Should Public Nudity Be Legal?

[Samoht_Sirrom1]

I'm not talking at say only nude beaches. I mean anywhere and everywhere like
In Vermont. Before you answer this poll ask yourself the reason you are voting the way you are. Example is it because you truly feel public nudity is wrong or is it because you don't want to agree to something that may lead you to seeing a "fat", "old" or "ugly" person naked... If that is the reason you are guilty of body shaming. The equivalent of being discriminatory based on looks.

Public Nudity Should Be Legal

Public Nudity Should Continue To Be Illegal

Updates

+1 y

One thing to consider is the law a violation of your rights? "Life, Liberty and Freedom"?

Updates

+1 y

Okay folks I'm going to leave this up for as long as they allow, I will not be picking a "Best Opinion" only because I refuse to pick something biased by my own opinions. Sorry if that's a disappointment or let down but I feel that is the only way to truly treat each person's opinion as important, By not showing favoritism or biases.

[Craftsman]

The idea of clothing and shame about body parts have a great long history. Clothing has many good uses, such as keeping one warm, protecting from damage from outside elements, as in protecting the skin while running through the briar patches. Clothing and shame have been used by parents, governments, and religions to control behavior. A soldier, police or fire fighter uniform convey occupational information as well as protecting the clad body. Same can be said to some extent for doctors, nurses, and allied medical fields. Clothing does have some very valid reasons to exist.
On the other hand, we are held hostage in our homes until we cover certain parts of our anatomy. What those are depends on the region in which one is at the moment. I hear that in New York City, for example, women may walk around bare from the waist up. Seems that if men can do that, why can't women, in the concept of equality. Try that in Los Angeles where I live, and prepare to be arrested and charged with indecent exposure.
Is being forced to be at least minimally dressed an infringement on life liberty and the pursuit of happiness? In the strictest sense, I think so. Would it cause an increase in assault and sex crimes? At the beginning maybe, though in short order people would be desensitized to the 'erotic' elements of the body. That might be healthier in the long run. Only time would tell that. What I'm sure would happen is that a lot of body shaming would be curtailed if not eliminated. When all the physical flaws one has are on open display, it may cause people to be more honest and supportive of one another.

[Tiffany_Taylor_Made]

Nudity shouldn't be fully legal in any Western or similar society. The reason is because based on how we're raised, nudity is not viewed as normal, even if it is natural. Nudity is too heavily associated with sexuality. Of course, if it were fully legal, that means we would have to walk by naked people in passing and pretend it's normal. However, on the other hand, I don't think society would be harmed if public nudity laws were decriminalized instead. Decriminalization simply means lessening the criminal penalties for an offense. This has happened in certain places in the United States. For example, in New York, a woman can legally go topless in public as long as her nudity represents an artistic performance, cultural expression, peaceful protest, or demonstration. (Even with this law, it's still rare to see topless women in New York). I personally don't see any problem with the government allowing similar changes for all people depending on the circumstance. Simply because such law is decriminalized doesn't mean that the majority of people would start walking around naked. Of course, people are still against public nudity regardless of laws, naturally self-conscious, wouldn't want random embarrassing photos taken of them, affected by the weather, etc. In addition, decriminalization doesn't mean that people would be allowed to be naked anywhere for any reason. For example, they wouldn't be sitting their naked asses down in restaurants or public transportation casually. In other words, I believe that public nudity could only be decriminalized for certain occasions and people should still be arrested for violating such laws that go beyond the decriminalization. Still, this is very low on the priority list since this isn't a change that America (or any Western country) needs to make. We can do just fine without changing the public nudity laws.

[VIVANT]

If people are allowed to be nice it doesn’t mean they have to be. Not wanting to have a right bc you don’t want to have to be nude doesn’t make any sense.

[Samoht_Sirrom1]

"nudity is not viewed as normal" for the longest time neither were bikinis... Yes at one point in history you could be arrested for wearing a bikini due to decency laws. The only reason it's considered normal now. In fact even the YMCA back in 1968 required boys or men to swim completely nude... But somehow it went from being required to something forbidden.

[LovingLover]

YOU ARE WRONG. Preference is different from body shaming. Body shaming is casting insults and making another feel bad... I can be freaked out privately all I want.

I think everything should have restrictions meaning nudity can be allowed in certain settings... SOME persons can't use their DISCRETION so there needs to be rules...
. nudity legal in some situations...
I don't care what other do but I for myself and I would take delight that a group of persons like myself remain and look away for my biggest reason is DE-sensitivity, loss of arousal to sexual body parts from seeing it everyday. I am concerned about health (more so for the nude persons) especially when it comes to sitting down... it may be a non-nudists problem because of sex unless nudists and non nudists segregrate (but who knows what will happen)

[LovingLover]

*Holds chin* unless they are sitting on plastic? i'm not sure about the nudist procedures. feel free to educate me.

[JackSmy]

@lovinglover I want to agree with almost everything you say, but I need more clarity, and maybe your definition for "preferences' and thus 'body shaming, and how you mean that.

[LovingLover]

@JackSmy the word shame... is to cause someone to feel this:
a painful feeling of humiliation or distress caused by the consciousness of wrong or foolish behaviour.
If you don't want to see a certain person naked, it doesn't mean you will make them feel bad about being a certain way.

[Samoht_Sirrom1]

Normally nudes will carry a towel around with and put it down before they sit down.

[LovingLover]

Ohh thanks for the insight

[Samoht_Sirrom1]

No problem (a lot of people make the same mistake) to nudes that's just considered proper etiquette.

[Rocco7070]

I love being naked, Im a frequent traveler and in South Africa we have beautiful beaches many nude, no nudity in JOHANNESBURG BUT MUCH IN Cape Town, you see just blond heads and white bodies as far as you can see. I believe its great! there's one big like before San Francisco banned public nudiity, children. In that there naked people everywhere, shopping, etc and other people couldnt take their kids anywhere. No child needs to see penis and pus junping up and down , at any time, only if parents explain thats dont be afraid just dont look. No one should force their nudeity on another. Certain areas great, if your offended dont look, but otherwise its a problem

[LovingLover]

@Rocco7070 reasonable

[najekim]

Nudist etiquette requires sitting on personal towels on any public seats.

[errorgoodnameunfound]

In today's world right away? Maybe not. But gradually over time? Definitely. Clothes have for hundreds of years become more and more about status, beauty, censoring of the body, and other BS it was never meant for. At face value, clothing should just be to protect from natural elements and not much more. It's ridiculous to think we make people suffer in stuffy suits during the summer or skirts during the winter. Fucking stupid, just let people wear as they need, and not to prevent other's people's feelings from being affected.

And that's just the practical argument. There's also the economical side to it, that clothing, especially ridiculous stuff for jobs and such are expected, even if interviews guarantee nothing. Besides paying more to help with transit, I think it's equally important then for workplaces to either pay more to cover clothing expenses or pay for the clothes themselves. Enough demanding shit from prospective and active workers that's barely attainable many times. But also customers need to learn to lower their expectations as their own are lowered too.

[OlderAndWiser]

1. Your Constitutional rights are not absolutes and it is sophomoric to vote the Constitution as an argument for your opinion.

2. You are damned right I don't want to see naked old people except one particular lady if she was my partner. Go ahead and call me a body shame like I give a flying fuck about your name calling.

3. If everyone in our country has been raised as nudists, I might have a different opinion, but they weren't.

4. Some people have less sense than a billy goat. What's going to happen to naked 11 and 12 years old girls who are playing in the park?

Horrible idea! If you want to be naked, go to a nudist resort where people don't care. But if you are coming to anywhere close to me, don't Free Willy!

[Conspiracy_Theorist]

How was Nam?

[OlderAndWiser]

@Conspiracy_Theorist Never been. Why do you ask?

[Conspiracy_Theorist]

That cat looks like it’s seen action..

[OlderAndWiser]

I adopted her when she was about 5 months old. Humane Society got her. She had been living feral. She has become quite tame, sleeps in my bed, and gives me kisses on the cheek when she wants me to give her special treats. She is a sweet girl. Her name is Miss Ana.

[Conspiracy_Theorist]

oh nice! the reference is from this song by the way... lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-Lvv1f5Qu4

The funny thing is the singers are completely serious when it comes to the physical sense of the absolute corruption that takes place in our history, but in a comical way to try to reach leftists little brains, and to educated them.

[Conspiracy_Theorist]

and the brainwashed right wingers, to educate them.

[Monicaa7690]

Absolutely not lol. There’s children out there in the world. Also I think it’d be quite dangerous for women. Girls get sexually harassed/raped even when they are covered up, let alone what would happen walking around fully butt naked. Let’s also add in how nasty it would be to sit down in a restaurant and there’s this naked dude with his full dirty butt out in front of you and your family. Not a great idea at all in my opinion. Plus, most of the guys that voted yes only said that because they’d get to see naked women casually.

