On 9/13/07, Drsolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
