|
11 Feb 2005, 17:19
|
#1
|
Mr. Blobby
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Belgium
Posts: 8,271
|
One doesn't want to laugh at the USA...
...but they just make it so easy sometimes.
Quote:
Lovers of low-riding jeans, visible thongs and exposed boxer shorts may be obliged to avoid the state of Virginia in the future, or risk a $50 (£27) fine as the cost of their exhibitionism.
Long known to be one of the most conservative bodies in the United States, the Virginian State House of Representatives has broken new legal ground by voting to outlaw exposed underwear, in an attempt to restore sartorial standards in suburban towns such as Richmond and Norfolk.
In the era of low-slung jeans, a flash of black lace or g-string has become a common sight in both America and Europe. But the Virginian "droopy drawers" bill, as it is known to its mainly middle-aged supporters, forbids the intentional exposing of underwear in a way that is "lewd or indecent".
By a 60-34 majority, delegates ruled that the proposed fine was necessary to prevent the youth trend threatening the moral fibre of mainstream America.
"Most of us would identify [exposed underwear] as the coarsening of society," said John Reid, a Republican delegate. "Underwear is called underwear for a reason.'' The bill's sponsor, Algie Howell, told the house: "To vote for this bill would be a vote for character, to uplift your community and to do something good not only for the state of Virginia, but for this entire country."
Although the state's senators must ratify the fine for it to pass into law, opponents of the fashion for wearing trousers well below the hips are already acclaiming a landmark success.
The bill has quickly attracted nationwide publicity, and viewers of ABC's Good Morning America found themselves immersed in an earnest debate yesterday about how low trousers should be allowed to go. Other states are expected to follow Virginia's example.
But liberals have denounced a shameless attempt by middle-aged politicians to clamp down on contemporary youth fashions, while forgetting their own sartorial excesses in the past.
Lionell Spruill, a Virginia Democrat, asked his fellow delegates to remember the follies of Afro haircuts, platform shoes and shell-suits, before making the more serious allegation that the new fine would principally be aimed at the black communities, where the fashion originated.
"Please let these kids express themselves," said Mr Spruill. "This is going to be a bill that targets blacks. You know who they are going to stop."
The American Civil Liberties Union has also condemned the underwear bill as unconstitutional and critics have pointed out that some jeans are now sold with boxer shorts stitched into the fabric. But supporters of the bill were unrepentant. The baggy-pants mode of dress is "disrespectful", said Mr Howell. "The vote this morning was a vote that Virginia does want to set an example of what character should be."
Source: The Independent
|
According to a local newspaper I read on the train, the law had been passed. I'm not entirely sure if they were correct, as I cannot find any other source on the Internet saying that the law itself was already passed, but the fact that it's up for a motion is amusing enough in itself.
Last edited by Leshy; 12 Feb 2005 at 13:53.
|
|
|
11 Feb 2005, 17:20
|
#2
|
I am.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,580
|
Re: One doesn't want to laught at the USA...
why is this funny?
__________________
hi
|
|
|
11 Feb 2005, 17:23
|
#3
|
Gone
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,656
|
Re: One doesn't want to laught at the USA...
I cannot abide this fashion for looking like a shit-sack which currently is doing the rounds.
I doubt this needs legislating on though.
|
|
|
11 Feb 2005, 17:25
|
#4
|
Mr. Blobby
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Belgium
Posts: 8,271
|
Re: One doesn't want to laught at the USA...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yahwe
why is this funny?
|
Because the country which houses the world's biggest porn industry, and has it's national celebrities show up at parties with clothing the size of a postage stamp, is trying to pass a law to allow people to be fined for wearing a pair of jeans which allow the underwear to be partly visible.
I thought we left the whole "Oh my god, a piece of skin!" attitude behind in the Victorian Age, especially considering this is about the partial exposure a piece of clothing, rather than a piece of flesh.
|
|
|
11 Feb 2005, 17:27
|
#5
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: One doesn't want to laught at the USA...
Don't thread on me.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
11 Feb 2005, 17:28
|
#6
|
I am.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,580
|
Re: One doesn't want to laught at the USA...
1) its a state law, not a federal law.
2) the porn industry and the celebs are in a different state.
