<!--quoteo(post=1669071:date=Jan 31 2008, 06:35 AM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Jan 31 2008, 06:35 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1669071"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The only news here is that this was news to begin with. The bus driver was completely out of line. It isn't his job to shape public behaviour. These are two consenting adults.
It's just the same language that was thrown at punks for wearing pins through their noses. It's the usual moral majority who disapprove of a few kids expressing themselves outside of the accepted conventions. Whether I personally think the behaviour is acceptable or not is irrelevant to their right to practice it. "Common Sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age 18." - Albert Einstein<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> By the same token, should kids be allowed to wear their pants so low their buttcracks show? Many school boards and even municipal governments have outlawed this "kids expressing themselves". <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" />
What's your next example? Holocaust denial tee-shirts? Come on, get real. They are adults in public. They should be allowed to walk around naked if they want to. Given that indecent exposure is illegal, that isn't the case, but wearing a leash is not illegal, so in my opinion, anyone who has a problem with their behaviour needs to deal with their intolerance and get off the moral band wagon.
Anyone is free to express themselves in any way possible. I can't really say that I'm a goth fan or think that they are looking cool or anything - personally I think they look rather stupid, but on the other hand I don't deny their right to be that way. In fact, I encourage it. Variety is good, and who is to say what is normal and what isn't?
Besides, all of this seem to be similar to mainstream gaming vs niche games/indie games. That busdriver would probably be the equivalent of a gamer who comes in his pants whenever the latest 3d "technologized", shallower than a shore game comes about.
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1669090:date=Jan 31 2008, 10:28 AM:name=Skyrage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Skyrage @ Jan 31 2008, 10:28 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1669090"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Anyone is free to express themselves in any way possible. I can't really say that I'm a goth fan or think that they are looking cool or anything - personally I think they look rather stupid, but on the other hand I don't deny their right to be that way. In fact, I encourage it. Variety is good, and who is to say what is normal and what isn't?
Besides, all of this seem to be similar to mainstream gaming vs niche games/indie games. That busdriver would probably be the equivalent of a gamer who comes in his pants whenever the latest 3d "technologized", shallower than a shore game comes about.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Thank you, that was just amusing.
Side note, <3 for freedom of speech. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." (not Voltaire)
So long as you harm no one, then do as you will.
I am ok with school imposing a dress code (to some degree) as they believe that some dress in unconducive to OTHERS learning.
However this is honestly just a case of a bus driver deciding that he doesn't like these punks and is going to make an issue of it. And then gettign pwnt by the bus company.
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1669102:date=Jan 31 2008, 12:14 PM:name=Crono5)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Crono5 @ Jan 31 2008, 12:14 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1669102"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If parents are allowed to leash their kids, I don't see why this shouldn't be acceptable. I personally don't find either acceptable, but hey.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I am honestly curious as to why you have issues with either, care to explain?
<!--quoteo(post=1669103:date=Jan 31 2008, 12:22 PM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Thansal @ Jan 31 2008, 12:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1669103"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I am honestly curious as to why you have issues with either, care to explain?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The concept of people owning people is not a good message to send to children in an individualistic society, and I don't understand why you'd want a leash over simple hand-holding, or discipline, or something else. I fail to see the point.
<!--quoteo(post=1669109:date=Jan 31 2008, 05:59 PM:name=Crono5)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Crono5 @ Jan 31 2008, 05:59 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1669109"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The concept of people owning people is not a good message to send to children in an individualistic society, and I don't understand why you'd want a leash over simple hand-holding, or discipline, or something else. I fail to see the point.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think it's basically saying "she's my b-i-t-c-h!"
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1669109:date=Jan 31 2008, 12:59 PM:name=Crono5)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Crono5 @ Jan 31 2008, 12:59 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1669109"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The concept of people owning people is not a good message to send to children in an individualistic society, and I don't understand why you'd want a leash over simple hand-holding, or discipline, or something else. I fail to see the point.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I agree it would be a hard thing to explain to a kid, but I think they'd understand that it's a game and that both adults have the choice to stop it at any time. I don't think "think of the children" is usually a good argument. No nanny states please.
<!--quoteo(post=1669074:date=Jan 31 2008, 07:07 AM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Jan 31 2008, 07:07 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1669074"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A school dresscode ( for minors ) is a different thing entirely, but nice Strawman there Depot.
