The Free Talk Live BBS

Free Talk Live => General => Topic started by: BonerJoe on July 27, 2009, 10:03:05 PM

Title: Topless protest
Post by: BonerJoe on July 27, 2009, 10:03:05 PM
What do you think?
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: TimeLady Victorious on July 27, 2009, 10:14:39 PM
no one wants to see your manboobs
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: MacFall on July 27, 2009, 11:52:53 PM
I think the only reason people freak out over naked boobs is because there aren't enough of them. Nudity is not sexual, and sex isn't dirty anyway. The human body is not something to hide. People should just grow the f up.

That said, I think that if the goal is to bring people who are already radically libertarian to NH, then it will have some success. Maybe. But the protest will backfire wildly in terms of bringing people over to liberty.
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: Lindsey on July 27, 2009, 11:55:55 PM
The human body is not something to hide.

Mine is.   :lol:

No fucking way! 
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: Harry Tuttle on July 28, 2009, 12:31:41 AM
I support topless protest.
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: Evil Muppet on July 28, 2009, 12:48:18 AM
I personally do not think it is a good idea for a protest.  That's all I'm going to say.  Now bring on the boobies. 
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: One two three on July 28, 2009, 02:35:57 AM
Be topless anytime.  Nudity is perfectly legal in most of VT and excepted at many watering holes, http://www.swimmingholes.org/
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: LibertarianMan on July 28, 2009, 09:51:56 AM
The human body is not something to hide.

Mine is.   :lol:

No fucking way! 


Fuck! I'd pay to see your tits exposed to me and to the public! ROTFFLMFAO!!!
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: Laetitia on July 28, 2009, 11:13:30 AM
The human body is not something to hide.

Mine is.   :lol:

I'm not likely to run around topless either, but doesn't it tick you off just a bit that it's something you could be arrested for?
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: libertylover on July 28, 2009, 02:30:40 PM
Be topless anytime.  Nudity is perfectly legal in most of VT and excepted at many watering holes, http://www.swimmingholes.org/

They missed my favorite swimming hole of my youth.  To it's credit it is a banned location for military personnel with only one exception for scuba training.  http://www.seymourjohnson.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=4397 (http://www.seymourjohnson.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=4397)  I was wondering why it didn't make it on your list of swimming holes.  Acapulco Lake isn't for wussies.  When I swam there we didn't have a traditional life guard.  There was this dude with a pistol who would shoot snakes if he saw one.   And that was our life guard.  As for swimming you had better know how is all I have to say.  I think modesty and social conformity kept people in their swimming suits.  It is private property maybe there was a rule I just don't remember.  It didn't cross my mind to want to swim nude.
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: LibertarianMan on July 28, 2009, 04:09:54 PM
The human body is not something to hide.

Mine is.   :lol:

I'm not likely to run around topless either, but doesn't it tick you off just a bit that it's something you could be arrested for?

I think it's pathetic that you could be arrested for it, and yet men who are topless don't get arrested for exposing underarm pit hair.

Hence, the double standard of the state and its justifications and rationalizations for it.
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: libertylover on July 28, 2009, 04:39:59 PM
There was a quirk in the law in NC about public nudity.  An individual of the opposite sex had to bring charges for an arrest to be made.  So when striking was the fad the female participants typically didn't get arrested but the guys oh well.   
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: JohnnyRebel on July 28, 2009, 05:45:17 PM
If the participants aren't walking around their homes topless then this protest is just childish and really, it's just bringing attention to yourself and doing nothing for "achieving more liberty".
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: Laetitia on July 28, 2009, 05:49:29 PM
If the participants aren't walking around their homes topless then this protest is just childish and really, it's just bringing attention to yourself and doing nothing for "achieving more liberty".

Again, I don't generally walk around topless, but I do walk through the house half-dressed to get to the dryer when I need a top or bra, or to grab what I need to iron a blouse. So, there :P.
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: Lindsey on July 28, 2009, 05:53:26 PM
If the participants aren't walking around their homes topless then this protest is just childish and really, it's just bringing attention to yourself and doing nothing for "achieving more liberty".

Again, I don't generally walk around topless, but I do walk through the house half-dressed to get to the dryer when I need a top or bra, or to grab what I need to iron a blouse. So, there :P.

