Opposing NSNSNS - just why?

(seperate post because I want to bring up some new points instead of replying to one person)

One of the things that bothers me about the 'No shoes, no service' signs is that it singles out bare feet... Okay, and shirts... but all the objections people have against bare feet could apply to at least some other types of footwear, dress and/or behaviour, too. Often much more so, for in many cases the problems people have with bare feet are based on prejudice and misinformation, or are blown way out of proportion.

Dirty/unhealthy.
-Bare feet are on the floor and usually stay there. Bare feet are no threat to anyone else. Even if you believe they form a threat to me, that is no concern of you as a shop keeper. Stores *sell* lots of unhealthy food, fattening chips, soda's, etc, etc... often even alcohol and/or cigarettes. Yet they are concerned about my decision to go barefoot? Why not a sign "no more than 2 bags of chips per customer"?
-Concerned about spreading anything to others? As I said, bare feet stay on the ground... The few health problems that affect feet, like warts, athlete's foot, and nail fungus, spread primarily through locker rooms where people put feet softened by sweat on the floor, pick up something, and then stick their feet back into a warm, dark & often damp environment (shoes again ). Shod customers are not at risk at all from barefooters. On the other hand -somewhat literally-, we spread lots and lots of disease by hand and through the air. Doorknobs are a source of lots of germs, so is money. People with a cold aren't refused access (I suppose if someone were *really* sick and coughing all over the place they might be asked to leave, but not for a single sneeze.. however that single sneeze spread far more germs through the store, and airborne germs that are more likely to actually infect anyone, than bare feet ever would). Yes, most people know to cover their mouth when they cough or sneeze.. however that's hardly an air-tight covering and also they often use their *hands*, after which they continue to handle the groceries, money, that doorknob... Yet there aren't any signs 'No sneezing in the store' or 'mouth caps required'.

Dangerous?
Sure, a barefoot person can step on something or stub a toe, or something can fall on my foot. However, stepping on something is extremely rare (close to 8 years of full-time barefooting, including outside, train stations, and loads of other places with *much* more litter than a store floor, and never more than a tiny splinter). About stuff falling on top of my foot or stubbing a toe, flipflops and other sandals are not much protection against that and are allowed. Loose footwear like flipflops can cause people to trip. Slick-soled dress shoes can lead to falls. High heels and platform shoes are far worse than any other footwear or lack thereof, and a twisted ankle is also a more serious injury than a splinter. If you want to eliminate accidents it could help to require sturdy, closed-toe, non-skid shoes; however out of all possible footwear *only* bare feet get a sign on the door...

Insurance?
Quite a few people from the Society for Barefoot Living have written insurance companies, poured over their own policies, etc, etc, without coming up with any clause requiring shoes on customers, or indicating requiring footwear was necessary or even recommended. There are far more claims of slip & falls in slick soled shoes, heels & platform shoes than claims of barefoot injuries -those last are actually quite rare.

Disrespectful?
Again two sides to this issue... for me personally, it's very respectful to the Earth, nature and everything to go barefoot. Even on asphalt or concrete, being barefoot makes me more aware of my surroundings, less likely to carelessly litter, step on something (or someone ), etc, etc. Wearing shoes, even if necessary because of extreme weather, feels extremely *disrespectful*; almost as if I am cursing with every step I take. Sure, bare feet can be disrespectful in some settings.. If someone comes into a store wearing pants hanging half off their @ss, a sweater that's more holes than fabric, and bare feet, that looks pretty disrespectful and rude.. however how many people would see bare feet underneath a nice dress as a sign of disrespect or carelessness?

Don't care for the way it looks.
That's everyone's right, however there are lots of other things that may not look nice.. example above for one.. or I personally dislike 'wetlook' gel (doesn't look wet to me, but greasy). However, once again *only bare feet* get a sign on the door.

Rebellious?
Again, that could be part of it for some. But what about piercings? Tattoos? Or to go back to footwear, among teens it's sometimes a fad to wear the most ratty, dirty sneakers possible, preferably with at least one hole in each and sometimes even with the shoe strings hanging loose. These qualify as rebellious, unsightly, disrespectful and in case of the loose shoe strings, even potentially dangerous. However, I've yet to see a sign 'no old sneakers'...

The title of this thread is "opposing NSNSNS -just why?" but I would like to turn that question around... So many things that can be unhealthy, so many things that can be dangerous, so many things that can be unsightly, so many things that can be disrespectful... Many far more so than bare feet... yet bare feet get a sign and those other things don't. Why? Why single out bare feet?

 

Dude, you are so ignorant about this that it goes way beyond pathetic.

The fact that you would do this when you have no rational basis for doing so, AND WE KNOW IT AND HAVE EXPLAINED IT TO YOU OVER AND OVER, is part of what makes you ignorant.

People just like you make it less and less so, the more they make idiotic, unreasonable demands of others. Your anti-barefoot stance is just one example, but a potent one.

