NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/soc/men/19455

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-17 | 2.8 KB

Xref: sparky soc.men:19455 soc.women:19770
Newsgroups: soc.men,soc.women
Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!sgiblab!darwin.sura.net!nntp.msstate.edu!Ra.MsState.Edu!wkl1
From: [e-mail] (Wing-Keong Loke                                               the consummate chronic prevaricator)
Subject: Re: Naked Man on Campus
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Keywords: public nudity
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: ra.msstate.edu
Organization: Mississippi State University
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 18:32:06 GMT
Lines: 47

In article <[e-mail]> "Amy Young Leith" <[e-mail]> writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Al Aldrich) writes:
>
>
>But you aren't "forcing" someone to be uncomfortable.  If they have a
>problem with nudity, it's their problem, not yours.  Just like if
>someone has a phobia of the color blue, am I supposed to not wear blue
>just so they won't have a fit?  (Analogy is not airtight, so if you
>can say no more than rag on the analogy, we know you have nothing else
...<stuff deleted>

>
>amy
>--
>[e-mail] for personal mail
>                All business mail to [e-mail]
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>       I only speak for myself.  Anyone who thinks differently is a fool.
>

    Oooh, I really like your logic.  So, if I rag on your analogy ONLY,
I have nothing else to say, huh?  How about
    (1) Maybe I WANT to rag only on your analogy
    (2) I particularly dislike your analogy
    (3) Maybe I think you're right but that your analogy is way of
logically.
    (4) I CAN'T HELP PASSING AN IMPLIED DARE!!!

    To wit, your analogy doesn't work because the problem is situational
and dependent on societal acceptance of what is/not acceptable.  Otherwise,
somebody would claim that since it's all right to take up arms to protect
one's country, it's equally all right to take up arms against people who
do you wrong--say a drunk driver runs down a family member.  Or, if one is
free to urinate/defecate anywhere in the privacy of one's house, one can do
the same in the public.

    The problem is that your whole argument rests on the stability of
your analogy.  If your analogy isn't right, your claim goes down the drain
with it.  So, if I rag your analogy only, it doesn't implies that I
have nothing to say.  More correctly, I see that as the weak link in the
chain.  Of course, there are a lot of deleted stuff that you wrote about.
So, even my refutation is not in itself concrete but situtational, i.e.
applicable only in the case of your analogy and does not imply anything
else.

Wing-Keong Loke