Pants not on?
-
Brady Kelly wrote:
The government opposes an arbitrarily imposed dress code
So you guys are allowed to walk around naked in public over there?
No, but women are legally entitled to wear trousers if they so choose, without restriction. We do however have a few nude beaches[^], where nudity is still strictly illegal, but tolerated. Nudity is also allowed in some traditional cultural contexts, but certainly not in 'public' in the conventional sense. BTW, one of our academics has a different concept of conservative to the one we are used to you espousing. he even has a name that almost sounds familiar in the soapbox. Professor Anand Singh, a social anthropologist at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, said that some would view the perpetrators as "die-hard conservatives" as many Africans had progressed beyond viewing women as second-class citizens.
-
No picture, no proof!;P
Think of it this way...using a Stradivarius violin to pound nails should not be considered a sound construction technique
What do you want proof of?
-
No, but women are legally entitled to wear trousers if they so choose, without restriction. We do however have a few nude beaches[^], where nudity is still strictly illegal, but tolerated. Nudity is also allowed in some traditional cultural contexts, but certainly not in 'public' in the conventional sense. BTW, one of our academics has a different concept of conservative to the one we are used to you espousing. he even has a name that almost sounds familiar in the soapbox. Professor Anand Singh, a social anthropologist at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, said that some would view the perpetrators as "die-hard conservatives" as many Africans had progressed beyond viewing women as second-class citizens.
Brady Kelly wrote:
No, but women are legally entitled to wear trousers if they so choose, without restriction.
Hmmmmm...Can't be naked? That seems like a pretty arbitrary dress code. What if you go shopping wearing nothing but a sheer thong and high heels (be it man or woman). Is that permitted?
Brady Kelly wrote:
BTW, one of our academics has a different concept of conservative to the one we are used to you espousing. he even has a name that almost sounds familiar in the soapbox.
The term "conservative" probably has a different meaning there and its meaning has even changed here over time.
-
What do you want proof of?
That a mob of women were wandering the streets knicker-less?
Think of it this way...using a Stradivarius violin to pound nails should not be considered a sound construction technique
-
That a mob of women were wandering the streets knicker-less?
Think of it this way...using a Stradivarius violin to pound nails should not be considered a sound construction technique
Say what? The story I linked to was about a mob that attacked a woman for contravening their self imposed dress code by wearing trousers. :confused:
-
Brady Kelly wrote:
No, but women are legally entitled to wear trousers if they so choose, without restriction.
Hmmmmm...Can't be naked? That seems like a pretty arbitrary dress code. What if you go shopping wearing nothing but a sheer thong and high heels (be it man or woman). Is that permitted?
Brady Kelly wrote:
BTW, one of our academics has a different concept of conservative to the one we are used to you espousing. he even has a name that almost sounds familiar in the soapbox.
The term "conservative" probably has a different meaning there and its meaning has even changed here over time.
Red Stateler wrote:
Hmmmmm...Can't be naked? That seems like a pretty arbitrary dress code. What if you go shopping wearing nothing but a sheer thong and high heels (be it man or woman). Is that permitted?
We have a common law offence of public indecency. Prosecution would probably hinge on precedent and custom to define just what is indecent.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Hmmmmm...Can't be naked? That seems like a pretty arbitrary dress code. What if you go shopping wearing nothing but a sheer thong and high heels (be it man or woman). Is that permitted?
We have a common law offence of public indecency. Prosecution would probably hinge on precedent and custom to define just what is indecent.
Brady Kelly wrote:
custom to define just what is indecent
And what authority is vested with the power to determine just what is indecent? My point with the other thread was simply that, whether anybody is willing to admit it or not, there is universal agreement that there should be SOME limits imposed on personal behavior by law because oftentimes personal behavior affects the public in some way. There will always be debate as to the extent of restrictions that should be imposed, but in a self-directed democratic society, the authority to define that extent is ultimately vested with the people. The notion that behavior is protected by "rights" is often just a red herring designed to force the minority's will on the majority in an undemocratic way. But FYI, the US constitution would actually prevent a law outlawing the use of pants by women unless pants were outlawed for men as well (i.e. the equal protections clause).
