<!--quoteo(post=1669262:date=Feb 1 2008, 06:29 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Feb 1 2008, 06:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1669262"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->[...] But I empathise. I often remember something useful and relevant to a discussion, something that would support my stance and opinion, but find that I am unable to remember and procure a source. This annoys me to no end, as I can't present such points without a source backing them up. Very frustrating.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Such is life sometimes. The only difference is that I'm not annoyed, since during the course of a newscast many such "fillers" are inserted for time's sake and are so brief, you hear/see them but by the time they've captured your undivided attention they're over. I don't take notes, mental or otherwise, for the sake of argument.
I believe this returns us to the original question: who are you to stop someone from doing what they want so long as what they want does not affect those around them?
Private_ColemanPhD in Video GamesJoin Date: 2002-11-07Member: 7510Members
<!--quoteo(post=1669313:date=Feb 2 2008, 06:38 AM:name=Black_Mage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Black_Mage @ Feb 2 2008, 06:38 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1669313"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I believe this returns us to the original question: who are you to stop someone from doing what they want so long as what they want does not affect those around them?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Depot doesn't like the way they look, and that is reason enough. This whole thread is pointless other than "haw haw look at these people aren't they silly?" and Depot has tried time and time again to pretend that's what he didn't make the thread about and failed.
The thread was originally created for its news content only. When references were made likening the leash to other "dress" oddities I raised the "low pants law" point. I don't believe I have supported it one way or the other, I just introduced another perspective. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
If anything, perhaps the thread's title was chosen poorly. The question implies the answer "no" (since that's what most of us would give), and some of the participants here have seen that as a nudge toward a certain viewpoint - not that I didn't have that suspicion myself.
I present <a href="http://www.homestarrunner.com/sbemail120.html" target="_blank">this sbemail</a> as an illustration of the difference presentation can make. A thread entitled "Leash-using Couple Denied Use of Public Transport" might have gone in an entirely different direction.
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
But that's not what you did Depot. I made the general point about this being two citizens exercising their right to freely express themselves through fashion and you made a logically flawed comparison with indecent exposure laws, and you also made a flawed comparison with workplace dress codes. None of your points have *ANYTHING* to do with my point, and even if there is a town in Georgia that passed a public dress code ( Which I do not believe: perhaps the news report was innacurate, or you misheard it )
A person's right to free expression is, as with any other right, limited by the constraints placed by other contradicting laws. For example, a person has a right to free expression her in Ireland, but it is limited by other concerns such as the ban on hate speech. It's much the same in the UK, and these people are breaking no laws and the bus driver deserves to lose his job.
As to whether I personally think they should be allowed to do it from a moral and ethical standpoint, yes I do. I tend towards libertarian policies and I'm happy to allow consenting adults to do what they want to each other.
<!--quoteo(post=1669131:date=Jan 31 2008, 05:05 PM:name=TychoCelchuuu)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TychoCelchuuu @ Jan 31 2008, 05:05 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1669131"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The concept of telling people how they can and cannot act when they aren't hurting anyone else in an indvidiualistic society seems far more restrictive than some sort of "a leash means I own you" connection. If the government gets to decide what's demeaning and what isn't when nobody is being hurt by the action, where will it end? If I wear a shirt that says "I love Jill and will do anything for her," is that communicating the concept of people owning people?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think the government should restrict it, but to me it just seems vulgar and obnoxious.
<!--quoteo(post=1669332:date=Feb 2 2008, 12:31 PM:name=Crono5)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Crono5 @ Feb 2 2008, 12:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1669332"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't think the government should restrict it, but to me it just seems vulgar and obnoxious.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That it is, but just like that famous quote, "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll fight for your right to say it." Or something. I don't remember. But the point is the same. Every so often a few losers will take advantage of the freedom they're given and go make asses of themselves in public. Asses, but legal asses.
We let the Nazis and KKK march down the streets in uniform and then blame all their problems on somebody else. I think we can let some guy lead some idiot around on a leash.
