Equality is sacred because lots of evil people then get to play god.
uhhgh...now I’m seeing someone purveying little undies for dog...
The ONLY good thing that came out of the “Fall of Man” in the Garden of Eden is mankind learned to cover up.
Serious, can you imagine if we lived in a world where Michael Moore or Rosie O’Donnell, walked around nude?
Which is why a few of us realize that we need a Constitutional fix.
The Constitution should be explicitly based on the Bible, making America explicitly, legally a Christian nation.
In it’s present state it has glaring ambiguities and is not explicitly Christian, and the results are all around us.
I’d have to assume that in San Francisco, not every nude person’s body is clean and smelling fresh all day and for that reason, public nudity should be banned.
I wanted the first few sentences to tell me why public nudity is wrong. No such luck. Finally the author says it’s because it distinguishes us from animals who wear no clothes, and therefore seeing an animal’s genitals is normal and seeing ours is not. Hey - I seldom see animials’ genitals. They are mostly hidden by fur and their location between the legs.
I don’t believe in public nudity but the article was a waste of my time. Perhaps my expectations were too high.
Can the highest court in New York state really see no difference between a man’s chest and a woman’s? I certainly can, and I ain’t no damned judge!
Of course, it is, at times, rather entertaining to judge wimmins’ chests ....
!
Reading this article, the song “Bounce Your Boobies” by Rusty Warren popped into my head :)
Wearing clothes goes along with individual identity, for human’s. True individuality is lost in a sea of naked humans.
The right occasions for being O.K. to be naked in front of others is contextual, and being out in the public square is not one of them, because the first order of being O.K. is that that O.K. is by mutual consent - the parties mutually agree the context is O.K. for it.
Such mutual consent is not possible in the public square, which makes the nudity of those who drop their clothes in the public square NOT an act of liberation but an assualt. They cannot and therefor have not sought mutual consent from everyone who is or will be in the public square; even a law that grants an O.K. cannot go out and obtain mutual consent from whomever could be in the public square.
Therefor, even a law or regulation permitting it is still an assault on the Liberty of everyone else - the natural Liberty that says, and requires, we are naked and in the company of others who are naked only by mutual consent.
Mutual consent on human nudity is mandatory to Liberty because it permits, and requires, mutual human nakedness only when we mutually agree the context permits it.
There are only a few times when a majoritarian view, as opposed to an individual view, makes consent implicit when it cannot be asked for explicitly; such as open shower areas in public health, sports, bathing (in Asia) facilities, where consent is implicit when we know the nature of the public changing, showering, bathing facilities there. We agree to the conditions by agreeing to go there. When we understand the conditions it is left to our consent to go along with them or not.
But, such facilities are not the public square. They are an exception and a distinction - a distinct context - from the public square.
Nudity in PUBLIC is an assualt, not an act of liberation.
I find it hard to believe anyone much cares what happens in or to San Francisco; that boat of degeneracy left port 30 years ago.
Wait... public nudism offends Christians but it makes Muslims apoplectic! They can’t stand the sight of a female ANKLE or a head of hair!With any luck this can be used to drive all Muslims from the area( those whose brains don’t explode first)! Genetalia induced strokes! The rest of us can deal with nausea and offense if all it takes is naked people to drive Muslims from our midst.
This article is silly...
Any one who thinks public nudity should be OK should be required to sit down on a bus seat after a naked fat guy gets up.
We know where the libertarians are on this.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Prager is completely correct in every point. Any civilization worthy of the adjective "civilized" prohibits public nudity. And leftism is by definition humanist, secularist and atheist, even if some pose as believers in God. And what is the basic tenet of atheism? Not just that God does not exist, and therefore there are no moral absolutes, nor any intrinsic and transcendent meaning and purpose to life; but humans have no soul, we are just clumps of flesh and consciousness is just an accident created by chemical processes. And leftists/humanists/secularists will never rest until they have taken God and moral absolutes out of every sphere of life; not just public. Their goal is to destroy even private expression of belief in God.
Here is another reason it is wrong: I don’t want to sit on a bench where some naked guy’s butt and other privates were resting.