[covene1805]

So you think women are thoughtless creatures who must be protected by imposing restrictive laws on them?

This solution already exists in the Middle East where women must not expose single bit of flesh for the sake of their security and reputation.

[centerline]

the subject of public nudity needs to be broken down in to more than a simple yes or no...
I agree there needs to be more freedom to be nude in public than there is currently, but NOT any time or any where... much more freedom, but still within limits.

there needs to be a lot more nude beaches, pool areas, resorts, events, clubs, campgrounds, lakes, boats, etc. but not always unlimited or everywhere all the time... ALL people want freedom of choice, and even those who would prevent anyone else from the freedom of public nudity, wants freedom of choice themselves, when at the same time they feel no shame in taking freedom away from someone else...

[curlyman]

As with many things, it all sounds fine until you consider the edge cases and details, want to go to a meeting and your boss is nude? Want your young children to be out at the shops and nude weirdos are flapping their genitals about... Yeah it gets problematic and rife for exploitation from awful people, not to mention the issues that come from being a man, accidentally getting a little... "Excited" with clothes on is just awkward for you, the same thing happening with no clothes on is potentially a police incident. Just wear clothes when you're outside, what you do in your house is your biz but outside just put something over yourself with some dignity. The cons out way the pros here.

[Jamie1865]

"Fat shaming" is back with a vengeance. And quite right too. If you eat shit food and don't exercise, you're a burden to your family, your health service, other tax payers and to your country. You're also 50% more likely to die of COVID-19 and a shitload of other preventable diseases. If you don't want to get fit for yourself, get fit for your family or your country, and let that money that would otherwise be spent on your lazy arse be spent on someone who really needs it.
Oh, and yes. If you want to go nude in public - go nude. Have 'Prude zones' for the fatties and fuckwits and u-18 kids

[Lilly921]

I'm not for it or against it. But lets say someone is dating someone and the others dues not like to share. But at the same time some places should be aloud like beaches and other places have a couple time or a a hole week to gest walk around a lake ot a some other things like it. So you could say both for me it like I don't really like to share the poeple in with like that but at the same time it is like I wanna show off there sexy body to people so they are like wow they won you one a sexy over but at the same time I dont like shoreing. So if I would only have to pick then no. But if I could pick both then yes and no.

[R3DthatDude]

The culture isn’t and probably will never be ready for an all out nudity everywhere because people get offended super easily with small stuff they definitely can’t handle completely nudity. Kids and bullying will spike, rape will spike, sexual harassment will spike up. This would have to be something you slowly break people into, because it will get insane sense no one is used to that. What about restaurants, I don’t want some nude person getting their pubic hair everywhere cooking my food. And I’ll bet divorce will rise as well. Today’s culture can’t handle that type of extreme.

[Samoht_Sirrom1]

Yet in Rome it was the normal thing... lol

[_SOARER]

I think people today place "freedom" above all else.
Before people used to place "What ought to be" above all else
Sure you can walk around naked, but is that the way things ought to be? the sun will burn your skin, the bugs will bite your thighs, no cloth to absorb sweat, and if it begins to rain you get cold!

People ought to wear clothes. The laws reflect that.
Many people wrongly think the laws should allow for freedom, but that in itself impedes absolute freedom.

[covene1805]

And if I do not want nor need law to protect my skin from sunburn and bits?

The laws were made under pressure of people who placed "what ought to be" above all else. Not for protecting anything except of their will of domination over others

[thewiggles]

Its natural, I think this next generatikn will be open to it. I wouldn't do it around poor grandma and I definitely see how as it starts put a lot advantagees will be taken. But honestly not a lot more than what already is. And in the long run might set a better standard for generations. To me nudity is honest and artful. I'd rather lay down kn a bed naked with someone and talk rather than have sex. Now for sanitary reasons I think a mandatory covering should be put into place. But no restrictions on it being see through. It will be weird at first and mass majority will be uneasy. Especially with children. Thing is it just shouldn't be a damn thing to worry about. The fact that we hide our bits makes it a mystery for nasty pervert extremists. If it were a norm it would be much less of a big fucking deal.

