LogFAQs > #956068290

Revelation34 posted...

That's not a negative.

"There is no evidence of harm" is absolutely a negative statement. Same with the more moderate "I have seen no evidence of harm" that acknowledges the inherent subjectivity of any negative assessment.

Revelation34 posted...

Besides that's not how the burden of proof works.

You can't expect people to believe you when you present no proof just because the other person hasn't followed the Official Burden of Proof rules (which aren't a thing). I've made a negative statement, which is logically impossible to prove. It is, however, falsifiable, like any good hypothesis. So try to falsify it. This is the scientific method.

Sahuagin posted...

yes you're just saying it's wrong because it's wrong.

Yes, that tautology is the point of that phrase. People who are being bad are being bad.

Sahuagin posted...

is "exposing oneself" immoral?

Defined from their perspective, that means forcibly including others in their sexual gratification, so yes (operating from the basic moral premise that sexual activity should be consensual, which I think we can both accept). Defined from an outsider's perspective, not necessarily. Outsiders may be inclined to presume nefarious/sexual motivations and say that somebody is "exposing themselves" when they're just getting naked for the same reason everyone else that's meant to be naked in a given setting is, especially if they don't like something about the person. In such cases, it is not immoral.

Basically, once again, it's bad if it's bad, but not if it's not. As I said, nudity is morally neutral. Sometimes, people do immoral things with nudity, and that is immoral (by literal definition), but if they are not, then nudity is not immoral.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.