Bill O'reilly on Public nudity

[Silverback]

I think Bill is going to do a piece on public nudity tonight, Monday, October 23, 2006, on the Fox channel’s Factor. It will not be favorable to the nudist community (I bet).

[Silverback]

I think Bill is going to do a piece on public nudity tonight, Monday, October 23, 2006, on the Fox channel’s Factor. It will not be favorable to the nudist community (I bet).

[Bob S.]

I didn't see it, but I bet it is the Florida ruling where charges against Elizabeth Book were dismissed due to her First Amemndment right to protest. She was protesting topless against the city's unequal topless laws.

Bob S.

[PascoDoug]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bob S.:
I didn't see it, but I bet it is the Florida ruling where charges against Elizabeth Book were dismissed due to her First Amemndment right to protest.
Bob S. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


It was, and O'Reilly was his usual ignorant self.

It will be replayed a little later tonight.

[FireProf]

Didn't watch it, can't stand the guy anyway.

Brings to mind Mr Foley.............it's these guys that have such a distain for nudity, public or private and get on these crusades to rid the world of it and protect everyone, even those that don't want to be, from it.

I wonder what secrets Mr. O'Reilly is hiding. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/smoking.gif

[simonsebs]

I just watched this a few minutes ago. Did anyone notice the caption "nudist colonies" when showing the pictures, and how he said he was opposed to nudity because children might see. I tempted to send him an e-mail, but from watching the show I know he would probably just give some smug, smart-a@# answer. Anyone else plan on sending Bill an e-mail.

[simonsebs]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FireProf:
I wonder what secrets Mr. O'Reilly is hiding. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/smoking.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sexual harrasment and phone sex with interns. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/shout.gif

[FireProf]

Whatever it is.........it'll come out sooner or later. This kinda media denouncing of certain things has a way of coming back and bitin' them right in the keester!

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif

[texasjoe]

Life is short.

Life is too short to waste watching (or listening to) ignorant lying blowhards like O'Reilly, Geraldo Rivera and John Stossel.

[NakedTao]

I've said it before, and it bears repeating - Bill O'Reilly lost all right to complain about us naturists - or other supposedly immoral people, for that matter - when he started talking about loofahs and falafels. It is amazing, however, that conservatives as a rule oppose our lifestyle and will poorly attempt to criminalize it - look at Mr. Foley.

[UpstateNYBill]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by simonsebs:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FireProf:
I wonder what secrets Mr. O'Reilly is hiding. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/smoking.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sexual harrasment and phone sex with interns. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/shout.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bill O'Reilly lost all credibility on morality when he was exposed and then promptly settled that sexual harassment suit.

[LamontCranston]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This kinda media denouncing of certain things has a way of coming back and bitin' them right in the keester! </div></BLOCKQUOTE> I wish we could organize a national boycott TV week or something that would bankcrupt someone.

"I've heard enough talking heads and I'm not going to take it anymore!"

[Bob S.]

I didn't watch it the second time it came on. I thought it was a midnight repeat when it was an 11pm repeat. Oh well. No loss I guess. I knew what he was going to say anyway.

[nudeM]

I saw it. He was interviewing the lady who was arrested for public nudity. He was questioning as to why she liked to run around topless. After her explaination, he did have some smart a*# comments, but he did not condone it, as I thought he would. He wasn't actually against it, but he wasn't exactly supporting it either.

Overall, I thought he did a pretty good job on the interview. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/smoking.gif

[simonsebs]

Here's a link to the actual interview.
O'reilly interview (http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player06.html?102306/102306_oreilly_nude&OReilly_Factor&Victory%20for%20Nudity&acc&US&-1&News&283&&&exp)

I clicked the link... nothing comes up

[Naturist Mark]

ugh! What a tool.

O'Reilly didn't even notice that while questioning Ms. Book's desire to 'impose her views' on others he was doing the same - while using some very specious arguments like 'what would children think' when they see a bare breast. He also mentioned that breast feeding should be done privately just like relieving oneself - and that social mores in the US is why the law dictates covering breasts - completely ignorant of the law in every single US State.

What a tool.

-Mark

[bmolloy]

what a prude breast feading is one of the most natural things in the world

[hm0504]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by simonsebs:
Here's a link to the actual interview.
O'reilly interview (http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player06.html?102306/102306_oreilly_nude&OReilly_Factor&Victory%20for%20Nudity&acc&US&-1&News&283&&&exp) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not having any luck with the link -- a window opens up but it does not seem to have any meaningful content.Thanks in advance.

[simonsebs]

The link still works for me, but for those of you that don't try this. Go to this link (http://www.foxnews.com/video/0,4861,4,00.html) and scroll down until you get to O'reilly Factor, the clip should be there.

[hm0504]

OK, thanks. BTW, here's a transcript:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,224564,00.html

[Guiness]

Hate to make personal attacks but in this case I'll make an exception...what a tool.

[nimrod]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Guiness:
Hate to make personal attacks but in this case I'll make an exception...what a tool. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree, I do not like to make personal attacks, but calling him a tool makes it sound like he has some use.

[nacktman]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Originally posted by Guiness:
Hate to make personal attacks but in this case I'll make an exception...what a tool. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, calling something what it is isn't a personal attack, Guiness.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Originally posted by nimrod:
I agree, I do not like to make personal attacks, but calling him a tool makes it sound like he has some use. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only SOUNDS that way nimrod, as you know he has NO use.

Besides, I feel the use of the term "TOOL" to be in place of other terms the moderators and/or the software would delete, as it is a slang term for a certain part of the male anatomy.

[tinner666]

Tool, in this case, should start with a 'F'! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/shocked.gif

[freesobernaked]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> quote:
Originally posted by simonsebs:
Here's a link to the actual interview.
O'reilly interview


I'm not having any luck with the link -- a window opens up but it does not seem to have any meaningful content.

Thanks in advance.

Albinus </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

When it comes to Bill O'Reilly, there never is any meaningful content.

[Bob S.]

What was the point of the file footage of the "nudist colony"? This was a case regarding a woman's right to protest topfree and to be topfree in public. That insertion of a nudist park file footage just showed his (and I guess his staff's) utmost ignorance of the issue.

And of course he used the "what about the children?" arguement. It's the only thing they can fall back on.

Bob S.

[LamontCranston]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What was the point of the file footage of the "nudist colony"? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Ratings on a slow news day. Skin sells.

Seems even an obtusian such as O-Reilly has the basics down. Actually, that's too much credit. It was probably his producer who scheduled the piece.

[missouriboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And of course he used the "what about the children?" arguement. It's the only thing they can fall back on.

Bob S. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>We, as a movement, need a real, eye-widening, "titch-slap" comeback for that one! One that will make the whiners instantly realize the utter "toolishness" of that argument. How many times out of 100 does that argument make ignorant listeners agree, "Tsk, Tsk, Yes!, you are so right, what about the children??" without ever bothering to think it through? At least 100 times, I'd say.

Is there already such a comeback out there? Can anyone think of a good one?

Let's all put our thinking caps on, and come up with several. I know we can do it! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif

[NudistGuy47]

I recently saw a short film about the Canadian Naturist Movement and included was an interview with Dr. Joyce Brothers stating that children do not appear to be harmed when they understand the nudity in the home and at clubs is in their private realm and not to be shared with others.

The short documentary also highlighted that naturists/nudists are more highly educated as a group. Now, IMHO, that sounds like a better situation than other things. If the parents are more highly educated, the children will be given a positive role model in more than one way. They get the double whammy of being accepting of their bodies and might even go on and get more education to become free thinkers in the future society.

And to me, those are both positive attributes. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/beam.gif

[tinner666]

Abby or Landers had something in our paper a few months ago. She had a positive slant on the resort issue. She mentioned that people of ALL ages were there to have a good time. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif Sorry I din't post it at the time.

[kphoger]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> It is amazing, however, that conservatives as a rule oppose our lifestyle and will poorly attempt to criminalize it </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i realize more and more that "conservatives" are no longer conservative: that is, they don't really believe government should keep its hands off as much as possible. you'd think that a conservative would demonstrate limited government by enforcing fewer laws -- especially when the laws border on infringement of free speech rights (not saying nudity is protected in that way, just that it's not unthinkable).

a good comeback to the what-would-the-children-think argument is this: "my child thinks nothing of it. in fact, (s)he loves to be nude. sometimes i think (s)he is more comfortable with it than i am."

