(Original post by rmhumphries)
Not really. Lets take someone who wants to rape someone as an example. Police decide that people who enjoy being without clothes are more likely to rape people. Therefore, they have a list of people who are nudists, go to nudist beaches, will quickly nip to get their bottles of milk delivered to their door naked, etc etc. Therefore people who shun clothing are more likely to be watched.
Now, a person wants to rape another person (a good number of rapes are pre-empted and committed by someone the victim knows). They deliberately make sure that they are known to be 'normal', so they won't attract more police attention, so therefore they may have more chance of getting away with it.
This is one of the reasons that profiling doesn't work well, people who commit crimes will try and make sure they don't match the stereotypes of people who commit the crime where they have planned it in advance.
Of course, your argument in this exact case is that people who shuns clothes is abnormal. While they may not have opinions that the majority of people have, other groups such as vegans also are 'abnormal', as in they don't do something that is considered normal by most people (eat meat or dairy products). I have no idea how you gathered that means that they are more dangerous however.
Because they've deliberately made a decision that:
a) makes them stand out
b) has direct connotations to sex
c) goes directly in the face of law
d) is forced upon other member's of the public
Those decisions all make the person a higher risk in the eyes of society, with good reason. The only reason for going around butt-naked is an ideological one. All other reasons are likely to be directly linked to mental instability, can you think of any other reasons?
If you meet a vegan on a path in the evening, you're not afraid they're going to anally molest you with a carrot. Honestly tell me you're not going to be apprehensive coming across a naked man?
Sure you get crimes committed by clothed people, but someone walking around naked is unusual enough to warrant being checked out, regardless of the actual crime of public indecency.
The fact that rapists won't walk around naked is irrelevant, someone who is naked might do . Such a strange point for you to make, it's like saying "murderers don't walk around in broad daylight carrying a shotgun, so I should be allowed to walk around town carrying a shotgun". No you ****ing well can't!
(Original post by Foghorn Leghorn)
No I added to my post and explained that profiling also happens to people that wear certain clothing or speak with a slang, a choice that the individual made just like the nudist and it is again ineffective.
That is not my logic at all. If someone is walking down the street with a weapon then yes it would be reasonable to suggest there's a high possibilty they are doing it to cause physical harm. Also satistics have actually shown that people caught carrying knives have had intetions to use the knife for harm. I have never seen any statistics to show most nudist caught were nude with the intention of cause sexual abuse. Being nude is not a weapon, being nude does not cause any harm it is not necessarily threatening either. Of course considering public nudity is illegal the person is going to be stopped and arrested I never said this shouldn't be the case. And of course considering nudity isn't normal people are going to question their intentions. My argument is there is no valid reason to jump to the assumption that a person that would like to be nude is somehow a sexual pervert or have a desire to cause sexual harm. nudity=/=sex pest.
Well I'm pretty sure none of my posts have stated that people walking around naked are 100% sex pests
As you say, nudity isn't normal, especially in public, and so normal people are going to question their intentions. And that includes the police. There's no way of 'flagging' a public nudist after they've been 'checked', so they'll still be a worry to members of society, and generate police calls which need to be followed up, and waste police time. So they can't be allowed to continue as they please.
In most tribal societies everyone is naked as there is no need for clothes. This doesn't cause any harm, if anything they have a much healthier body image than those living in nations where the media decide what is 'normal'. If children are damaged by viewing nudity why do we allow them to see nude statues and paintings? Why are they allowed to view their own bodies?
We are quick to criticize Islamic nations where women are forced to wear a burka or headscarf, yet we impose are own standards of decency on Stephen Gough. This is hypocrisy.
I don't like looking at ugly people, should they have to cover their face by law? In Victorian England it was unacceptable for a woman to show her ankles, why has this changed? If someone today is offended by women's ankles don't they still have a right not to be offended? What if someone is offended by black/gay/fat people?
Stephen Gough has been arrested for being what he is - a human being. What right do people have to be offended by his physical body?
I have no time for Stephen Gough myself, though I wish more beaches and parks would have areas for sunbathing without clothes, you didn't have to wear a swimming costume in a most saunas in the UK (uncomfortable) and there were sessions for nude swimming.
Im not offended by the idea of people walking around naked.
However due to various things in my past I would feel very threatened and uncomfortable having certain people naked near me.
An issue i havent seen come up in this (although i only read until page 5) is with the number of rape, sexual assault and pedophilia victims around, allowing people to stroll around naked may cause large levels of distress for the many people who have been victims of these attacks.
Im not in any way accusing all people walking round naked of doing the crimes above but distress, panic and flashbacks could be caused by them and make those suffering from the aftermath of these crimes struggle.