A REVOLUTION I think we can ALL get behind! - Page 16 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-09-2005, 08:33 AM   #226
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 08:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
What is the harm (using Moonlit_Angel's definition) to women by this law?
Moonlit_Angel, we love you, but I too found your definition a little over the top.
__________________

__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 03-09-2005, 08:41 AM   #227
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 08:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
The law reflects our culture. Simple as that.

So far, all the arguments against the law are predicated on a change in culture that must occur. You've got to come up with a better argument than "well, society needs to change".
Dead on.

You even get a Bono for that.
__________________

__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 03-09-2005, 08:41 AM   #228
War Child
 
Do Miss America's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Ryan's Pocket
Posts: 738
Local Time: 06:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
Great example, it has nothing to do with the discussion.
Has everything to do with it.

Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe

How so?
Have you been ignoring what so many have been saying.

If this law goes into effect men will no longer get away with using the "she was asking for it dressed like that" defense. Right now breast are criminalized. