Menewsha Avatar Community
Page 4 of 4 « First < 23 4
Show 25 post(s) from this thread on one page

Menewsha Avatar Community (https://www.menewsha.com/forum/index.php)
-   General Discussion (https://www.menewsha.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=85)
-   -   So now the police are also the fashion police? (https://www.menewsha.com/forum/showthread.php?t=66813)

Wordstreamer 10-03-2007 01:48 AM
:gonk: My black clothes DO celebrate my life!

Seriously. That's most of my clothes that fit, plus all of my coats. That would suck. (Also, outlawing black clothes because All black=Satan worshiper is about as constitutional as outlawing gay marriage because God doesn't like it. ... Waitaminute.....) ;)
Re: The new Italian police uniform: I'd be so mad.... That makes it next to impossible to chase people down.

mangacatgirl 10-03-2007 03:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zewlie
If you really want a laugh, Italy just made high heels part of the female uniform for its police officers.
How did THAT seem like a good idea? ^.^;

Doomfishy 10-03-2007 03:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mangacatgirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zewlie
If you really want a laugh, Italy just made high heels part of the female uniform for its police officers.
How did THAT seem like a good idea? ^.^;

I have NO idea. Crazy, right?

Here's the article:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...508225,00.html

.n.e.r.d.y. 10-03-2007 03:33 AM
Well if they mean baggy pants as in hanging down passed there knee's, exposing their boxers...good.
That could easily be considered Indecent Exposure.
But even if they outlaw it...people will still do it, so honestly, why waste the time?

mangacatgirl 10-03-2007 04:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by .n.e.r.d.y.
Well if they mean baggy pants as in hanging down passed there knee's, exposing their boxers...good.
That could easily be considered Indecent Exposure.
But even if they outlaw it...people will still do it, so honestly, why waste the time?
Actually I believe you have to show skin for it to be indecent exposure. Guys in just boxers are in G rated movies and cartoons all over the place.

woopdidoodoo 10-03-2007 01:11 PM
I think that we should just be able to wear what we personally feel is right to us and not what the majority believes in or the authority. It isn't right to be dictated to, remember thats what we are all about, free speech and what not. I don't think anyone should have the finger pointed at them just coz what their wearing is too loud or wrong to that other person, so what? I mean it shouldn't matter. Who makes them think that they can play God and say what is what anyways?

Admonish Misconstruction 10-03-2007 02:46 PM
I don't like it when people wear baggy pants, but its not the government job to take care of it, we the 'people' should discourage it.

Also when they say this is the 'land of the free', thats wrong. It is the land of the free under the law.

When we should do is outlaw it on a personal level. Such as don't let costumers to stores say 'no baggy pants', yet it would have to be their decision for that. School have outlawed it, or most, and thats a start there. If we discourage it enough it will go away for the most part.

mangacatgirl 10-03-2007 03:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by admonished nonsense
I don't like it when people wear baggy pants, but its not the government job to take care of it, we the 'people' should discourage it.

Also when they say this is the 'land of the free', thats wrong. It is the land of the free under the law.

When we should do is outlaw it on a personal level. Such as don't let costumers to stores say 'no baggy pants', yet it would have to be their decision for that. School have outlawed it, or most, and thats a start there. If we discourage it enough it will go away for the most part.
... So you're saying we should outcast people who dress in ways we don't agree with? We should force them out of society until they decide to change them self in order to get our personal approval? I'm equally against that, sorry.

Admonish Misconstruction 10-03-2007 03:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mangacatgirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by admonished nonsense
I don't like it when people wear baggy pants, but its not the government job to take care of it, we the 'people' should discourage it.

Also when they say this is the 'land of the free', thats wrong. It is the land of the free under the law.

When we should do is outlaw it on a personal level. Such as don't let costumers to stores say 'no baggy pants', yet it would have to be their decision for that. School have outlawed it, or most, and thats a start there. If we discourage it enough it will go away for the most part.
... So you're saying we should outcast people who dress in ways we don't agree with? We should force them out of society until they decide to change them self in order to get our personal approval? I'm equally against that, sorry.
If we don't like it we can outlaw it in our own ways, on a smaller scale. By not allowing certain types of clothing, that we think rude. Now luckily we can't go to far, laws keep us going to far on this.

Sure it will cause problems, people my decide they can go farther. But there is no real good answer to this question. It all has its pro's and con's.

Thats why we do this on a much smaller scale, if we did it by country, state, or even town it would be horrible. Because people would say, 'hey I don't agree with that, I don't want that so I'm not going to obey!' Then what we must do is make it the smallest scale possible. Shops and buildings can have dress codes. Already they have, no shirts, no shoes, no service. Whats wrong with adding; no baggy pants, no short skirts, no revealing clothing, whats wrong with adding that?