What's your next example? Holocaust denial tee-shirts? Come on, get real. They are adults in public. They should be allowed to walk around naked if they want to. Given that indecent exposure is illegal, that isn't the case, but wearing a leash is not illegal, so in my opinion, anyone who has a problem with their behaviour needs to deal with their intolerance and get off the moral band wagon.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Nice try, no cigar. Did you miss the "and even municipal governments" part? If a law is enacted regulating dresscode in public <u><b>for adults</b></u>, how is the leash different exactly?
<!--quoteo(post=1669109:date=Jan 31 2008, 11:59 AM:name=Crono5)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Crono5 @ Jan 31 2008, 11:59 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1669109"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The concept of people owning people is not a good message to send to children in an individualistic society, and I don't understand why you'd want a leash over simple hand-holding, or discipline, or something else. I fail to see the point.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The concept of telling people how they can and cannot act when they aren't hurting anyone else in an indvidiualistic society seems far more restrictive than some sort of "a leash means I own you" connection. If the government gets to decide what's demeaning and what isn't when nobody is being hurt by the action, where will it end? If I wear a shirt that says "I love Jill and will do anything for her," is that communicating the concept of people owning people?
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1669126:date=Jan 31 2008, 04:49 PM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Jan 31 2008, 04:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1669126"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Nice try, no cigar. Did you miss the "and even municipal governments" part? If a law is enacted regulating dresscode in public <u><b>for adults</b></u>, how is the leash different exactly?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is just speculation but I'd imagine a big reason for municipal dresscodes(why people can't go around naked) is for sanitary reasons. A leash isn't unsanitary so I don't really think there could be a law against it that wasn't purely anti-free-speech.
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1669133:date=Jan 31 2008, 05:06 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Jan 31 2008, 05:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1669133"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is just speculation but I'd imagine a big reason for municipal dresscodes(why people can't go around naked) is for sanitary reasons. A leash isn't unsanitary so I don't really think there could be a law against it that wasn't purely anti-free-speech.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> HA!
I wish.
All of our 'dress code' type laws are simply there because the people with power think that something is 'wrong' and thus make laws against it.
Sure, they back it up with 'unsafe, unsanitary, whatever' as the way you dress is part of your 'speech' and that is (thank god) actually defended.
Most of those types of laws would probably have a hard time in a court of law, however it requires some one to actually challenge them first.
<!--quoteo(post=1669137:date=Jan 31 2008, 11:10 PM:name=Thansal)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Thansal @ Jan 31 2008, 11:10 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1669137"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->All of our 'dress code' type laws are simply there because the people with power think that something is 'wrong' and thus make laws against it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree and a perfect example of this is an advertisement RyanAir released. Read about it <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7216926.stm" target="_blank">here</a>. Personally I have nothing against a schoolgirl dress code on television with text saying "Hottest back to school fares." But apparently the white haired, obese, political correctness morons in our country do.
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Nice try, no cigar.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Saying it doesn't make it so. Your comparison of a dress code for people in their place of work or study has no relationship whatsoever with people using a public service. You as a citizen agree to subject yourself to the terms and conditions of the organisation you work/study with. These people, however much you disapprove of it, have done nothing wrong, and I hope the bus driver is suitably punished for his actions. A school can require a student to wear a uniform. A place of business can require an employee to wear a suit. A bus driver CANNOT police the legally protected rights people have to wear the clothing accessories of their choosing.
<!--quoteo(post=1669146:date=Jan 31 2008, 08:48 PM:name=puzl)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(puzl @ Jan 31 2008, 08:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1669146"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Saying it doesn't make it so. Your comparison of a dress code for people in their place of work or study has no relationship whatsoever with people using a public service. You as a citizen agree to subject yourself to the terms and conditions of the organisation you work/study with. These people, however much you disapprove of it, have done nothing wrong, and I hope the bus driver is suitably punished for his actions. A school can require a student to wear a uniform. A place of business can require an employee to wear a suit. A bus driver CANNOT police the legally protected rights people have to wear the clothing accessories of their choosing.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I understood that the first time. My reference was not just to school kids though, some city governments have enacted laws regulating dress code - this would apply to the general public. If a couple tried to board a bus in one of these cities wearing britches hanging off their ass they may very well be "policed".
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Would You Like to be Led Around on a Leash?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As for ownership, there's none. Oh sure, they can pretend all they want, and if they want to use a leash to help keep that pretense real for them, fine, but in modern western societies a person cannot literally own another person, not even a consenting adult, and I think that's a good policy. Oh sure, people can (and should be allowed to) play and pretend as much as they want to, but if the "property" should suddenly step forward and say "help, this man is treating me like property, I want out," then society should (and, fortunately, will) get involved and enforce the individual's right to freedom.
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
edited February 2008
<!--quoteo(post=1669150:date=Feb 1 2008, 02:17 AM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Feb 1 2008, 02:17 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1669150"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I understood that the first time. My reference was not just to school kids though, some city governments have enacted laws regulating dress code - this would apply to the general public. If a couple tried to board a bus in one of these cities wearing britches hanging off their ass they may very well be "policed".<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, some cities require women to wear a burka too, but it doesn't make it acceptable. Can you name the cities in question and cite references to the details of the regulations they are enforcing on their citizens? I know some cities have enforced a dress code on all <b>city staff</b>, but that's a different matter.
It was on the national news not long ago, I believe one was a town in Georgia. As noted it was directed to prevent kids from wearing their pants low enough to expose underwear.
Google it man, there's plenty of stuff out there about it. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1669188:date=Feb 1 2008, 11:04 AM:name=Depot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Depot @ Feb 1 2008, 11:04 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1669188"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Google it man, there's plenty of stuff out there about it. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, there isn't. There are plenty of examples of private organisations having dresscodes, but I can't find anything <b>substantial</b> about it. You are the one citing the evidence, so you are the one obliged to produce the reference or drop it.
<!--quoteo(post=1669189:date=Feb 1 2008, 11:25 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Feb 1 2008, 11:25 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1669189"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Technically speaking, any law against public nudity is a legally-enforced dresscode, yes?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, nudity is a dress code if baldness is a hair colour, but I take your generalised point that both of them are examples of authorities dictating what is acceptable in public. However, in the case of public nudity the legislation is not about dictating trends in clothing, but about a taboo on nudity in general. I think you'll find that no matter how free any society has been in terms of dress code, they have almost always been strict on public nudity.
Not so long ago, male piercings was considered to be very radical and not at all acceptable in decent society but here we are 25 years later where a very large portion of the population have had at least one body piercing. The reaction to goth 'fashion' is just the same reaction that people had to punks 25 years ago, or bikers the decade before that, or hippies the decade before that. I'm sure some hick town in the back arse of rednecksville had a thing or two to say about guys with long hair that this bus driver would probably still empathise with today.
I'm not playing this game with you again puzl. <img src="http://www.nsmod.org/forums/style_emoticons/default/dry.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />
I stated there are municipalities in the U.S. that have enacted laws enforcing dresscode in public and prohibiting the wearing of pants or shorts low enough to show their underwear and/or buttcrack. I saw it on the national news and that's good enough for me. I made mention of it because it could happen, in this country, where the bus driver would have the right to "police" as he did. <!--sizeo:1--><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->
That is all.... ... .. .<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
puzlThe Old FirmJoin Date: 2003-02-26Member: 14029Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
edited February 2008
Please don't play the game then. Cite your evidence, or I'm just going to assume that you make up facts to support your arguments, and I would urge everyone else to assume the same. Your 'evidence' is so vague that all it does is support your opinion while not giving anyone a chance to refute it. And to throw a strawman back at you, there was a recently a case of racial segregation in a town in Alabama. Are you going to tell me that because I saw this on TV that it is somehow okay?
And so what if there are towns that interpret indecent exposure laws to mean that one cannot expose an ass crack or w/e in public. Tell me again what this has to do with goths acting silly? Nothing. You are sidestepping the issue. You bring up a completely irrelevant point and then try to rathole the discussion by vaguely waving the 'but I saw it on TV' wand. What you saw on TV and how a specific town has interpreted indecent exposure laws have NOTHING to do with wearing a leash. Wearing a leash does not expose any part of the anatomy that would not otherwise be clearly visible, so I call you out on your straw-man again.
This isn't the Discussion Forum, I'm not "obliged to produce the reference". If what I've passed on isn't detailed enough for anyone interested in it then I don't know what to tell ya...
Kids leading each other around on leashes, punks wearing pins through their noses, kids scampering about with their buttcracks showing - it's all "dress" related, which is why I brought it up. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
It's true, this is not the discussions forum. Unlike the discussions forum, rules that promote good discussion are not enforced in here. Nevertheless, following them still helps ensure the quality of a discussion, and disregarding them is liable to lead to poor discussions.
But I empathise. I often remember something useful and relevant to a discussion, something that would support my stance and opinion, but find that I am unable to remember and procure a source. This annoys me to no end, as I can't present such points without a source backing them up. Very frustrating.