-Jeffrey

 

No, that's not what we're advocating.

What most of us are doing when we go into a NSNSNS establishment barefoot is not "looking for a fight," it's simply being the average shopper, and possibly demonstrating that there IS no actual rational reason for discriminating against the bare-of-foot.

What most of us hope to do -- and I have succeeded in doing a few times -- is convincing and making the proprietors realize that there is no "danger" to them if they let barefooters shop; that barefooters are capable of looking after their own safety and in many cases may be safer than others (like women in topply high heeled shoes); that there are NO LAWS against bare feet, and NO insurance companies indemnify their policyholders for harm suffered by barefoot patients. A little education goes a long way in this instance. When open-minded people are shown that there are no laws and no insurance policy stipulations against bare feet, they are forced to examine the REAL reasons they oppose them, and often they can be convinced of the truth: that people should be free to choose to be either barefoot or shod, with no impediments as to where they can go in either state.

-Jeffrey

 

Um, are you aware of the fact that you are entitled to keep, say, black people from entering your home, but you are NOT entitled to keep them from entering your "privately owned business"?

So you are engaging in a fallacy to believe that private business should = private residence. There are definitely differences.

-Jeffrey

 

Myranya, your last few posts have been excellent beyond ANYTHING I have EVER read in defense of bare feet, or more specifically as a challenge to those who challenge bare feet.

But I'm afraid that you will not get a good-faith response to the questions you pose here -- least of all from Astaroth, who makes appearances every so many months just to give those who want to be barefoot shit. He is a troll. He just likes to goad people; he certainly is not here to discuss this rationally, and possibly even change his outlook if enough rational sense is made by the "opposition." Because you know, a reasonable person who holds position A should be willing to switch to holding position B if people objectively, logically, rationally tear down all reason for holding position A. But Astaroth is not going to do that, because his loathing of bare feet is ingrained, and is not based on sound principles of logic, medicine, law, ethics, morality, or anything else.

Once again, thank you for making the barefooters' case so clearly and expertly.

-Jeffrey

 

Thank you again, Jeffrey I try...

And I don't think Astaroth is that bad -at least he doesn't try to tell us what we should or shouldn't do outside. Antagonist yes, but troll no... trolls only post for kicks, as far as I can tell from my brief time here, Astaroth just has a quite different opinion that he supports as vehemently as we support ours, which is his right. Trolls don't care about the actual issues -I even know a couple people who'll post things they don't truly believe or support at all, just to get a reaction. If Astaroth is that kind of troll, he at least puts enough thought in it to be convincing.

Besides, as I pointed out here or maybe in one of the other threads, there are *lots* more people reading these posts than actively posting. Look at the view/reply rate in the index! I may reply to Astaroth, or Andcrs2, and occasionally I may even ask a direct question, however I'm also posting in an open forum. The people taking part in the discussion are usually those who feel strongest about it -apart from a few who're just bored, most of us are more likely to post when we want to say 'Yes!' or 'No!' than when we're sorta indifferent or undecided. Naturally, those who feel strongest are also going to be the hardest to win over -often we won't be succeed at all. But those others, the lurkers who are as of yet undecided or only slightly leaning toward one side or the other, they're people we *can* influence by what we write. That is why I will often even reply to a true troll, and am not put off in the least by the fact that I know I have zero chance of convincing that troll himself.

 

Yes, trolls can be used as springboards for making good arguments for the opposite of what they're claiming.

There are some who just don't like the looks of others, for whatever reasons. They would exclude more than just barefooters because of their looks, and then hide behind a veil of the 'store owner rights' argument

We've had other people in here who didn't like the idea of seeing a guy shirtless or a woman bare-breast. In this room they didn't admit it, but if you read their posts in other rooms it became apparent they weren't really concerned about store owner rights but simply had psychological hangups about the appearance of certain people.

This would make a good sketch on a late-night comedy show: 'The Intolerant Store Owner' who runs his business any way he feels in the name of 'libertarianism'. He could kick out the first customer because she's barefoot. The second because he's African-American. Throw out the third woman because she looks 'unsightly'. Kick out the fourth because he has a pierced ear. And on and on.

 

Speaking of the 'dirt argument', did you ever go into a restaurant in the winter and see all the mud and dirt that gets tracked in? Based on the anti-barefoot dirt argument, we'd have to close down restaurants or make people take off their boots before coming in to the restaurant (or any other store that sells food). Boots are worse than bare feet when it comes to bringing in dirt.

 

Even the most libertarian of store owners come to the realization that they can't have everything the way they want it.

There was a story on the news about a store owner who was having trouble with shoplifting. He ended up putting magnetic tags on products, but only products that were bought mainly by African -Americans. He claimed he had a perfect right to do this, and legally he did. When African-Americans noticed the tags were only on these particular products, they became insulted and started picketing his store for singling out a certain race.

The money he lost from the commotion cost him more than what it would have cost to simply put magnetic tags on every item. He was still insistent on doing things his way, though.

