Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
![]()
For one, it has different standards for men and women. Men can go around topless, but not women. Second, I'm not entirely sure where the cleavage part came from. *Got that from the other posters on this thread.* Third, I think we should be loosening, not tightening, public decency laws. I think we should allow people to go naked, if they want.
There are sanitary and safety reasons to prohibit full nudity in many places, but I do not acknowledge any arguments that are based solely on disgust or decency. For one thing, the simple existence of varying taboos and manners of dress among cultures should prove beyond a possibility of argument that such standards are not absolute.
edited 15th Feb '13 2:56:20 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"That language is in there. However, I'm looking at the fact that the bill was specifically introduced in response to two topless rallies. Not two D-cup rallies (though, I'd kill to go to one), not a gathering of women at the beach. But a rally of women with full breasts out.
Seems to me the intent of the legislation is clear. From what I'm seeing the goal isn't to eliminate low necklines or bikinis but to stop people from flashing in public.
So......what's the issue?
![]()
Yeah, not happening pigeon.
I do.
edited 15th Feb '13 2:56:06 PM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honor![]()
The problem is that the language of the bill doesn't match up with what they're saying it'll do. They say it's supposed to prevent toplessness, but because the language says that showing any part of the female breast is illegal, it means that you can't show cleavage.
edited 15th Feb '13 2:58:31 PM by DrunkGirlfriend
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -DrunkscriblerianThe other way to look at it, Starship, is that if government has no business "intruding into the freedom of citizens", then whence the sudden reversal when it comes to nudity? We can't ban guns but we can ban breasts?
edited 15th Feb '13 2:59:29 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Fighteer, I'm not following you at all.
@DG - I see your point. But really, do you honestly think they'd go out to arrest women for having full beautiful breasts??
In other news. Teaching Creationism is child abuse
. Well, I must say, I dig the guy sticking to his guns.
edited 15th Feb '13 3:02:55 PM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honorYes, the language of the bill is such that it bans showing any part of the breast. That includes cleavage. What it does not do is stop topless rallies because those are not displaying breasts for sexual purposes, and the supreme court has upheld that topless rallies are protected speech.
The intent is to ban topless rallies, not cleavage.
The effect of the bill is to ban cleavage, and not topless rallies.
The state government is not legally allowed to ban topless rallies.
edited 15th Feb '13 3:03:32 PM by shimaspawn
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. DickNote to self: if pursuing a career in politics or any sort of policy making, bring Shima along.
@Fighteer - Actually, I wouldn't want guns or breasts displayed in public areas, but I wouldn't want them taken away from their owners either.
edited 15th Feb '13 3:05:11 PM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honorWait, you mean people seriously getting arrested for......cleavage?? And it's legal?
Why do I feel like this is the part where I ask "For real?"? Do I even want the answer?
Nope, right on time, Tomu. DG is telling about some place near her where they're anti-breasts.
edited 15th Feb '13 3:08:30 PM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honor@Max: Well, they're getting slapped with fines instead of getting arrested, but yeah.
Edit: Then again, this is the same city that forbids having dancefloors in bars, and says that "animated behavior" is an offense.
edited 15th Feb '13 3:16:59 PM by DrunkGirlfriend
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -DrunkscriblerianI shudder to think what would happen if 'Lil Wayne started playing. They'd probably drop a nuke since It's the Only Way to Be Sure.
edited 15th Feb '13 3:21:55 PM by TheStarshipMaxima
It was an honorTo add a personal note, I will be frank in saying that there is something terribly wrong with a world in which a 400 pound man can display his moobs for all the world to see, but a comely woman cannot remove her top without fear of arrest or persecution.
edited 15th Feb '13 3:25:18 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"If it's for the safety of the person going nude, then I don't accept them as a valid argument. People should be allowed to do stupid things as long as no one but themselves are hurt. We should discourage people from doing them, but not restrict or coerce them from doing the things. Plus, it's not a problem in many places. Like, say it's summer and I sleep in the nude and decide I don't want to get dressed before going out to check the mail, I should be allowed to. There's no danger there to anyone, not even myself. Now, I recognize there are situations where there would be a danger to myself if I went outside naked, but I don't see how I would be a danger to others by doing so.
Which is a shame.
...
...
I agree with this guy. By teaching Creationism, one is teaching one's children lies and is possibly even stunting the child's growth by teaching him/her to ignore evidence or to cherry pick evidence, which are completely necessary for believing Creationism.

Now, if you have evidence that the last part isn't actually in the bill, I'd like to see it.
edited 15th Feb '13 2:48:43 PM by DrunkGirlfriend
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian