Seems appropriate
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Most people do not find dancing offensive
[/quote]
How about at a funeral service?
My point is that this is kind of a grey area… What is and isn’t offensive. Clearly SOMEBODY thought such behavior was inappropriate, or there would not have been a rule like that.
So again, did these clowns even TRY to deal with their “concerns” in a constructive way?
BTW, did you see the footage of the follow-up “protest?”
Had I been visiting the memorial at that time, yeah, I’d have been plenty offended to not be able to quietly stand and contemplate without a bunch of people dancing all around me.
[/quote]
This is where common sense should prevail, I can not argue this either you got it or you don’t and if you don’t , you should not be a Cop
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think the majority of people would consider that lewd and indecent , that is a poor example
[/quote]
It’s a good example why we don’t need laws to protect us from indecency (or dancers). Most people already know this is not acceptable behavior and would not do it in the first place. If someone were to do it why couldn’t it just be prohibited voluntarily? For example, people who are offended can refuse to associate or to do business with these kind of people. That is a harsh punishment which can quickly correct bad behavior.
And with the use of social media there is no hiding from your sins.[/quote]
Lifty , I am speachless, I personally believe in having laws designed to keep people from offending any one , I will play the devils advocate , what would you do if a grown man showed your 3 year old Mr Happy ? Would you say , “I will never do business with you”?[/quote]
As much as I would detest such behavior I don’t think a man should be locked in a cage for it.
I would find out where this person lives and I would use every resource at my disposal to inform every person he could potentially do business and associate with what a creep this individual is…oh, and his family too 
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
This is where common sense should prevail, I can not argue this either you got it or you don’t and if you don’t , you should not be a Cop[/quote]
Common sense?
Whose?
That’s not much of an argument.
And I would argue that dancing in a public monument that has signs posted asking you not to isn’t exactly behavior that’s teeming with “common sense.”[/quote]
Commmon means a shared sense, you and I agree we do not want men showing our children obscenity , we agree that going to the bathroom in an area not designed to be cleaned properly is unhealthy, laws have there reason, but there is a line that can be crossed where common sense gives way to stupidity
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I think the majority of people would consider that lewd and indecent , that is a poor example
[/quote]
It’s a good example why we don’t need laws to protect us from indecency (or dancers). Most people already know this is not acceptable behavior and would not do it in the first place. If someone were to do it why couldn’t it just be prohibited voluntarily? For example, people who are offended can refuse to associate or to do business with these kind of people. That is a harsh punishment which can quickly correct bad behavior.
And with the use of social media there is no hiding from your sins.[/quote]
Lifty , I am speachless, I personally believe in having laws designed to keep people from offending any one , I will play the devils advocate , what would you do if a grown man showed your 3 year old Mr Happy ? Would you say , “I will never do business with you”?[/quote]
As much as I would detest such behavior I don’t think a man should be locked in a cage for it.
I would find out where this person lives and I would use every resource at my disposal to inform every person he could potentially do business and associate with what a creep this individual is…oh, and his family too :)[/quote]
I would fuck some what up, that is why there are laws , children should not have to endure such things as good people should not have to worry about dealing with these types of people, that is the purpose of the police, to deal with problems society does not want to deal with.
My approach would be more direct, with immediate
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I would fuck some what up, that is why there are laws , children should not have to endure such things as good people should not have to worry about dealing with these types of people, that is the purpose of the police, to deal with problems society does not want to deal with.
My approach would be more direct, with immediate
[/quote]
Do you really think a child would be that traumatized by seeing a man’s unit (as long as we are talking about exposure only and nothing physical)?
Should a father be punished if their child accidentally walks in on him naked?
edit: and what about nude beaches in Europe?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I would fuck some what up, that is why there are laws , children should not have to endure such things as good people should not have to worry about dealing with these types of people, that is the purpose of the police, to deal with problems society does not want to deal with.
My approach would be more direct, with immediate
[/quote]
Do you really think a child would be that traumatized by seeing a man’s unit (as long as we are talking about exposure only and nothing physical)?
