Can Anyone Explain How Defecation Laws Make Any Sense?

[Lord Jim]

Sure, we can barf up "social norms" and the like, but what does that tell us? Nothing more than this: The laws should be what they are, because they are what they are. Does anyone really find that convincing?

If a person wishes to take a shit in public, (assuming that they carry along a pooper scooper and bag their droppings so that there is no health issue) Why should there be any law against that?

After all, everyone craps. Everyone has seen crap. Why should it be illegal for a person who wants to crap in public to do so? Just because some squeamish neurotic types are offended is no excuse for this unwarranted encumbrance on personal liberty. There’s no “right to not be offended.”

But if I drop my pants in a public place and pinch off a loaf, I’ll be arrested for committing a crime.

Does anyone care -- does anyone even dare to try -- to explain how that makes any sense?

[Andrew D]

assuming that ... there is no health issue

Which would be like assuming that Lord Jim actually thinks.

[Gob]

Well there's the smell for a start.

It's bad enough when someone farts, dropping a length of dirty spine on the street would be even worse. And if people cannot be arsed to clean up after their dogs..

[Lord Jim]

Hey, it's legal for dogs to crap on the sidewalk in plain view of passersby so long as the owner cleans up after them. Why should it be any different if a person takes a crap on the sidewalk in plain view of passersby so long as they clean up the poop? Afterall, it not like the person is doing anything that everyone hasn't seen themselves.

Aside from offending some irrational people's so-called "sensibilities" (which of course they have no right to force on anyone else) what is the harm? Why should a person have less rights than a dog?

[Scooter]

Not wishing to take away from the obviously satirical point you are attempting to make with this thread, but...

There are a lot of people whose, er, product is not as solid and scoopable as a dog's. Should those who squat and dump also be required to carry along some cleaning solution and a scrub brush to remove what is sure to be left behind?

[Gob]

I replied not having read the related thread...

Got me!

[@meric@nwom@n]

Is this some subtle way of letting us know you have become incontinent LJ?

And don't say it depends.

[Lord Jim]

Should those who squat and dump also be required to carry along some cleaning solution and a scrub brush to remove what is sure to be left behind?

If their stool quality is such that this would be needed to eliminate a health to risk others, than yes, that would be a reasonable requirement.

But there is no logical or rational reason why the act itself should be legally prohibited, just because some persnickety types have totally unjustifiable "hang ups" about seeing what is a perfectly natural act.

[@meric@nwom@n]

Well are you planning to have a shit in to protest?

[Andrew D]

How many answers can one want?

Oh, that's right; it's Lord Jim. He doesn't want any answers. He just wants to avoid producing one himself.

Surprise, surprise.

[dales]

LJ...

Taken a stroll along Market St. between 4th and 5th streets?

[Andrew D]

Against all odds -- this is a Lord Jim if-I'm-clever-enough-I-won't-have-to-address-the-issue posting -- there is a serious question here.

You're sitting on a bench in the park. Someone walking her or his dog comes by. The dog squats (or however one might describe the manuever) and shits. The person scoops up the shit as best he or she can. You find it unpleasant, but hey, the owner scooped up the shit, so what's the problem?

Really. What's the problem? Is there a problem?

[Lord Jim]

The dog squats (or however one might describe the manuever) and shits. The person scoops up the shit as best he or she can. You find it unpleasant, but hey, the owner scooped up the shit, so what's the problem?

Really. What's the problem? Is there a problem?

Why shouldn't the same standard apply to a person?

[Andrew D]

You should ask yourself that question.

And maybe you will be magnanimous enough to grace us with your answer.

[Lord Jim]

You should ask yourself that question.

And maybe you will be magnanimous enough to grace us with your answer.

Gee, I think my position's been made quite clear in this thread....

Perhaps you could stop deflecting and answer the question?

[Andrew D]

Why should I bother attempting to justify I position which I have not taken?

[Lord Jim]

Well frankly I'm surprised that you wouldn't embrace the right-to-crap-in-public idea since once you account for the health issues, (as has been done in this discussion) every single one of the arguments that you can make for your right-to-walk-around-nekkid position (including your sneering dismissiveness of those who find it offensive) fits perfectly with this proposal.

I suspect you've noticed that.

[Andrew D]

You are the one advocating a restriction on a simple fact of existence. But you will not -- or cannot -- justify that restriction.

Defecating is an act. Being naked is not.

When it comes to nakedness, clothing oneself is an act. Remaining naked -- the state into which every one of us was born -- is not.

You want to force people to engage in the act of clothing themselves. I do not want to force people to do anything.

So justify what you want: Explain why people should be forced to do what you want them to do.

Yeah, that will happen.

[Scooter]

Well, for that matter, all of us were born needing to defecate. And for most of human existence, it was done outside, presumably where other humans would come across it if they happened to be walking the same way. Even after humans came to dwell inside and conveniences like chamberpots came into use, they were still dumped outside, often from above into the middle of a well trafficked street.

So the notion that we should not expect to come across human excrement when out of doors is a MUCH more recent social convention than the one that says people are expected to be clothed in public.

[Lord Jim]

Well, for that matter, all of us were born needing to defecate. And for most of human existence, it was done outside, presumably where other humans would come across it if they happened to be walking the same way. Even after humans came to dwell inside and conveniences like chamberpots came into use, they were still dumped outside, often from above into the middle of a well trafficked street.

So the notion that we should not expect to come across human excrement when out of doors is a MUCH more recent social convention than the one that says people are expected to be clothed in public.

Exactly.

So the question for Andrew to answer is why is it he wants to force people to take the action of using indoor toilets and impose this artificial restriction on a simple fact of existence. (the natural act of defecation)

But he will not -- or cannot -- justify that restriction.