[Aiko_E_Lara]

There is still no way people are going to remove their clothes in public even if you're going to legalize it because we are all evolved to wear clothes to protect our skin from weather conditions. So with people still wearing clothes, we are still used to seeing people with clothes than without clothes. So if anyone exposes their organs and then complain that someone grabbed it, prettymuch like anyone who leaves their wallet on the table or leave their cars open only to get stolen. It's something called precaution. Not only that, it is a distracting thing. There are cases where drivers gets crashed because they saw a naked girl. If you want to compare us to animals than animals don't drive nor do things like you man beings do and they have fur as well so why legalize it will clothes exist? Also sex wouldn't feel as special if everyone starts getting naked.

[kudoma]

My only actual argument for continuing to have nudity illegal is purely for sanitation reasons. There would certainly be an outbreak of a lot of diseases if people began to normalize nudity in society.

I'm EXTREMELY thankful for the layer of pants between me and by seat on the public bus omw to work.

[Red_Arrow]

I agree with this logic. Nude resorts require people to carry towels to cover seating when they sit. And most nudists do that when somewhere other than a resort. But most people would not do that. Look at the idiots that refuse to were masks when in crowds. If they don’t care about people’s lives they won’t care about their butts and genitals on public seating.

[covene1805]

@Red_Arrow
By analogy - bus company might include this towel or something in their regulations and reject passengers not behaving properly.

What is the role of the State here?

[najekim]

Hell YES!!!

But the textile-impaired folks are too clothed-minded to accept themselves living as nature intended let alone the mass population. They have to have their masks to hide behind so they can judge others who do have an open mind. In reality there are only 3 reasons to wear anything: Inclement weather; safety; and some medical situations.

Check out 205 Arguments and Observations In Support of Naturism and disprove what's there.

[jshm2]

No. It is illegal in the USA as child protection, and public decency laws cannot stand in court alongside open nudity allowances. Hence why it's only allowed in designated beaches, with no kids allowed and away from open trails.

Public nudity also would mean paedophiles, flashers and other voyeuristic undesirables can have open season all year round.

[Samoht_Sirrom1]

Not completely true... Vermont, it's legal to be butt naked in public as long as you don't disrobe in public

[covene1805]

What is the purpose for a flasher when anyone else is nude and flasher's behavior passes unnoticed?

What is the fun for a voyeur to be in some place full of openly naked people?

99% of paedophiles and rapers attack when their victims are clothed. I suppose they are clothed themselves too when committing their crimes.

[Lyndsielee666]

I don’t think nudity should be looked down on but I sure the fuck don’t want my children seeing a grown ass man naked so I voted for the second one

[coolaboola]

I get your point. But if nudity was the norm in everyday life then that wouldn't be an issue.

[Lyndsielee666]

@coolaboola and I still wouldn’t want my daughters seeing dick flopping around

[coolaboola]

Like i say, i see your point. All im saying is if society grew up as nudist over generations then that couldnt be a prob. Sure tits wobble as much as dicks haha.

[devilman666]

I wouldn't want my son seeing tits flopping around, so I agree that nudity is better off illegal.

[Lyndsielee666]

Yea no and people are so unhygienic 😬

[888theGreat]

It would not be flopping around , it will be straight up in your daughters face.

[Lyndsielee666]

@888theGreat exactly why I said I don’t naked men around my kids?

[hknmhmn4]

Atheists nutjobs support public nudity

[dadler313]

Nudity shouldn't be looked down upon but I don't want certain people seeing men naked...

[Lyndsielee666]

@hknmhmn4 I’m atheist and I don’t support public nudity 🤷‍♀️

[Lyndsielee666]

@dadler313 yes my underage daughters. Are you stupid?

[Red_Arrow]

In another question you answered that you are an exhibitionist, appearing nude in public. I think if you teach your daughters that the body is not bad, they would not be hurt seeing naked men.

[dadler313]

You don't need to ask if I'm stupid. I'm simply saying that your comment is contradicting. A lot of nudist resorts are family friendly.

[Lyndsielee666]

@dadler313 that’s fantastic

[hknmhmn4]

@Lyndsielee666 Such disgusting ideas always come from atheists because atheists are liberals and they believe in extreme freedom. Look at NorthwestRider’s comment

[Lyndsielee666]

@hknmhmn4 I just saw it and I speak for most atheists when I say we don’t claim his weird ass lmfao

[dadler313]

It is fantastic because being nude isn't lewd

[Lyndsielee666]

@dadler313 it is fantastic because I didn’t ask you 🥰

[dadler313]

I didn't ask you to comment back

[Lyndsielee666]

@dadler313 then take your unwanted opinion elsewhere bud 🤷‍♀️

[dadler313]

Ok sweetheart 😘 I'll go debate people and refute contradicting comments on other public forums 🥰❤️

[Lyndsielee666]

@dadler313 knock yourself out pal

[dadler313]

Mmmkay 😘😘😘

[Lyndsielee666]

@dadler313 you're still here?