-
Brady Kelly wrote:
custom to define just what is indecent
And what authority is vested with the power to determine just what is indecent? My point with the other thread was simply that, whether anybody is willing to admit it or not, there is universal agreement that there should be SOME limits imposed on personal behavior by law because oftentimes personal behavior affects the public in some way. There will always be debate as to the extent of restrictions that should be imposed, but in a self-directed democratic society, the authority to define that extent is ultimately vested with the people. The notion that behavior is protected by "rights" is often just a red herring designed to force the minority's will on the majority in an undemocratic way. But FYI, the US constitution would actually prevent a law outlawing the use of pants by women unless pants were outlawed for men as well (i.e. the equal protections clause).
Red Stateler wrote:
And what authority is vested with the power to determine just what is indecent?
The judiciary.
Red Stateler wrote:
My point with the other thread was simply that,
I know what your point was, and although I disagree with the proposed bill, I do agree with you there.
-
Brady Kelly wrote:
custom to define just what is indecent
And what authority is vested with the power to determine just what is indecent? My point with the other thread was simply that, whether anybody is willing to admit it or not, there is universal agreement that there should be SOME limits imposed on personal behavior by law because oftentimes personal behavior affects the public in some way. There will always be debate as to the extent of restrictions that should be imposed, but in a self-directed democratic society, the authority to define that extent is ultimately vested with the people. The notion that behavior is protected by "rights" is often just a red herring designed to force the minority's will on the majority in an undemocratic way. But FYI, the US constitution would actually prevent a law outlawing the use of pants by women unless pants were outlawed for men as well (i.e. the equal protections clause).
Red Stateler wrote:
And what authority is vested with the power to determine just what is indecent?
The judiciary.
Red Stateler wrote:
My point with the other thread was simply that,
I know what your point was, and although I disagree with the proposed bill, I do agree with you there.
Red Stateler wrote:
But FYI, the US constitution would actually prevent a law outlawing the use of pants by women unless pants were outlawed for men as well (i.e. the equal protections clause).
The SA constitution as well. The Durban issue isn't about legislation, except for the lack of it's enforcement in that community.
-
Brady Kelly wrote:
At least here the government opposes the 'dress code'.
If the ghettofabulous want to march in protest of a law that prevents them from flashing their underwear as they hold their crotch and walk through a public shopping mall (yes...That is how it works), then they're free to do so. Peaceable assembly is a clearly defined and protected right in the United States. It is interesting, though, that the same group that is so eager to proclaim arbitrary rights that are immune from democracy (like walking around in public in front of children in your underwear) seem to have no interest in seeking my "right" not to participate in a social security system that squanders my money. Just who is it that defines that arbitrary "rights" anyway...
Red Stateler wrote:
If the ghettofabulous want to march in protest of a law
Anyon stupid enough to follow a law dictating a dress code does not deserve freedom in any form. Anyone who believes they can legislate either common sense or morals needs to lead only those stupid enough to follow.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
And what authority is vested with the power to determine just what is indecent?
The judiciary.
Red Stateler wrote:
My point with the other thread was simply that,
I know what your point was, and although I disagree with the proposed bill, I do agree with you there.
Red Stateler wrote:
But FYI, the US constitution would actually prevent a law outlawing the use of pants by women unless pants were outlawed for men as well (i.e. the equal protections clause).
The SA constitution as well. The Durban issue isn't about legislation, except for the lack of it's enforcement in that community.
Brady Kelly wrote:
The judiciary.
That is the liberal view in the US. The concept of "decency" (and a whole host of other concepts) is a derivative of culture. Certainly what is considered acceptable dress in the jungles of Borneo does not apply in the US nor would acceptable dress here be considered acceptable here 200 years ago. If a small group, like the judiciary, is vested with the power to define the culture of an entire city, state or nation, then you no longer live under a democracy. It is a judicial oligarchy...A government whereby the few determine the direction of the many. Conservatives in the US have for decades tried (and possibly only recently succeeded) in reshaping the judiciary into a group that only interprets the meaning of existing democratic laws (should a dispute arise) rather than inferring their meaning (which basically dismisses or rewrites existing law based on their personal preference).
-
Red Stateler wrote:
If the ghettofabulous want to march in protest of a law
Anyon stupid enough to follow a law dictating a dress code does not deserve freedom in any form. Anyone who believes they can legislate either common sense or morals needs to lead only those stupid enough to follow.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
Anyon stupid enough to follow a law dictating a dress code does not deserve freedom in any form.
So then you're of the camp that public nudity is acceptable?
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
Anyon stupid enough to follow a law dictating a dress code does not deserve freedom in any form.
So then you're of the camp that public nudity is acceptable?
