Should Women be Permitted to Appear Topless in Public?

Page 3 of 18 [ 278 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 18  Next


Should Women be Permitted to Appear Topless in Public?
Yes 72%  72%  [ 113 ]
No 28%  28%  [ 43 ]
Total votes : 156

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

23 Nov 2007, 8:44 pm

spdjeanne wrote:
But, they do draw the lines, right? What does it matter how they draw them. It may be of interest to you but it has not bearing on my point. That the lines are there at all is my only point. If there were no difference in our minds between morality and legality there would be no line drawing.

The issue is one of internal consistency. That we draw lines does not mean that we do not contradict ourselves, in fact, I think that many line-drawers DO contradict themselves. If they contradict themselves then their line drawing is not legitimate but rather part of a complex game of cognitive dissonance.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

23 Nov 2007, 9:14 pm

My goodness. Such ponderous pontificating, over whether women should show their boobies.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

23 Nov 2007, 9:29 pm

pandabear wrote:
My goodness. Such ponderous pontificating, over whether women should show their boobies.

Yeah, I know, it is crazy how complex any issue can be made into. I say that this also cuts into profits at the nudey bars though and imposes an externality upon them too. If one can find decent quality nudity at a local public pool, then who will go to the nudey bars?? :wink: (yeah, I know, now I am being ridiculous as my argument could also be used against all competition :wink: )



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

23 Nov 2007, 9:35 pm

The nudey bars would just have to raise the ante



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

23 Nov 2007, 10:01 pm

pandabear wrote:
The nudey bars would just have to raise the ante

Ultraporn?



spdjeanne
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 390
Location: Earth

23 Nov 2007, 10:15 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
spdjeanne wrote:
But, they do draw the lines, right? What does it matter how they draw them. It may be of interest to you but it has not bearing on my point. That the lines are there at all is my only point. If there were no difference in our minds between morality and legality there would be no line drawing.

The issue is one of internal consistency. That we draw lines does not mean that we do not contradict ourselves, in fact, I think that many line-drawers DO contradict themselves. If they contradict themselves then their line drawing is not legitimate but rather part of a complex game of cognitive dissonance.


So are you suggesting that the only people with internal consistency are people who think morality and legality are the same? Am I being inconsistent by saying that lying is wrong but it should not be illegal? If so, why?



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

23 Nov 2007, 10:21 pm

spdjeanne wrote:
So are you suggesting that the only people with internal consistency are people who think morality and legality are the same? Am I being inconsistent by saying that lying is wrong but it should not be illegal? If so, why?

Well, I have not actually seen a way around it on some level. I mean, the only reason to disallow a law on one level of morality is for another moral aim. I am not arguing that you are necessarily inconsistent, but fully outline why lying shouldn't be illegal. I mean, lying is COMPLETELY illegal when it is recorded and part of an agreement. The issue I am trying to grapple with myself is the clear line on where it is consistent to allow something immoral and disallow something else immoral and perhaps I am making it too hard on myself because I am a very black and white thinker.



spdjeanne
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 390
Location: Earth

23 Nov 2007, 10:31 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
spdjeanne wrote:
So are you suggesting that the only people with internal consistency are people who think morality and legality are the same? Am I being inconsistent by saying that lying is wrong but it should not be illegal? If so, why?

Well, I have not actually seen a way around it on some level. I mean, the only reason to disallow a law on one level of morality is for another moral aim. I am not arguing that you are necessarily inconsistent, but fully outline why lying shouldn't be illegal. I mean, lying is COMPLETELY illegal when it is recorded and part of an agreement. The issue I am trying to grapple with myself is the clear line on where it is consistent to allow something immoral and disallow something else immoral and perhaps I am making it too hard on myself because I am a very black and white thinker.


I think the difference between one immorality and another comes down to what it is we think people are capable of self regulating and the impact of the immoral behavior on society at large. It is the difference between things like coveting and stealing or greed and embezzling.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

23 Nov 2007, 10:44 pm

spdjeanne wrote:
I think the difference between one immorality and another comes down to what it is we think people are capable of self regulating and the impact of the immoral behavior on society at large. It is the difference between things like coveting and stealing or greed and embezzling.

Well, isn't the fact that an act is evil more important than the effects it necessarily has on others? Why not argue for government organizing all things for the moral end? If that fails then where is there a proper cut off? Is it just this highly subjective, squishy line for something that impacts the objectively true?



snake321
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,135

23 Nov 2007, 10:46 pm

pandabear wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071122/ap_on_re_eu/odd_topless_swimmers;_ylt=Ah4wAf6tAzOlYhQgmacrs5Gek3QF

STOCKHOLM, Sweden - A group of Swedish women is making waves by taking their tops off at public swimming pools in a protest against what they call gender-biased rules on swim wear.

About 40 women have joined the network and staged topless protests in at least three cities, said Sanna Ferm, 22, one of the founders of the group called Bara Brost, or Bare Breasts.

"The purpose of the campaign is to start a debate about why women's bodies are sexualized," Ferm said Wednesday.