<!--quoteo(post=1669322:date=Feb 2 2008, 08:20 AM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Feb 2 2008, 08:20 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1669322"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->[...]even if there is a town in Georgia that passed a public dress code ( Which I do not believe: perhaps the news report was innacurate, or you misheard it ) [...]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Although reports on the national news in this country may be slightly inaccurate on occasion, you can assume the storyline is valid. This means that occasionally a detail may be wrong, but the fact remains. If you feel this leash fad or punks wearing pins is any different than underwear being exposed, that's your opinion. What does it hurt if your underwear's showing? Nothing. What does it hurt if you're being led around by a leash? Nothing. What does it hurt if you wear studs? Nothing.
<a href="http://www.buzzlife.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52270" target="_blank">New Virginia underwear law</a> is just one example I found, many more abound. Laws have been passed. Truth. Not that I support them, just factual.
RICHMOND -- <b>Virginia senators <u>canned legislation targeting people who wear their pants so low their underwear show</u>, saying international news reports about the bill have embarrassed Virginia.</b>
On a unanimous voice vote today, the Senate Courts of Justice Committee killed Del. Algie T. Howell's bill calling for a $50 fine for anyone who displays his or her skivvies in "a lewd or indecent manner."
Sen. Thomas K. Norment said he could find humor in the bill had news reports not given the impression that Virginia lawmakers, who are preparing for the 225th anniversary of the Battle of Yorktown and the 400th anniversary of the settlement of Jamestown, are preoccupied with droopy pants.
"I find that an indignation which dampens my humor," said Norment, R-James City County. Sen. Kenneth Stolle, the committee chairman, called a special meeting to deal exclusively with Howell's bill.
"This bill has become a distraction," said Stolle, R-Virginia Beach. "The reason for this meeting is to get rid of the distraction, or vote on the distraction."
"People should have the freedom to wear their clothes the way they feel," student Elvyn Shaw, 17, said in an interview before the hearing. "If people in Florida can wear bikinis, a little underwear showing isn't going to hurt anybody."
The students had been closely following the bill and were just lucky that their field trip to the Capitol fell on the day of the committee hearing, teacher Ben Swenson said. He said many students believed the bill was racist and were surprised to learn Howell is black.
However, the low-rider britches fad is not limited to young blacks imitating the style made popular by hip-hop musicians.
"I've got four sons, and I found out through this bill that they're all low-riders," Republican Sen. Jay O'Brien of Fairfax County, who is white, said on the Senate floor. "My wife called me and said, `What are you guys doing down there?'"
Norment characterized Howell's bill as a freshman mistake. Howell is in his first term.
"I know that his intentions were in the right place," Norment said. "I'm sorry that he didn't receive more appropriate guidance and direction, perhaps, from some of the more seasoned legislators."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1669419:date=Feb 3 2008, 06:51 PM:name=Thaldarin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Thaldarin @ Feb 3 2008, 06:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1669419"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->what does pants have to do with it?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yet another... <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6751777.stm" target="_blank">US town set to ban saggy trousers.</a> <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wow.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":0" border="0" alt="wow.gif" />
MonkfishSonic-boom-inducing buttcheeks of terrifying speed!Join Date: 2003-06-03Member: 16972Members
<!--quoteo(post=1669424:date=Feb 3 2008, 09:50 PM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Feb 3 2008, 09:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1669424"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yet another... <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6751777.stm" target="_blank">Delcambre town council unanimously passed the ordinance earlier this week making it a crime to wear trousers that show underwear.</a> <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wow.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":0" border="0" alt="wow.gif" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They need to make the date on this story like 50px bigger so his old eyes can read it. Also LF just got 100 cool points o/
<!--quoteo(post=1669431:date=Feb 3 2008, 05:19 PM:name=Sonic)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sonic @ Feb 3 2008, 05:19 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1669431"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->They need to make the date on this story like 50px bigger so his old eyes can read it. Also LF just got 100 cool points o/<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Last Updated: Thursday, 14 June 2007, 09:54 GMT 10:54 UK<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Still doesn't change the fact that there are no laws existing for what you're looking for, Depot. There have been <i>proposals,</i> but they've all been shot down. Something about the first amendment or so, I don't really remember. Freedom of expression? Ah, whatever.