3) you people didn't have a victorian era
4) when flesh is shown off as standard it erodes eroticism
5) they're a democracy why mock them if they feel it necessary
6) I would want you arrested if you were outside in a thong
__________________
hi
|
|
|
11 Feb 2005, 18:10
|
#7
|
Mr. Blobby
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Belgium
Posts: 8,271
|
Re: One doesn't want to laught at the USA...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yahwe
1) its a state law, not a federal law.
|
I never said it was a federal law.
Quote:
2) the porn industry and the celebs are in a different state.
|
I'm completely sure that all celebrities and porn stars are required by law to be in a single state which is not Virginia.
Quote:
3) you people didn't have a victorian era
|
I never had a Roman Era, but that doesn't mean I can't talk about it.
Quote:
4) when flesh is shown off as standard it erodes eroticism
|
So going to the beach or the pool regularly would desensitize you to eroticism, on the basis that you already see a lot of flesh?
Quote:
5) they're a democracy why mock them if they feel it necessary
|
Because the "right by majority" argument doesn't hold any water, and I am extremely sceptical about whether this law reflects the wishes of the people in Virginia, or just of a minor elite of extreme conservatives.
Quote:
6) I would want you arrested if you were outside in a thong
|
Everyone would want me something if I went out in just a thong
Ridiculousness aside, this law doesn't stop people from going out in just a thong, it stops them from going out in full leggings which happen to show the upper portion of someone's underwear. There's quite a difference between the two.
|
|
|
11 Feb 2005, 18:23
|
#8
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,476
|
Re: One doesn't want to laught at the USA...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leshy
Ridiculousness aside, this law doesn't stop people from going out in just a thong, it stops them from going out in full leggings which happen to show the upper portion of someone's underwear. There's quite a difference between the two.
|
I can't find any difference and I'm curious where you think it is. Can people wear what they like even if it offends others, or not?
|
|
|
11 Feb 2005, 18:29
|
#9
|
the Sacred Pervert
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 1,492
|
Re: One doesn't want to laught at the USA...
i've been living in virginia beach, and been working on base in norfolk, for the past 4 years - virginia is generally a conservative state, and will do everything in their power to keep the state conservative to counter the deeply-infested culture bash of the military (90% of the atlantic fleet are based in virginia)
to give you some examples, i got pulled over for speeding - i was doing 39 on a 35 mph road, goddamn rediculous... also i got ticketed $105 (cursing and public intoxication) on the beach for yelling out whatsup mother****ing ****errrrrssSSS!!!! to my friends - they actually have NO CURSING signs posted at every intersection on the beach - i hate virginia with a passion..
__________________
"....some might say, we will find a brighter day...."
-Oasis
Veneratio | Insomnia | F-Crew | Subh
|
|
|
11 Feb 2005, 18:30
|
#10
|
Mr. Blobby
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Belgium
Posts: 8,271
|
Re: One doesn't want to laught at the USA...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nodrog
I can't find any difference and I'm curious where you think it is.
|
I believe the difference to be mainly in the crotch and buttock areas. Of course, that is entirely based on my experience with jeans, perhaps you are accustomed to crotchless and buttless ones, in which case I can understand your confusion.
Quote:
Can people wear what they like even if it offends others, or not?
|
Considering a large amount of people hold a large amount of opinions and beliefs, clothing is always going to be offensive to someone. I can see, for example, how a girl in a regular pair of jeans and a T-shirt might already be offensive to the more orthodox members of the Islamic religion.
Considering commercial advertisements and music videos, undoubtedly also broadcasted and displayed in Virginia, regularly make use of models in clothing far more revealing than the clothing this law proposes to ban, I fail to see how this law has any applicable use whatsoever.
|
|
|
11 Feb 2005, 18:33
|
#11
|
lolly roffle
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,514
|
Re: One doesn't want to laught at the USA...
Fats girls in tight tops that reveal the belly area with overhanging fat offends me .
__________________
eXcessum
|
|
|
11 Feb 2005, 19:12
|
#12
|
Freedom Fanatic
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Doing evil deeds in the name of freedom
Posts: 680
|
Re: One doesn't want to laught at the USA...
Just dont wear any underwear with them.........