I don't spend much time not fully clothed.  I would be uncomfortable with it, and I don't think topless protesting would be effective.  I think the news sources would be focused on the fact that women were topless instead of focused on the issue they're raising awareness/protesting about. 
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: alaric89 on July 28, 2009, 06:27:00 PM
The Liberals are already fighting for this issue. Libertarians have bigger fish to fry. I have no desire to have a bunch of "registered sex offenders" on the libertarian roster.
Admittedly Ziggy's idea to have topless Transvestites would be interesting.
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: LibertarianMan on July 28, 2009, 07:06:59 PM
The Liberals are already fighting for this issue. Libertarians have bigger fish to fry. I have no desire to have a bunch of "registered sex offenders" on the libertarian roster.
Admittedly Ziggy's idea to have topless Transvestites would be interesting.

Even if the "registered sex offenders" on that roster love 15-year-old teen titties exposed to the public???

LMAO!!
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: TimeLady Victorious on July 28, 2009, 07:09:59 PM
The Liberals are already fighting for this issue. Libertarians have bigger fish to fry. I have no desire to have a bunch of "registered sex offenders" on the libertarian roster.
Admittedly Ziggy's idea to have topless Transvestites would be interesting.

*transsexuals

it's been done, they got arrested because they have female tits

OH NOES BARE BREASTS PROTECT THE CHILDREN
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: freeAgent on July 28, 2009, 10:30:39 PM
It's already legal in NYC.  What kind of totalitarian hellhole is New Hampshire when New York City, of all places, is more free!?  http://www.flickr.com/photos/ilkeryoldas/sets/72157594585236666/

:lol:
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: inane on July 29, 2009, 01:36:04 AM
Im in favor of things that make sense. This double standard makes none. Im against the nonsense.

And that dipshit who wrote the thing about evolution proving that breasts should be hidden because they are attractive... first of all he didn't explain why attractive attributes should be hidden. He only stated that said attributes were attractive. And second, breasts aren't the only thing to evolve to attract mates. Lips evolved to look more like vaginal lips. Women even paint them red to make them look more pussy-like. And don't forget that whole pouty lip thing when they look all full and engorged and ready to go. Are people offended by lips? That guy failed miserably.

Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: alaric89 on July 29, 2009, 09:37:11 AM
The Liberals are already fighting for this issue. Libertarians have bigger fish to fry. I have no desire to have a bunch of "registered sex offenders" on the libertarian roster.
Admittedly Ziggy's idea to have topless Transvestites would be interesting.

Even if the "registered sex offenders" on that roster love 15-year-old teen titties exposed to the public???

LMAO!!
I hadn't thought of that. Defining what a sexual offender is, now that is worth fighting for. I don't believe a pedophile is someone attracted to a sexually mature girl, the cops beg to differ. If this outreach creates a debate about that, maybe it isn't such a waste of resources.
If people start to decide not to make such a tadoo over mammary glands that would be best for everybody. That whole Janet Jackson thing was embarrassing to anyone from the USA.
I changed my mind GO GIRLS. :D
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: BonerJoe on July 29, 2009, 10:18:26 PM
I've deleted all the posts in this thread that I don't agree with.
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: MasterShake on July 29, 2009, 10:30:02 PM
Before I can approve or disapprove, I have to see the boobs first.
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: blackie on July 29, 2009, 10:33:14 PM
I can't believe this gets people all worked up.
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: Lothar on July 29, 2009, 10:33:32 PM
Personally, I oppose all "laws" people don't agree to obey.  I oppose victimless crime laws first.  I mention it because I think it's wise to consider where your efforts will result in something productive.

I would support women who found this an important issue for them.  I'd also suggest considering if this is really the issue you want to focus your energy on.  Might get a better return on your investment with some other issue that didn't involve nude breasts distracting everyone.
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: hellbilly on July 29, 2009, 10:46:10 PM
I support this as long as my right to oggle is not infringed upon.

Sorry y'all, nudity is sexual in many cases.

As far as law goes though, I don't care whether people are fully clothed or completely nude.
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: davann on July 30, 2009, 12:31:33 AM
I find it silly. The mind of the masses can not be moved... on any issue. Plus, a little decorum from the FSP members would be far more shocking at this point.

I mean come on, at that last large gathering there was a guy in a fucking kilt with a broad sword strapped to his back. Some bare breasts ain't gonna top that.