She said the fact that men can be bare-chested in public swimming pools but not women is "a concrete example of how women have fewer rights than men."

Reactions from other swimmers have ranged from support and encouragement to anger and even indifference, she said.

The network was formed after two women who were swimming topless in a public swimming pool in Uppsala, north of Stockholm, were asked to cover up or leave.

Women can sunbathe topless in the summertime at beaches around Sweden, which is known for its relaxed attitude toward nudity, but they are required to wear tops at public swimming pools.

Inger Groteblad, a manager at the swimming facility in Uppsala, said it was a matter of security.

"We want to make sure that girls don't get subjected to sexual harassment," she was quoted as saying by tabloid Aftonbladet.

The women have filed a complaint against the facility to Sweden's Equal Opportunities Ombudsman.


I'd go to the protest to sport wood :P Boi-oi-oi-oi-oi-oi-oi-ng!! !!



spdjeanne
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 390
Location: Earth

23 Nov 2007, 11:05 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
spdjeanne wrote:
I think the difference between one immorality and another comes down to what it is we think people are capable of self regulating and the impact of the immoral behavior on society at large. It is the difference between things like coveting and stealing or greed and embezzling.

Well, isn't the fact that an act is evil more important than the effects it necessarily has on others? Why not argue for government organizing all things for the moral end? If that fails then where is there a proper cut off? Is it just this highly subjective, squishy line for something that impacts the objectively true?


You seem to assume that the government could control everything in the moral domain, but there are some things that the government cannot regulate by arrest, prison, or even death. There would be no point in making coveting or greed illegal. The cops can stop someone from stealing and even throw them in jail, but they cannot stop that person from coveting. The person must self regulate that immorality or go unchecked. I'm not saying that a friend can't convince a person to stop coveting, but ultimately it is up the that person to decide whether or not to be convinced.



Cyanide
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,003
Location: The Pacific Northwest

24 Nov 2007, 2:34 am

Hmm.....i'm unsure on this one. There are some women I'd really rather not see topless *barf*



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

24 Nov 2007, 8:36 am

spdjeanne wrote:
You seem to assume that the government could control everything in the moral domain, but there are some things that the government cannot regulate by arrest, prison, or even death. There would be no point in making coveting or greed illegal. The cops can stop someone from stealing and even throw them in jail, but they cannot stop that person from coveting. The person must self regulate that immorality or go unchecked. I'm not saying that a friend can't convince a person to stop coveting, but ultimately it is up the that person to decide whether or not to be convinced.

But there is much in the environment that can be controlled. If one controls the environment then how changing the actions of the person is much easier.



spdjeanne
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 390
Location: Earth

24 Nov 2007, 9:20 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
spdjeanne wrote:
You seem to assume that the government could control everything in the moral domain, but there are some things that the government cannot regulate by arrest, prison, or even death. There would be no point in making coveting or greed illegal. The cops can stop someone from stealing and even throw them in jail, but they cannot stop that person from coveting. The person must self regulate that immorality or go unchecked. I'm not saying that a friend can't convince a person to stop coveting, but ultimately it is up the that person to decide whether or not to be convinced.

But there is much in the environment that can be controlled. If one controls the environment then how changing the actions of the person is much easier.


I think most countries already control much of the environment through their various legal systems in order to make their peoples more moral according to their own morality and to keep people safe. My point is that there are types of immorality that despite environment and despite concrete laws cannot be truly forcefully controlled by anyone other than the individual. To try and make such things illegal would make no sense because there would be no way of enforcing such a law.

Perhaps women going topless at public pools in Sweden should be illegal not because it is immoral but because it would help stop lust which is considered immoral by many people. Of course that would place the responsibility for all good behavior on the potential victim. It is like saying that if a woman walks into a room naked and she is raped, it was her own fault for being raped because she was naked. I have a huge problem with that way of thinking.



Last edited by spdjeanne on 24 Nov 2007, 10:10 am, edited 2 times in total.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

24 Nov 2007, 9:22 am

spdjeanne wrote:
I think most countries already control much of the environment through their various legal systems in order to make their peoples more moral according to their own morality and to keep people safe. My point is that there are types of immorality that despite environment and despite concrete laws cannot be truly forcefully controlled by anyone other than the individual. To try and make such things illegal would make no sense because there would be no way of enforcing such a law.

Oh they often do, however, there are conflicts within many societies over morality and I think that these arguments go over very twisted lines. I do think that you underestimate what could be done however, as one can make very reasoned arguments that things such as certain forms of entertainment lead to behavior that many would consider immoral.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

24 Nov 2007, 10:05 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
pandabear wrote:
Maybe that's why Americans don't vacation much in Sweden -- they're afraid of the naked boobies, and the, er, negative externalities.

Well, a negative externality depends on the context. A nudey bar's positive externality could be a church's negative.


I'm all for externalizing women's internalities.

I happened to come across a political group called "Breasts Not Bombs." Some of those titties are quite titillating to behold. Others less so. But, I don't have to stare at the ones that I find unappealing. 8O