Should a father be punished if their child accidentally walks in on him naked?
edit: and what about nude beaches in Europe?[/quote]
I believe a child could be , no I do not think a child walking in on a person accidentally would be the same as a deliberate act designed to traumatize the child . I believe this would be covered in common sense. It is possible that America has lost it’s sense on what common sense means . Common senses means the sense that we all share , it would probably be the extremes of normalcy , maybe that would be better for people that could not wrap their head around the concept of common decency
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I would fuck some what up, that is why there are laws , children should not have to endure such things as good people should not have to worry about dealing with these types of people, that is the purpose of the police, to deal with problems society does not want to deal with.
My approach would be more direct, with immediate
[/quote]
Do you really think a child would be that traumatized by seeing a man’s unit (as long as we are talking about exposure only and nothing physical)?
Should a father be punished if their child accidentally walks in on him naked?
edit: and what about nude beaches in Europe?[/quote]
You will find no bigger fan on nudity than I, nudity is beautiful , or at least can be
Obscenity is not beautiful , it is repulsive and disgusting . You can not equate people enjoying the veiw of beautiful bodies to some one deriving sexual pleasure at the expense of some one elses well being
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I would fuck some what up, that is why there are laws , children should not have to endure such things as good people should not have to worry about dealing with these types of people, that is the purpose of the police, to deal with problems society does not want to deal with.
My approach would be more direct, with immediate
[/quote]
Do you really think a child would be that traumatized by seeing a man’s unit (as long as we are talking about exposure only and nothing physical)?
Should a father be punished if their child accidentally walks in on him naked?
edit: and what about nude beaches in Europe?[/quote]
I believe a child could be , no I do not think a child walking in on a person accidentally would be the same as a deliberate act designed to traumatize the child . I believe this would be covered in common sense. It is possible that America has lost it’s sense on what common sense means . Common senses means the sense that we all share , it would probably be the extremes of normalcy , maybe that would be better for people that could not wrap their head around the concept of common decency[/quote]
The biggest problem I see is who defines what common sense is? As common sense can vary wildly by culture and America is a mix of many cultures, this seems to be more than a simple task. As lift pointed out, nude beaches are perfectly acceptable in Europe, not so much here. It’s common sense in Europe that there’s nothing wrong with this display of nudity but it’s common sense here that there is something wrong with it.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Obscenity is not beautiful , it is repulsive and disgusting . You can not equate people enjoying the veiw of beautiful bodies to some one deriving sexual pleasure at the expense of some one elses well being[/quote]
I do agree with this.
[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Obscenity is not beautiful , it is repulsive and disgusting . You can not equate people enjoying the veiw of beautiful bodies to some one deriving sexual pleasure at the expense of some one elses well being[/quote]
I do agree with this.
[/quote]
Unfortunately, obsenity is in the eye of the beholder.
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Obscenity is not beautiful , it is repulsive and disgusting . You can not equate people enjoying the veiw of beautiful bodies to some one deriving sexual pleasure at the expense of some one elses well being[/quote]
I do agree with this.
[/quote]
Unfortunately, obsenity is in the eye of the beholder.[/quote]
I have to apologize , I feel the opposition to the common sense aspect iss nothing more than an advocacy for the Devil. Obscenity has a definition that is easy to understand, only a Republican could befuddle the meaning or maybe Lifty
[quote]orion wrote:
In related news, apparently does not only have the Fish and Wildlife service SWAT teams, teh Department of Education can send them as well if you do not pay your student loans?
I do not know on what planet this is considered to be normal, but if that is how its handled in the land of the free perhaps everyone else is doing it wrong?[/quote]
This should not be ignored - I think this is more indicative of progressing toward a police state than are street cops who are overly zealous with protestors.
How many of the 30 or so presidentially appointed inspectors general in the federal government actively take advantage of the full police power they were granted by the Homeland Security Act of 2002? By law, the Deptartment of Labor, the Export-Import Bank of the United States, the Tennessee Valley Authority and two dozen other federal agencies with OIGs can send a dozen armed agents to kick down your door.
And that’s just the newer stuff. There has been an increasing tendency by lawmakers to felonize non-violent crimes. And don’t get me started on the failure of drug prohibition - (I really need ID and tracking to buy cough medicine containing pseudoephedrine? Really?).
