Just because She's Topless

[Little lunch]

hmm sorry but I don't agree with her decision. Yeh what the guy did was absolutely wrong and he got off way too easy for what he did, but see, I believe there should be a minimum amount of decency to be expected from a civilized person, and the least bit of common sense to be careful around drunk people. I don't think going around naked in public is a "right", nor do I want to see bottomless dudes walking around with painted dicks, or topless women with painted boobs...

Topless women with painted boobs = Topless dudes with painted boobs. (Rhymes)
Bottomless dudes with painted dicks = Bottomless chicks with painted slits. (Had to make it rhyme)

[Aoi Magi]

Topless women with painted boobs = Topless dudes with painted boobs moobs (Rhymes)
Bottomless dudes with painted dicks = Bottomless chicks with painted slits. (Had to make it rhyme)

small correction

[Shell B]

Music festivals are often clothing optional.

We really need to start teaching women how to punch better. Let’s make it count!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

And I don't want to see women driving or out of the house without a male relative in escort. Minimum decency!

Yeh minimum decency is debatable, but going naked in a place which isn't specifically "clothing optional" isn't a very decent thing to do.

In a rational society everywhere would be clothing optional. The Bible religions became obsessed with nudity.

[Shell B]

I'm not going to complain. I've been to a few clothing optional parties thrown by a nudist. I could have done without the nudity. It's bizarre to be fully clothed amongst a gaggle of flabby naked people.

[Whateverist]

Music festivals are often clothing optional.

We really need to start teaching women how to punch better. Let’s make it count!

That was my strongest impression as well.  Painful to watch such an ineffective, weak-sister slappy thing.

[RoadRunner79]

Topless does not mean "touch me without my permission" :

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/woman-ze...26080.html

Good for her! We need more hippies with attitude right now!

I have a question, from some previous conversations.  I apologize if this is too far off topic, but this came to mind from this post.

This stems from some talks about harm as a basis of objective morality.  I felt there was some disconnect, in what was meant by objective in those discussions, epistemology vs ontology and so on.  However this illustration has me curious if I understand correctly for those who view harm as the foundation for what is immoral.


Now I am making some assumptions here.  First that the boob grab was just a touch.  Second it's difficult to tell how well the punch was landed by the woman (as some commented it should have been more); for the sake of the discussion, assume some damage such as a black eye.

I can't remember who I was talking with about harm and morality.  But for any who hold this view, then would the girl be in the wrong, since the objective harm was done against the man?

[Whateverist]

Topless does not mean "touch me without my permission" :

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/woman-ze...26080.html

Good for her! We need more hippies with attitude right now!

I have a question, from some previous conversations.  I apologize if this is too far off topic, but this came to mind from this post.

This stems from some talks about harm as a basis of objective morality.  I felt there was some disconnect, in what was meant by objective in those discussions, epistemology vs ontology and so on.  However this illustration has me curious if I understand correctly for those who view harm as the foundation for what is immoral.


Now I am making some assumptions here.  First that the boob grab was just a touch.  Second it's difficult to tell how well the punch was landed by the woman (as some commented it should have been more); for the sake of the discussion, assume some damage such as a black eye.

I can't remember who I was talking with about harm and morality.  But for any who hold this view, then would the girl be in the wrong, since the objective harm was done against the man?

Morality bores me.  The guy deserved to get clocked.

[The Grand Nudger]

I can't remember who I was talking with about harm and morality.  But for any who hold this view, then would the girl be in the wrong, since the objective harm was done against the man?

Both parties are objectively harmed, as is society in general.  She was groped, he was punched, and we have to live in a society where gropers need to be punched because some don't consider groping objectively harmful.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Topless does not mean "touch me without my permission" :

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/woman-ze...26080.html

Good for her! We need more hippies with attitude right now!

I have a question, from some previous conversations.  I apologize if this is too far off topic, but this came to mind from this post.

This stems from some talks about harm as a basis of objective morality.  I felt there was some disconnect, in what was meant by objective in those discussions, epistemology vs ontology and so on.  However this illustration has me curious if I understand correctly for those who view harm as the foundation for what is immoral.


Now I am making some assumptions here.  First that the boob grab was just a touch.  Second it's difficult to tell how well the punch was landed by the woman (as some commented it should have been more); for the sake of the discussion, assume some damage such as a black eye.

I can't remember who I was talking with about harm and morality.  But for any who hold this view, then would the girl be in the wrong, since the objective harm was done against the man?

Minimizing harm doesn't require the abrogation of self defense. I don't much care that the boob grab was 'just a touch' - to any sensible person, it qualifies as assault. Her boobs, her body, her right to stomp this guy flat.  THAT is the moral justification for what she did. 

Boru