Re: Criminal syllogism

[Daniel Kronemann <kron4155@uidaho.edu>]

On Sat, 20 Jul 2002, Dale Courtney wrote:

> A majority of challenges to breast regulations claim such laws violate
> the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees equal
> protection.
>
> As my dad used to say, "that dog won't hunt." Courts have rejected
> that argument, saying female breasts are different than male breasts
> because they are generally understood to be "private areas."
>
> Of course, this goes back to the equivocation in the use of the word
> "equal." There are myriad ways in which men and women are equal; there
> are significant ways in which they are not. It is the difference which
> liberals like to either ignore or pretend don't exist.

No we don't.  We acknowledge the difference.  But we assert that the
difference doesn't necessitate a difference in legal protection.  And I
don't think it really matters what is "generally understood to be 'private
areas.'"  What matters is what a woman determines to be a private area of
the body.  For the sake of the conversation I would suggest that saying we
ignore and don't acknowledge ANY differences (biological) between men and
women should be abandoned simply because it is not true.  Its like saying
the sky is green, and no matter how many times you assert it or tell
yourself that others are saying it, it doesn't make it true.  The main
origin of the difference in opinion in this matter is that there are
differences in what people think how these differences should translate
into legal matters.  I personally think, while acknowledging differences,
one sex should not be forced to cover up while the other is allowed to
uncover.  Either everyone covers up or everyone gets to make the decision.
You assert, as I have understood it, that because differences exist,
differences in legal decisions should also take place.  This is a
suggestion on my part in directing the conversation.

Daniel