[throwawaylinux]

> No, I mean, please explain why you have to accept what others do.

Because the law allows them and prevents you stopping them.

> Are there people who are going to make me?

Police officers perhaps. Depending what you mean by not accepting it.

> If so, then they have some justification to do so - what is it?

Who and what? I don't really follow. People are free to look at what they like in public. I feel I'm repeating myself, I don't quite know what the difficulty is with this.

And what is NAP?

[kelseyfrog]

Thanks for your patience. I'm trying to understand your first principles, and they seem to be what is lawful is moral and what is moral is lawful. I simply find it difficult to accept that as an axiom.

NAP is the non-aggression principle[1]. I brought it up, not because I agree or disagree with it, but to jump to that part of the dialog were that your basis for framework.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

[throwawaylinux]

Those are not my "first principles", but otherwise I'm not really interested in explaining to people on the internet what they are.

But people are free to be in public and look at things that are in public view. This is not a statement of my beliefs or principles it's just a matter of fact. If you disagree, can you provide evidence?

[kelseyfrog]

Sorry, but matters of fact, in my experience, rarely are. Rather, they are typically assumptions, and personal and cultural projections about reality. It's a common trope around here to state opinions, assumptions, and unexamined ideas as fact as a rhetorical device, and when pressed, to avoid such an examination. At the end of the day it's not up to me to prove that they aren't; it's up to you to prove that they are.

[throwawaylinux]

So I take that to mean you are unable to substantiate your claim with evidence.

Generally people are permitted to do something unless it is prohibited, so as I see it the burden is on you to prove your claim.