[nudebushwalker]

Bill O'Reilly isn't just a silly old man, but a big-mouthed, deranged looney-tune Reactionary (the epitome of the new age neo-conservative that forms the core of the 'tory' parties everywhere - USA (Republicans), Australia (Liberal (now there's a classical contradiction-in-terms)/National coalition), Canada, UK, even the Russians' gov't at the moment; (and even the communists in China are bunch of conservatives and reactionaries these days..).
They occasionally show clips of O'Reilly's rantings down here, just to show what a nutter the Fox news has inflicted on our poor American 'cousins' over there ..
Ruppert (Murdoch) doesn't only use O'Reilly on the Fox network to spout right-wing shock-jock nonsense; he also has the Sun newspaper in England, and News Ltd "journo's" (ha !!! 'lobbyists' should be the more correct term for these press-prostitutes, whose 'opinions are for sale to the highest bidders..) like Piers Akerman and Andrew Bolt in his Aussie newspapers..

[Baron Lake]

Moboy,
How about: ..."Well yes, we are thinking about the children....we don't want them to grow up like (insert name of interviewer).

Ok. That may be a bit confrontational. Maybe ..."Well, actually, studies show that imparting rational values regarding nudity is beneficial to children". Then cite a couple of those studies. We need to rely upon naturistMark on this one since I don't know of any; but I bet they're out there. Mark?
b.l.

[shomymojo]

Women should have the equal rights to be topless anywhere a man can be topless...PERIOD !!!..equal means equal...

[nimrod]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nacktman:
Besides, I feel the use of the term "TOOL" to be in place of other terms the moderators and/or the software would delete, as it is a slang term for a certain part of the male anatomy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, I am aware of that usage for the word, but even it has a use.

[trkrbob]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by shomymojo:
Women should have the equal rights to be topless anywhere a man can be topless...PERIOD !!!..equal means equal... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes it should mean that, same as men at resorts should be admitted equally or by same criteria women are. not some trumped up guota system or discriminatory rules that prohibit solo or single men form entering ... If it was reversed we would hear the women scream and wail all way to supreme court like they did the cadamies and and mens dinner clubs.!.

[hm0504]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by nudebushwalker:
Bill O'Reilly isn't just a silly old man, but a big-mouthed, deranged looney-tune Reactionary (the epitome of the new age neo-conservative that forms the core of the 'tory' parties everywhere - USA (Republicans), Australia (Liberal (now there's a classical contradiction-in-terms)/National coalition), Canada, UK, even the Russians' gov't at the moment; (and even the communists in China are bunch of conservatives and reactionaries these days..).
They occasionally show clips of O'Reilly's rantings down here, just to show what a nutter the Fox news has inflicted on our poor American 'cousins' over there ..
Ruppert (Murdoch) doesn't only use O'Reilly on the Fox network to spout right-wing shock-jock nonsense; he also has the Sun newspaper in England, and News Ltd "journo's" (ha !!! 'lobbyists' should be the more correct term for these press-prostitutes, whose 'opinions are for sale to the highest bidders..) like Piers Akerman and Mark Day in his Aussie newspapers.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Murdoch also has media in China thanks to a deal he signed with China which allows the Chinese government to use Murdoch's sattelite network to broadcast Chinese government propoganda...which come to think of it is what he does for the U.S. government through Faux News so no big deal there.[1]

[1] http://www.spacedaily.com/news/murdoch-01b.html

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Ok. That may be a bit confrontational. Maybe ..."Well, actually, studies show that imparting rational values regarding nudity is beneficial to children". Then cite a couple of those studies. We need to rely upon naturistMark on this one since I don't know of any; but I bet they're out there. Mark? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Blimey - I'm a human google machine ...

OK, there ARE a number of scholarly articles about nudism and child development, which we can cite, but they are not available online - at least not for free. But here are some good articles that cite them:

Children, Social Nudity and Scholarly Study (http://www.fcn.ca/children_2.htm) by Mark Story

The Naked Child Growing Up Without Shame/Social Nudity/Its Effect on Children (http://www.amazon.com/Growing-Without-Social-Nudity-Children/dp/1555990010) - Amazon link to book

Does body acceptance promote lower teen pregnancy and abortion rates? (http://www.clothesfree.com/pregnancy.html) - from CFI

-Mark

[LamontCranston]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Is there already such a comeback out there? Can anyone think of a good one? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> "Let's talk about the violence and killings first. The children's sisters, mothers, aunts and grandmothers all have breasts, but the evening news on TV is the only place most of them will see spattered blood.