Red Stateler wrote:
So then you're of the camp that public nudity is acceptable?
yep, except for the obese.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
If the ghettofabulous want to march in protest of a law
Anyon stupid enough to follow a law dictating a dress code does not deserve freedom in any form. Anyone who believes they can legislate either common sense or morals needs to lead only those stupid enough to follow.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
Anyone who believes they can legislate either common sense or morals needs to lead only those stupid enough to follow.
Laws don't legislate morals. They define the repercussions for deviation from publicly acceptable behavior.
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
Anyone who believes they can legislate either common sense or morals needs to lead only those stupid enough to follow.
Laws don't legislate morals. They define the repercussions for deviation from publicly acceptable behavior.
Red Stateler wrote:
Laws don't legislate morals.
you're twisting in the wind, break out the nijabs.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Brady Kelly wrote:
The judiciary.
That is the liberal view in the US. The concept of "decency" (and a whole host of other concepts) is a derivative of culture. Certainly what is considered acceptable dress in the jungles of Borneo does not apply in the US nor would acceptable dress here be considered acceptable here 200 years ago. If a small group, like the judiciary, is vested with the power to define the culture of an entire city, state or nation, then you no longer live under a democracy. It is a judicial oligarchy...A government whereby the few determine the direction of the many. Conservatives in the US have for decades tried (and possibly only recently succeeded) in reshaping the judiciary into a group that only interprets the meaning of existing democratic laws (should a dispute arise) rather than inferring their meaning (which basically dismisses or rewrites existing law based on their personal preference).
In common law legal systems, the law is created and/or refined by judges on a case-by-case basis. When there is no authoritative statement of the law, common law judges have the authority and duty to "make" law by creating precedent.[1] The body of precedent is called "common law" and it binds future decisions. In future cases, when parties disagree on what the law is, an "ideal" common law court looks to past precedential decisions of relevant courts. If a similar dispute has been resolved in the past, the court is bound to follow the reasoning used in the prior decision (this principle is known as stare decisis). If, however, the court finds that the current dispute is fundamentally distinct from all previous cases, it will resolve the matter itself, with reference to general legal guidelines. Thereafter, the new decision becomes precedent, and will bind future courts under the principle of stare decisis.[^]
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Laws don't legislate morals.
you're twisting in the wind, break out the nijabs.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
you're twisting in the wind, break out the nijabs.
I'm simply saying that society should define it's own culture. A small minority of individuals should not define it for the rest. Given the scant number of Muslims in the United States, your approach is far more likely to result in sharia law than mine.
-
In common law legal systems, the law is created and/or refined by judges on a case-by-case basis. When there is no authoritative statement of the law, common law judges have the authority and duty to "make" law by creating precedent.[1] The body of precedent is called "common law" and it binds future decisions. In future cases, when parties disagree on what the law is, an "ideal" common law court looks to past precedential decisions of relevant courts. If a similar dispute has been resolved in the past, the court is bound to follow the reasoning used in the prior decision (this principle is known as stare decisis). If, however, the court finds that the current dispute is fundamentally distinct from all previous cases, it will resolve the matter itself, with reference to general legal guidelines. Thereafter, the new decision becomes precedent, and will bind future courts under the principle of stare decisis.[^]
Brady Kelly wrote:
When there is no authoritative statement of the law
The baggy pants law is intended as an authoritative statement of the law. The question is not whether or not the application of precedent applies, but whether or not such an "authoritative statement of the law" can be permitted to pass at all in order to guide the judiciary. The concept of "rights" has been invoked (and often is) in order to prevent the law from passing at all.
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
you're twisting in the wind, break out the nijabs.
I'm simply saying that society should define it's own culture. A small minority of individuals should not define it for the rest. Given the scant number of Muslims in the United States, your approach is far more likely to result in sharia law than mine.
Red Stateler wrote:
I'm simply saying that society should define it's own culture.
and it isn't defined by a legal code.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Brady Kelly wrote:
When there is no authoritative statement of the law
The baggy pants law is intended as an authoritative statement of the law. The question is not whether or not the application of precedent applies, but whether or not such an "authoritative statement of the law" can be permitted to pass at all in order to guide the judiciary. The concept of "rights" has been invoked (and often is) in order to prevent the law from passing at all.
That may be, but this thread is not about the baggy pants law, as much as you want it to be. :rolleyes: That's all for me now. Beer calls. :cool: