Stu's Nude Day

[Stu2630]

Søren

So I still say you can be nude on any beach in DK according to the law. To cause alarm and risk the police draging you away you have to behave objectionable. and what is objectionable behaviour?

As in the UK and here in Sweden, that will be a question of fact for the police to determine at the time - and, ultimately, for a court to determine. That will depend to some extent upon the precise behaviour and also the particular beach but, ultimately, it will be down to the discretion and judgment of the police officer and/or judge. If people complain, that will undoubtedly affect their judgment.

Maybe we just have to agree to disagree.

I think we will have to agree to disagree.

NakedGary

According to Chief of Police Association, it is generally allowed to bathe naked on the beach.

Indeed. The operative word being "generally". We already know that. There is no "general" prohibition on nudity on Danish beaches - but that does not mean there is an absolute right to nudity on such beaches. There is no "general" prohibition on people having sex on beaches but, if you do it in front of other people and they find it objectionable, the police are empowered to act. Hence the advice of the Danish Naturist body to stay a reasonable distance away from textiles.

If you doubt me, test this out. Go onto a busy Danish textile beach and stand near a textile family naked and, when you are asked to move on, refuse and invite them to call the police.

Good luck with that!

Stu

[NudeWiking]

NudeWiking Danish Quote TranslatedAccording to Chief of Police Association, it is generally allowed to bathe naked on the beach. This interpretation is a continuation of the Justice Ministry's decision in 1976 to nude bathing and sunbathing on the beach with no clothes is not in itself may be considered indecent behavior.

Thanks Gary
Stu don't forget the last part

This interpretation is a continuation of the Justice Ministry's decision in 1976 to nude bathing and sunbathing on the beach with no clothes is not in itself may be considered indecent behavior

[Agde]

I'm really not so worried about any of this... I am more worried that Stu is going to discover the gentle joys of occasional fabric-free living, and as a result we won't have a die-hard textile to argue with anymore!

[Sanslines]

I'm really not so worried about any of this... I am more worried that Stu is going to discover the gentle joys of occasional fabric-free living, and as a result we won't have a die-hard textile to argue with anymore!

Not in this lifetime!...........lol

[Stu2630]

Søren

This interpretation is a continuation of the Justice Ministry's decision in 1976 to nude bathing and sunbathing on the beach with no clothes is not in itself may be considered indecent behavior

Firstly, that was a particular minister's opinion, not a binding judicial or legislative decision: a minister expressing a view is not law. Secondly, even if it is persuasive, that does not contradict my point, which is that the circumstances of the nudity at a particular location or on a particular day may give rise to the behaviour being deemed to be inappropriate - hence the wide advice of Danske Naturister to keep a distance from textile bathers.

Denmark really isn't as "uninhibited" on nudity as many people like to think. Can you imagine Steve Gough being allowed to ramble naked through the streets of Slagelse or Randers? The World Naked Bike Ride in Copenhagen was only permitted of people kept their genitals covered.

I was in Copenhagen all day yesterday and, after a hectic morning, I spent most of the afternoon chilling Kongen's Park and Rosenberg Slot, right in the centre of the city scoffing ice creams and drinking smoothies from the trendy juice bar on the corner of Gothersgade. It was a hot afternoon and the park was quite full of people relaxing, some in bikinis. I am delighted to say that there was absolutely no nudity and zero topless women.

Agde

I would have thought it could be a bit boring just talking to others who agree with pretty much everything you say.

I also think you will find that we "die-hard" textiles comprise a substantial majority in most nations, so it doesn't hurt to keep in touch with the textile perspective.

Stu

[usuallylurk]

Again, I appreciate Stu's presence here.

First of all, Stu may be putting us on a little bit... because, Stu has to see pictures of naked people to get into this forum, if he's using a standard browser.

Second, Stu is an academic. He will "push a few buttons" -- very gently, and in an academic fashion, to stimulate discussion. This is the 89th posts in this thread. There's no doubt he contributes here, and no doubt that he brings up topics that are interesting. His discussion certainly trumps "what if I get an erection" and "I can't find any nudist activity in the New England states" (that one was a pip!!!!). But that's what happens in academia! You discuss things out thoroughly and listen to all sides.

Third, Stu presents a contrarian, and opposing point of view on issues. And, this is valuable, because he is always reasoned, and he always presents arguments that we as nudists and nude-recreation advocates are likely to encounter in our own communities, should they arise.

Fourth - Stu is RESPECTFUL. Most of the conversation here is. It never gets into name calling, rancor, or ad hominem attacks when Stu's involved.

I often disagree with him. As a nudist of four decades, I often AGREE with him. He's a valuable contributor here, and I find his posts refreshing.

[Sanslines]

Again, I appreciate Stu's presence here.

First of all, Stu may be putting us on a little bit... because, Stu has to see pictures of naked people to get into this forum, if he's using a standard browser.

Second, Stu is an academic. He will "push a few buttons" -- very gently, and in an academic fashion, to stimulate discussion. This is the 89th posts in this thread. There's no doubt he contributes here, and no doubt that he brings up topics that are interesting. His discussion certainly trumps "what if I get an erection" and "I can't find any nudist activity in the New England states" (that one was a pip!!!!). But that's what happens in academia! You discuss things out thoroughly and listen to all sides.

Third, Stu presents a contrarian, and opposing point of view on issues. And, this is valuable, because he is always reasoned, and he always presents arguments that we as nudists and nude-recreation advocates are likely to encounter in our own communities, should they arise.

