Virginia State House votes to fine those showing too much underwear.

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter wasteofo2
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    State
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on a Virginia state house vote to fine individuals for wearing trousers that expose their underwear. Participants explore the implications of such legislation on personal freedom, societal norms, and the role of government in regulating fashion. The conversation includes various perspectives on the appropriateness and potential consequences of the law.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express concern that the law represents an overreach of government authority into personal expression and fashion choices.
  • Others argue that the law reflects the values of the constituents in Virginia and is within the rights of the state legislature to enact.
  • There are claims that the law may be unconstitutional, particularly regarding First Amendment rights, with some suggesting it could be challenged in court.
  • Participants discuss the broader implications of such laws, questioning whether they could lead to further restrictions on personal freedoms, including music and other forms of expression.
  • Some express a sense of irony in legislating fashion, comparing it to oppressive regimes that dictate personal appearance.
  • A few participants acknowledge a personal conflict about the law, recognizing the annoyance of certain fashion trends while questioning the appropriateness of legal intervention.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus; there are multiple competing views regarding the appropriateness and implications of the legislation. Some support the law as a reflection of community standards, while others vehemently oppose it as an infringement on personal freedoms.

Contextual Notes

Some discussions highlight the potential for the law to be challenged on constitutional grounds, particularly regarding definitions of indecency and the limits of governmental authority in regulating personal expression.

  • #31
russ_watters said:
And hey, while I have it, got to take the shot: I can't be sure, but aren't liberals supposed to be pro freedom?

:smile: Not when it offends them. Probably a parent who has lost all control of their teenage kid, so instead of learning to be a better parent, has decided to start a law to force the kid to keep their pants on. And, it really doesn't matter; once they are in office, liberal or conservative, they're all really just looking out for their own interest.

I'm sure the first kid who gets fined will have the ACLU swooping in on their doorstep offering to represent them in the legal challenge to the law.

P.S., I'm blaming Russ for dragging my conservative side back out of the closet lately! :-p How do you expect me to survive in academia if I let it be known I sometimes have conservative tendencies? Do you realize how much discrimination I'm going to face now? :smile:
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
wasteofo2 said:
I personally wouldn't vote for people who want such a huge role for government in individuals affairs.


Did you vote for kerry?

If no, then ok you're honest.

If yes, you're lying about not voting for such people.
 
  • #33
wasteofo2 said:
So would you suggest that everyone who cares about the health of their lungs stay inside their house their whole life, so as not to infringe upon the rights of smokers? Should I be forced to suffocate on carcinogenic cigarette smoke if I want to eat at a restaurant, see a movie, go into a store or do anything in any public place? No way. If you're addicted to something that is harmful to yourself and those around you, you should be the one who has to accomidate to those who don't partake in self-destructive acts and don't want to be forced into a toxic environment.

Thomas Jefferson once said that "The legitimate acts of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others", and me suffocating on smoke is clearly injurious to me.

You don't have to stay inside of your house the entire time, you give restaurants the choice to choose whether they want to allow smokers or not, some restaurants will decide that they don't want to allow smokers and some will decide that they want to allow smoking. Thus if you really are bothered by cigarrette smoke, you go to a restaurant that doesn't have smoking.

Our family used to go to a restaurant near home, it was cheap, had good food, you got a nice thing of sherbert at the end of the meal for free. However, everytime we went there, it smelled like smoke and when we left we would smell like smoke for days. So you know what? We stopped going there.

You have no absolute right to go to any restuarant, and similarly, the smoker has no absolute right to go to any given restaurant, if the owner does not want to allow them in. Some restaurants like McDonalds are no smoking because they decide to be, all restuarants should be able to decide what is in their personal interest.

~Lyuokdea
 
  • #34
wasteofo2 said:
franznietzsche, while we're mostly not Virginians, seeing such arbitrary and intrusive laws being imposed on people anywhere is a frightening and disheartening thing to all Americans. Our Republic isn't supposed to allow the Majority to impose whatever inane laws they wish upon a minority, it's supposed to protect people from such things. Seeing this happening in one state means it could happen in other states.

THIS IS A SCANDAL. I want all the free nations of the world to invade VA, to liberate its oppressed people from their evil legislators, and to bring freedom of dress to them. I give those evil legislators 48 hours to choose a country of their free choice and leave VA alone ; otherwise I see no other solution than to use force in the name of freedom of dress.

:smile: :smile:
 
  • #35
vanesch said:
THIS IS A SCANDAL. I want all the free nations of the world to invade VA, to liberate its oppressed people from their evil legislators, and to bring freedom of dress to them. I give those evil legislators 48 hours to choose a country of their free choice and leave VA alone ; otherwise I see no other solution than to use force in the name of freedom of dress.

:smile: :smile:


Why do i sense a satirical reference to the invasion of Iraq?

You just made a funny!
 
  • #36
franznietzsche said:
New york ... Heat?
The wind generally blows from west to east in the United States. Eastern seaboard states tend to have both hotter summers and colder winters at given latitudes than do Western seaboard states. The wind blowing over the water is what gives the Western seaboard states mild climates.
 
  • #37
Would you be surprised, Franz, to learn that New York City lies at exactly the same lattitude as Naples, Italy? It's actually not that far north.
 
  • #38
loseyourname said:
Would you be surprised, Franz, to learn that New York City lies at exactly the same lattitude as Naples, Italy? It's actually not that far north.
yeah, but europe has the gulf stream. Spain is as far north as Maine, but has the gulfstream.

Having never been further east than minnesota though, i wouldn't know the climate in new york.
 
  • #39
You're allowed to walk in the public topless in Ontario, female or male.
 
  • #40
franznietzsche said:
Did you vote for kerry?

If no, then ok you're honest.

If yes, you're lying about not voting for such people.
I'm only 16. But if I were 18, I would've voted for Dean in the primaries, and reluctantly voted for Kerry when it came to Nov. 2. Kerry sucks, there's no doubt, but nowhere near as badly as Bush.
 
  • #41
wasteofo2 said:
. Kerry sucks, there's no doubt, but nowhere near as badly as Bush.


I disagree. Bush sucks, no doubt, but nowhere near as badly as Kerry.

I'm not 18 yet either, and i would not have voted for either, i simply could not in good conscience cast a vote for either of them.
 
  • #42
JasonRox said:
You're allowed to walk in the public topless in Ontario, female or male.

I'm moving right now.
 
  • #43
franznietzsche said:
yeah, but europe has the gulf stream. Spain is as far north as Maine, but has the gulfstream.

Having never been further east than minnesota though, i wouldn't know the climate in new york.

It's pretty brutal. Hotter (and way more humid) than the San Fernando Valley in the summer, but colder than Seattle in the winter. It also rains a great deal, during all seasons. The rain isn't as heavy as the rainy seasons in the Pacific Northwest, but they actually do get more overall rainfall annually. I lived there for a about a year a couple of years ago.
 
  • #44
loseyourname said:
It's pretty brutal. Hotter (and way more humid) than the San Fernando Valley in the summer, but colder than Seattle in the winter.


That sucks. Glad i don't live in it. Nice warm mild climates for me. :biggrin: