I never said it was a right at all. It's not a right. That being said, there's very little need for a lot of things that are legal - there's very little need for motorcycles. People don't generally ride motorcycles out of necessity, but out of want. That doesn't mean we should ignore motorcycle safety because it's not a right and people can just stop riding motorcycles and we have more important things to worry about.
However, it is important to recall that again, in society, people do find it offensive. Most people do not find motorcycles in of themselves offensive. However, if you made your motorcycle so loud that people didn't like it, you could also get a civil infraction for that.
This is a debate tactic. I'll explain it to you: you said clothing laws in public should apply to what the majority wants. I gave an extreme example of when what the majority wants is not necessarily a good thing. Therefore, the conclusion to draw is that just because the majority wants it doesn't mean it's a good thing for everyone.
A debate tactic does not work if it is ineffective, especially if it relies on a logical fallacy (in your case, a false analogy) to work. It is perfectly reasonable to question other people's tactics. Your extreme example is completely unnecessary and does nothing to actually prove anything. You don't need to explain anything. I understand what you tried to do. It didn't work because it has no relevance to the discussion and it was a terrible analogy.
Later in your post you even attack one of my "tactics". I guess addressing problems in the opponent's discussion is okay, as long as the opponent isn't doing it back.
It's harming the people that would prefer to be nude by not allowing them to be nude. Basically, you have two minor harms here: the discomfort of the people who might see the person nude, and the discomfort of the person who might wish to go nude. In my estimation, these are probably about equal amounts of discomfort (give or take a bit from person to person). Therefore, we should err on the side of more freedom.
- Almost all people would rather not be nude, protest excluded. This is not just because of norms of society, although it does play a big part of it - it is also because in most conditions clothes are more desirable than being nude.
- The harm of someone becoming uncomfortable from being nude is far greater than someone wanting to be nude. There are almost no circumstances in western society where being nude is more beneficial than being clothed. In fact, there are many situations physically which being clothed would be preferred.
- The level of discomfort is likely not equal because while exposing oneself is a choice, being exposed to is not a choice.
- "Erring on the side of caution" is not saying that two possibilities exist and we must go with the more individualistic one. Erring on the side of caution is taking into consideration the entire situation, in which most people disagree with it and the few who do agree do not find it necessary, thus "erring on the side of caution" would actually be to not permit it.
It's quite convenient that the you seem to see the discomfort of a group that you can't empathize with as "neutral" and "harm[ing] zero people" while the people who can literally walk away or avert their eyes with minimal muscle movement to avoid the sight they don't wish to see are so upset that they should always be catered to. I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that you relate to one group and find the other abhorrent? Hmmmmm.
It is not that I do not sympathize with them, necessarily, it is that this group of people is an extremely small group of people who's wants are
actively disrupting the community. Erasing the social context and the opinions of pretty much most people in a community because of the fact that you have an opinion means that you do not care about anyone other than yourself. In a way, the unsympathetic ones here are the ones trying to impose something that clearly most people do not agree with that does directly affect their lives.
Not only this, but the community already provides quite a few options for people who still want to be nude in public to satisfy this extremely small minority.
Why do you keep acting as if I think nudists are oppressed, and why are you acting as if the only reason to make a law is to protect someone oppressed? That's not the case at all. Your example of Christianity is irrelevant, because people are allowed to speak about their beliefs in competition with science. You can walk into a public museum and talk about how it's all fake all you want!
Nudists are not oppressed. The people in this thread, multiple times, imply that they are, based on the way that they should be discussing their rights. Even in your post that I'm quoting, you imply this:
It's harming the people that would prefer to be nude by not allowing them to be nude.
You cannot paint people to be oppressed for your argument and then turn around and claim that other people are acting like they are when you are called out. You are essentially saying that nudists are oppressed by society for not being allowed to be nude.
However, even if we go with that assumption, as silly as it is, their requests would still be deemed unreasonable. Public nudity is a choice of the person being nude, but is not a choice for the people who are exposed to that person's nudity. With similar logic, you can argue that people who have loud subwoofers on their cars are oppressed, because they are not allowed to have their music loud in certain areas. The reason why most people do not sympathize with individuals' causes like this is because 1) they are entirely self oriented, and care little about the other individuals affected 2) others are exposed to the disturbance without a choice to say no and 3) the disturbance harms individuals by either disgusting them or otherwise making them feel uncomfortable.
This is much unlike, say, gay marriage because gay marriage does NOT affect others, does NOT cause a disturbance to people just for existing (more disturbance is caused by people who disagree with it frankly) and you do not unwillingly have to be EXPOSED to most things related to gay marriage (outside of seeing a gay couple, but that's just two guys/gals hanging out to most people).
I will take back my analogy though.
People are so pro-freedom until it comes to something that makes them uncomfortable. Then they suddenly become incredibly restrictive. Logic, guys!
This sounds like a completely reasonable analysis of your opposition
For the record: seeing someone nude in public would make me uncomfortable too. I just recognize that while if I'm uncomfortable I can avert my eyes, if they're uncomfortable in clothing they can't just avert their sense of touch every second they're out. You'll have to back up this claim you've made that it's not a comfort issue and is in fact a rebellion issue if you want it to hold any credence.
While you can avert your eyes, you are still exposed to it against your own will. I assume that through the same logic that you support the "plights" of the poor people with large subwoofers playing their dubstep on maximum volume throughout the neighbourhood? You can listen to earphones or put in ear plugs, or even just go somewhere else, shouldn't they be allowed to do whatever they want through the neighbourhood?
It's just an issue with comfort, after all. Damn, those poor people with subwoofers really need their rights.