This all is becoming circus like. Entertaining, but in the end a waste of time cause the guys doing the flying trapeze don't fall and break their necks and the lion doesn't take a chunk flesh out of his tamer. 
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: spicynujac on July 30, 2009, 12:39:34 AM
Can't the CIV/DIS folks come up with some better ideas? This idea is so old. After the feminists got the right to go topless in Toronto, very few females actually did it. It's been probably more than 10 years that Toronto has allowed women to go topless, and I have never seen any female go topless, and I don't know anyone who has. I imagine it only happens at the gay pride parades, and that's about it.

So then....what's all this about women wanting to actually do it, and then when they are allowed to do it....they still don't want to do it?!?!?!?

Freedom doesn't have to be exercised to be valuable.  The argument in the drug war is often made that drug usage would likely *decrease* if it were legalized, as many are attracted to illegal drugs due to their contraband status.  I haven't peed in my yard in the last year, but I like the fact that I can do so if I want to.  The state of being free is a mental state of clarity and wonder, not a physical observation of what people do or don't do.  Heck, many slaves lived better lives than some people today with awful jobs, but they weren't free.
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: BonerJoe on July 30, 2009, 01:11:16 AM
It seems that the "debaters" are all disagreeing, while the "doers" all support it. Hmm.
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: Evil Muppet on July 30, 2009, 03:24:38 AM
(http://www.forumammo.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10071/Motivation1-1.jpg) (http://www.forumammo.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10071/Motivation1-1.jpg)
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: Alex Libman 14 on July 30, 2009, 11:22:37 AM
no one wants to see [BonerJoe's] manboobs

Well, I'm a little curious if they're bigger than mine...   (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-laughing015.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: BonerJoe on July 30, 2009, 12:28:52 PM
Lew Rockwell started the paleo-libertarian thing in order to avoid this exact sort of hippie buffoonery.

Yes, and they can HAVE their debate club.
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: Euler on July 30, 2009, 02:03:20 PM
While I never have and don't have any plans to practice Civ-Dis., I generally respect those who do.  I think it is morally wrong and practically stupid to offend people's non-political beliefs.  For example, anti-war protesting is valid even to the extent of protesting the troops themselves but putting a Crucifix in a jar of urine is rude, crude and unclassy.  To the matter at hand.  I find Ian's tactic of defining his opinion on sexual and related matters as enlightened and others' opinions as prudish to be objectionable.  This is a cultural issue.  There is no objective answer.  On many occasions, Ian has also said that he doesn't want "bigots" to be associated with the liberty movement because the media will try to portray the liberty movement as inherently racist.  But with the topless issue, he's done a 180 and doesn't seem to care about the fallout.

I try my best to distinguish between statist institutions and market institutions.  Some of the more libertine libertarians seem to think that cultural institutions need rejected along with gov't ones. 

This proposed protest is going to take place on public property.  Are the Civ-Dis. voluntarists trying to claim that anyones goes on public property and that no one has the right to claim to be offended?
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: Evil Muppet on July 30, 2009, 02:49:07 PM
I don't see anything wrong with Ian's tactic for attempting to define himself as enlightened.  Especially since I will use similar tactics to say that he is foolish.  Some of what he is doing and saying is foolish, pigheaded and wrong.  Some of what he is saying is also right.   

And what you need to realize is that Ian is not the liberty movement.  He doesn't speak for me.  He doesn't speak for a lot of other libertarians.  He speaks only for himself and since he has a radio program and can draw a lot of attention to himself it can appear as if he has  a lot more influence than he actual does.  I'm not even sure if a majority of liberty activists here even agree with him.  You have a small cadre around Keene which enjoys engaging in shenanigans but you also have many others in other parts of the state which you don't hear about much.     

I think that a lot of the civil disobedience stuff they do over there is very stupid.  It isn't well thought out and most of the time is done mainly to impress each other rather than as part of some overall strategy advancing towards liberty.  It is also extremely stupid when they are going through this civil disobedience based on bogus nonsensical political or legal theories. 

Personally I think that the civil disobedience could be extremely effective.  It needs to be a sustained campaign of civil disobedience instead of a few random acts.  I do not like random acts of anything.  The camera in the courtroom thing seems to be going along the right tracks in my humble opinion though I think when they get off onto shaky legal theories like Sam's right to remain silent sctick then they get into trouble.     

