'Bout Fekkin' Time.

[Guest]

Homie can't wear that...

This is one law I'd love to see every state pass. Showing too much bare breast or bare butt in most states is illegal. But in all but virginia now these dipshits that wear pants 5 sizes to big, hanging of their ass. Only thing I've seen keeping them on in some cases is the idiot's hand holding them up by the crotch.

Is that fuckin' COOL? or what?

There's not much that really offends me these days aside from stuipidity. And these people sure seem to fit that bill.

 

[Guest]

There's not much that really offends me these days aside from stuipidity. And these people sure seem to fit that bill.

Stuipidity is no good.

 

[cantdog]

Yeah, my dad used to rail at the bright colors and long hair on the young people of his day. You got fogey syndrome, dude.

 

[Guest]

Yeah, my dad used to rail at the bright colors and long hair on the young people of his day. You got fogey syndrome, dude.

Oh, fuck!

I'm my grandfather.

 

[Guest]

Homie can't wear that...

This is one law I'd love to see every state pass. Showing too much bare breast or bare butt in most states is illegal. But in all but virginia now these dipshits that wear pants 5 sizes to big, hanging of their ass. Only thing I've seen keeping them on in some cases is the idiot's hand holding them up by the crotch.

Is that fuckin' COOL? or what?

There's not much that really offends me these days aside from stuipidity. And these people sure seem to fit that bill.

Says he who has paticipated heavily in the "Plug your own BUTT" thread, and started up the "Grope your own boobs" thread.

I like seeing boxers. Crotch grabbing can be sexy, too - at the right moment.

Lou

P.S.

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: 'Bout Fekkin' Time.

Says he who has paticipated heavily in the "Plug your own BUTT" thread, and started up the "Grope your own boobs" thread.

I like seeing boxers. Crotch grabbing can be sexy, too - at the right moment.

Lou

P.S.

I'm not going to argue any of that.

But let me axe you this:

If I walked out of the house wearing nothing but a pair of boxer shorts and went grocery shopping, how long do you think it would be before the local cops were stuffing me into the back of a cruiser?

But if I pull a pair of jeans that would be loose on Andre the giant up to mid-thigh and just hold them there, that's ok, 'cause I'm makin' a fashion statement and I'm cool.

Is that the way it works?

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: Re: 'Bout Fekkin' Time.

I'm not going to argue any of that.

But let me axe you this:

If I walked out of the house wearing nothing but a pair of boxer shorts and went grocery shopping, how long do you think it would be before the local cops were stuffing me into the back of a cruiser?

But if I pull a pair of jeans that would be loose on Andre the giant up to mid-thigh and just hold them there, that's ok, 'cause I'm makin' a fashion statement and I'm cool.

Is that the way it works?

Dunno. It's not an issue in England. We have nudist beaches.

(Next time you go shopping in your boxers, get a pic for me. The security camera should've picked it up nicely.)

 

[Guest]

Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Bout Fekkin' Time.

Dunno. It's not an issue in England. We have nudist beaches.

As Og pointed out recently, the UK shipped all its Puritans to America.

I knew you guys weren't really trying in our War for Independence.

 

[EarthquakeMan]

There's not much that really offends me these days aside from stuipidity.

This should cheer you up, then: Time Mag reports that 36% of high school students say newspapers should get government approval before printing a story.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Sorry, Dranoel, just want to get this straight ...

You're against companies questioning people's private lives when they cost them millions of dollars in health care coverage.

You're for government intervention to stop teenagers advertising their imbecility.

Interesting balance. Some might suggest some inherent contradictions?

Shanglan

 

[gauchecritic]

Sorry, Dranoel, just want to get this straight ...

You're against companies questioning people's private lives when they cost them millions of dollars in health care coverage.

You're for government intervention to stop teenagers advertising their imbecility.

Interesting balance. Some might suggest some inherent contradictions?

Shanglan

I'd say the interesting thing here is the reportage. (you sly old fox you. Training to be amicus?)

 

[elsol]

At some point in time... someone thought bellbottoms were cool.

So 'whatever' to the butt showing thing... which more women did it.

Come on ladies... 5 sizes too big and please, the thong.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[BlackShanglan]

(you sly old fox you. Training to be amicus?)

Must it end like this, gauche? All of my admiration and fond regard for you, blown away in a pistol duel over a comment like this?

Training to be amicus.

*grumble*

Shanglan

 

[LadyJeanne]

Must it end like this, gauche? All of my admiration and fond regard for you, blown away in a pistol duel over a comment like this?

