Is it a Woman's Right to go topless in public?

Topless or Not

  • Nipples

    Votes: 33 82.5%

  • Not

    Votes: 7 17.5%
  • Total voters
    40
Nutes and Nugs

Nutes and Nugs

Well-Known Member
If you read the link on the first post a woman is leading this movement.
Sorta know what you mean by most law makers are men/
Women are equil, they can get elected just like the men.

greg nr said:
You folks are missing a very important point. This isn't about boobs.

It's about male dominance. Men get to tell woman how to dress, what to cover, what they can do with their own bodies, even what men can do with a female and not get prosecuted (it isn't legitimate rape if....)..

So you might think it's all about woman, but you would be wrong. This is all about men. As is just about every decision concerning woman.

Sucks to be them.
Click to expand...
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Nutes and Nugs said:
I have nothing against them but wonder how (if passed) much trouble and abuse will result from it.
Those beaches could be overtaken by muscle bound lesbians who wont even let you on the beach.

Put it on the earth and 'man' will abuse it.
Click to expand...
normally closeted homosexuals like yourself are not so insecure about women.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
2 problems;

1. you believe the word 'tax' is a synonym for 'theft/steal'
2. your aversion to majority rule in a civil society

1. You believe taxes are theft because they're taken from you automatically, without your direct consent, even though you benefit from that which your taxes pay for (roads, bridges, etc.). Do you believe you should pay for the ability to live the lifestyle you lead having to utilize the roads and bridges taxes provide? In other words, do you feel any obligation to pay for the roads if you use them? If so, what do you believe would be a fair contribution, and how would a government agency determine that number for citizens?

2. If not democracy to govern a civil society, what would you use in its stead? How can we reach agreement as a country with more than 300 million occupants with differing beliefs and opinions?
Click to expand...

Thank you for asking. I'll explain...

It's important to distinguish the difference between offensive force and defensive force.

Taking another persons property or the fruit of their labor against that persons wishes is theft. If you or I did that, you would recognize it as theft. Which means neither of us has any right to do it. I bet we are in agreement so far?

If neither you or I have any right to do something, it is impossible for us to delegate that nonexistent right to any other person or any other group of persons EVEN IF THAT GROUP CALLS ITSELF GOVERNMENT. We are all simply people, all of us having the right of peaceful self determination, no more, no less.

Asserting authority over others or their justly acquired property against that persons will inverts justice. It attempts to justify the use of offensive force as a means, which is lame. It is just to use defensive force, not to use offensive force. Property is how we determine the line.


Your questions about roads are valid. Maybe I'll address them after you tell me how a person can delegate a right he doesn't possess. (You won't be able to, but it might be fun)


Civil society?
A civil society can never be governed via an imposed central authority hierarchy. The presence of the forcible hierarchy makes it impossible. I would trade with those who wanted to interact with me and leave those who didn't alone. Can you name ANY democratic society that EVER maintained that position?
 
Olive Drab Green

Olive Drab Green

Well-Known Member
twostrokenut said:
You may turn all your rights into priveledge all you want Mr libertarian...its voluntary....of course the fact that you are unaware of your doing this is the source of your ignorance.
Click to expand...
The fact that you are projecting yourself onto me like you think you know me shows that it is you who is ignorant. The fact that you react wanting so badly to overcome me, yet failing to do so, shows that you are pathetic.

Rights are above privileges, and what I stand for is for all to have, not for there to be haves and have-nots, save for those who want others to have not and for their partisans to have, for they deserve nothing they are willing to take from others. You reap what you sow.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top