Fourth - Stu is RESPECTFUL. Most of the conversation here is. It never gets into name calling, rancor, or ad hominem attacks when Stu's involved.

I often disagree with him. As a nudist of four decades, I often AGREE with him. He's a valuable contributor here, and I find his posts refreshing.

Lurk,

I don't know what prompted your post but there is a completely different side to the "Stu" story that you have overlooked. What is being presented here is not an academic discussion. Instead, what is being presented here is one heavily biased opinion that has nothing to do with real facts. There is a purpose and a meaning to most fair and balanced academic discussions - points and counter points are made and a conclusion is finally reached. With Stu, we all have known his 'conclusion' for years before any discussion has ever commenced. Some of us recognize what he is trying to do and that is to keep repeating the same old message over and over again until people believe in this message. Sound familiar?

If a conclusion has already been determined, then why bother with any real discussion? What's the point of it? Nothing is learned when closed minds prevail. Certainly nothing productive can be accomplished when all points from one side are patently rejected.

As for being respectful, do you know how con men operate? They certainly appear to be very nice, decent, respectful individuals who earn the trust of the vulnerable and gullible. However, their intentions are anything but just. Con men (and women) flourish in this world because too many people believe in what they want to believe in and will not listen to anything else. We are actually awash in con men and con women in the USA. Perhaps it is because we are not able to see through the fog and into the soul of the real person.

The FACT with Stu is that he has indicated that he has meddled in foreign affairs for no other purpose than to punish what he perceives to be in appropriate nudism. This is wrong and a big red flag that you seem to fail to recognize. If you were on the receiving end of this meddling, then you might have a very different opinion. Suppose that such meddling resulted in your being thrown in jail. Would you expect anyone else to 'see the light' and care about your incarceration? Of course not.......you can rot in jail and the rest can go on believing in the fairy tail that they wish to believe in. You would just as quickly be forgotten rather than used as a red flag.

Stu really is NOT the person that you wish to believe that he is and I am really sorry that you are being deceived. I make this conclusion based upon several years of "Stu" observations. There is a clear pattern with this man and it is there for all who chose to see it.

http://www.straightshooter.net/Bewar...Con_Artist.htm

[Stu2630]

I think usuallylurk and others on here can make up their own minds - they have known me long enough to realise I am not a "con man" - I am simply someone who holds strong beliefs and I can articulately defend them.

Of course, those who are unable to defeat my expressed views with reasoned arguments often resort to the rather sad argumentum ad hominem tactic or, as they say in sport, "if your opponent is a better player than you, attack the man and ignore the ball".

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html


Stu

[Sanslines]

I think usuallylurk and others on here can make up their own minds - they have known me long enough to realise I am not a "con man" - I am simply someone who holds strong beliefs and I can articulately defend them.

Of course, those who are unable to defeat my expressed views with reasoned arguments often resort to the rather sad argumentum ad hominem tactic or, as they say in sport, "if your opponent is a better player than you, attack the man and ignore the ball".


http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html


Stu

This is exactly the kind of reply that I am referring to above. I clearly stated much more that you will ever address or acknowledge. Your beliefs are closed minded opinions for which you have automatically reached a firm conclusion years ago and you resort to just repeating the same old thing over and over again until some people believe it. This worked well in the world's propaganda wars and still works well today. Reason never works with someone who can not reason as you have proved time and time again.

You are also fooling yourself if you think that anyone has to defeat your expressed views. I also clearly stated in the past that nothing that we say in this forum matters in the real world. No important issues will ever be resolved here. However, you changed all of this when you admitted that you meddle in foreign nation's affairs in your quest to punish your perceived inappropriate practice of nudism. You do not know Stephen Gough and his nudist activities have absolutely no bearing upon you for you will never meet him unless you deliberately seek him out. Yet, you formed your closed minded opinions about this man and his reasons for doing what he does without actually knowing all of the real facts and then you went and punished him with your alleged harmless inquiries to the authorities. This is wrong and this is the crux of the matter here so please don't waste the time of aware people by trying to digress to topics about "poor old Stu and his personal attacks". You deserve much more that anything that can ever be said in this forum for abusing people overseas with your 'harmless' inquires to the authorities. Fair minded, empathetic people in this forum will put themselves in the shoes of someone who rots in jail in part to your meddling in affairs which do not concern you and then understand just how dangerous you really are to real nudism.

[nimrod]

This is valuable, because he is always reasoned.

How is believing that certain parts should remain private a reasoned arguement? An opinion not based on facts is not reasoned.

Fourth - Stu is RESPECTFUL. Most of the conversation here is. It never gets into name calling, rancor, or ad hominem attacks when Stu's involved.

Then you have not seen the worst of him, ignoring it, or have some mental block on it. There have been more then one occasion of him being outright rude and/or angry. How is making jokes about the Holocaust respectful? How is being misogynistic respectful?

There was another nudist here that removed himself because of Stu's disrespect for nudists and the fact that the powers that be have not banned Stu for his antics. He had said that he was on another nudist forum that Stu frequented where Stu was not the "polite" person that he is here and told just how bad Stu's behaviour can be.

As for attacking Stu on a personal level, I just feel as though it is pay back for his attacks on us through this forum. I try not to argue with him just on facts because even though I have bettered him and proven my point, he still thinks he his right and continues to argue the same points over and over again, I call it the Stu merry-go-round.

I will continue to say that he adds nothing to this forum that we do not already see and hear in our daily lifes. There is no need to sharpen my debating skills, because most people have made up their minds about nudity already, like Stu, and no amount of arguing, or how well skilled and thought out my arguement is will change their minds.