That said.  I don't think the topless protest is a horrible idea.  it can be a good thing if it is executed right. 
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: Euler on July 30, 2009, 03:11:42 PM
Evil Muppet,

I agree with almost everything you wrote.  From a P.R. perspective, I think the topless thing is a disaster.  If I were walking in the park with kids (I know, "its for the children"), I would be very annoyed at seeing a protest like that.

I didn't mean to suggest that Ian is the liberty movement.  Unfortunately, he just has a bigger microphone and he is a bit of a bully.  As a voluntaryist, I find Ian to be a pretty poor advocate for liberty.  He lets his own cultural prejudices cloud his message.  He seems to think that the NAP is everybody's only moral code.  When it is only a minimum and only addresses when the use of force is proper. 
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: Rillion on July 30, 2009, 04:11:16 PM
I agree with almost everything you wrote.  From a P.R. perspective, I think the topless thing is a disaster.  If I were walking in the park with kids (I know, "its for the children"), I would be very annoyed at seeing a protest like that.

Why? 
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: Zat on July 30, 2009, 04:33:34 PM
I agree with almost everything you wrote.  From a P.R. perspective, I think the topless thing is a disaster.  If I were walking in the park with kids (I know, "its for the children"), I would be very annoyed at seeing a protest like that.

Why? 

The Pilgrims silly.




 :lol:
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: Euler on July 30, 2009, 04:58:32 PM
I agree with almost everything you wrote.  From a P.R. perspective, I think the topless thing is a disaster.  If I were walking in the park with kids (I know, "its for the children"), I would be very annoyed at seeing a protest like that.

Why?  

Because I'm an old-fashioned square who thinks that it isn't proper for little kids to be seeing topless women.  I think when people go a "public" park, they have an expectation to not see topless women.  This is why there should be no such thing as public land.  It results in chaos. Everybody can make some claim that they are being offended by something. Right now, though, there is "public" land.  And I don't think it's unreasonable for some kind of rules to be set for its use.  

Some years back in Morristown, NJ, a homeless man who stunk was hanging out in the public library.  In our current society, public libraries are run by the gov't.  Should he have been kicked out of the library because he stunk, or did he have just as much right to be there as the other patrons?

If the point of the topless protest is to point out how much strife public property results in, fine.  But I don't think the general public is going to perceive it that way.

Where do you draw the line at what is appropriate for other peoples children to see in a public park or comparable venue?
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: BonerJoe on July 30, 2009, 05:04:14 PM
Where do you draw the line at what is appropriate for other peoples children to see in a public park or comparable venue?

If I wanted my kids to be shielded from victimless activities, I suppose I would have to keep them locked up in my property and not let them escape.
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: Euler on July 30, 2009, 05:37:25 PM
Where do you draw the line at what is appropriate for other peoples children to see in a public park or comparable venue?

If I wanted my kids to be shielded from victimless activities, I suppose I would have to keep them locked up in my property and not let them escape.

Are you saying there is nothing inappropriate, though non-criminal, that people can do in public that may be viewed by children?
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: BonerJoe on July 30, 2009, 05:48:42 PM
Where do you draw the line at what is appropriate for other peoples children to see in a public park or comparable venue?

If I wanted my kids to be shielded from victimless activities, I suppose I would have to keep them locked up in my property and not let them escape.

Are you saying there is nothing inappropriate, though non-criminal, that people can do in public that may be viewed by children?

Not by my standards.
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: Rillion on July 30, 2009, 06:18:10 PM
 I think when people go a "public" park, they have an expectation to not see topless women.

It depends on which people.  People in Germany, for example, do  have an expectation to see topless women in the park, because it's legal there (or it was, last I checked).  When it's warm, women like to sunbathe there topless.  I have very little regard for people's expectations as a barometer for what is okay and what isn't. 

Quote
This is why there should be no such thing as public land.  It results in chaos. Everybody can make some claim that they are being offended by something. Right now, though, there is "public" land.  And I don't think it's unreasonable for some kind of rules to be set for its use.

Currently, the rules say that freedom of expression exists on public land.  Going topless, like any other choice about one's appearance, is a form of expression. 

Quote
Where do you draw the line at what is appropriate for other peoples children to see in a public park or comparable venue?