[dadler313]

Yes sweetheart 🥰

[devilman666]

@hknmhmn4 at least we athiests don't burn/drown women for being accused of being witches.

[hknmhmn4]

@devilman666 You persecuted/killed Christians for decades

en.m.wikipedia.org/.../Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union

[devilman666]

@hknmhmn4 lol so now I'm a communist? Communist nations turn the state into a religion, so they don't recognize any religions because they want people to worship the state. That has literally nothing to do with athiesm, they were just communist bastards who wanted complete 100% control over their people and the things their people believed.

Tl;dr I did not do that and not a single person I know of did that in the name of athiesm. It's like me accusing you or persecuting jews because of the fact that Christianity was widely popular in Nazi Germany.

[hknmhmn4]

Soviet Union did that to eliminate religion and spread atheism

[hknmhmn4]

Communism and atheism already are related things. The communist states are officially atheist states at the same time

[hknmhmn4]

The biggest killers in history were mostly not religious/atheists. Stalin, Mao Zedong, Hitler, Lenin, Hideki, Pol Pot, Kim II Sung etc.

[hknmhmn4]

It’s not known whether Hitler was an atheist but it’s certain that he was irreligious and anti-Christian

[devilman666]

@hknmhmn4 not quite right, the societ union did it to eliminate religion and spread communism. They never gave a crap about athiesm, to them religion was just another thing to control, more authoritarian power. If you want to argue that the soviets did all this in the name of athiesm go ahead, but I will need some facts, because from everything I know about the Soviets, they never did anything to spread athiesm.

Okay well if communism and athiesm are related then fascism and religion (especially christianity) are related. If you don't need evidence for your claim then neither do I.

Again, communist states are athiest states because communists like to outlaw religion in order to force people to worship the state instead. They aren't athiest because they think it's the truth and they want to force it down everyone's throat, they do it because they are communist authoritarian pieces of shit who want to control everything.

[hknmhmn4]

@devilman666 The USSR anti-religious campaign of 1928–1941 was a new phase of anti-religious campaign in the Soviet Union following the anti-religious campaign of 1921–1928. The campaign began in 1929, with the drafting of new legislation that severely prohibited religious activities and called for a education process on religion in order to further disseminate atheism and materialist philosophy. This had been preceded in 1928 at the fifteenth party congress, where Joseph Stalin criticized the party for failure to produce more active and persuasive anti-religious propaganda. This new phase coincided with the beginning of the mass collectivization of agriculture and the nationalization of the few remaining private enterprises.

en.m.wikipedia.org/.../USSR_anti-religious_campaign_(1928–1941)

[devilman666]

Not true, Hitler's mother was cstholic and had him baptized, yes during his life he often got into fights with the catholic church, but that's the way Hitler was, he would swing back and forth, sometimes seemingly loving the church and other times rebelling against it when he didn't get his way. Which is why it's practically impossible to understand what Hitler believed in terms of religion, even in his personal journal he swings back and forth between loving and hating Christianity. It's possible he merely used the church for political benefit or perhaps between the all the drugs and stress Hitler ended up losing it and actually started believing in God. Regardless I never said Hitler was Christian, I said that Nazi Germany was Christian, which is true no matter what Hitler believed.

[hknmhmn4]

@devilman666 Nazi Germany had no the state religion as Christianity. And the Bible says “Thou shalt not kill” so you can’t blame Christianity because of Nazi Germany

[devilman666]

Okay? The biggest killers in history were also communist authoritarians. You pretend they killed people in the name of athiesm but they didn't, they merely used athiesm as a way of becoming a more powerful dictator. You forgot Raphael Lemkin, the man who started the Armenian Genocide, but he was Muslim so it makes sense you left him out since it goes against the whole narrative that Athiests are violent murderers. Pope Urban II started the first crusade, obviously christian, Francisco Franco killed hundreds of thousands in the Spanish civil war (christian), and then ofcourse there is Vladamir Putin (christian).

Regardless, even if all of the biggest killers of all time were athiest, so what? What does that say about athiests in general?

