Naked Rambler in court, in the nude.

[cronus]

If someone wants to keep defying the courts, prison is exactly where they belong. So long as the courts are not completely corrupt.

So the problem is not the law prohibiting public nakedness. It's him. HIM! He's the evil one! Hang him!

That's what he wants. Attention. Far better to case him in a concrete overcoat and drop in the sea...

Better pass a law that makes attention seeking a crime first. That way drowning him looks a little more as if it's not murder.

Only murder if they discover the body...

[mistermack]

If someone wants to keep defying the courts, prison is exactly where they belong. So long as the courts are not completely corrupt.

So the problem is not the law prohibiting public nakedness. It's him. HIM! He's the evil one! Hang him!

He's a dick. And determined to show it.

I actually agree with the law. Whether our social convention of covering up is illogical or not isn't really the issue. If he keeps going around naked, it will eventually cause violence.
I know plenty of people who would not be amused, and some that would give him a kicking, if they were in the wrong mood.
And there are plenty of people I've seen in action that would do a lot worse.

If you want to keep the peace, you have to acknowledge social norms, whether they are logical or not.

That's why we have the equally silly blasphemy laws.

[Strontium Dog]

We don't have blasphemy laws any more, but then, since when did reality matter where you're concerned.

[mistermack]

We don't have blasphemy laws any more, but then, since when did reality matter where you're concerned.

Oh yeh,
They changed the name to the Racial and Religious Hatred Act.
Apart from that, it was life as usual.
But since when did reality ever bother you?

[rainbow]

If you want to keep the peace, you have to acknowledge social norms, whether they are logical or not.

A social Norm being acknowledged.

[Strontium Dog]

We don't have blasphemy laws any more, but then, since when did reality matter where you're concerned.

Oh yeh,
They changed the name to the Racial and Religious Hatred Act.
Apart from that, it was life as usual.
But since when did reality ever bother you?

Absolutely clueless.

[pcCoder]

He's a dick. And determined to show it.

I actually agree with the law. Whether our social convention of covering up not holding hands while gay is illogical or not isn't really the issue. If he keeps going around naked holding hands while gay, it will eventually cause violence.
I know plenty of people who would not be amused, and some that would give him a kicking, if they were in the wrong mood.
And there are plenty of people I've seen in action that would do a lot worse.

If you want to keep the peace, you have to acknowledge social norms, whether they are logical or not.

That's why we have the equally silly blasphemy laws.

Does that sound good to you also? The problem with the line of thinking is that when you say "it will eventually cause violence" you misplace the blame of the violence from the people causing violence to the person they are getting offended by. Put the blame where it belongs. Or do you also blame women for their own rape if they dress sexy or show of even a little bit of skin. "If they keep dressing sexy instead of covering up, it will eventually cause rape."

[mistermack]

Does that sound good to you also? The problem with the line of thinking is that when you say "it will eventually cause violence" you misplace the blame of the violence from the people causing violence to the person they are getting offended by. Put the blame where it belongs. Or do you also blame women for their own rape if they dress sexy or show of even a little bit of skin. "If they keep dressing sexy instead of covering up, it will eventually cause rape."

That's a false argument.
I wasn't putting blame, I was stating a fact of life. And I clearly acknowledged that the social norms that you are upsetting might be illogical. They still exist, and if you want to keep the peace, you have to acknowledge that they exist, and act accordingly.

If keeping the peace doesn't matter to you, and you'd rather see women raped to make a point about sexy attire, then you personally have the right to take that risk.

[pcCoder]

You stated

I actually agree with the law. Whether our social convention of covering up not holding hands while gay is illogical or not isn't really the issue. If he keeps going around naked holding hands while gay, it will eventually cause violence.
I know plenty of people who would not be amused, and some that would give him a kicking, if they were in the wrong mood.
And there are plenty of people I've seen in action that would do a lot worse.