Don't you think it's troubling how many simulated homicides a 12 year old has seen?

We can talk about the breasts later."

[Tampanude]

Buy a rated "M" game playstation or X box game.

"Oh no. It's rated M. Kids will never see that"
More carnage and bloodlust illustrated and seperated from real life.

The mere sight of a natural breast is harmful, but this "entertainment" is OK?

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/rolleyes2.gif

[missouriboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Moboy,
How about: ..."Well yes, we are thinking about the children....we don't want them to grow up like (insert name of interviewer).

Ok. That may be a bit confrontational... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Very good. Confrontational is OK when needed, which depends on whether the attitude of the poser deserves it.

But recall, the idiocy of the lament is that it makes NO statement and asks NO question. Therefore there is no logical response to it.

Parse the words: "what about the children?"... What do they say? Nothing, that's what. They are only designed to invoke agreement from the (like minded, or even undecided) listener, without even positing a stance with which to agree! When no one objects, everyone automatically thinks everyone else tacitly agrees, therefore earning bogus points for the one posing it. And it's always the negative one who steals those points!

I'm looking for the phrase that negates that theft, and possibly even swings it the other way by exposing such dishonesty for what it really is. And it needs to have some sting to it, to be decisively effective. Something short that instantly proves the ignorance of the statement itself.

The other responses are good too, but they only address the question that is honestly asked, which isn't the case with the above "canned sound-bite" in question here.

[nimrod]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by missouriboy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And of course he used the "what about the children?" arguement. It's the only thing they can fall back on.

Bob S. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>We, as a movement, need a real, eye-widening, "titch-slap" comeback for that one! One that will make the whiners instantly realize the utter "toolishness" of that argument. How many times out of 100 does that argument make ignorant listeners agree, "Tsk, Tsk, Yes!, you are so right, what about the children??" without ever bothering to think it through? At least 100 times, I'd say.

Is there already such a comeback out there? Can anyone think of a good one?

Let's all put our thinking caps on, and come up with several. I know we can do it! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/wink3.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I say just repeat the question back to them and see if they have an answer.

[Naturist Mark]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Is there already such a comeback out there? Can anyone think of a good one? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quite right Bill.

We wouldn't want the children growing up without body dysmorphic disorders, or to delay the start of sexual activity, or to have lower teen pregnancy and abortion rates, or to lack the sense of body shame that molesters exploit to prevent children from reporting them. These are all documented consequences of children growing up in nudist homes, Bill. These are the effects of growing up exposed to non-sexual nudity that you are so dead set against.

Can't have that in our society.

Can we Bill.

Wanna falafel?

-Mark

[LamontCranston]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'm looking for the phrase that negates that theft, and possibly even swings it the other way by exposing such dishonesty for what it really is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmmmmm. Honest, agressive and sharp

"Children are much clearer on right versus wrong than us muddled adults. And I'd rather have parents worry about their children instead of a TV and radio personality.

Tell us the opinion you're paid to deliver, or are you deferring to children who aren't even here?"

[Bob S.]

Moboy:"Is there already such a comeback out there? Can anyone think of a good one?"

I'm with nimrod on this one. Repeat the question back at them. They are using it rhetorically and really do not expect it to be answered. But if you turn the tables on them and actually have them answer it, or try to answer the question, it will throw them.

Giving stats would only be for debates. It would not be good for trying to convince the O'Reilly's of the world anything.

Bob S.

[missouriboy]

Bob, I agree with you and nimrod, and thought about going into that with my last post, but decided it was already long enough.

My thoughts ran to developing a sharp phrase that decisively throws the ball right back into the poser's court, and forces him to either develop the lament into something cogent, or to stick his tail between his legs and drop it. This would leave the audience leaning toward your argument, instead of letting them assume tacit agreement with the poser.

So, yeah, something like, "Yes, Bill, WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?? Please tell us your concerns, would you?" Then, if he sputters and cannot answer, you've won the point, and the audience. End of discussion re: children. If he does expand into a legitimate question, then pursue it with the factual intelligence being suggested by others here.

Thanks to all who responded. Now, can someone improve on Bob's and my responses with something shorter and sharper? Then, how do we distribute the idea through our ranks, in the effort to stop our Caspar Milquetoast non-response to those who play that rhetorical "children" card?