[devilman666]

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany

[devilman666]

Trust me, Germany was Christian, Hitler often spoke about Christian values in order to control his people.

Oh sad, if only we athiests had a book that told us not to kill, then we would not be able to be blamed for the actions of the communists. Lol my point was to show you how you can't just blame the actions of a group of people on a single random thing that they believed.

[hknmhmn4]

Raphael Lemkin was a Jewish, the first crusade was made to take back Christian lands from Muslims. You might be right about Francisco Franco but Spanish Civil War was not about Christianity. And I dont know what Putin did. Nazi Germany was a dictatorship, the population was Christian but Hitler, Goebbels etc. were not

[hknmhmn4]

The problem already is that “YOU ATHEISTS HAVE NO MORAL VALUE”

[devilman666]

en.m.wikipedia.org/.../Religion_in_the_Soviet_Union

"The Communist regime targeted religions based on State interests, and while most organized religions were never outlawed, religious property was confiscated, believers were harassed, and religion was ridiculed while atheism was propagated in schools."

You dont seem to get it, maybe if you tried actually reading what I type then you would get somewhere. I'll put this in simple terms for you.

Communists want their people to worship the state, so they turn the state into a religion and reducate people to worship the state, yes, they deconvert people from religion and therefore spread athiesm, but the reason why they do it is purely to increase their own power and control.

Hitler used Mein Kampf to take control of christianity with several references to God, and Christian values, he essentially did what Trump did and made himself the leader of the religion (ps it's most likely that neither of them actually believed in God, it's just that Christians can be an easy group to control if you get along with the church leaders). Anyways the point I was getting at is that Hitler used Christianity in the same way Stalin used Atheism, neither believed it and both used it for political gain. Hitler used it to make the (over 95% christian) Germans love him, where as Stalin used it to make the people love the state, but they both had the same goals, to control their people with an iron fist.

[devilman666]

The first crusade was to kill muslims, but if you are upset with my choice then I urge you to look up the third crusade, it is my favorite. The crusaders planned on killing more Muslims, but then they needed boats so they raided the christian city of Constantinople so they could afford the boats, but then they just gave up and went home after sacking the city xD

My point there was specifically that though, the leaders you mentioned didn't kill people in the name of Athiesm, they did it in the name of communism and authoritarianism. I have as much right to blame Francisco Franco on the christians as you have to blame Stalin on the Athiests. Putin has done a lot, currently invading Ukraine, ordered the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq, etc. His hands are far from clean, he is even trying to become a dictator.

[devilman666]

Nazi Germany was a dictatorship that used Christianity to push it's beliefs and ideals, and the population was almost entirely Christian, sure, the bible says not to kill, but the Christian Germans were willing to slaughter jews regardless, and then they went home to their wife and kids and prayed before their dinner, it's quite an astounding phenomenon that allows people to rationalize the evil they commit. Anyways, I ramble a lot, my point is that similar to Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union was a dictatorship which used athiesm and specifically worship of the state leaders to push it's beliefs and ideals. If you look at the Soviet Union after ww2 it is quite clear, Stalin even started wearing all white to give himself a godly appearance because he wanted to be the only figure his people worshipped.

[devilman666]

I can't speak for all athiests but I do have moral value, I certainly have more moral value than some Christians who have existed. To be clear, I'm not calling all Christians bad here, just pointing out that bad christians have existed, just like bad athiests have existed. Religion has no bearing on morals and moral value, there are evil people from all religions, and good people from all religions.

[hknmhmn4]

Really great Christians existed by the way, for example almost all scientists in Europe after Reneissance were religious Christians. Even the big bang theory that atheists strongly believe in was discovered by a Belgian Catholic priest. And we earned 65% of all Nobel Prizes between in 20th century. 78.3% of all the Nobel Prizes in Peace, 72.5% in Chemistry, 65.3% in Physics, 62% in Medicine, 54% in Economics and 49.5% of all Literature awards. Although Alfred Nobel who created Nobel Prizes was an atheist himself lol and the most important things were invented by Christians, the plane, Gasoline car, diesel and more...

www.famousscientists.org/.../

[Lyndsielee666]

👀👀👀👀

[hknmhmn4]

@devilman666 You said fascism is related to Christianity but looked at about it a little and the ideology of fascism was founded by Benito Mussolini who is an atheist lol

So actually atheism related to fascism

www.google.at/.../%3famp=true

[888theGreat]

@hknmhmn4 I think he was Catholic... almost the same thing... ouch!