I don't.  What children see is irrelevant to my standards about what people should and should not be allowed to do.   If you don't want your children to see something, it is your job to make sure they don't and not my job to avoid doing it. 
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: AndreInKnysna on July 30, 2009, 06:57:16 PM
Protests intended to shock, will convey the message to only a few intellectually curious minds in Keene but regrettably will shun those who don't really bother to think hard about the real message these protests intends to convey. We have no difficulty selling the message of freedom to this class of intellectuals, the challenge is however to get the message to those who don't think much about issues, the broader audience.

If Ian wants to achieve liberty in his lifetime, he should discourage activism that provides ammunition to the enemies of freedom who enjoy characterising Free Staters as: gun toting, pot smoking, boob flashing, anti government anarchists. Any suggestion that his movement fits this characterisation will drive the less intellectually curious away from the message of freedom.

As for me, I don't mind these protests, in fact I won't miss the topless protest for anything in the world. But if you ask me if this advance the message of freedom: no it will only arm the enemies of freedom. I'm sure the smart folks in Keene can come up with smarter ideas. 
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: Soundwave on July 30, 2009, 07:15:56 PM
Can't the CIV/DIS folks come up with some better ideas? This idea is so old. After the feminists got the right to go topless in Toronto, very few females actually did it. It's been probably more than 10 years that Toronto has allowed women to go topless, and I have never seen any female go topless, and I don't know anyone who has. I imagine it only happens at the gay pride parades, and that's about it.

So then....what's all this about women wanting to actually do it, and then when they are allowed to do it....they still don't want to do it?!?!?!?

LOL.

Sad thing is that this just gives people another opportunity to call white guys names like "sexist", "racist", "homophobe" ....and what not. I find it interesting to see such name-calling within the liberty movement, and it makes me think the name callers are really, deep down, just a bunch of no class dirty hippies.

I actually did see a topless woman in Toronto when I was there a few years ago. Anyway, if it were legal, it would be very rare for me to take my shirt off, but there are definitely rare situations, particularly when it was really hot out, where it'd be nice to have the option.
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: davann on July 30, 2009, 07:19:18 PM
Quote

Where do you draw the line at what is appropriate for other peoples children to see in a public park or comparable venue?
Quote

I don't.  What children see is irrelevant to my standards about what people should and should not be allowed to do.   If you don't want your children to see something, it is your job to make sure they don't and not my job to avoid doing it.  

Wow, that is just retarded. So is BJs opinion. Of course there are things that parents do not wish their children to see and to do what ever feels good to you no matter if is appropriate for children would just make you an asshole not enlightened. There are community standards. If you want to go topless in the park move to fucking Germany.

By your standards it would be fine for a couple that engages in golden showers to go ahead and bogey down in the park with children around. Thats fucking retarded.
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: Coconut on July 30, 2009, 07:24:01 PM
It seems that the "debaters" are all disagreeing, while the "doers" all support it. Hmm.

I guess I'm the exception.
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: davann on July 30, 2009, 07:28:32 PM
Can't the CIV/DIS folks come up with some better ideas? This idea is so old. After the feminists got the right to go topless in Toronto, very few females actually did it. It's been probably more than 10 years that Toronto has allowed women to go topless, and I have never seen any female go topless, and I don't know anyone who has. I imagine it only happens at the gay pride parades, and that's about it.

So then....what's all this about women wanting to actually do it, and then when they are allowed to do it....they still don't want to do it?!?!?!?

LOL.

Sad thing is that this just gives people another opportunity to call white guys names like "sexist", "racist", "homophobe" ....and what not. I find it interesting to see such name-calling within the liberty movement, and it makes me think the name callers are really, deep down, just a bunch of no class dirty hippies.

I actually did see a topless woman in Toronto when I was there a few years ago. Anyway, if it were legal, it would be very rare for me to take my shirt off, but there are definitely rare situations, particularly when it was really hot out, where it'd be nice to have the option.

Again, Germany might be your best option. Otherwise leave your shirt on, please. I'll leave mine on too.
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: Rillion on July 30, 2009, 07:52:38 PM
Quote

Where do you draw the line at what is appropriate for other peoples children to see in a public park or comparable venue?
Quote

I don't.  What children see is irrelevant to my standards about what people should and should not be allowed to do.   If you don't want your children to see something, it is your job to make sure they don't and not my job to avoid doing it.  

Wow, that is just retarded. So is BJs opinion. Of course there are things that parents do not wish their children to see and to do what ever feels good to you no matter if is appropriate for children would just make you an asshole not enlightened. There are community standards. If you want to go topless in the park move to fucking Germany.

You're calling me retarded, while in the same breath demanding that I either obey community standards or move to Germany?  I don't think I care to count how many levels of stupidity there are in that statement, considering that it was once a community standard in Germany to, you know, exterminate Jews. 

So I won't.  In short, I'll just say: Fuck community standards.   No amount of disapproving people can turn a harmless act into a harmful one.

Quote
By your standards it would be fine for a couple that engages in golden showers to go ahead and bogey down in the park with children around.

No, because while urine is generally sterile it has the potential to carry certain diseases, thus endangering the general population-- child or otherwise. 

Sorry, but "I don't want my kid to see that" is not an argument on its own for outlawing any  behavior in others.  If you don't want your kid to witness something that doesn't harm anyone, that's your problem to deal with. 

Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: Euler on July 30, 2009, 08:08:20 PM
 I think when people go a "public" park, they have an expectation to not see topless women.

It depends on which people.  People in Germany, for example, do  have an expectation to see topless women in the park, because it's legal there (or it was, last I checked).  When it's warm, women like to sunbathe there topless.  I have very little regard for people's expectations as a barometer for what is okay and what isn't. 

Quote
This is why there should be no such thing as public land.  It results in chaos. Everybody can make some claim that they are being offended by something. Right now, though, there is "public" land.  And I don't think it's unreasonable for some kind of rules to be set for its use.

Currently, the rules say that freedom of expression exists on public land.  Going topless, like any other choice about one's appearance, is a form of expression. 

Quote
Where do you draw the line at what is appropriate for other peoples children to see in a public park or comparable venue?

I don't.  What children see is irrelevant to my standards about what people should and should not be allowed to do.   If you don't want your children to see something, it is your job to make sure they don't and not my job to avoid doing it. 

I wished you read what I wrote more carefully.  I didn't just say that what children might see affects my standards on what people should or shouldn't do.  I qualified it by saying in a public park or comparable venue.  So you are saying you can do anything non-criminal in a public park where children may be present and thats OK.  I also thought it was obvious that we were talking about a standard park in the United States.
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: Rillion on July 30, 2009, 08:58:48 PM
I wished you read what I wrote more carefully.  I didn't just say that what children might see affects my standards on what people should or shouldn't do.  I qualified it by saying in a public park or comparable venue.  So you are saying you can do anything non-criminal in a public park where children may be present and thats OK.  I also thought it was obvious that we were talking about a standard park in the United States.

Yep, we are and yes I am. To put it bluntly: the presence of children does not make any difference, as far as I'm concerned, in terms of what it should be legal to do in public. 
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: davann on July 30, 2009, 09:47:29 PM

You're calling me retarded, while in the same breath demanding that I either obey community standards or move to Germany?  I don't think I care to count how many levels of stupidity there are in that statement, considering that it was once a community standard in Germany to, you know, exterminate Jews. 

So I won't.  In short, I'll just say: Fuck community standards.   No amount of disapproving people can turn a harmless act into a harmful one.

No, because while urine is generally sterile it has the potential to carry certain diseases, thus endangering the general population-- child or otherwise. 

Sorry, but "I don't want my kid to see that" is not an argument on its own for outlawing any  behavior in others.  If you don't want your kid to witness something that doesn't harm anyone, that's your problem to deal with. 



I'm not calling you personally retarded. Just this current line of thinking which is actually unusual for you. We all agree consensual acts that do not harm others should not be outlawed. It is the community standards that you seem so willing to disregard that bothers me. I don't get this alienation mentality. It is clear most of are already in a sub culture already. Square pegs in round holes. Why make it worse with acts that are not socially acceptable. This is where the topless protest breaks down. I thought CD was about getting the community to see the tyranny of the system.  All this is going to do is make the old married men happy and really piss off their fat wives who in turn will bitch and moan about it so much the men will eventually turn against it also.

Another point, killing Jews was not a community standard for most of the people in Germany at any point in time. This isn't even a good comparison since this involves acts that are harmful to others. Those types of acts of course should be acted against.

Since you did not like the golden showers  :D ...example, how about a couple fucking in the park for all to see?
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: blackie on July 30, 2009, 10:00:16 PM
If a dog can piss at the park, I should be able to piss at the park.
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: BonerJoe on July 30, 2009, 10:24:09 PM
which is sort of like a drunk guy at a party ready to fight everybody. This mentality is encapsulated with a type of , "Fuck you....I'll do whatever I want.....what are you going to do about it?" slogan.

I swear, every time some libertarian wants to actually DO something libertarian in public, all the asshats have to come out and give their opinion that you're gonna fuck everything up for them. THERE AIN'T NOTHING TO FUCK UP. There's no precious free fuckin' society out there.
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: spicynujac on July 30, 2009, 11:24:54 PM
Awful lot of prudes and control freaks for a libertarian forum...
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: davann on July 30, 2009, 11:41:13 PM
Awful lot of prudes and control freaks for a libertarian forum...

Libertarianism is not equal to hedonism. One can be a libertarian and a hedonist or one can be a libertarian and a "prude". Not sure what you mean by control freak. I see none of that in any of the posts.

If libertarians are unable to govern themselves in a manner acceptable to social norms then how are they going to convince anyone it is the right way to live?
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: BonerJoe on July 31, 2009, 12:27:35 AM
If libertarians are unable to govern themselves in a manner acceptable to social norms then how are they going to convince anyone it is the right way to live?

LOL, convince...
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: Rillion on July 31, 2009, 01:29:18 AM
We all agree consensual acts that do not harm others should not be outlawed.

Great; then there is no disagreement. 
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: Bill Brasky on July 31, 2009, 01:43:02 AM
Topless women in public is hardly where I'd draw the line of acceptable public behavior.  Grow the fuck up.  Its just tits, who fuckin' cares? 

I absolutely think there should be some lines of community standards, but I don't think tits are one of them.  If your kids aren't shocked and/or mentally scarred when a man is shirtless, why should it be any different for a woman?

The people who skip from this directly to public fucking are mentally challenged.   
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: Evil Muppet on July 31, 2009, 03:32:43 AM
What I think is funny is that people get more upset about the possibility of kids seeing a set of boobs than they will at gross depictions  of violence on television.  You can show endless streams of gratuatous violence, death, torture and other barbarities and no one bats an eye but you show one fucking nipple at the Superbowl and there is a goddamned melt down.  God forbid you show some tits in public.   

Or maybe if it was black, saggy and has a chicken bone through her nose it would be ok.
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: freeAgent on July 31, 2009, 07:21:20 AM
I do not understand why people think that women need to keep their shirts on "for the children".  There is absolutely nothing about female breasts that is harmful to children.  Are they forgetting that women use their breasts to feed babies?  It's nothing they haven't seen before.
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: Euler on July 31, 2009, 07:27:41 AM
I do not understand why people think that women need to keep their shirts on "for the children".  There is absolutely nothing about female breasts that is harmful to children.  Are they forgetting that women use their breasts to feed babies?  It's nothing they haven't seen before.

All of the women I've seen breastfeeding in public do it discretely.

I thought the point of CIV-DIS was to affect political change.  Why is it being used by some to affect change in people's personal sexual and/or religious beliefs?  Of course, people can agitate for whatever they want but I don't see the urgency of protesting women's lack of right to go topless in a public place.
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: blackie on July 31, 2009, 08:36:35 AM
Why not full nudity?

Then guys can join the protest too.
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: Frost on July 31, 2009, 12:30:26 PM
Forget children seeing the protest. What will you do if some happen upon it, decide that it is "like totally cool" and join it?  :shock:
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: Libertarianssuck on July 31, 2009, 12:31:36 PM
psh i ran around naked as a kid all the time. I didnt need no protest.
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: blackie on July 31, 2009, 12:39:02 PM
Why can't kids be in the protest too?
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: Alex Libman 14 on July 31, 2009, 02:32:40 PM
Nude protests are like hunger strikes - it is highly unethical to encourage / pressure people into one, and it is highly unethical to force-feed / force-clothe someone.  Why not call it a "clothing optional" protest and see what happens?  I predict an avalanche effect, with more and more people stripping as the events unfold.  :lol:
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: blackie on July 31, 2009, 02:40:54 PM
There should be a stripper pole at the protest.
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: BonerJoe on July 31, 2009, 02:56:55 PM
There should be a stripper pole at the protest.

They could just use a stop sign.
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: Rillion on July 31, 2009, 03:46:41 PM
I thought the point of CIV-DIS was to affect political change.  Why is it being used by some to affect change in people's personal sexual and/or religious beliefs?

