I think you misunderstand - ashwindoke - Beeseh is not advocating the compulsory wearing of bikinis or drinking of beer. It is about the "freedom" - ability - to wear clothing, if she so desires to, without some law or rule being placed against it by the State unless there is actually some harm in her action. The possibility for her to make these kind of choices is what we are loosely and - very problematically - calling "freedom".
[Of course, the feminists would call it no "freedom" at all (the desire to offer oneself as an oppressed subaltern for the pleasure of all men) but that is getting away from the point]
Likewise, "freedom" of speech - again a difficult way of describing as it implies absolutist freedom when there are of course some restrictions - is restriced, but based around the idea of causing harm to others, such as shouting fire in the crowded theatre.
This talk of "freedom" which some people sensationally argue means the power to do anything you like (such as rape women every 1.3 seconds in USA!!! girl have a baby at age 11!!! have adulterous sex every night!!! homosexual sex taking place!!! drink alcohol!!!) is in fact restricted, morally, but not legally. Thus noone thinks it is "right" or "wholesome" to do these things, but by doing them one cannot be criminalised. (apart from the rape, obviously)
At the heart of this "freedom" idea and all of secularism are these wonderful - or horrific - facts (depending on your point of view):
1) For something to be criminalised as wrong, it must cause actual real harm to another person or group or entity - real tangible harm, not theoretical, moral or eschatological (ie. in the Afterlife) - it must be harmful in this world, the next world is irrelevant;
2) The community of people in society, alone, will be the judge of what is right and wrong;
3) Laws and norms are static and relative, not permanent and fixed; at the heart of this is the fact that situations develop which cannot readily be categorised as harmful or not harmful, and something which is harmless today might not have been in a different context 500 years ago.
Of course the religious fundamentalist's charter is the precise opposite of these three things; thus much of the bitter argument on these threads is essentially by those who either support, or oppose these three principles. Islam is largely seen as opposing, and the "west" (whatever on earth THAT 'other' actually is) absolutely supports it.
-------------
"let's slip out of these wet clothes and into a dry martini" Mae West
I think you misunderstand - ashwindoke - Beeseh is not advocating the compulsory wearing of bikinis or drinking of beer. It is about the "freedom" - ability - to wear clothing, if she so desires to, without some law or rule being placed against it by the State unless there is actually some harm in her action. The possibility for her to make these kind of choices is what we are loosely and - very problematically - calling "freedom".
[Of course, the feminists would call it no "freedom" at all (the desire to offer oneself as an oppressed subaltern for the pleasure of all men) but that is getting away from the point]
Likewise, "freedom" of speech - again a difficult way of describing as it implies absolutist freedom when there are of course some restrictions - is restriced, but based around the idea of causing harm to others, such as shouting fire in the crowded theatre.
This talk of "freedom" which some people sensationally argue means the power to do anything you like (such as rape women every 1.3 seconds in USA!!! girl have a baby at age 11!!! have adulterous sex every night!!! homosexual sex taking place!!! drink alcohol!!!) is in fact restricted, morally, but not legally. Thus noone thinks it is "right" or "wholesome" to do these things, but by doing them one cannot be criminalised. (apart from the rape, obviously)
At the heart of this "freedom" idea and all of secularism are these wonderful - or horrific - facts (depending on your point of view):
1) For something to be criminalised as wrong, it must cause actual real harm to another person or group or entity - real tangible harm, not theoretical, moral or eschatological (ie. in the Afterlife) - it must be harmful in this world, the next world is irrelevant;
2) The community of people in society, alone, will be the judge of what is right and wrong;
3) Laws and norms are static and relative, not permanent and fixed; at the heart of this is the fact that situations develop which cannot readily be categorised as harmful or not harmful, and something which is harmless today might not have been in a different context 500 years ago.
Of course the religious fundamentalist's charter is the precise opposite of these three things; thus much of the bitter argument on these threads is essentially by those who either support, or oppose these three principles. Islam is largely seen as opposing, and the "west" (whatever on earth THAT 'other' actually is) absolutely supports it.
-------------
"let's slip out of these wet clothes and into a dry martini" Mae West