[hknmhmn4]

@888theGreat en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Italian_atheists

[hknmhmn4]

He was baptized as a Catholic but became atheist later like Hitler

en.wikipedia.org/.../Category:Critics_of_the_Catholic_Church

[devilman666]

@hknmhmn4 of course really great christians existed, really great muslims existed, really great zoroastrians existed, really great jews existed, really great athiests existed, really great satanists existed, really great buddhists existed, really great hindus existed, etc. Really great and really terrible people have existed and believed in all kinds of religions. By the same token, really terrible people of every religion have existed.

As for the renaissance, that's a pretty eurocentric view, as an example, china was making plenty of scientific progress at the time too. With that said, so what? I can point to several places during periods of time where the majority of the scientists velonged to a single religion, a few hundred years before the renaissance the Muslims were making the scientific progress (islamic golden age). Before that in 100 ad you would find almost every noteworthy scientist in Europe believed in the Roman pantheon. If you go back even further to 1000-1500 bce then there were several periods of vast scientific progress in china, india, greece, and egypt, which each had their own religions. So again I ask, so what if the majority of scientists during one period of time, in one particular area, all followed a specific religion?

[devilman666]

As for the big bang, yeah, a Belgian Catholic priest theorized the world started from one primordial atom, he was the one who first suggested something like the big bang but dont kid yourself, he didn't discover it. The big bang was a theory put together by Arno Penzias (a jew) and Robert Woodrow Wilson (I actually don't know what religion he believed in, I can't find it on google), based on readings they found with the hubble telescope. The primordial atom thing is not even close to a good description of the big bang either, so personally I think he meant something else and people have taken the quote out of context. Regardless, he didn't discover the big bang because he never did the research, he just made a prediction.

I'm too lazy to check the statistics right now so I'll just accept those as true, again, so what? Alan Turing was a gay athiest scientist in the 20th century who decoded the German enigma machine and essentially caused Germany to be defeated much sooner than would have been otherwise possible, he essentially invented the first computer and used it to defeat the Germans. There have been tons of things throughout history invented by people who weren't Christians, and the inventions of the Christians wouldn't have been possible without the inventions of that came before, that were done primarily by non christians. The fact that christianity has been the majority religion Europe for the past few centuries doesn't prove your idea that Christians are somehow better than everyone else.

[devilman666]

Mussolini may have been irreligious but he and hitler both used the powerful religious movements in their countries in order to gain and control power. Mussolini and Pope Pious XI reconciled in 1932 as a public display that fascism was christian and specifically catholic. As I already stated Hitler made several attempts to appear christian and rally the christian followers behind fascism, just go read some exercepts from Mein Kampf and you'll see.

That doesn't prove athiesm is related to fascism by the way, and I'd like to take this point to mention that I never said that christianity was related to fascism, I was more trying to play devil's advocate to show you why you can't correlate athiesm and communism just because communism spread athiesm, but clearly you just keep going back to the simple mindset of "christianity good athiesm bad".
What I said: "Okay well if communism and athiesm are related then fascism and religion (especially christianity) are related.". Specifically, if athiesm and communism are linked because communism spreads and promotes athiesm, then fascism and religion are linked because fascism uses and spreads religion.

[devilman666]

If I'm honest I don't think religion and fascism are inherently linked, I think fascism just takes hold of the strongest movement in order to gain power, which is usually religion. Communism on the other hand oppresses religion and teach the people to view the government as God, that way people of different religions can forcefully be brought together to improve the state. In a fascist regime you typically oppress and kill anyone who is not the majority religion because fascist regimes exist by controlling the majority and ensuring that the people of the people follow a single cultural/moral standard. Communist regimes actually do the same thing, however instead of specifically targetting religions, they target anyone who speaks against the regime or seems like a threat to the regime, typically small religious groups exist inside of most communist regimes, for example, the USSR had many muslim majority areas, which are now areas like Kazakhstan and Armenia. Modern day china has many religions groups, Falun Gong as one example, it was banned but existed for 7 years before being banned, the uyghur muslims as another example, though perhaps those are the worst two examples because they are the ones being oppressed currently by the chinese government. 15% of china's population is buddhist.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_China
www.cfr.org/.../religion-china
The main thing with communists is they don't want any single religion to gain enough power to threaten the government.