<!--quoteo(post=1669458:date=Feb 3 2008, 08:49 PM:name=Haze)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Haze @ Feb 3 2008, 08:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1669458"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Still doesn't change the fact that there are no laws existing for what you're looking for, Depot. There have been <i>proposals,</i> but they've all been shot down. Something about the first amendment or so, I don't really remember. Freedom of expression? Ah, whatever.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> According to comments I read on several articles regarding the Louisiana case the mayor signed the bill that the city council unanimously passed. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
edited February 2008
Thanks for taking the time to find the references Depot, it is appreciated.
However, as I suspected, these are merely amendments to indecent exposure laws, which are about what you can't show in public and not about what you can't wear. Of course there is some overlap, but this is typical of the normal situation in law where two rights are in conflict. It is interesting that the VA proposal did not pass.
It can be argued that displaying ones underwear is similar to indecent exposure though I would personally disagree with this, however, it still has little relevance on the Leash scenario.
I would also point out, that under these two proposals, Superman would probably end up on death row.
I think Haze sums it up. I respect that you disapprove of such behaviour, but after searching for a third time, I still can't find an active law forbidding displaying of underwear, nevermind forbidding outlandish accessories.
I honestly don't disapprove any of this, referring to the leash, studs, or lowriding britches. I just think they should all be classified in the same category.
Afaik the Louisiana law passed by the city council was signed by the mayor.
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
I'm confused then. I understand indecent exposure laws, and how they satisfy our irrational ( but still to be expected ) fear of public nudity, and therefore I can understand ( though disagree ) that some communities might want to prevent underwear being overly prominent in fashion. I would assume that several other topics fall into this category, e.g. some towns don't like people to wear swimwear away from the appropriate places. What I don't understand is why you consider wearing a leash or a nose stud to be akin to a public display of nudity.
Perhaps I have totally misunderstood you and you are simply stating that you don't like these behaviours and feel they should be forbidden. Are you saying that you would support legislation that outlawed facial piercings? I'm not trying to bait you here, I just want to understand your position.
ShockehIf a packet drops on the web and nobody's near to see it...Join Date: 2002-11-19Member: 9336NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
It does lead to the somewhat odd state of affairs where I can walk down the street in say.... a pair of board shorts, and that's okay. But the same street in boxer shorts (which show basically the same amount of Shockwave, in our little theory, STOP WINCING AT THE BACK) and I'm in trouble.
How odd. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
Comments
But I empathise. I often remember something useful and relevant to a discussion, something that would support my stance and opinion, but find that I am unable to remember and procure a source. This annoys me to no end, as I can't present such points without a source backing them up. Very frustrating.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Such is life sometimes. The only difference is that I'm not annoyed, since during the course of a newscast many such "fillers" are inserted for time's sake and are so brief, you hear/see them but by the time they've captured your undivided attention they're over. I don't take notes, mental or otherwise, for the sake of argument.
========================================================================
If it's insignificant or immaterial simply ignore it... let's move on.
Depot doesn't like the way they look, and that is reason enough. This whole thread is pointless other than "haw haw look at these people aren't they silly?" and Depot has tried time and time again to pretend that's what he didn't make the thread about and failed.
I present <a href="http://www.homestarrunner.com/sbemail120.html" target="_blank">this sbemail</a> as an illustration of the difference presentation can make. A thread entitled "Leash-using Couple Denied Use of Public Transport" might have gone in an entirely different direction.
A person's right to free expression is, as with any other right, limited by the constraints placed by other contradicting laws. For example, a person has a right to free expression her in Ireland, but it is limited by other concerns such as the ban on hate speech. It's much the same in the UK, and these people are breaking no laws and the bus driver deserves to lose his job.
As to whether I personally think they should be allowed to do it from a moral and ethical standpoint, yes I do. I tend towards libertarian policies and I'm happy to allow consenting adults to do what they want to each other.
I don't think the government should restrict it, but to me it just seems vulgar and obnoxious.
That it is, but just like that famous quote, "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll fight for your right to say it." Or something. I don't remember. But the point is the same. Every so often a few losers will take advantage of the freedom they're given and go make asses of themselves in public. Asses, but legal asses.
