On May 7, 6:41 am, -T. <stinsonnospam-fam...@charter.net> wrote:
On 6 May 2007 22:56:16 -0700,
wrote:
On May 6, 4:12 pm, "Neosapienis" <dario.west...@nospampowerup.com.au>
wrote:
Good Dad,
*You* try masturbating in public and see how many people will tolerate it!
Most people, including women, see it as a form of harassing behaviour. It
is not considered socially acceptable behaviour. End of story.
It's not harassment until one person asks another person to stop and
only if it's directed at themselves. You otherwise have no place to
ask someone to stop touching themselves.
Actually one has good legal footing to do just that.
And you had a good legal footing to force blacks to sit at the back of
the bus in the South before the 1960s. That's not an argument.
I could say I wonder what sort of Christian *you are* to be advocating
nudism or some other behavior, that one group or another might find
offensive as well.
You could, but so what?
So what is that your inability to recognize your hypocrisy is
astounding. While you plead for your freedom to go nude, you ignore
the rights of others. The fact that nudism is not sexual to you, and
that masturbation is, makes no difference.
The fact is, masturbation is an overt sexual
act, that when done in front of others without their consent, makes
them unwilling participants.
That's like saying that it makes someone an unwilling participant for
you to get nude near them. Are you then, against that as well?
Neither nudity nor masturbation make someone an unwilling participant
unless it is directed towards them. And while it may be in bad taste
to start off masturbating to someone, it's no more illegal than saying
"hello, I'd like to *****" until the other person rejects and it
becomes harassment. Not everyone is likely to be an unwilling
participant, and some may be quite stoked about someone masturbating
to them.
The Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, says:
Amendment IX (1791)
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
And other governments should follow this principle as well. That you
may not merely take the people's rights away for no good reason.
While the Constitution enumerates certain rights, principles upon
which laws may be overturned, there should likewise be principles upon
which restrictive laws are based. One such principle is regulation of
commerce - an exploitive activity which all must engage in, should
sensibly be regulated to protect the consumers and workers. Another
such principle, while not enshrined anywhere, may obviously be to
protect any persons or property from destruction or danger. Laws
against bringing glass to the beach, littering, or burning fires where
there are no facilities, sensibly protect public and private persons
and property. I find no such basis for laws against nudity, sex, or
masturbation in public.
If you'd like to argue otherwise, explain
pornography. Nudism, is not a sexual action, period.
Living is a sexual action. What is so wrong with sex?
In any case, I am a better Christian than you, to stand up
for unalienable rights, freedom, and tolerance of things which those
such as yourself might find offensive.
Your definition of Christian is standing up for public sex acts? Where
in the good news of Jesus Christ did you come up with that?
The good news of freedom, equality and tolerance.
-T.
.
