CriticalThinker2000 Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 "Sex organs," aren't, unless they're engaged in sex. This is silly. 'Sex organs' as a concept refers to the organs on your body with a sexual capacity- whether they're in use or not. Your car doesn't stop being a car when it's not rolling. Man doesn't stop being man when he quits using reason and goes to sleep. I don't think that the idea that sex organs aren't sex organs when they're not in use is consistent with the objectivist view of concepts. Also, they have multiple uses. Yes, they also come in multiple colors. But so what? The characteristic that matters in the context of public nudity is their sexual capacity because it's this capacity that differentiates them w/ respect to whether you should show them to other people. Also, the rest of your body is also used when having sex. Yes, but your genitals are obviously different than the rest of your body with respect to sex. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiral Architect Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 (edited) If the argument is for sanitation, it's not nudity that is the issue, but any part of an exposed human body. I agree completely. It was simply the only way I could see a rational application in Private Property. I'm sure there is a few others but largely it is a subjective application by the property owner. That says volumes in my mind of how subjective it is if you want to take it to public domain. I can't imagine an argument from Rights that condones a dress code under the Law. Edited May 30, 2014 by Spiral Architect Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dormin111 Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 I agree completely. It was simply the only way I could see a rational application in Private Property. I'm sure there is a few others but largely it is a subjective application by the property owner. That says volumes in my mind of how subjective it is if you want to take it to public domain. I can't imagine an argument from Rights that condones a dress code under the Law. How about, if public spaces must exist, the authorities should attempt to manage it according to the normal standards of the population. The population's standards are usually anti-public nudity, so the government should follow along. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicky Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 How about, if public spaces must exist, the authorities should attempt to manage it according to the normal standards of the population. The population's standards are usually anti-public nudity, so the government should follow along.Because the government should be run, as much as possible, by objective standards rather than subjective ones. Does the population have an objective reason to be against nudity? Harrison Danneskjold 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thenelli01 Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 Because the government should be run, as much as possible, by objective standards rather than subjective ones. Does the population have an objective reason to be against nudity? According to you, "it's disgusting" is an objective reason to legislate. I think Miley Cyrus is disgusting, maybe we should ban her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicky Posted May 30, 2014 Report Share Posted May 30, 2014 To you it's not disgusting. To me it is. It is subjective. "It's disgusting" is not an objective reason to legislate against something because it is a matter of preference.Not necessarily. Bad smells are objectively disgusting. So is the sight of fecal matter, or rotting organic materials in trash. Objective means there is a rational reason to be disgusted by them. The government should legislate against them if there are public spaces, and the Courts should intervene if someone is exposing a neighboring property owner. Nude people, on the other hand, aren't objectively disgusting. You have no rational reason to be disgusted by them. You should re-think your subjective preference, try and be more rational about it. The government also shouldn't prevent me from being nude, be it in public, or on land I own that's in sight of neighbors, for the same reason. P.S. As far as this whole "it's subjective, therefor I don't have to think about it rationally" argument: Arbitrarily (or rather, without knowing the real reason) picking harmless things to be afraid of or disgusted by is irrational. You're right, it's subjective, but it's subjective because you haven't tried to apply reason to the issue, not because it's impossible or unnecessary to do so. Reason can always be applied, to everything. Sometimes it's not necessary to bother, because it doesn't matter (like with "I don't like the color orange" or "I find spiders icky"), and in that case I'll buy the "whatever, who cares, it's just a subjective preference" argument, but in this case it is necessary to apply reason to the issue. The disgust/fear of nudity is rooted in premises accepted without judgment, due to peer pressure in a religiously dominated culture. They're not inconsequential. They affect you, and people around you. Harrison Danneskjold and thenelli01 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eiuol Posted May 31, 2014 Report Share Posted May 31, 2014 Yes, but your genitals are obviously different than the rest of your body with respect to sex. The difference between viewing and using is quite different. Seeing genitals really in no way negatively impacts the importance of sex, all it means is that sight of something has no special meaning. Actions can because that affects how you lead your life, while the sight of something has no such impact that I am aware of. You'd have a point if you demonstrate how the sight of a nude body objectively has an impact on your life, especially any impact on having sex. Except, that connection appears to be taken for granted. At best you can say "well, I just don't prefer it", which is fine, but not any argument against "disgust over any nudity is irrational". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thenelli01 Posted May 31, 2014 Report Share Posted May 31, 2014 (edited) Not necessarily. Bad smells are objectively disgusting. So is the sight of fecal matter, or rotting organic materials in trash. Objective means there is a rational reason to be disgusted by them. The government should legislate against them if there are public spaces, and the Courts should intervene if someone is exposing a neighboring property owner. Nude people, on the other hand, aren't objectively disgusting. You have no rational reason to be disgusted by them. You should re-think your subjective preference, try and be more rational about it. The government also shouldn't prevent me from being nude, be it in public, or on land I own that's in sight of neighbors, for the same reason. P.S. As far as this whole "it's subjective, therefor I don't have to think about it rationally" argument: Arbitrarily (or rather, without knowing the real reason) picking harmless things to be afraid of or disgusted by is irrational. You're right, it's subjective, but it's subjective because you haven't tried to apply reason to the issue, not because it's impossible or unnecessary to do so. Reason can always be applied, to everything. Sometimes it's not necessary to bother, because it doesn't matter (like with "I don't like the color orange" or "I find spiders icky"), and in that case I'll buy the "whatever, who cares, it's just a subjective preference" argument, but in this case it is necessary to apply reason to the issue. The disgust/fear of nudity is rooted in premises accepted without judgment, due to peer pressure in a religiously dominated culture. They're not inconsequential. They affect you, and people around you. I have no disgust/fear of nudity qua nudity. It is simply specific people nude -- namely: overweight, old ugly men. And I use the term nudity a bit looser than you, I think, to include lack of clothing -> no clothing. It is the whole picture, not simply the genitals. It is unpleasant to the eyes -- but, I concede, I don't know how to justify my distain rationally. I only can say that it is an ugly sight, and I prefer not to surround myself with ugly. Why is it ugly? I'm not sure. I will say -- I am not suggesting to censor it in public areas. Edited May 31, 2014 by thenelli01 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrison Danneskjold Posted June 2, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 2, 2014 The population's standards are usually anti-public nudity, so the government should follow along. The population's standards are also anti-reason and anti-self. . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiral Architect Posted June 2, 2014 Report Share Posted June 2, 2014 (edited) How about, if public spaces must exist, the authorities should attempt to manage it according to the normal standards of the population. The population's standards are usually anti-public nudity, so the government should follow along. Privatize the public space. What isn't practical to privatize should be rented from Private Owners which amounts to the same thing. It would solve a lot of other problems as well. Edited June 2, 2014 by Spiral Architect Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.