few men being distracted by breasts. Their open display would become little different than displays of legs or hair -- which, just a few decades or centuries ago, was almost forbidden in every nation.

Well no I'm not saying women are only sex objects, although I do find it disturbing that in trying to prove equality he brought up the fact that in his country, both men and women could walk around topless.. Is that a real indication of equality between the sexes? Sounds more to me like gloating rather than protecting women and their rights..

I can't yet look into his mind to see what motivated him, but, if I might make a guess, I don't think he was gloating. That women are not legally allowed to do something men are allowed to do in some places seems a mark of legal inequality.

How about things like equal pay for women? That's a far better indication of equality.. Because it benefits men in no way whatsoever..

I don't think the cases are the same. In the case of being allowed to go topless, this is merely a choice by a particular woman to dress as she pleases. (Here I'm presuming she's not violating anyone's property rights. For instance, if she goes into a privately owned restaurant where the owners do not want women to be topless, then this doesn't apply.) In the case of equal pay -- whatever that means -- this would mean coercing another party.

(Regarding my "whatever that means" comment, there've been a number of studies that seem to show women do get equal pay when the fact that they tend to get pregnant, take maternity leave, and also tend to have shorter careers than men is taken into account. In one study I read a few years ago, in fact, they found women who actually don't have families are pretty much in the same ballpark as men in terms of salary.)

I am however saying though that it would indeed cheapen women, making that which a woman has been given freely available will have far reaching consequences on the whole of society and none of it would be positive.

Those would include:

1. Increased sexual assaults on women

Yes, this is where I assumed you were going with this. Let's take an analogy here. Imagine we were arguing over interracial marriage -- an issue that seems to be, thankfully, no longer controversial in the civilized world. Imagine someone arguing against this no because he's some sort of racist but because he fears such couples and any children they might have will face increased assaults from racists in societies. Would you take that as a sound argument against interracial marriage?

But let's leave that aside. The issue would be, here, one of do particular women have the right to decide for themselves how to dress -- i.e., have the right to take such risks? You seem to be siding with the No answer. (It also seems like you're holding a deterministic view of men: if they see bare breasts, they're going to attack. And the only way to stop this is to not show them bare breasts.)

2. Children to be exposed to a more sexualized society than they already are which would lead to further problems.

I personally wouldn't want my (future) children to have to walk around seeing the sexual parts of any man or woman until such a time that they are ready to be educated about it with sound minds.

I can understand that point, but the reason bare bodies are seen as sexual is because they are hidden. My guess is exposure to nudity would lead to a different approach to these issues. Just as, in former times and in some unenlightened parts of this planet to this day, seeing a woman's hair was seen as sexually provocative, but this doesn't seem to be at all the case today, I think bare breasts all over the place would lead to the same outcome.

Also, what about young girls? Are we then saying it's okay for young teenage girls to walk around and show their breasts in public? Do you think that's safe to do? If not, then certainly it shouldn't be appropriate for grown women to do in public.

Nudist colonies exist now and they don't appear to be off the charts in terms of child sexual abuse. So where is your evidence concerning this? You seem to be making up this narrative -- to support your religious views, no doubt -- that certain things will happen. Yeah, you don't come right out and say this here, but I'm guessing this is where you're going.

Also, even if it were legal I doubt that the majority of women would want to walk around bare breasted and I think you'd find that the changes that you suggest due to saturation wouldn't occur.

I don't know. I don't know, if given an option, how many women would take that option. I don't think anyone does. However, my guess is some women would choose to do so simply because the laws around now do get enforced from time to time -- meaning some women would prefer to expose their breasts.

But suppose you're right and the majority do expose their breasts in public for a certain amount of time (years perhaps), it may indeed lead to men no longer find a woman's breasts sexually attractive.. But is that actually a good thing? How do you think that would effect intimacy between couples?

My point is more that people should have the option -- not that the majority would do so. Does allowing women to show their hair in public mean couples suffer intimacy problems? I'm not sure what your point is. If a given couple found this to be a problem, they could always decide to undersaturate.