This leads to the impression that you agree with laws banning things simply because other may get violent over them, in this case against him for being nude. If that is a legitimate reason to prohibit something, because someone else can't control their violence actions, then such reasoning could apply to anything. Should a woman be required to wear pants lest wearing shorts may result in someone losing control of themselves and attempting to rape her, or maybe cover her entire body? It sounds like the the same reasoning.

If people were to follow that advice, to acknowledge that they exist, and act accordingly in order to keep the peace, no progress would ever be made. Black people would still be slaves because of the social norm, women would still not be allowed to vote, own property, have a job, or have any existence or identity outside of her husband/father, we would still be burning or hanging witches and heretics, and so on. It is by pushing these limits against the social norms that changes occur and progress is made.

There may be other legitimate reasons to ban his actions, possibly of public health related concerns, particularly if any fluids or fecal residue are transferred as he sits places.

[rainbow]

There may be other legitimate reasons to ban his actions, possibly of public health related concerns, particularly if any fluids or fecal residue are transferred as he sits places.

Drivel. The nasty residues are more likely to be picked up from people not washing their hands.
If this were really a concern enact a hand-washing law.

[pcCoder]

There may be other legitimate reasons to ban his actions, possibly of public health related concerns, particularly if any fluids or fecal residue are transferred as he sits places.

Drivel. The nasty residues are more likely to be picked up from people not washing their hands.
If this were really a concern enact a hand-washing law.

Probably so. Several times I've been in a restroom at a restaurant and witnessed a worker leave without washing hands.

[mistermack]

You stated

I actually agree with the law. Whether our social convention of covering up not holding hands while gay is illogical or not isn't really the issue. If he keeps going around naked holding hands while gay, it will eventually cause violence.
I know plenty of people who would not be amused, and some that would give him a kicking, if they were in the wrong mood.
And there are plenty of people I've seen in action that would do a lot worse.

This leads to the impression that you agree with laws banning things simply because other may get violent over them, in this case against him for being nude. If that is a legitimate reason to prohibit something, because someone else can't control their violence actions, then such reasoning could apply to anything. Should a woman be required to wear pants lest wearing shorts may result in someone losing control of themselves and attempting to rape her, or maybe cover her entire body? It sounds like the the same reasoning.

If people were to follow that advice, to acknowledge that they exist, and act accordingly in order to keep the peace, no progress would ever be made. Black people would still be slaves because of the social norm, women would still not be allowed to vote, own property, have a job, or have any existence or identity outside of her husband/father, we would still be burning or hanging witches and heretics, and so on. It is by pushing these limits against the social norms that changes occur and progress is made.

There may be other legitimate reasons to ban his actions, possibly of public health related concerns, particularly if any fluids or fecal residue are transferred as he sits places.

You are arguing by extrapolation.
I could equally say that if we accept your principle that it should be allowed, if nobody else is involved, then why stop at gays holding hands or kissing in public? Logically, you should allow them to bum each other in public, stark bollock naked in the middle of Trafalgar Square.

In real life, you draw the line somewhere. Where the line actually is changes, as what is considered acceptable changes.

[JimC]

mistermack wrote:

n real life, you draw the line somewhere. Where the line actually is changes, as what is considered acceptable changes.

True, but typically the line changes when a few adventurous spirits step over it...

[mistermack]

True, but typically the line changes when a few adventurous spirits step over it...

True, true.

But there's adventurous, and there's idiotic :
Spending the best part of eight years in prison, for constantly defying court orders not to go naked is the second, I think.
Well, more sad than idiotic really. He must have a screw loose.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

True, but typically the line changes when a few adventurous spirits step over it...

True, true.

But there's adventurous, and there's idiotic :
Spending the best part of eight years in prison, for constantly defying court orders not to go naked is the second, I think.
Well, more sad than idiotic really. He must have a screw loose.

Well, there you have it. The guy is clearly a nutter, so he deserves to spend his life locked-up. Send him to Bedlam.