Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire A Florida City Outlaws Sagging Pants

Define Irony: the guy on the forum who is always bitching about gov't over reach, now applauding a gov't law regulating the way one wears their clothes

Stop paying for their housing and food and then they have to behave appropriately to get a paycheck. The pants are only a indication of the rest of their bad attitude. You cant regulate that out of them you havevto starve it out.

This^^^

Good point. But in the mean time I have a hard time feeling sorry for them getting fined for it.

Thinking in circles keeps him dizzy.

Sagging pants is merely the outward sign of an empty space between the ears. How do you outlaw stupidity?

He is OBVIOUSLY looking at it from the Public Health point of view. After all, half the buttcrack exposed has flies falling out of the air dead causing risk of contagion

Just de-pant the senseless silly SOBs and be done with it.
To hell with this half assed effort, make 'em walk home fully bare assed.

Once again...
Read...

http://www.mind-trek.com/articles/l10.htm

"The welfare state ... buffers people from any need to behave like civilized human beings."

Excellent article. A must read. Really gets to the bottom of things. This lesson must be absorbed and change must take place based on it, or we're doomed as a people.

Exactly what I was thinking.

I don't propose shooting these folks, cutting the throats of their dogs, or throwing grenades into their baby's crips. Never had a problem with the old days when public decency was upheld in the law. Do you suppose this sort of behavior would have been tolerated in the 1950s? In my opinion, we were a much better society then and prior.

So...TRH is against laws that he doesn't agree with, and claims to solidly support individual liberty, yet extols admiration and support for a law that curtails an individuals freedom of expression

Yep....

In otherwards. He's all for freedom, as long as its something he likes

I have always advocated ordered liberty, i.e., liberty under law, and the defense of traditional values and standards of public decency. I've never been an advocate of a libertine society. Far from it.

Where does it end? How about the folks with horrendous BO? What about very large folks wearing very small clothing? The point is, like most other thing, of you don't like it, try and not look. I'm sure there are just as many folks who are not happy with my Wranglers and Boots. Not my concern one way or the other.

In other, more clear words, he is a hypocrite.

Again, I ask, how long do you suppose someone would be free to walk down the public streets in 1950 with their pants down below their butts? You're engaging in argumentum ad absurdum.

An example of the style of argument you're employing would be to respond to 1) "Plenty of sleep is good for your health" with 2) "You're a hypocrite, because I heard you once state that narcolepsy is an injurious medical condition, yet narcoleptics get significantly more sleep than average."

You mean like in 'Ozzie and Harriet', 'Leave It to Beaver', and 'Father Knows Best'...?

No thanks.

Sorry, Old Timer, it's not the 1950's. Times change, and people do too.

So how were the Greaser types looked at back then. With their rebellious hair and such. And...oh dear! Heaven forbid a lady to wear a pant suit!!

The argument is only absurd to you because you know how correct the call out of your hypocrisy is. What's truly absurd is if you in fact do not see this...

You reduce it to the absurd by suggesting an equivalence on principle between fines for walking around with your pants below your butt with fines for BO. There is such a thing as a middle ground, that based on traditional values. There are shades of gray. Not all is black and white.