Law Is Objectively Wrong: Topless Women Are Not! Re: Objective standards

["Ted Moffett" <ted_moffett@hotmail.com>]

EEVans, et. al.

I am saying the ordinance banning topless women and not men IS objectively 
wrong for several reasons.  I am saying the simple act of a women being 
topless in public is NOT objectively wrong.  I think the new nudity 
ordinance is just as silly an overreaching of government power as an 
ordinance that would ban men wearing pink dresses at the city park.

Ted

>From: eevans@moscow.com
>To: vision2020@moscow.com
>Subject: Re: Objective standards: Enjoy The Beautiful Summer Weather!
>Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 16:15:09 GMT
>
> > EEvans:
> >
> > Do you approve of the nudity ordinance just passed by the Moscow city
> > council?  If so, do you think it involves legislating culturally 
>relative
> > norms?  Why or why not?  You responded to the statement I made in a post 
>on
> > vision2020 that the new Moscow nudity ordinance was just legislating
> > culturally relative norms.  Now you ask why should anyone listen to my
> > reasons?   You are listening enough to reply, so why don't you answer 
>that
> > question?
> >
>See below.
>
> > You are merely making abstract philosophically based objections to the
> > logical difficulties ANYONE will have (including you!) who tries to 
>PROVE
> > their ethics are correct and someone else's differing ethics are false.
> >
> > I never stated I think it impossible to have objective standards across 
>all
> > times and cultures.  I merely pointed out that with SOME cultural norms, 
>a
> > good case can be made that they are relative and subjective.  You don't
> > think there are objective standards across all cultures and times that
> > command whether women wear pink or blue dresses, or whether men wear 
>pink or
> > blue shirts, or do you?  I think the issue of topless women is like 
>these
> > examples.  It is a culturally relative norm,
>
>What you're saying is our law which allows men, and not women, to go 
>topless is
>not *objectively* wrong.
>
> > and yes, I do disagree with
> > people who think the ordinance does not have inconsistencies.  What 
>makes me
> > right and others wrong?  If you would explain why my logic is incorrect 
>on
> > this issue, we could have a debate on this matter.  Perhaps I AM WRONG!
>
>I don't understand why you want to debate about it. If I read you 
>correctly,
>you think arguing about toplessness is like arguing blue vs. pink dresses. 
>I
>don't want to be inflamitory, so forgive me if it comes off that way. Why 
>do
>you want to debate about something which you think is subjective? On an 
>issue
>where there is no right or wrong, why do you argue that you are right and 
>they
>are wrong? And to answer your question above, why should I get involved in 
>it?
>
><snip>
>
>Thanks for continuing this discussion.
>
>Cheers,
>
>-Ed Evans
>
>
>---------------------------------------------
>This message was sent by First Step Internet.
>            http://www.fsr.net/
>
>




_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com