For the love of God Depot, just produce some farkin' evidence or shutup about the dress code crap. Congratulations that it is "good enough for you," but if you're trying to actually state something as fact then why don't you take two minutes to search up evidence that you personally know exists? Yeah, so this isn't the discussion forums -- big woop. It seems like someone like you citing moral principles from the nineteen thirties and complaining about teenagers with pins in their noses would be the last one to play the location card to cop out of providing proof.
Puzl has already alluded to giving a brief search for evidence of your claim, why can't you put just as much effort into this? Fact of the matter is that you've brought up a supposed fact, and because you aren't willing to provide a reference, the entire discussion has come to a grinding halt and now we're bickering about proof.
Even without the evidence cited, where did you say it was from? A town in Georgia? Where else? Should 0.2% of the population really be the general norm that we can judge a situation by? You would think that if the dress codes were a bit more widespread, they would be slightly more known, let alone mentioned in an article where they may be a pinnacle point of discussion.
Comments
It's just the same language that was thrown at punks for wearing pins through their noses. It's the usual moral majority who disapprove of a few kids expressing themselves outside of the accepted conventions. Whether I personally think the behaviour is acceptable or not is irrelevant to their right to practice it.
"Common Sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age 18." - Albert Einstein<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
By the same token, should kids be allowed to wear their pants so low their buttcracks show? Many school boards and even municipal governments have outlawed this "kids expressing themselves". <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/confused-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="???" border="0" alt="confused-fix.gif" />
<a href="http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/logic/" target="_blank">http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/logic/</a>
What's your next example? Holocaust denial tee-shirts? Come on, get real. They are adults in public. They should be allowed to walk around naked if they want to. Given that indecent exposure is illegal, that isn't the case, but wearing a leash is not illegal, so in my opinion, anyone who has a problem with their behaviour needs to deal with their intolerance and get off the moral band wagon.
Besides, all of this seem to be similar to mainstream gaming vs niche games/indie games. That busdriver would probably be the equivalent of a gamer who comes in his pants whenever the latest 3d "technologized", shallower than a shore game comes about.
Besides, all of this seem to be similar to mainstream gaming vs niche games/indie games. That busdriver would probably be the equivalent of a gamer who comes in his pants whenever the latest 3d "technologized", shallower than a shore game comes about.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thank you, that was just amusing.
Side note, <3 for freedom of speech. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." (not Voltaire)
So long as you harm no one, then do as you will.
I am ok with school imposing a dress code (to some degree) as they believe that some dress in unconducive to OTHERS learning.
However this is honestly just a case of a bus driver deciding that he doesn't like these punks and is going to make an issue of it. And then gettign pwnt by the bus company.
I am honestly curious as to why you have issues with either, care to explain?
The concept of people owning people is not a good message to send to children in an individualistic society, and I don't understand why you'd want a leash over simple hand-holding, or discipline, or something else. I fail to see the point.
I think it's basically saying "she's my b-i-t-c-h!"
Edit:were
I agree it would be a hard thing to explain to a kid, but I think they'd understand that it's a game and that both adults have the choice to stop it at any time. I don't think "think of the children" is usually a good argument. No nanny states please.
<a href="http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/logic/" target="_blank">http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/logic/</a>
What's your next example? Holocaust denial tee-shirts? Come on, get real. They are adults in public. They should be allowed to walk around naked if they want to. Given that indecent exposure is illegal, that isn't the case, but wearing a leash is not illegal, so in my opinion, anyone who has a problem with their behaviour needs to deal with their intolerance and get off the moral band wagon.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nice try, no cigar. Did you miss the "and even municipal governments" part? If a law is enacted regulating dresscode in public <u><b>for adults</b></u>, how is the leash different exactly?
The concept of telling people how they can and cannot act when they aren't hurting anyone else in an indvidiualistic society seems far more restrictive than some sort of "a leash means I own you" connection. If the government gets to decide what's demeaning and what isn't when nobody is being hurt by the action, where will it end? If I wear a shirt that says "I love Jill and will do anything for her," is that communicating the concept of people owning people?
This is just speculation but I'd imagine a big reason for municipal dresscodes(why people can't go around naked) is for sanitary reasons. A leash isn't unsanitary so I don't really think there could be a law against it that wasn't purely anti-free-speech.
HA!
I wish.
All of our 'dress code' type laws are simply there because the people with power think that something is 'wrong' and thus make laws against it.
