[AGB]

Oh, screw it, here you go:

Originally Posted by nguirado

Maybe you guys are too smart for me.

For example, I used to think that a "straw man" argument is when one argues against a position he himself constructs. It turns out that a straw man is when one states his position, somebody picks up on its logical implication and asks him to clarify, the first person doesn't like the logical implication, and the first person gets mad.

What you just did there is a strawman in itself. For further information see my posts above.

Rather than clarify, you insult me, IRONICALLY using stereotypes of Sarah Palin and religious people you heard from who knows where, almost as if you were arguing against a straw man.

LOL, using irony is in itself not a strawman, and likening discussing with you to having a discussion with Sarah Palin was because she too will define words as she well damn please, thinking she's an intellectual.

Further, I wasn't ironic at all when I used religious "stereotypes" as you put it: Your religious beliefs was so evident that it had to be mentioned, even if you at first hadn't mentioned it. That it turned out to be true, doesn't make it a strawman.

It's quite telling that first you come with a definition of a strawman argument, then you make one yourself, and then emphasize it with likening useage of irony to a strawman. It's as if you had actually done a bit of research on Wikipedia, but hadn't quite grasped the idea.

It's like you wanted to insult people who think that children, generally, should be protected from graphic sexual images, while agreeing with the very common-sensical notion that children shouldn't be shown graphic sexual images so that you wouldn't be thought immoral. Which is it? Do you think it's OK for children to see graphic sexual images or not? If not, why not? If you think it's OK, then fine. They're your kids. Is it somewhere inbetween? Maybe some sex in movies is good, some bad. Whatever. Just say so. I did. You let your hatred or disdain of religion overwhelm your sense.

And there we go: All the things I have accused you of doing, all rolled up in a single paragraph. Every single one of them. It's amazing to behold to be honest.

Now, do you have indecency laws in your countries? If so, what purpose do they serve? (Am I constructing another straw man by asking?).

Before answering that question that is based on the conclusions you have thought up in the previous paragraphs, we have to look at the premises that lay the groundwork for that conclusion and thus your question. If not, you will conclude something on my answer, based on your invalid premises, and because of that, it's not worth answering untill you understand why your premises are utterly invalid.

In the United States, we have them because it's distracting in some way to have naked people in the street. It's OK to have naked dogs because people don't generally find them sexually attractive. It's OK here to have men with bare chests because it's not distracting in the same way. It's not OK in our society to have men's penises exposed. American men find women's breasts sexually distracting. In other words, the law serves a purpose and if in fulfilling that purpose, things aren't exactly the same between men and women, then that's the way it goes. Your desire for a complete equality, even in the superficial, actually overwhelms the purpose of the law.

See above, and try to focus instead of jumping from one assumption to the next ad nauseum.

Now, in some parts of the world, women do expose their breasts in public and it's not a big deal, I guess. Maybe one day, American men won't be fazed by the distaff breast. Until then, most places have this law. One thing is certain: if women wanted this law repealed, it would happen the next day.

Sure it would. But in the real world, lobbyists have quite a lot to say when it comes to law making. Not least in the US. And not least religious prudes who thinks sexuality is filthy and that kids should be kept in the dark about everything and anything that is natural.