Author Topic: Good sense, reason, decency prevails - liberty intact (Read 38519 times)

seeker_two · « **Reply #25 on:** July 12, 2011, 12:42:56 PM »

This is an easy fix.....first and subsequent violations.....impound their underwear.....

....another problem solved.....

makattak · « **Reply #26 on:** July 12, 2011, 12:44:43 PM »

Quote from: Balog on July 12, 2011, 12:39:16 PM

You are making the same error the liberatrians do, in the opposite direction. Saying "No possible requirements can be made of public behaviour" is just as much an error as saying "Any requirements can be made and are legal."

Then what is your line for clothing requirements? Can I walk around in bikini briefs? Can a woman walk around in a micro-bikini? Or does it have to be tighty whities and panties + bra? Or does the clothing have to somewhat partially cover underwear?

My point is that the standards should be determined by the locality. Your point appears to be that your standards are right and everyone else is wrong (libertarians and "conservatives"). Why is your rather vague standard of "some form of clothing" the correct one?

(Note, I'm not saying that believing you are right and everyone else is wrong is an always incorrect position. I just want to know by what reasons you have come to that conclusion.)

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #27 on:** July 12, 2011, 12:46:48 PM »

Quote from: The artist formerly known as fistful on July 12, 2011, 12:40:08 PM

Are you serious? You think this is the only thing I find aesthetically displeasing?

Perhaps a magical right not to see underwear?

Of course, if you remember our threads about public nudity, I suggested at the time the justifications for bans on public nudity could also be used to impose dress codes. I see I was right. I derive no pleasure from being right.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #28 on:** July 12, 2011, 01:05:00 PM »

Quote from: MicroBalrog on July 12, 2011, 12:46:48 PM

Perhaps a magical right not to see underwear?

Of course, if you remember our threads about public nudity, I suggested at the time the justifications for bans on public nudity could also be used to impose dress codes. I see I was right. I derive no pleasure from being right.

For a guy who posits magical rights to marry the same sex and kill babies, you don't have much room to talk. You have a right to move about in public, without having to view others' private parts, even if thinly veiled. If you want to call that a dress code, go ahead.

Nightfall · « **Reply #29 on:** July 12, 2011, 01:13:01 PM »

Quote

The ordinance forbids pants that sag more than 3 to 4 inches below the waistline of the underwear.

Easy solution: don't wear underwear! Then apparently you can 'sag' as much as you want. If anyone figures that out, we'll have gone to seeing Joe Boxers to Joe Butt-crack.

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #30 on:** July 12, 2011, 01:13:37 PM »

An ad hominem, is it not?

Quote

You have a right to move about in public, without having to view others' private parts, even if thinly veiled. If you want to call that a dress code, go ahead.

These are the "thinly veiled private parts" in question:

I'm sure you could guess there's a pair of buttocks in there somewhere...

Of course, Merriam-Webster defines dress code as:

"DRESS CODE: formally or socially imposed standards of dress"

These are standards of dress, and these people are formally imposing them.

makattak · « **Reply #31 on:** July 12, 2011, 01:16:40 PM »

Of course bans on nudity are a dress code. And I have as little problem with that as I do requiring people to cover up their underwear.

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #32 on:** July 12, 2011, 01:21:36 PM »

Quote from: makattak on July 12, 2011, 01:16:40 PM

Of course bans on nudity are a dress code. And I have as little problem with that as I do requiring people to cover up their underwear.

Ah, we're getting somewhere.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #33 on:** July 12, 2011, 01:23:26 PM »

Micro,

The photo you posted appears to be within the law. I have seen pants sagging beneath the gluteal cleavage level on many occasions, so you won't get away with silly feints like that.

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #34 on:** July 12, 2011, 01:25:47 PM »

Quote from: The artist formerly known as fistful on July 12, 2011, 01:23:26 PM

Micro,

The photo you posted appears to be within the law. I have seen pants sagging beneath the gluteal cleavage level on many occasions, so you won't get away with silly feints like that.

The law mandates a 7.5 centimeter to 10 centimeter level of 'sagging' as the maximum. This seems about as much as is seen on the image.

makattak · « **Reply #35 on:** July 12, 2011, 01:35:25 PM »

Quote from: MicroBalrog on July 12, 2011, 01:25:47 PM

The law mandates a 7.5 centimeter to 10 centimeter level of 'sagging' as the maximum. This seems about as much as is seen on the image.

Sooo, you posted a picture that is pretty much legal.

I completely agree that any more than that is too much. (And that much is likely too much as well.)