At least the courts can try to rein in some of it, but they are not fast, and they do not seem to be up to the task. Though some try. Note this post on Justice Scalia’s latest dissent: Justice Scalia's Sykes Dissent - The Volokh ConspiracyThe Volokh Conspiracy
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Obscenity is not beautiful , it is repulsive and disgusting . You can not equate people enjoying the veiw of beautiful bodies to some one deriving sexual pleasure at the expense of some one elses well being[/quote]
[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
I do agree with this.
[/quote]
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
Unfortunately, obsenity is in the eye of the beholder.[/quote]
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I have to apologize , I feel the opposition to the common sense aspect iss nothing more than an advocacy for the Devil. Obscenity has a definition that is easy to understand, only a Republican could befuddle the meaning or maybe Lifty
[/quote]
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Obscenity is not beautiful , it is repulsive and disgusting . You can not equate people enjoying the veiw of beautiful bodies to some one deriving sexual pleasure at the expense of some one elses well being[/quote]
[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
I do agree with this.
[/quote]
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
Unfortunately, obsenity is in the eye of the beholder.[/quote]
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I have to apologize , I feel the opposition to the common sense aspect iss nothing more than an advocacy for the Devil. Obscenity has a definition that is easy to understand, only a Republican could befuddle the meaning or maybe Lifty
[/quote]
[/quote]
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Obscenity is not beautiful , it is repulsive and disgusting . You can not equate people enjoying the veiw of beautiful bodies to some one deriving sexual pleasure at the expense of some one elses well being[/quote]
I do agree with this.
[/quote]
Unfortunately, obsenity is in the eye of the beholder.[/quote]
I have to apologize , I feel the opposition to the common sense aspect iss nothing more than an advocacy for the Devil. Obscenity has a definition that is easy to understand, only a Republican could befuddle the meaning or maybe Lifty
[/quote]
So is Robert Maplethorpe’s work obscene?
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Obscenity is not beautiful , it is repulsive and disgusting . You can not equate people enjoying the veiw of beautiful bodies to some one deriving sexual pleasure at the expense of some one elses well being[/quote]
I do agree with this.
[/quote]
Unfortunately, obsenity is in the eye of the beholder.[/quote]
I have to apologize , I feel the opposition to the common sense aspect iss nothing more than an advocacy for the Devil. Obscenity has a definition that is easy to understand, only a Republican could befuddle the meaning or maybe Lifty
[/quote]
So is Robert Maplethorpe’s work obscene?[/quote]
I do not know his works , but if some one seeks his works out , as I will , then I am getting what I ask for , there is no offense taken, it is a lot different than having some one dangle their genitals in some one face that would prefer they did not
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Obscenity is not beautiful , it is repulsive and disgusting . You can not equate people enjoying the veiw of beautiful bodies to some one deriving sexual pleasure at the expense of some one elses well being[/quote]
I do agree with this.
[/quote]
Unfortunately, obsenity is in the eye of the beholder.[/quote]
I have to apologize , I feel the opposition to the common sense aspect iss nothing more than an advocacy for the Devil. Obscenity has a definition that is easy to understand, only a Republican could befuddle the meaning or maybe Lifty
[/quote]
So is Robert Maplethorpe’s work obscene?[/quote]
I would not consider it obscene unless it were displayed publicly. A large percentage of people consider it obscene to observe nudity, they did not seek it out so it is reasonable that they do not have it thrust upon them
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Obscenity is not beautiful , it is repulsive and disgusting . You can not equate people enjoying the veiw of beautiful bodies to some one deriving sexual pleasure at the expense of some one elses well being[/quote]
[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:
I do agree with this.
[/quote]
[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
Unfortunately, obsenity is in the eye of the beholder.[/quote]
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I have to apologize , I feel the opposition to the common sense aspect iss nothing more than an advocacy for the Devil. Obscenity has a definition that is easy to understand, only a Republican could befuddle the meaning or maybe Lifty
[/quote]
[/quote]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscenity[/quote]
“The definition of what exactly constitutes an obscenity differs from culture to culture, between communities within a single culture, and also between individuals within those communities”
Thank you for making my point for me. - obsenity is in the eye of the beholder.[/