Training to be amicus.

*grumble*

Shanglan

Ah, amicus! He wrote a lovely, literate story about a sexy interlude with a mysteriously erotic Natasha, though. He's not ENTIRELY mysogynistic and messed up and stuff. Just most of the time.

 

[Guest]

Sorry, Dranoel, just want to get this straight ...

You're against companies questioning people's private lives when they cost them millions of dollars in health care coverage.

You're for government intervention to stop teenagers advertising their imbecility.

Interesting balance. Some might suggest some inherent contradictions?

Shanglan

Yes. You got it straight. Overly simplistic but strait.

But let's play by your rules for a sec.

Let's just say I own a large company like Proctor & Gamble. The board decides drinking alcohol is bad. It's mandated that anyone who drinks is terminated.

Now, you work for me. You're a good employee, always on time, you work hard and you are a credit to your department. You have never come to work intoxicated, you have never drank alcohol at work, but I know that you like to have a couple beers now and then.

You're fired.

Now we decide caffine is bad for you. What you stopped at Starbucks on the way in? You had a Coke for lunch?

You're fired.

Sodium is bad for you. You had McDonalds french fries on your vacation?

You're fired.

Sugar is bad for you too. Is that a hershey bar in your car? Doesn't matter if it's your son's, you may have eaten some.

You're fired.

You bought your baby flammable clothing?

Fired.

You didn't have your seatbelt on on Sunday.

Fired.

You ate popcorn with a lot of butter-like-substance at the theater on Friday night.

Fired.

They test your make-up on animals.

Fired.

You watched a movie with violence in it.

Fired.

What I do in my own home that is legal is my business. Not my bosses.

As for the underwear thing I'll just go back to what I said earlier. If it is illegal for me to go out in public in my jockey shorts, it is just as illegal to wear your pants around your knees and show off your jockeys.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Actually my point was not that the company should have that right - only that it seemed rather interesting to restrict one personal liberty that costs millions of dollars and destroys one's health, and clamp down on another that really harms no one.

If it is illegal for me to go out in public in my jockey shorts, it is just as illegal to wear your pants around your knees and show off your jockeys.

And equally illegal to appear in public in a bathing suit?

Context is everything.

Shanglan

 

[Guest]

Actually my point was not that the company should have that right - only that it seemed rather interesting to restrict one personal liberty that costs millions of dollars and destroys one's health, and clamp down on another that really harms no one.

Shanglan

And my point is if you are going to make comany policies make sure they are not singling people oput just because you don't like something they do that is completely legal.

Also, if you are going to have a law on the books preventing you from dressing only in your underwear, don't make it laegal to wear your underwear where it's visable.

In both cases, fair is fair. You can't have things two ways and you can't play favorites with this stuff. If you are going to ban something because it is unhealthy you had best ban EVERYTHING that has a health risk.

If you are going to pass laws on indecent exposure, don't leave obvious loopholes allow people to do the same thing just by putting a piece of tape on their nipple

 

[Guest]

Actually my point was not that the company should have that right - only that it seemed rather interesting to restrict one personal liberty that costs millions of dollars and destroys one's health, and clamp down on another that really harms no one.



And equally illegal to appear in public in a bathing suit?

Context is everything.

Shanglan

But you see the difference is, a bathing suit is legal. My boxer shorts arent.

A bikini is legal. A bra and panties is not.

 

[BlackShanglan]

In both cases, fair is fair. You can't have things two ways and you can't play favorites with this stuff. If you are going to ban something because it is unhealthy you had best ban EVERYTHING that has a health risk.

While tempting on the ground of simplicity, I'd argue that this is both unworkable and, ultimately, unfair.

One might make the same arguments about many laws. Why ban private ownership of fully automatic assault weapons, but not rifles? Why ban crack cocaine, but not alcohol? Why, indeed, ban underwear, but not bathing suits, when they cover the same amount of flesh? Why have freedom of speech, but not freedom to speak treason or, in the classic illustration, to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre?

I'd argue that all of these instances suggest the core issue: that life is not a matter of black and white, always right/always wrong actions. Neither should the law be. It requires thought and careful examination to weigh when one individual's liberties can or cannot coexist with the liberties allowed to others. Hence we have many laws making various behaviors conditional, or allowing one thing and disallowing something quite similar. It's a matter of balance.

Shanglan

 

[Guest]

While tempting on the ground of simplicity, I'd argue that this is both unworkable and, ultimately, unfair.