 

Ah, Jeffrey, Jeffrey, where would we be without your peaceful tirades BTW, was that you who threatened to cut someone's throat a while ago? I know for sure it wasn't me...

Shaggie: I can't figure out whether you're with me or against me. You might not think so but we agree on more things than we disagree on (bare feet excluded). "Extreme libertarianism" as described by you is a downright stupid thing when it leaves the realm of the possibility and enters the realm of practical application. As you said yourself, more money will be lost in commotion than benefits gained.

But the possibility should remain. Anything less will be limiting my freedom, and yours too. Surely you must see that.

Myranya: Your arguments are all well and good. And they certainly hold water in some cases. But alas, not in the case at hand: no matter what you may think or argue or demonstrate, as long as our hypothetical store owner (Astaroth the Grocer, heeeeh) thinks otherwise, it doesn't matter what you think. If he wants to make a sale, he'll agree; if not - there are 20 grocery stores down the street that will be more than happy to let you in without footwear.

Andcrs2: What can I say, thanks for support.

 

I'm not against libertarianism, but it has problems when two groups thinking the same way confront each other so agressively that both get hurt in the process.

I have yet to hear a valid argument against bare feet in establishments. The closest one that has any sort of legal creedence is if the store owner's insurance policy stated that patrons need to be shod. That would cause a storeowner to have second thoughts about letting barefooters in. I don't even know if there are any policies that state such a thing. Even so, one could argue that an insurance policy that stated such a thing doesn't make sense.

The injury arguments themselves don't hold water either. People are far more likely to injure themselves in high heels, yet those aren't banned.

All the other arguments I've heard just don't hold water from a rational standpoint.

There's always the libertarian statement that a storeowner can do whatever he wants, but that's not really an argument based on practical reason. It's more of an ideological stance.

I acknowledge that someone has the right to make a libertarian type of claim, but ideological stances don't prove an argument or win a debate.

 

There are many things that don't make Sense in Insurance Policies/Corporate Regulations.

Proper foot wear is not one of these.

Ever seen just how much blood comes from a foot wound?

 

Good to see you ignored my later Post which mentioned the Legal aspects.
I suppose I should've edited the original Post...but I didn't.

Very Open Minded Folks here (more like Forum trolls)...*c*

 

We'd have to ban high heels also as being improper footwear. You have to look at the amount of injuries. What's worse, the injuries due to slips and falls from high heels or the blood that comes from cutting yourself? I'm not trying to be sarcastic.

I'd rather be in bare feet than something like high heels.

 

Down here it's always been 'No shirts/shoes - no Service'.

...even at the beaches/lakes.

There's no reason to feel singled out - I wear neither most of the Time...


...but I understand why they're required.

 

Heels are banned in many places.


You rather walk thru broken glass/metal shavings barefooted v. wearing high heels?

Both glass/metal can be found in Retail establishments.


I do like the selective reading/comprehension displayed by many here...*slowly shaking Head*

 

But we *do* agree on this as a *fact*, a current fact... However, that doesn't mean I can't argue I'd like to see it *CHANGED*. Laws are changed and amended all the time. Sheez, sorry but that's the third time I'm saying this.. is it that hard to understand?

And this is true for grocery stores, but if it is some specialty-store, there may not be another one in town... say if I wanted to buy a piano or whatever... Okay no doubt you can find several music stores in a major city but in many places you'd have much further to go! And really small towns only have one grocery store too; one town I spent my first summer in college had just one grocery store, one hardware store... the next opportunity to buy groceries was half an hour away. Really inconvenient! Btw, if there's no other option nearby, would that make any difference in your position and action? Would you be more inclined to let those you don't like (for whatever reason) make a purchase if they'd have to go to the next town than when they can just go to down the street? (And please don't say that you have the *right* to turn someone away no matter how far the next store is, I *know* that and that's not what I'm asking.. I'm asking what you would *chose to do* )

 

The reason high heels aren't banned, even though they are probably more dangerous than bare feet, is because the societal inertia behind them is so great that storeowners and the insurance industry can't ban them even if they wanted to. It's a societal situation that is perpetuating something that doesn't make sense from the standpoint of practical reason. Most people don't stop and think about this, but just accept them as normal and safe (and many other things that don't make sense too)

Yes, I prefer bare feet to heels. I've seen what heels do to feet and have seen people injure themselves in heels (one of my own family members).

Over the years I've never injured my feet except for minor scrapes. I can walk over glass without getting injured, especially in summer when the soles are thicker. I know where not to step. I can't say this is the same for others, but I know for sure how many people have damaged their feet and backs in high heels. They're no better than bare feet in most situations.

 

I have yet to see heels banned in stores. I've seen them banned in some places that have soft wooden floors because of the damage they would do.

 

Speaking of small stores, I still visit a deli near a college. No one there cares about footwear. Some of the college kids come in barefoot. If the owner required that shoes be worn, he'd put himself out of business.