[devilman666]

Tbh I spent all day at work wanting to come home and educate you, your views are kind of narrowminded. You seem to like to cherry pick things that already agree with you. I suggest expanding your knowledge, try studying new things, have you ever read hindu mythology? It's actually quite interesting, or the history of china is pretty good too, though very very long and repetetive at points. Get out of your eurocentric christian bubble and view the rest of the world for a minute, and if that's too scary then you could try reading the full history of Europe, and learn about the Romans, the Thracians, and the Gauls. Seriously, though, expanding your world view is probably a good idea.

[devilman666]

@888thegreat both Hitler and Mussolini were athiest for seemingly the majority of their lives. Both of them pretended to be christian but investigations into their private life reveal that neither actually believed in a God... well, Mussolini might have had a death bed conversion, not entirely sure I read online that he questioned it towards the end of his life but I don't know for certain, but I know he had a traditional catholic burial. Mussolini was quite avid anti-religion to the point where he almost got excommunicated multiple times, but then he realized that without the backing of the church he would lose most if not all of his power, so he publically reconciled with the pope in order to maintain power and control over the Italian population which was mostly catholic. Hitler did the same thing with Mein Kampf, the book is filled with christian messaging, the church leaders in Germany saw Hitler as a protector of christianity against the evil of communism. Tbh I don't know what Hitler believed, but he spoke against Christianity several times in his private life, that said he also spoke against athiesm. I'm not sure entirely what he believed, I would assume he had some personal belief that he himself came up with, that he didn't share openly with most people.
"The Führer is deeply religious, though completely anti-Christian. He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race. This can be seen in the similarity of their religious rites. Both (Judaism and Christianity) have no point of contact to the animal element, and thus, in the end they will be destroyed. The Führer is a convinced vegetarian on principle." -An excerpt from Joseph Goebbels' (Hitler's propoganda minister) diary.
"the Fuhrer passionately rejects any thought of founding a religion. He has no intention of becoming a priest. His sole exclusive role is that of a politician." -another excerpt from the same diary.

[devilman666]

en.m.wikipedia.org/.../Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

[devilman666]

Well, I guess calling hitler athiest is probably wrong, it's just that he didn't identify with any large religion, he just had personal beliefs that he shared with those around him, and judging by his private hatred of christianity, I assume he believed he would have been rejected by the german people if he was open about his beliefs.

[hknmhmn4]

@devilman666 You said “at least we athiests don't burn/drown women for being accused of being witches“

I mean, you did worse than it

[liburnia]

I don't thinkn it would be ok. First of all it's unhygienic. Second I really have no wish in seeing someone's privats while walking around with my child (they can look the prettiest of them all). I was in the situation that I saw an old man helping a young girl to get out of the water and climb to the yacht. They were nudists. It wasn't a nice sight seeing his penis wobble around her face.

[VIVANT]

😂😂😂

[JackSmy]

Why shouldn't it be legal? Pretty much anyone over the age of whatever, has seen the other gender nude, and SO WHAT?
If they are "Old" or "Fat" as you suggest, just don't look at them, if that is offensive to some!
OH, but what do you do about Underage Children!! They must NEVER be naked, because of the pedophiles, and perverts, right?

[MCheetah]

No, I don't want to see unattractive people naked (the majority of human beings; like 80-90% of them). Don't give a single f*ck if you think it's "body shaming," OP. Also don't want to see attractive people or anyone else naked in inappropriate settings (schools, grocery stores, restaurants, churches, etc). So no, get that public nudity sh*t outta here!

[Anonymous]

it's not a violation of your rights to have nudity not be allowed anywhere and everywhere. It would be a violation of people's rights to force them to see it in places where they have to go for public life, but don't want to see naked people. It's the same as smoking. It's not a violation to require smoking to be done only in certain places, so that those who don't want it to be part of their lives don't have it forced upon them. A naked person's right to flaunt their body doesn't get to infringe on our rights to not see that in a public setting. There are places they can go for that, where they aren't forcing people to see them who have no desire to. There's nothing wrong with this, no matter how hard the perverts and the "nudists" claim there is.

[matchrestore]

I wrote a MyTake about this a while back that you might find interesting. My answer is yes, it should be legal.
The Right To Be Nude In Public

[Angel_123]

Er no i dont everyone staring at me bikini is enough skin showin n ass but nude? Have some self respect... some gals then blame guys for raping them dude ur showin ur naked self some guys can't LOWER THEIR GAZE so how about forget gng nude infront of men esp Little kids and babies wtfff