One might make the same arguments about many laws. Why ban private ownership of fully automatic assault weapons, but not rifles? Why ban crack cocaine, but not alcohol? Why, indeed, ban underwear, but not bathing suits, when they cover the same amount of flesh? Why have freedom of speech, but not freedom to speak treason or, in the classic illustration, to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre?

I'd argue that all of these instances suggest the core issue: that life is not a matter of black and white, always right/always wrong actions. Neither should the law be. It requires thought and careful examination to weigh when one individual's liberties can or cannot coexist with the liberties allowed to others. Hence we have many laws making various behaviors conditional, or allowing one thing and disallowing something quite similar. It's a matter of balance.

Shanglan

Now I see we are beginning to agree.

Why is it then acceptable to fire empoyees who smoke, but not employees who are gay?

 

[BlackShanglan]

And my point is if you are going to make comany policies make sure they are not singling people oput just because you don't like something they do that is completely legal.

Without supporting the company policy here, I think it's reasonable to point out that there are many cases in which companies do this already. These range from obvious work-related ones - i.e., we give up our freedom of speech and choice of attire when we go to work and must present the company's desired image and message - to more distant lifestyle choices. Most law enforcement groups and fire departments, for example, will fire employess who can't maintain an appropriate level of fitness to perform the job, however "personal" that employee's diet and exercise choices might be. And while desk workers have a much lower requirement for "fitness to perform duties," someone who is statistically much more likely to miss work - a smoker - is in fact less fit for those duties, and likely to perform them less often due to missing work for health problems.

Similarly, companies have fairly consistantly been upheld in their right to demand specific appearances from their workers - including lack of facial hair or visible tatooes or piercings. These are personal, legal lifestyle choices of the employees. However, they also affect the company financially, and the courts have seen fit to rule in their favor.

My point, again, is not that the company is right in this matter - only that what they are doing is not an especially radical departure from established labor practices, and not any more radical than, say, empowering the government to rule that denim rather than white cotton has to cover a man's backside.

Shanglan

 

[Liar]

Now I see we are beginning to agree.

Why is it then acceptable to fire empoyees who smoke, but not employees who are gay?

You can fire employees who smoke? I mean in general? Or can you only fire those who exposes others at or around the workplace for second-hand smoking?

I mean, the company can have all kinds of criteria for employing - but actually giving someone the boot for doing legal things.

#L

 

[Quiet_Cool]

Actually my point was not that the company should have that right - only that it seemed rather interesting to restrict one personal liberty that costs millions of dollars and destroys one's health, and clamp down on another that really harms no one.



And equally illegal to appear in public in a bathing suit?

Context is everything.

Shanglan

COntext, yes...

That's the key here. We've decided as a society (at some point, anyway) that a bathing suit is more appropriate than the bra and panties and boxers, simply because they perform a specific function in a specific environment. While I see the similarities between the two, you've got ot ask yourself whether said bathing suit should be considered more appropriate in certain areas than others. DO you really feel that it's more appropriate to walk into Wal-Mart of the local Mall wearing a bikini than it would be to walk in wearing a bra and panties? It seems unlikely, though I can't say for certain, since I've never seen anyone try either.

The question, as Shanglan said, is context. If the company I work for tested for alcohol consumption, on the grounds that I can't consume within 24 hrs of work, I'd fail... Everyday, I'd fail. (sad, isn't it? ) But alcohol is legal, so as long as I'm not drunk at work, or smelling like alcohol, I needn't worry. Marijuana, on the other hand, is not legal, and if I smoke (which I don't), I need to cross my fingers, because they have grounds to fire me there.

In terms of this pants around the knees deal. Boxers are similar to swim trunk, but they're still underwear, and since they're being exposed, and the body part they're covering isn't covered by another article of clothing (singling out the difference between the whole T-bar deal and this, BTW, in some instances, anyway), then I'd say in most circumstances, it's inapropriate.

Just my .02. Ignore me if you want.

Q_C

 

[cantdog]

Ah, amicus! He wrote a lovely, literate story about a sexy interlude with a mysteriously erotic Natasha, though. He's not ENTIRELY mysogynistic and messed up and stuff. Just most of the time.

I doubt it. he doesn't even use sentences.

 

[Liar]

In terms of this pants around the knees deal. Boxers are similar to swim trunk, but they're still underwear, and since they're being exposed, and the body part they're covering isn't covered by another article of clothing (singling out the difference between the whole T-bar deal and this, BTW, in some instances, anyway), then I'd say in most circumstances, it's inapropriate.

The homies will just have to wear double layers of undies then.