__________________
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.
|
|
|
11 Feb 2005, 19:18
|
#13
|
so f*cking zen
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Hitting Bottom
Posts: 8,499
|
Re: One doesn't want to laught at the USA...
or wear thongs without jeans ...
__________________
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
|
|
|
11 Feb 2005, 20:02
|
#14
|
Registered Awesome Person
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,676
|
Re: One doesn't want to laught at the USA...
__________________
Finally free!
|
|
|
11 Feb 2005, 20:08
|
#15
|
Mr. Blobby
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Belgium
Posts: 8,271
|
Re: One doesn't want to laught at the USA...
Thank God. Although it looks highly ridiculous (make that bordering well across the line to retarded) on the dude on the photo, it's not particularly offensive.
|
|
|
11 Feb 2005, 20:19
|
#16
|
Gone
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,656
|
Re: One doesn't want to laught at the USA...
Quote:
Originally Posted by The BBC Report
Another Republican senator, Thomas K Norment, warned that media reports had ridiculed lawmakers by making them look as though they were focussing on futile topics.
"I find that an indignation, which dampens my humour," he said.
|
Laughing out loud.
|
|
|
11 Feb 2005, 20:40
|
#17
|
Twisted
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Down with the sickness
Posts: 2,484
|
Re: One doesn't want to laught at the USA...
I will never for the life of me understand why women can't just buy pants that cover their arses, instead of that god awful dental floss look. If I had my way I'd ban my staff from wearing thongs, thankfully the company director has recently sent a memo round stating that staff must wear trousers that come up to their waist - no more hipsters - (yes this is the kind of shit the director spends his time doing) so no longer will I have to walk over to the drinks dispense and see one of my waitresses bending to lift a tray or whatever with their pants and arse on display :)
__________________
Me
In my sleep I grind my teeth.
|
|
|
11 Feb 2005, 21:08
|
#18
|
Mr. Blobby
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Belgium
Posts: 8,271
|
Re: One doesn't want to laught at the USA...
Goddamn office nazi woman!
|
|
|
11 Feb 2005, 21:56
|
#19
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: One doesn't want to laught at the USA...
Turns out the system really works guys!
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
11 Feb 2005, 21:59
|
#20
|
Freedom Fanatic
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Doing evil deeds in the name of freedom
Posts: 680
|
Re: One doesn't want to laught at the USA...
Which system?
Or are we talking a more general 'rawr im young and hate everything that isnt individual (As defined by a group of other people who mass produce fashions) and cool' type system?
__________________
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.
|
|
|
11 Feb 2005, 22:03
|
#21
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: One doesn't want to laught at the USA...
The legal system of the USA? Your second sentence just scared me
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
11 Feb 2005, 22:04
|
#22
|
Freedom Fanatic
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Doing evil deeds in the name of freedom
Posts: 680
|
Re: One doesn't want to laught at the USA...
Weak minds are easily frightened..
__________________
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.
|
|
|
11 Feb 2005, 22:07
|
#23
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: One doesn't want to laught at the USA...
In university the other day I scared a fat guy and he ran and my god I was laughing for at least ten minutes afterwards.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
11 Feb 2005, 22:10
|
#24
|
Freedom Fanatic
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Doing evil deeds in the name of freedom
Posts: 680
|
Re: One doesn't want to laught at the USA...
Was that how long it took him to get out of your LoS?
__________________
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.
|
|
|
12 Feb 2005, 09:18
|
#25
|
Miles Teg
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Dom City
Posts: 5,192
|
Re: One doesn't want to laught at the USA...
The dentall floss look on fit girls can be quite a turn on, and it is not disrespectfull in anyway
!
__________________
Audentes Fortuna Iuvat
|
|
|
12 Feb 2005, 12:45
|
#26
|
I am.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,580
|
Re: One doesn't want to laught at the USA...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leshy
Because the "right by majority" argument doesn't hold any water, and I am extremely sceptical about whether this law reflects the wishes of the people in Virginia, or just of a minor elite of extreme conservatives.
|
oh yes. this makes sense.
__________________
hi
|
|
|
12 Feb 2005, 13:09
|
#27
|
Mr. Blobby
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Belgium
Posts: 8,271
|
Re: One doesn't want to laught at the USA...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yahwe
oh yes. this makes sense.
|
Please state which part of that sentence you fail to understand.
|
|
|
12 Feb 2005, 13:14
|
#28
|
I am.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,580
|
Re: One doesn't want to laught at the USA...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leshy
Please state which part of that sentence you fail to understand.
|
'right by majority' + 'minor elite' = idiocy
__________________
hi
|
|
|
12 Feb 2005, 13:28
|
#29
|
Mr. Blobby
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Belgium
Posts: 8,271
|
Re: One doesn't want to laught at the USA...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yahwe
'right by majority' + 'minor elite' = idiocy
|
Ah, you fail to see the structure in the sentence. I shall rewrite it more elaborately for you.
"Referring to the decisions of a democratic vote as correct or the best outcome, on the basis that a majority chose that outcome, is in my opinion not valid, because the majority is not always correct or does not have the knowledge required to select the best choice.
Furthermore, in going with the 'it was democratically voted for' argument, I dare to raise questions just as how democratic this vote was, and whether it does indeed reflect the wishes of the majority rather than that of a minor conservative elite who have been elected."
|
|
|
12 Feb 2005, 13:36
|
#30
|
I am.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,580
|
Re: One doesn't want to laught at the USA...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leshy
Ah, you fail to see the structure in the sentence. I shall rewrite it more elaborately for you.
"Referring to the decisions of a democratic vote as correct or the best outcome, on the basis that a majority chose that outcome, is in my opinion not valid, because the majority is not always correct or does not have the knowledge required to select the best choice.
Furthermore, in going with the 'it was democratically voted for' argument, I dare to raise questions just as how democratic this vote was, and whether it does indeed reflect the wishes of the majority rather than that of a minor conservative elite who have been elected."
|
other than being less well written how exactly does this help?
let me be clear:
1) if you want to be anti-democracy, knock yourself out, but a tyranny would be more likely to pass laws you thought were 'funny'
2) you can't say that something democratically voted for by the majority only represents the will of a minority
not unless you don't know what the words mean.
__________________
hi
|
|
|
12 Feb 2005, 13:41
|
#31
|
Mr. Blobby
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Belgium
Posts: 8,271
|
Re: One doesn't want to laught at the USA...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yahwe
1) if you want to be anti-democracy, knock yourself out
|
I'm not anti-democracy, because it is the best thing we have in my opinion, considering that a benevolent dictatorship is pretty much an utopia. However, even being pro-democracy does not mean that you are not allowed to question the will of the majority.
Quote:
2) you can't say that something democratically voted for by the majority only represents the will of a minority
|
Lesson on a democratic state:
You have a large population. You have a small government. The population is in the majority. The government is in the minority. The government may make a decision that does not reflect the wishes of the population, eg. the majority. Hence, we may have an outcome that in a democratic state, and chosen by a democratic vote, represents the will of an overall minority.
|
|
|
12 Feb 2005, 13:43
|
#32
|
I am.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,580
|
Re: One doesn't want to laught at the USA...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leshy
You have a large population. You have a small government. The population is in the majority. The government is in the minority. The government may make a decision that does not reflect the wishes of the population, eg. the majority. Hence, we may have an outcome that in a democratic state, and chosen by a democratic vote, represents the will of an overall minority.
|
you're funny.
like AIDS
__________________
hi
|
|
|
12 Feb 2005, 13:45
|
#33
|
Mr. Blobby
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Belgium
Posts: 8,271
|
Re: One doesn't want to laught at the USA...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yahwe
you're funny.
like AIDS
|
Considering AIDS seems to be, in fact, the current funny thing to use on an Internet Forum, I'll take that as a compliment
|
|
|
12 Feb 2005, 13:47
|
#34
|
home wrecker
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The other side of the galaxy ;)
Posts: 1,041
|
Re: One doesn't want to laught at the USA...
or perhaps yawhe, when faced with the choice of two mediocre candidates a majority of total votes may er in favour of one candidate. That however does not mean that his opinion now suddenly represents the majority of the voters
edit damn posting speeds give a guy time to read a thread!
__________________
May the Farce be with you...
#pr0nstars - a pimp is for life, not just for christmas
|
|
|
12 Feb 2005, 13:48
|
#35
|
I am.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,580
|
Re: One doesn't want to laught at the USA...
