Re: old news - but not here

["Brian Loe" <knobdy () gmail com>]

On 9/13/07, Drsolly <drsollyp () drsolly com> wrote:

> I think your point here is that women's bare chests are naughty, and men's
> aren't. And you can't see that this is just a cultural idea, not an
> absolute.

No, I don't think women's chests are naughty - I like 'em fine. What I
said, specifically, was that they could ban men from displaying their
chests and I would not have an argument.

> And somehow, you've decided that to be human, you must be able to show
> your face.

To be known, to be something other than a walking towel, yes...

> > Makes sense though, its probably easier to stone a person to death
> > when you've never seen, and can't see, their face.
>
> True. It's also easier to administer a lethal injection if you don't look
> the guy in the eyes while you do it.

Absolutely.

> The problem here, is that if it's the religious beliefs that govern the
> nakedness standards, then it's a bunch of priests deciding, not the
> people.

The priests hold influence, not a vote.


> > Besides, it seems obvious that what the individual Iranians want is
> > NOT the same as what their dictators want.
>
> You thought that about Iraq, too.

I still do. Even suffering through a maddeningly biased "documentary"
the other night, all of the Iraqis were glad Saddam was gone. Thought
its true they probably would have preferred our help the FIRST time
out...
_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.