Pants not on?
-
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:
-
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:
Brady Kelly wrote:
That may be, but this thread is not about the baggy pants law, as much as you want it to be.
Either way.
-
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:
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.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
and it isn't defined by a legal code.
Every civilized society has boundaries which require punishment as defined by a legal code and which are directly tied to culture. Headhunting and public nudity of the obese may have been culturally acceptable in Borneo, but not here. And when something rises to such a level that a legal code may be required, it is best to vest the authority to shape it in democracy.
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
Anyon stupid enough to follow a law dictating a dress code does not deserve freedom in any form.
Would you object to see people naked in the street?
K(arl) wrote:
Would you object to see people naked in the street?
no
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.
-
K(arl) wrote:
Would you object to see people naked in the street?
no
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:
no
What about sitting directly next to a 400-pound, hairy, sweaty, naked man on a crowded subway who finds you a little bit...arousing?
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
no
What about sitting directly next to a 400-pound, hairy, sweaty, naked man on a crowded subway who finds you a little bit...arousing?
Red Stateler wrote:
What about sitting directly next to a 400-pound, hairy, sweaty, naked man on a crowded subway who finds you a little bit...arousing?
think 2nd Amendment.
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:
What about sitting directly next to a 400-pound, hairy, sweaty, naked man on a crowded subway who finds you a little bit...arousing?
think 2nd Amendment.
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:
think 2nd Amendment.
So much for this sentiment[^]: "my only concern is that there be restrictions on behavior that could cause someone else physical harm". The entire purpose of public law in a civilized society is to predefine what is acceptable behavior such that if someone crosses its boundaries, you don't have to waste bullets. There is no question that everyone has definitions of publicly acceptable behavior (that is not limitless) and that a common culture largely shares those definitions. What is entirely objectionable to me is the transformation of what should by a democratic decision into an arbitrary "right" that is simply designed to suit the dissenters.
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
think 2nd Amendment.
So much for this sentiment[^]: "my only concern is that there be restrictions on behavior that could cause someone else physical harm". The entire purpose of public law in a civilized society is to predefine what is acceptable behavior such that if someone crosses its boundaries, you don't have to waste bullets. There is no question that everyone has definitions of publicly acceptable behavior (that is not limitless) and that a common culture largely shares those definitions. What is entirely objectionable to me is the transformation of what should by a democratic decision into an arbitrary "right" that is simply designed to suit the dissenters.
Red Stateler wrote:
you don't have to waste bullets
it wouldn't be a waste.
Red Stateler wrote:
What is entirely objectionable to me is the transformation of what should by a democratic decision
it is carry tryanny of the mob. I repeat, anyone stupid enough to obey laws dictating how high his pants should be doesn't deserve to live in freedom. and in fact isn't.
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:
you don't have to waste bullets
it wouldn't be a waste.
Red Stateler wrote:
What is entirely objectionable to me is the transformation of what should by a democratic decision
it is carry tryanny of the mob. I repeat, anyone stupid enough to obey laws dictating how high his pants should be doesn't deserve to live in freedom. and in fact isn't.
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:
it is carry tryanny of the mob. I repeat, anyone stupid enough to obey laws dictating how high his pants should be doesn't deserve to live in freedom. and in fact isn't.
Whereas the claim to expansive rights is the tyranny of the minority (the impetus for the Revolutionary War). In a society where people of differing values must coexist (such as overweight, hairy nudists and gun-toting subway riders), the only way to successfully achieve a modicum of happiness and avoid public shootouts is by establishing behavioral constraint with clearly defined punishment. You seem to admit that being naked on a subway constitutes intolerable behavior, but your preferred solution seems to be murder rather than legal recourse. That is certainly one way to deal with intolerable behavior...But it is hardly a civilized way.
-
Durban - A crowd of about 200 women began marching from Durban's Umlazi Magistrate's Court in protest against a ban on women wearing trousers in an Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) area on Friday. At least here the government opposes the 'dress code'.
In England, where I live, pants has a very different meaning to what it means in the USA. I read this thread hoping for some excitement.:omg: Guess how disappointed I feel now...:((
You always pass failure on the way to success.
-
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.
I see so you'd be quite happy walking around town naked except for a gourd tied around your John Thomas - would you:laugh:
You always pass failure on the way to success.