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAdnRisKy
or perhaps yawhe, when faced with the choice of two mediocre candidates a majority of total votes may er in favour of one candidate. That however does not mean that his opinion now suddenly represents the majority of the voters
|
yes it does.
why not use the 'preview post' button in future?
__________________
hi
|
|
|
12 Feb 2005, 13:49
|
#36
|
I am.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,580
|
Re: One doesn't want to laught at the USA...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leshy
Considering AIDS seems to be, in fact, the current funny thing to use on an Internet Forum, I'll take that as a compliment
|
given that you can't understand a quite simple democratic process.
i am unsurprised at your inability to understand other things.
__________________
hi
|
|
|
12 Feb 2005, 13:51
|
#37
|
home wrecker
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The other side of the galaxy ;)
Posts: 1,041
|
Re: One doesn't want to laught at the USA...
oh come on how does it. Unless the right to abstane suddenly stops you being considered as a voter. To me that is a vote in of it self. To you it probably just looks like apathy.
__________________
May the Farce be with you...
#pr0nstars - a pimp is for life, not just for christmas
|
|
|
12 Feb 2005, 13:51
|
#38
|
Mr. Blobby
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Belgium
Posts: 8,271
|
Re: One doesn't want to laught at the USA...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yahwe
given that you can't understand a quite simple democratic process.
|
How about instead of trolling, you just explain your point of view then. I'm sure that would be considered as much more informative to the thread than you slinging mud like a girl
|
|
|
12 Feb 2005, 13:54
|
#39
|
I am.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,580
|
Re: One doesn't want to laught at the USA...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yahwe
2) you can't say that something democratically voted for by the majority only represents the will of a minority
|
the majority elects these representatives. then the representatives 'do things'
do you follow? or must you carry on spamming?
__________________
hi
|
|
|
12 Feb 2005, 13:56
|
#40
|
Mr. Blobby
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Belgium
Posts: 8,271
|
Re: One doesn't want to laught at the USA...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yahwe
the majority elects these representatives. then the representatives 'do things'
|
You say this as if the only possible course of action for these representatives is in line with the opinions and interests of the majority that elected them, or that these representatives were actually chosen by a majority to begin with, which does not need to be the case either.
|
|
|
12 Feb 2005, 14:01
|
#41
|
home wrecker
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The other side of the galaxy ;)
Posts: 1,041
|
Re: One doesn't want to laught at the USA...
Don't feed the troll Leshy, he won't answer a serious arguement. He will answer you though but at no point will he attempt to refute or provide an alternative point of view, he will however insist that you must be stupid for holding yours.
He's a like one week fling that won't go away. Ammusing at first but kind of irritating and then scary when you're having coffee at say work with collegues and it keeps interjecting its own voice no matter how often you ignore it. Pretty soon you'll find him trailing you round threads pointing out how wrong you are every time you post.
__________________
May the Farce be with you...
#pr0nstars - a pimp is for life, not just for christmas
|
|
|
12 Feb 2005, 14:02
|
#42
|
I am.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,580
|
Re: One doesn't want to laught at the USA...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leshy
You say this as if the only possible course of action for these representatives is in line with the opinions and interests of the majority that elected them, or that these representatives were actually chosen by a majority to begin with, which does not need to be the case either.
|
1) of course they are elected by the majority.
2) if they do not act within their mandate they will not be elected again and the majority still have the option of rebellion.
3) the obvious point is that there is absolutely no suggestion that these US politicians were not acting within their mandate and you look childish when you keep suggesting they're just a conservative minority simply because you 'don't like it' and 'think its funny'
__________________
hi
|
|
|
12 Feb 2005, 14:05
|
#43
|
Mr. Blobby
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Belgium
Posts: 8,271
|
Re: One doesn't want to laught at the USA...
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAdnRisKy
Don't feed the troll Leshy
|
Yeah, I know. He's just grasping @ straws now.
Edit: Fixed for Yahwe.
Last edited by Leshy; 12 Feb 2005 at 14:16.
|
|
|
12 Feb 2005, 14:08
|
#44
|
I am.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,580
|
Re: One doesn't want to laught at the USA...
'at'
__________________
hi
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 14:46.
| |