Sure, they back it up with 'unsafe, unsanitary, whatever' as the way you dress is part of your 'speech' and that is (thank god) actually defended.
Most of those types of laws would probably have a hard time in a court of law, however it requires some one to actually challenge them first.
I agree and a perfect example of this is an advertisement RyanAir released. Read about it <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7216926.stm" target="_blank">here</a>. Personally I have nothing against a schoolgirl dress code on television with text saying "Hottest back to school fares." But apparently the white haired, obese, political correctness morons in our country do.
Saying it doesn't make it so. Your comparison of a dress code for people in their place of work or study has no relationship whatsoever with people using a public service. You as a citizen agree to subject yourself to the terms and conditions of the organisation you work/study with. These people, however much you disapprove of it, have done nothing wrong, and I hope the bus driver is suitably punished for his actions. A school can require a student to wear a uniform. A place of business can require an employee to wear a suit. A bus driver CANNOT police the legally protected rights people have to wear the clothing accessories of their choosing.
I understood that the first time. My reference was not just to school kids though, some city governments have enacted laws regulating dress code - this would apply to the general public. If a couple tried to board a bus in one of these cities wearing britches hanging off their ass they may very well be "policed".
Long as that hunk of a man is walking me.
Well, some cities require women to wear a burka too, but it doesn't make it acceptable. Can you name the cities in question and cite references to the details of the regulations they are enforcing on their citizens? I know some cities have enforced a dress code on all <b>city staff</b>, but that's a different matter.
Actually, there isn't. There are plenty of examples of private organisations having dresscodes, but I can't find anything <b>substantial</b> about it. You are the one citing the evidence, so you are the one obliged to produce the reference or drop it.
<!--quoteo(post=1669189:date=Feb 1 2008, 11:25 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Feb 1 2008, 11:25 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1669189"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Technically speaking, any law against public nudity is a legally-enforced dresscode, yes?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, nudity is a dress code if baldness is a hair colour, but I take your generalised point that both of them are examples of authorities dictating what is acceptable in public. However, in the case of public nudity the legislation is not about dictating trends in clothing, but about a taboo on nudity in general. I think you'll find that no matter how free any society has been in terms of dress code, they have almost always been strict on public nudity.
Not so long ago, male piercings was considered to be very radical and not at all acceptable in decent society but here we are 25 years later where a very large portion of the population have had at least one body piercing. The reaction to goth 'fashion' is just the same reaction that people had to punks 25 years ago, or bikers the decade before that, or hippies the decade before that. I'm sure some hick town in the back arse of rednecksville had a thing or two to say about guys with long hair that this bus driver would probably still empathise with today.
I stated there are municipalities in the U.S. that have enacted laws enforcing dresscode in public and prohibiting the wearing of pants or shorts low enough to show their underwear and/or buttcrack. I saw it on the national news and that's good enough for me. I made mention of it because it could happen, in this country, where the bus driver would have the right to "police" as he did.
<!--sizeo:1--><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->
That is all.... ... .. .<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
And so what if there are towns that interpret indecent exposure laws to mean that one cannot expose an ass crack or w/e in public. Tell me again what this has to do with goths acting silly? Nothing. You are sidestepping the issue. You bring up a completely irrelevant point and then try to rathole the discussion by vaguely waving the 'but I saw it on TV' wand. What you saw on TV and how a specific town has interpreted indecent exposure laws have NOTHING to do with wearing a leash. Wearing a leash does not expose any part of the anatomy that would not otherwise be clearly visible, so I call you out on your straw-man again.
Kids leading each other around on leashes, punks wearing pins through their noses, kids scampering about with their buttcracks showing - it's all "dress" related, which is why I brought it up. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
But I empathise. I often remember something useful and relevant to a discussion, something that would support my stance and opinion, but find that I am unable to remember and procure a source. This annoys me to no end, as I can't present such points without a source backing them up. Very frustrating.
Puzl has already alluded to giving a brief search for evidence of your claim, why can't you put just as much effort into this? Fact of the matter is that you've brought up a supposed fact, and because you aren't willing to provide a reference, the entire discussion has come to a grinding halt and now we're bickering about proof.
Even without the evidence cited, where did you say it was from? A town in Georgia? Where else? Should 0.2% of the population really be the general norm that we can judge a situation by? You would think that if the dress codes were a bit more widespread, they would be slightly more known, let alone mentioned in an article where they may be a pinnacle point of discussion.