Laws against going topless in public are political, dear.  Whatever your personal or religious beliefs on the subject are, you shouldn't support using force against people who don't share them. 
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: Libertarianssuck on July 31, 2009, 03:57:02 PM
THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN!  :x
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: davann on July 31, 2009, 04:16:57 PM

The people who skip from this directly to public fucking are mentally challenged.   

I don't.  What children see is irrelevant to my standards about what people should and should not be allowed to do.   If you don't want your children to see something, it is your job to make sure they don't and not my job to avoid doing it.
Are you saying there is nothing inappropriate, though non-criminal, that people can do in public that may be viewed by children?
Not by my standards.

I stand by the question.
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: Osborne on July 31, 2009, 04:25:25 PM
I wish they would just cut to the chase and go straight for the cannibalism protest.
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: Low-Eight on July 31, 2009, 04:29:15 PM
The men should wear a bikini top, to re-enforce the point, and to hide man boobs.
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: blackie on July 31, 2009, 04:35:42 PM
I wish they would just cut to the chase and go straight for the cannibalism protest.
I can sell you a placenta.
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: Frost on July 31, 2009, 05:05:55 PM
The men should wear a bikini top, to re-enforce the point, and to hide man boobs.

I think the idea of a continuum of exposure on both sides is a good one. If the cops want to break it up by arresting people let them chose and try to justify exactly what amount of exposure is unlawful.
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: Riddler on July 31, 2009, 06:28:25 PM
but I do walk through the house half-dressed to get to the dryer

PICS, OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: Riddler on July 31, 2009, 06:32:12 PM
Im in favor of things that make sense. This double standard makes none. Im against the nonsense.

And that dipshit who wrote the thing about evolution proving that breasts should be hidden because they are attractive... That guy failed miserably.



has this motherfucker seen a wet t-shirt contest at a biker party???

things that make you go .....buuuuhhhhhguuuuddddy  *shiver*

"not all breasts are created equal,
that's why they invented silicone"
                                              - Lord H
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith) on August 01, 2009, 05:46:13 AM
There should be a stripper pole at the protest.

They could just use a stop sign.
Ouch.
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: HOO-HAA on August 01, 2009, 05:50:44 AM
I heard about this on the show - I can't believe it's become such a big issue!  :shock:

Surely, whether minarchist or anarchist, political or non-political l(L)ibertarian, the basic rule is always the Wiccan-like principle of 'An it harm none, do what ye will.'

If you're not in favour of the 'protest' then don't go. You can even openly say it's a bad idea in your opinion - I can see no problem with any of that.

But, as a true lover of freedom, every single person on this board should proclaim the freedom-based rights of the women and men involved in the demo/ protest/ whatever to go ahead and do it whatever way they please.

Personally, I'd love to turn up to the event wearing a pair of plastic breasts!  :D
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: Terror Australis on August 01, 2009, 08:13:50 AM
If only megan fox was part of the topless protest you would have 20 000 sign ups overnight....
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: Laetitia on August 01, 2009, 10:20:05 AM
I wish they would just cut to the chase and go straight for the cannibalism protest.

why not topless cannibalism? 2 for 1 protest.
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: Terror Australis on August 01, 2009, 11:50:11 AM
Breasts not bombs  :)
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith) on August 01, 2009, 01:17:13 PM
Breasts not bombs  :)
Why not breasts AND F-bombs?
Title: Re: Topless protest
Post by: freeAgent on August 01, 2009, 07:02:22 PM
I do not understand why people think that women need to keep their shirts on "for the children".  There is absolutely nothing about female breasts that is harmful to children.  Are they forgetting that women use their breasts to feed babies?  It's nothing they haven't seen before.

All of the women I've seen breastfeeding in public do it discretely.

I thought the point of CIV-DIS was to affect political change.  Why is it being used by some to affect change in people's personal sexual and/or religious beliefs?  Of course, people can agitate for whatever they want but I don't see the urgency of protesting women's lack of right to go topless in a public place.

So tell me, is it possible to be "discrete" with your kid when their face is attached to your breast?  Sure, some people feed with bottles/formula, but many babies and even some toddlers breast feed.  They aren't even sexually attracted to the things.  Why do they need to be "protected" from them?

And as others have said, this isn't about tasteful/polite vs. distasteful/impolite.  This is about whether there should be a law against going topless.  Some muslims are offended by women who don't cover up their entire bodies.  Should we also make that a law?