Compulsory clothing

Yes, under penalty of arrest.

2 (8.7%)

Yes, under penalty of ostracism.

3 (13%)

Undecided

0 (0%)

No, but I prefer to wear clothes even when the situation doesn't necessitate it

16 (69.6%)

No, the main reason I wear clothes most of the time is because other people compel me to.

2 (8.7%)

Total Members Voted: 21

[Zhwazi]

In situations where air temperature, precipitation, and lack of dangerous potentially airborne particles (sparks, shards, bullets, splashes of boiling hot liquids, etc) are permitting, I would prefer not to wear clothes. However, I find that society at large seems to prefer that I do and doesn't mind preventing me from doing so under penalty of force.

I'm trying to make this poll as uncharged as possible but I'm sure my bias probably shows through anyways. What do you think?

[atomiccat]

Under penalty of death everyone must wear transparent clothing and ugly people must wear clown costumes

[Cognitive Dissident]

On whose property?

[Alex Libman]

On whose property?

++

Although one should probably assume that modest clothing is a requirement until you explicitly learn otherwise.  Don't walk into a WalMart naked and then say, "hey, I didn't know"...  Some people can be seriously psychologically damaged by other people's nudity - that's not aggression on your part, but still bad feelings and bad karma all around.

[Zhwazi]

On whose property?

I reject ownership of land, but for your purposes let's say:

1. anyplace where the public normally has access to without passing by any signs saying "No tresspassing" or "Authorized Personnel Only" or unlocking locked doors in ways that don't use the key
2. On my front lawn, chilling in a lawn chair or mowing the grass
3. Lakes, beaches, and swimming-oriented locations that are generally publicly accessible

On whose property?

++

Although one should probably assume that modest clothing is a requirement until you explicitly learn otherwise.  Don't walk into a WalMart naked and then say, "hey, I didn't know"...  Some people can be seriously psychologically damaged by other people's nudity - that's not aggression on your part, but still bad feelings and bad karma all around.

That's a learned behavior though, and the better solution in the long run would be for this learned behavior to be unlearned than for people to be psychologically damaged and offended by seeing other people without clothes. No other animal has the same reaction to nudity of any species except humans, and not even all humans do, it appears to be a problem completely developed by humans.

[Cognitive Dissident]

On whose property?

I reject ownership of land, but for your purposes let's say:

1. anyplace where the public normally has access to without passing by any signs saying "No tresspassing" or "Authorized Personnel Only" or unlocking locked doors in ways that don't use the key
2. On my front lawn, chilling in a lawn chair or mowing the grass
3. Lakes, beaches, and swimming-oriented locations that are generally publicly accessible

1. Whoever's liable for the property gets to decide.
2. You get to decide.
3. Tragedy of the commons--if they don't want to see ugly, it's their problem, as with all "public" instances--unless "owned" or operated by a party, then they get to decide.

This is how property ownership settles problems.  Notice how the big political issues are about how "we" should use "our" "public" resources, such as the lawn in front of city hall, sidewalks, rooms in schools, etc.   People fight over who to exclude and how they should be forced to behave, because when everyone owns it, it's like no one does, and it gets trashed, and there is violence.  If someone owns it, they get to set the rules, and if someone doesn't like it, they can create a similar place to their liking.

[dalebert]

... it appears to be a problem completely developed by humans.

I believe this.

[Pizzly]

I always wondered, is "no shirt, no shoes, no service" legislated or a policy of small business owners? Seems like a simple solution to unwanted nudity on one's own property.

[Cognitive Dissident]

I always wondered, is "no shirt, no shoes, no service" legislated or a policy of small business owners? Seems like a simple solution to unwanted nudity on one's own property.

There's probably overlap between policy of business owners and "health codes," at least in the context of restaurants and grocery stores, and perhaps a few other types of establishments.

[Alex Libman]

I reject ownership of land  [...]

WTF?!  I like Zhwazi, but I gotta say...  FSP is being overrun by commies!  Statements like that are precisely what I'm trying to escape from!

That's a learned behavior though, and the better solution in the long run would be for this learned behavior to be unlearned than for people to be psychologically damaged and offended by seeing other people without clothes. No other animal has the same reaction to nudity of any species except humans, and not even all humans do, it appears to be a problem completely developed by humans.

I agree that people will eventually become desensitized to nudity, but clothing has many practical benefits.  And no, I don't mean pockets - pretty soon all things people typically carry in their pockets (currency, keys, ID's, cell phones, medicine, etc) will be done by tiny implantable electronic devices, including augmented reality contact lenses, etc.