I also don't think men won't, in general, find breasts attractive. It's, rather, that were the exposure to breasts high enough, I think it'd no longer be shocking or distracting. In the same way, many straight or bi men I know find women's hair, legs, hands, and faces attractive. (And many straight or bi women I know find men's hair, legs, etc. attractive.) Yet these things aren't hidden away. They're, in the communities I've lived in, fully exposed and I'd hope any attempt to legislate on this would result in the immediate overthrown of the government that attempted to do so.

The other is the problem of public spaces. If all spaces were treated under natural rights, we'd only end up with two types of just spaces: privately unowned and unowned. (The former include jointly owned spaces too, but there'd be nothing owned by the public as such.) In such spaces, the owners would decide what's proper behavior regarding display of chests and the like. So, the issue wouldn't likely arise of "public nudity." (Of course, what's done in unowned spaces would, again, be decided by natural rights. There would be no natural rights violation, in my mind, to people walking around naked on unowned land.)

By public places I'm referring to places that citizens of a nation can freely go into without need for permission, ie local markets, streets, malls, beaches etc. While on public property I shouldn't have to be exposed to such things, however private property is private property, I have to be aware that on going onto private property I may see certain things if that is what the owner likes.

My point is that such public places are, in terms of justice, either privately owned and the rightful owners should decide or unowned. In neither case, should an organized group of criminals -- er, government decide the issue.

Also, talk of "society" here means what? Obviously, you mean some people are harmed, but not "society." After all, those who would prefer to see topless women and women who'd prefer to go topless are not harmed. So, who do you mean and what exactly do you mean by "harm" here?

I think the above that I've written goes into this.

I'm not sure since you don't really explicitly address this. You also seem to presume you know what's good for society and good for individuals in it -- even when those individuals might decide to do other than you would dictate. How is that you consider yourself a libertarian again?

Edited March 22, 2010 by Dan Ust

[bmacwilliam]

I don't know. I don't know, if given an option, how many women would take that option. I don't think anyone does. However, my guess is some women would choose to do so simply because the laws around now do get enforced from time to time -- meaning some women would prefer to expose their breasts.

My point is more that people should have the option -- not that the majority would do so. Does allowing women to show their hair in public mean couples suffer intimacy problems? I'm not sure what your point is. If a given couple found this to be a problem, they could always decide to undersaturate.

Agreed, the point is that if men have the option, so should women. One interesting result of this happened on the six-lane highway just a few kms from here. The police pulled over a topless jeep on the highway that also had two topless women in the back seat. The police demanded the women put their shirts back on. They protested that they have the right to go topless. The police agreed, but explained they don't have the right to create a traffic hazard at 120km/h.

But the men didn't have to put their shirts back on, so even this society, there's isn't perfect equality. But it's much easier to defend the decision based on the safety of other motorists and not Adonis' nonsense.

The Islamic gender inequality nonsense is firmly rooted in the male culture's generalized fear of female sexuality.

Bob

[Brant Gaede]

Last I heard men have breasts.

--Brant

correct me if I'm wrong

Yeah, why is that? Men don't have mammary glands do they? But they have nipples, weird! Does it mean at one time their was asexual reproduction in our ancient ancestors?

Men have nipples in case they decide to have a sex change operation. It's helpful.

--Brant

[tjohnson]

Last I heard men have breasts.

--Brant

correct me if I'm wrong

Yeah, why is that? Men don't have mammary glands do they? But they have nipples, weird! Does it mean at one time their was asexual reproduction in our ancient ancestors?

Men have nipples in case they decide to have a sex change operation. It's helpful.

--Brant

Ah....right, that makes sense.

[dan2100]

Last I heard men have breasts.

--Brant

correct me if I'm wrong

Yeah, why is that? Men don't have mammary glands do they? But they have nipples, weird! Does it mean at one time their was asexual reproduction in our ancient ancestors?

Men have nipples in case they decide to have a sex change operation. It's helpful.

--Brant

This reminds of a biology teacher who told me that we have two legs because one's a spare.