Hacker News Reader

Comment by nashashmi | Hacker News Reader

That is absolutely not true. There is a minimum level of clothing for each environment and category. There is a standard limit on expression based on where you are and what you are doing. No freedom loving movement can ever walk away from or argue against this.

And these limits are placed by a variety of subjects such sexuality, expression, weather, relationship, etc.

We are humans who bounce between these subjects, categories, and environments. That is what makes us human and not animal.

If someone feels "constrained" they are the issue.

View on HN

Clothing, I would argue, is one of the things that give a human dignity, and raise the human above an animal. Work is another thing that falls in this category, as does not raping each other (some animals don't care). This is something that our ancestors understood well - look at how well they dressed despite the great economic difficulties in doing so for many of them. Animals don't wear clothes - and humans who get angry about wearing clothes make themselves animals, as do humans who despise working, or humans who attack people. These are fundamentally animal-like traits that we should be above.

Animals are not meant to be an inspiration for tolerable human behavior. They attack each other, kill each other, eat each other, commit incest, and so on. Just because an animal doesn't wear clothes, and that humans are a form of glorified animal, does not mean that it follows in any way that humans should be okay with doing the same.

Well at the very least, there is a level of clothing in many circumstances required to be sanitary... Don't really want completely nude people sitting on the bus seats.

those limits can be removed by changing societal norms, but feeling constrained by clothing is something that someone can not change about themselves.

"People are disturbed not by things, but by the views they take of them." --Epictitus.

"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." --Shakespeare.

One one side you said

  changing societal norms

but at the same time you said

  one cannot change about themselves.

Strong contradiction. How does society change if people don't? Get them while they are young?

its more like 'dont get them while they are young'. when society teaches children from an early age that public nudity is shameful, they are going to grow up having an aversion to it. i doubt this aversion is innate, its taught by society. on the other hand, preferring the feel of nakedness is going to be an innate preference i believe.

I could have seen this is where this was going.

You have zero clue on how the systems we have today originated. Yet you want to hypothesize on what a made up world would be like if we didn't teach certain things.

Answer the first question: Are you suggesting society change while arguing at the same time a person cannot change?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com