And yet, as civilization progresses, I see people wearing more clothing, not less - thin (possibly transparent) protective layers that cover their bodies entirely to protect from uncontrollable exposure to environmental hazards.  As people gradually become less religious and more rational, they will want to do everything they can to increase their odds of "living long enough to live forever", which means getting less germs, free radicals, and other things that accelerate the aging process.

And then there's the issue of medical privacy - many diseases can be predicted by just looking closely at the person's skin or analyzing movement patterns, which computers can do very effectively.  And of course there's the risk of serious contagious diseases, bio-terrorism, etc.  There might even eventually be thought-reading technologies that people will want to protect themselves against, and we might need something a whole lot better than tin foil. 

[Zhwazi]

I reject ownership of land  [...]

WTF?!  I like Zhwazi, but I gotta say...  FSP is being overrun by commies!  Statements like that are precisely what I'm trying to escape from!

I can explain it in a different thread if you prefer.

1. Whoever's liable for the property gets to decide.
2. You get to decide.
3. Tragedy of the commons--if they don't want to see ugly, it's their problem, as with all "public" instances--unless "owned" or operated by a party, then they get to decide.

This is how property ownership settles problems.

This isn't a solution, this is a deferral of the question to people who in most cases have no business making the decision. This goes back to the land ownership issue again though.

[Cognitive Dissident]

I reject ownership of land  [...]

WTF?!  I like Zhwazi, but I gotta say...  FSP is being overrun by commies!  Statements like that are precisely what I'm trying to escape from!

I can explain it in a different thread if you prefer.

1. Whoever's liable for the property gets to decide.
2. You get to decide.
3. Tragedy of the commons--if they don't want to see ugly, it's their problem, as with all "public" instances--unless "owned" or operated by a party, then they get to decide.

This is how property ownership settles problems.

This isn't a solution, this is a deferral of the question to people who in most cases have no business making the decision. This goes back to the land ownership issue again though.

Excuse me, but it's not about a "solution." It's about the people who ABSOLUTELY have the business making the decision--the people who are responsible.  It DOES go back to property ownership; something you refuse to comprehend.

[Zhwazi]

Yes, it is about a solution. No, they don't have business making the decision. I don't refuse to comprehend land ownership, I just reject it as illegitimate. You should know as well as anyone here that 2 years ago I'd have argued the face off of anyone that said land ownership was illegitimate and in fact did when bentucker was the noisiest crank on the site. It's obviously not about refusal, it's about I understand what property is better now than I did back then and this enhanced understanding brings a rejection of ownership of space. So stop telling me things that you know are lies about what I believe or not and why.

You might as well have asked "In what country?" and cited the laws of each country I named.

The question was "Do you believe people should be required to wear clothes?". The question was not "How should we decide whether or not people should wear clothes?". You did not answer the first question, you replied to a question that was never asked. Even then you failed to answer what the second question would have been and swept the question under the rug for somebody else to answer. Would you like to answer the real question?

[Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)]

I think we found Ben Tucker.

[Cognitive Dissident]

Yes, it is about a solution. No, they don't have business making the decision. I don't refuse to comprehend land ownership, I just reject it as illegitimate. You should know as well as anyone here that 2 years ago I'd have argued the face off of anyone that said land ownership was illegitimate and in fact did when bentucker was the noisiest crank on the site. It's obviously not about refusal, it's about I understand what property is better now than I did back then and this enhanced understanding brings a rejection of ownership of space. So stop telling me things that you know are lies about what I believe or not and why.

You might as well have asked "In what country?" and cited the laws of each country I named.

The question was "Do you believe people should be required to wear clothes?". The question was not "How should we decide whether or not people should wear clothes?". You did not answer the first question, you replied to a question that was never asked. Even then you failed to answer what the second question would have been and swept the question under the rug for somebody else to answer. Would you like to answer the real question?

No, I shouldn't know.  I don't keep track of the specifics of your insanity--I'm only well aware you are.  The only way things work rationally is with private ownership of property, and history demonstrates it over and over.  It doesn't have anything to do with nation states.  It has to do with common sense.  The question "Do you believe people should be required to wear clothes?" hinges on who is in control, and if you're in control of what happens on your property, then it has everything to do with it.  I completely answered the question for each situation, so stop pretending I didn't.  Why do you have to be such a disingenuous prick?