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #36 on:** July 12, 2011, 01:38:08 PM »

Quote from: MicroBalrog on July 12, 2011, 01:25:47 PM

The law mandates a 7.5 centimeter to 10 centimeter level of 'sagging' as the maximum. This seems about as much as is seen on the image.

Yes, so he's legal.

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #37 on:** July 12, 2011, 01:41:22 PM »

Quote from: makattak on July 12, 2011, 01:35:25 PM

Sooo, you posted a picture that is pretty much legal.

I completely agree that any more than that is too much. (And that much is likely too much as well.)

Because of the definition of 7.5 to ten centimeters, he could also be fined. This is the trouble with these things. I predict lawsuits.

Seenterman · « **Reply #38 on:** July 12, 2011, 01:42:05 PM »

I appose this law just on the basis of don't the police have better thing to do than ticketing people over such silly behavior. We already have public decency laws, do we really need to make everything illegal? I though the majority of posters on this site disapproved of these type of meddling laws.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #39 on:** July 12, 2011, 01:48:37 PM »

Quote from: MicroBalrog on July 12, 2011, 01:41:22 PM

Because of the definition of 7.5 to ten centimeters, he could also be fined. This is the trouble with these things. I predict lawsuits.

The horror.

griz · « **Reply #40 on:** July 12, 2011, 01:53:26 PM »

I'm amazed you guys are OK with a law that (apparently) has a 33 percent margin of error. Imagine if the law said a shotgun barrel had to be at least 14 to 18 inches long.

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #41 on:** July 12, 2011, 02:01:26 PM »

Quote from: The artist formerly known as fistful on July 12, 2011, 01:48:37 PM

The horror.

On the contrary, I predict the town will lose said lawsuits.

makattak · « **Reply #42 on:** July 12, 2011, 02:13:22 PM »

Quote from: griz on July 12, 2011, 01:53:26 PM

I'm amazed you guys are OK with a law that (apparently) has a 33 percent margin of error. Imagine if the law said a shotgun barrel had to be at least 14 to 18 inches long.

Let's randomly impose percentages!!

You must pay between 15% and 20% of your income in taxes.

You may drive a maximum of 60-80 miles per hour!

Seriously, it's a range of an inch. Oh the ambiguity!

griz · « **Reply #43 on:** July 12, 2011, 02:15:32 PM »

The horror of ambiguity!!!

Fly320s · « **Reply #44 on:** July 12, 2011, 02:22:27 PM »

From the OP:

Quote

The ordinance forbids pants that sag more than 3 to 4 inches below the waistline of the underwear. A first offense is punishable with a $100 fine; a second offense would carry a $300 fine plus 40 hours of community service. The citation would not allow arrest or detainment.

So, if a person isn't wearing underwear, is there a violation? If the person is wearing shorts, not underwear, under the sagging pants, is there a violation? Is underwear defined in the law? Is sagging defined?

Anyone have the text of the law?

freakazoid · « **Reply #45 on:** July 12, 2011, 02:26:13 PM »

I'm really surprised that a lot of you are ok with this. What exactly is being enforced? Would it be ok to wear no underwear and sag? Would it be ok to wear a pair of swimming trunks? That would be like the ultimate sag because you aren't wearing pants at all. How about shorts with no underwear. What if I wear just boxers and I have the front flap sowed up? What about pants that are made to look like you are sagging, they have fake boxers sticking out of the top that way you look like you are sagging but in reality you are not. What about wearing boxers outside the pants, superhero style. Why in the heck are sagging pants considered such an crime against humanity that there is an actual law being made!?
This is an outrage!

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #46 on:** July 12, 2011, 02:31:52 PM »

Quote from: griz on July 12, 2011, 01:53:26 PM

I'm amazed you guys are OK with a law that (apparently) has a 33 percent margin of error. Imagine if the law said a shotgun barrel had to be at least 14 to 18 inches long.

I don't quite understand that, either. It seems like a valid criticism.

I would assume that sagging pants sans underwear would constitute ome other public decency/nudity violation.

Fly320s · « **Reply #47 on:** July 12, 2011, 02:40:13 PM »

I'm sure that town/state already has an indecent exposure law. How is that defined and would it cover baggy britches?

MechAg94 · « **Reply #48 on:** July 12, 2011, 02:45:11 PM »

Some of you might as well be lawyers.

Fly320s · « **Reply #49 on:** July 12, 2011, 02:56:04 PM »

Quote from: MechAg94 on July 12, 2011, 02:45:11 PM

Some of you might as well be lawyers.

Some of us don't tolerate ass-i-none (

) laws, even if we agree in principle.

News:

Author Topic: Good sense, reason, decency prevails - liberty intact (Read 38519 times)