But that wouldnt make me happy to see people walking around naked, just as I dont care to see peoples boxers. So where do you decide who's happiness is more important? Would the only thing to do then would be put this up to a majority-decides vote?

Perhaps then, those communities could vote on if these laws should be inacted. Of course then it gets into the fact that people who low ride their pants dont vote thus they are not being fairly represented....blah blah blah

Just felt like playing some devils advocate.

Jwilburn,

Don't take this personally but:
What makes you happy is of little to no importance. The whole point of living in a democracy is not that the majority gets to decide. Quite the opposite. The point of living in a democracy is that the minority is not suppressed by the majority.

- If that were not the case, there would be no "pro-choice", "gay-rights", "1st Amendment and so called "porn or indecency, etc"

I don't want to see people walking around naked either. But that does not mean that they should not have the right to do so. I don't need the vocal, right wing or left wing for that matter, telling me how I can and can not live.

Case in point. What if New York became mostly extremist muslim and laws were enacted that said all women must wear Burka's..
Of course that would never happen. But what people can, should and should not wear, should be up to the individuals.

Now, if private establishments want to regulate, no shirt, no shoes, etc., fine. Or if there are safety concerns that effect public health, etc. Fine..

But if it's simply a matter of taste, PLEASE, keep your taste's to yourself and allow people to do what ever makes them happy. Including showing their skivvies.

B

__________________
----------------------------------------------------------

"When two people agree on everything, one of them is not necessary" - Arliss

Well said B.

__________________


Current:
2016 X6 ///M Black Sapphire Metallic

Very good points B! When I first heard about this I wondered if the communities were going to site safety concerns as this would make more sense. I mean we have all seen the safety video in elementary school about taping your bell bottoms before riding a bike...so low rise pants could only be assumed even more dangerous.

So here is my next question (not my opinion just a fair question) where does the FCC fall then? I mean they have been giving out fines for "indecent exposure" for years.

sounds good to me, I think its a good idea. pants like that are disgusting

__________________
M3

Good Post.


To add to your point, there is the popular saying that "democracy is when two wolves and a sheep decide what's for dinner".

__________________


my experience on X5world when I spend too much
time posting in political threads in the lounge...

I would guess Jwilburn,

That everyone has the right to either get dressed or not get dressed. But not everyone has the right to broadcast on waves or channels that are owned or controlled by the Government as a public trust.

If you are operating said network, radio, tv, etc. you are complying to an agreement set forth by the people, who loan, or lease these airwaves as a service to the people.
- As such, the 7 dirty words, etc. have been upheld, not by a law that says you can't use the word, fuck. Rather, if you are operating a PUBLIC airwave, than there is ground for scrutiny about the material that is sent out on those borrowed waves.
Sort of like a school bus driver driving your children to school, you would expect to handle traffic laws differently and their driving style, then the way they might drive if they are in their personal car on a race track.

That is why satellite radio and cable don't fall under the FCC guidelines. They are not using public airwaves. They are using private..

At least, that's my guess. Not that I defend the FCC. But I believe that is their side of the argument.

B

__________________
----------------------------------------------------------

"When two people agree on everything, one of them is not necessary" - Arliss

This is exactly like the guy watching porn on the airplane.

Should people have the right to do/wear whatever?

Sure they should.

Should they have the decency/consideration for their fellow man not to?

Abso-fookin-lutely.

__________________
2010 528Xi
I demand justice.
Or, if there must be injustice, let it be in my favor.

Reynold's Wrap: it's not just for hats anymore.

Interesting question ask by Shop owner Mack Murray

"Are they going to go after construction workers and plumbers, because their pants sag, too?" Murray asked. "They're stereotyping us."

What Mack Murray dosen't know is that the construction industry i was involved in did go after anyone dressed that way for a number of reasons.

#1 It's unsafe

#2 (Buttcracks) give a company a bad name.

#3 Shows your immature an idiot and have no pride about yourself

As far as stereotyping is concerned, yep your correct Murray. Everybody does it. That's life. Don't like it? Change it. Tell them idiots to pull up their pants. Or better yet "Change the way they think."

__________________
"What you hear in a great jazz band is the sound of democracy. “The jazz band works best when participation is shaped by intelligent communication.”
Harmony happens whenever different parts get to form a whole by means of congruity, concord, symetry, consistency, conformity, correspondence, agreement, accord, unity, consonance…….