[...]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Although reports on the national news in this country may be slightly inaccurate on occasion, you can assume the storyline is valid. This means that occasionally a detail may be wrong, but the fact remains. If you feel this leash fad or punks wearing pins is any different than underwear being exposed, that's your opinion. What does it hurt if your underwear's showing? Nothing. What does it hurt if you're being led around by a leash? Nothing. What does it hurt if you wear studs? Nothing.
<a href="http://www.buzzlife.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52270" target="_blank">New Virginia underwear law</a> is just one example I found, many more abound. Laws have been passed. Truth. Not that I support them, just factual.
<a href="http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories...=88526&tref=po" target="_blank">http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories...=88526&tref=po</a>
Lawmakers drop bill against exposed underwear
By LARRY O'DELL, Associated Press
© February 10, 2005
RICHMOND -- <b>Virginia senators <u>canned legislation targeting people who wear their pants so low their underwear show</u>, saying international news reports about the bill have embarrassed Virginia.</b>
On a unanimous voice vote today, the Senate Courts of Justice Committee killed Del. Algie T. Howell's bill calling for a $50 fine for anyone who displays his or her skivvies in "a lewd or indecent manner."
Sen. Thomas K. Norment said he could find humor in the bill had news reports not given the impression that Virginia lawmakers, who are preparing for the 225th anniversary of the Battle of Yorktown and the 400th anniversary of the settlement of Jamestown, are preoccupied with droopy pants.
"I find that an indignation which dampens my humor," said Norment, R-James City County. Sen. Kenneth Stolle, the committee chairman, called a special meeting to deal exclusively with Howell's bill.
"This bill has become a distraction," said Stolle, R-Virginia Beach. "The reason for this meeting is to get rid of the distraction, or vote on the distraction."
"People should have the freedom to wear their clothes the way they feel," student Elvyn Shaw, 17, said in an interview before the hearing. "If people in Florida can wear bikinis, a little underwear showing isn't going to hurt anybody."
The students had been closely following the bill and were just lucky that their field trip to the Capitol fell on the day of the committee hearing, teacher Ben Swenson said. He said many students believed the bill was racist and were surprised to learn Howell is black.
However, the low-rider britches fad is not limited to young blacks imitating the style made popular by hip-hop musicians.
"I've got four sons, and I found out through this bill that they're all low-riders," Republican Sen. Jay O'Brien of Fairfax County, who is white, said on the Senate floor. "My wife called me and said, `What are you guys doing down there?'"
Norment characterized Howell's bill as a freshman mistake. Howell is in his first term.
"I know that his intentions were in the right place," Norment said. "I'm sorry that he didn't receive more appropriate guidance and direction, perhaps, from some of the more seasoned legislators."<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It didn't get passed in the senate.
what does pants have to do with it?
Terrorists don't wear pants.
They need to make the date on this story like 50px bigger so his old eyes can read it. Also LF just got 100 cool points o/
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Last Updated: Thursday, 14 June 2007, 09:54 GMT 10:54 UK<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
According to comments I read on several articles regarding the Louisiana case the mayor signed the bill that the city council unanimously passed. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
However, as I suspected, these are merely amendments to indecent exposure laws, which are about what you can't show in public and not about what you can't wear. Of course there is some overlap, but this is typical of the normal situation in law where two rights are in conflict. It is interesting that the VA proposal did not pass.
It can be argued that displaying ones underwear is similar to indecent exposure though I would personally disagree with this, however, it still has little relevance on the Leash scenario.
I would also point out, that under these two proposals, Superman would probably end up on death row.
I think Haze sums it up. I respect that you disapprove of such behaviour, but after searching for a third time, I still can't find an active law forbidding displaying of underwear, nevermind forbidding outlandish accessories.
Afaik the Louisiana law passed by the city council was signed by the mayor.
Perhaps I have totally misunderstood you and you are simply stating that you don't like these behaviours and feel they should be forbidden. Are you saying that you would support legislation that outlawed facial piercings? I'm not trying to bait you here, I just want to understand your position.
How odd. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />