Naked Female Storms Western Wall

[Alan B]

Why not? There are a load of religious dicks there.

[Svartalf]

it would be so simple to blow the whole western wall and the esplanade of the mosques up... no more silly behavior there.

[Forty Two]

...

So, by the same token, a naked person approaching one of the most sacred Jewish religious sites might trigger some issues with many members of that community. While it may appear humorous, or thought provoking to some, it clearly is a source of undue stress for many devout Jews, the majority of whom congregate, meditate, pray and worship in this space....

As well as reading this as an affront to decency and the sensibilities of a certain denomination of a particular faith one could also read it as a political protest or an artistic statement.

Just saying.

What does reading it as political protest or an artistic statement have to do with it? In the article I linked to the progressive SJW protest against the statue of the man in his underwear, they were protesting it despite that it was clearly an art piece (an artistic statement). Further, the whole progressive SJW notion of "safe spaces" is to be free from political ideas and protests that they say are dangerous and offensive.

You seem to be under the impression that I am somehow obliged to answer for, or to justify the arguments or positions of, so-called progressive SJWs.

I was looking for clarification on the statement you made, which you made the distinction between an affront to decency and sensibilities on the one hand, and political protest/artistic statement on the other. The progressive SJWs generally don't make that distinction. So, I'm not asking you to justify their arguments. I was wondering why you would say that one could read it as political protest - what's the point?

If a political protest was offensive to women (like, perhaps, protesting against women voting, or public displays and marches calling for women to go back to the kitchen and know their place), or if a public artistic statement was unwelcome to women and sexually charged, would that make them o.k?

I don't think there's a single, definitive answer to that - at least not to the question posed.

I think there is. I think that any such expressions would be permissible, even those that are unwelcome to women and sexually charged, just as expressions which are unwelcome to the religious and sexually charged are permissible.

My inquiry here with these posts is whether the naked woman is objectionable, or properly prohibited, if it were women, feminists, or SJWs making the argument that marginalized folks are offended, threatened or rendered anxious or triggered by the naked person, but not if the complainant is a fundamentalist Jewish man? What if the naked person was a man? Is there a different analysis?

If it did, then the whole concept of microaggressions and safe spaces goes right out the window.

How?

Because it's clear these religious folks are looking for their safe space here, to be free from a wandering naked person. And, they are clearly bothered by this. So, under a microaggression/safe space theory, the fundies are entitled to be free from this naked person. If they are not free from the naked person, because of some argument that the person is protesting or making art, then obviously the fact that it's a microaggression and invasion of their safe space is irrelevant. They just have to put up with it.

[rainbow]

That's my view of what the leftist progressive ideology logically entails.

So your view is wrong again.
Ho hum, something new?

Don't try to slime out of the Control Freakist Fascist demand.

Let them view it as they wish to view it.

Having a view as to how others who advance a particular ideology should view things, if they indeed follow that ideology, is not preventing anyone from viewing things as they wish to view them.

And, if suggesting how people should view concepts and ideas is a "freakist fascist demand," then you're indicting the entire leftist progressive and SJW community. Their whole purpose is to demand that other people see it their way. They think we should all view racism as something only whites can be, and sexist as something only men can be. They want us to stop using common English, and use made up "pronouns" on demand. They want us to stop using polite conversation and colloquialisms, because they might be "microaggressions" (my your hair looks nice - or, you speak english very well - -where are you from?) There is hardly a group that wants to tell people how to behave and what to think more than feminists, SJWs, and other leftist progressives.

Quite so you're as bad as those you criticize.

Go find a safe space and cry it out, or grow a pair.

[Forty Two]

That's my view of what the leftist progressive ideology logically entails.

So your view is wrong again.

I'm not, and at least I stated my argument. Your mere declaration that I'm wrong again is not an argument. You can feel free, if you are able, to point out what about my argument is wrong. "The whole thing" would be the answer of a middle schooler.

Don't try to slime out of the Control Freakist Fascist demand.

Let them view it as they wish to view it.

Having a view as to how others who advance a particular ideology should view things, if they indeed follow that ideology, is not preventing anyone from viewing things as they wish to view them.

And, if suggesting how people should view concepts and ideas is a "freakist fascist demand," then you're indicting the entire leftist progressive and SJW community. Their whole purpose is to demand that other people see it their way. They think we should all view racism as something only whites can be, and sexist as something only men can be. They want us to stop using common English, and use made up "pronouns" on demand. They want us to stop using polite conversation and colloquialisms, because they might be "microaggressions" (my your hair looks nice - or, you speak english very well - -where are you from?) There is hardly a group that wants to tell people how to behave and what to think more than feminists, SJWs, and other leftist progressives.

Quite so you're as bad as those you criticize.

Go find a safe space and cry it out, or grow a pair.

About what? I've not complained a bit about feeling unsafe or needing to cry about it. Identifying what the SJW's purposes are is not suggesting I need to be made safe from it. They have every right to be as wrong and absurd as they want to be. I have every right to argue against them. Only the SJWs seem to think that arguing against them is an affront of some kind.

[rainbow]

That's my view of what the leftist progressive ideology logically entails.

So your view is wrong again.

I'm not, and at least I stated my argument. Your mere declaration that I'm wrong again is not an argument. You can feel free, if you are able, to point out what about my argument is wrong.

It is your view which is wrong, not your argument.
If the premise is flawed, the rest of the argument is irrelevant.

Obvious, I'd've thought.

[Forty Two]

LOL - which premise(s) is(are) flawed?