Allucard 10-03-2007 04:27 PM
This has little relevance, but San Fransisco law says that nudity is perfectly acceptable anywhere in within the city limits.
I like it.
Lewd conduct? GTFO the streets.
Wearing anything you want, including nothing? If you want to.
I wish every city took this approach.
Not that I WANT to see everyone nude, just that I don't think there's anything offensive about the naked human body, and more importantly I think people have the right to display it in any manner they want.

blueblackrose 10-03-2007 09:43 PM
That is so stupid. I could understand if the pants exposed stuff, but pants that are just a size or two too big or are made to be baggy doesn't make sense. I believe people should be able to wear what they want unless it breaks the indecent exposure laws that are already there.

mangacatgirl 10-05-2007 12:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by admonished nonsense

Thats why we do this on a much smaller scale, if we did it by country, state, or even town it would be horrible. Because people would say, 'hey I don't agree with that, I don't want that so I'm not going to obey!' Then what we must do is make it the smallest scale possible. Shops and buildings can have dress codes. Already they have, no shirts, no shoes, no service. Whats wrong with adding; no baggy pants, no short skirts, no revealing clothing, whats wrong with adding that?
Those signs are to make sure you are wearing clothes... it's not to tell you what kind of clothes you can't wear. The shoes part was created because people with athletes foot could come in, other people could walk over the same area and BAM... they now have athletes foot... Or someone may step on something and cut them self... This was to avoid that problem. The shirt thing was because guys would come into establishments topless and it was unfair. You can wear any kind of shirt or any kind of shoes though... Saying they wont allow you in for wearing a certain kind of pants isn't fair... It's wrong and discriminative.

Allucard - Wow... that seems... a bit extreme ^.^;

Cinnamonmiko 10-05-2007 05:40 AM
I think a half dozen people have mentioned that this is probably a way to combat violence, simply by logical reasoning: one can better hide knives and guns under baggy pants than under straight fit jeans.

But, I said it again anyways, because its true. That doesn't mean it isn't defunct and silly, its just how it is. It is one of those state laws that is just kinda there. Remember that it only reflects the current majority in that state, and that it isn't going to jump down your own throat just yet and move along. Chances are crap like that will never flow through government. It'll be pigeonholed away, to keep that vocal minority happy thinking that it still stands a chance while the rest of us go about. ..I feel bad for the people who have to put up with it in Georgia right now, though...

But take a peek at their criminal acts levels and tell me they aren't desperate for some way to cut down on the violence?

mangacatgirl 10-05-2007 01:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinnamonmiko
I think a half dozen people have mentioned that this is probably a way to combat violence, simply by logical reasoning: one can better hide knives and guns under baggy pants than under straight fit jeans.

But, I said it again anyways, because its true. That doesn't mean it isn't defunct and silly, its just how it is. It is one of those state laws that is just kinda there. Remember that it only reflects the current majority in that state, and that it isn't going to jump down your own throat just yet and move along. Chances are crap like that will never flow through government. It'll be pigeonholed away, to keep that vocal minority happy thinking that it still stands a chance while the rest of us go about. ..I feel bad for the people who have to put up with it in Georgia right now, though...

But take a peek at their criminal acts levels and tell me they aren't desperate for some way to cut down on the violence?
I guaranty it's easier to hide a gun in a trench coat... Yet those are perfectly legal. Most people wearing baggy jeans (That I see, at least) tend to be kids... No older than 23, and all the way down through 13.

I don't think they rationalized the problem before jumping to "Let's make a law".

woopdidoodoo 10-05-2007 01:31 PM
Guns are only legal if you have a permit to be able to hold one and use one in your name. Otherwise you as the person cannot have one, so I guess thats where the baggy pants can come in, either that they are worn out of some form of comfort for people who wear them.

mangacatgirl 10-05-2007 01:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by woopdidoodoo
Guns are only legal if you have a permit to be able to hold one and use one in your name. Otherwise you as the person cannot have one, so I guess thats where the baggy pants can come in, either that they are worn out of some form of comfort for people who wear them.
If you're referring to my last post I'm talking about wearing a trench coat as being legal, not carrying a gun around.

There are so many different articles of clothing that are easier to hide a gun in, without making it hard for you to make your get away. I'd say baggy pants gun holders are the least of their problems. Trench coats, long skirts, baggy shirts (With the gun tucked into your belt), mumus (sp?), turbans, bulky jackets, etc.

cleric sarah 10-05-2007 04:20 PM
I'm sorry but I agree with them, they should outlaw baggy pants to a certain extent...

I for one don't like having to see peoples pants below their knees so they can be called cool.

if only they knew that having your pants that low in jail meant you already were taken by another man.


I agree, i believe people should be ticketed...

Cinnamonmiko 10-05-2007 09:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mangacatgirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinnamonmiko
I think a half dozen people have mentioned that this is probably a way to combat violence, simply by logical reasoning: one can better hide knives and guns under baggy pants than under straight fit jeans.

But, I said it again anyways, because its true. That doesn't mean it isn't defunct and silly, its just how it is. It is one of those state laws that is just kinda there. Remember that it only reflects the current majority in that state, and that it isn't going to jump down your own throat just yet and move along. Chances are crap like that will never flow through government. It'll be pigeonholed away, to keep that vocal minority happy thinking that it still stands a chance while the rest of us go about. ..I feel bad for the people who have to put up with it in Georgia right now, though...

But take a peek at their criminal acts levels and tell me they aren't desperate for some way to cut down on the violence?
I guaranty it's easier to hide a gun in a trench coat... Yet those are perfectly legal. Most people wearing baggy jeans (That I see, at least) tend to be kids... No older than 23, and all the way down through 13.

I don't think they rationalized the problem before jumping to "Let's make a law".

Agreed!
Its absurd and lopsided law if I ever saw one...

Trenchcoats; no, they aren't illegal (except, apparently, on school grounds) but police a trained to keep an eye on people wearing them, and look for signs of arms and cutlery. So its almost the same, but it isn;t necessarily a punishable offense.

My next question is: how the heck are they going to enforce that, anyways?


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:47 PM.
Page 4 of 4 « First < 23 4
Show 25 post(s) from this thread on one page