Nudity in Public should not be illegal.

No?

Read this and this.

That's not the topic of this discussion though and I might have to read more into the literature on passive smoking.

 

Thanks for the links, but I think THIS organization holds more credibility on that subject overall.

 

Possible risks concern some.

Again, I WANT to see the naked guys in public. Still, I respect people's sensibilities about these things.

 

Okay, what's your point?

 

Sharing information was the point. People can think better if they have that.

 

Ok, going to a nudist beach is ok. Actually been to Spain and rather enjoyed it.
But, thinking about sitting in a restaurant, looking at some sweaty person across the room, no.
There's a place for everything.
So then, where does someone's personal freedom begin? Where mine ends?

 

It is legal in certain cities in the U.S. I forget which ones though.

 

Something visually unappealing is an infringement upon your rights?

What if Person A is wearing a rainbow sweater that Person B finds visually unappealing? Is person A infringing upon Person B's personal freedom?

 

No. The Public includes children. And also the adult me who doesn't want to see your junk.

I have a right to not be subjected to your nudity.

 

Under what basis?

Can't I say that I have a right to not be subjected to your bad taste in clothing?

 

Nudity in public should depend entirely on the nude person...some sights are just to ghastly for society. Imagine Rosanne nude...shudder! A crime aganst society.

 

LOL. I have a gut level reaction that nudity should not be allowed in most places, but I have a hard time finding a good argument against it. Maybe exposing children to certain things would be wrong, but I don't know. Maybe we are all just a bunch of prudes .

 

No because as per the tradition the courts and stuff rule in favor of the general public. You won't get any court to do anything about bad taste because nobody actually cares. This is why your logic fails.

People actually care about public nudity one way or the other (in this case most people don't want it).

 

This is not a discussion about tradition or the courts. You're using strawmen arguements.

You said:

Why is your right not to be subjected to my nudity any more legitimate than my right to not be subjected to your bad taste in clothing?

What's visually appealing is subjective...

 

so you think going from being a naked savage to wearing clothes and then going BACK to being naked is advancement?

I see it as devolving instead of evolving.

 

Oh good grief. Get a life.
How old are you?

 

Rights are given specifically by governments and courts. So that's why it's my right. Because its' a right that's given to me (where I live at least).

 

that's not a very strong argument because it could be used to justify almost anything.

 

Rights are not derived from the state.

Rights are natural. Government only serves to restrict those rights.

 

No one wants to see a fat person walking around in the nuddy. And nor do we want to see women walking around with pancake boobs, or wrinkled boobs and willies and gray hairs. No thank you.

I don't mind it if you're good looking, but if you're old and saggy, cover up.

 

What if I think you have an ugly face and it offends my taste to look at you. Should I force you to cover your face in public?

 

Everyone shows their faces in public. We don't show our most private parts, do we?

 

This isn't relevant to the point I'm trying to make:

What makes your subjective judgement about a body part any more valid than mine?

 

I think the great majority of adults aren't puritans who want puritan law. They simply want children free from exposure to adult life until the parents of said children deem them ready in their own right. Basically, the same reason we have age of consent law.

 

Right, but what makes sexual stimulation more inappropriate that it is deemed adult?

It's a biological function that has not been proven to be linked physiologically to future mental harm of a child.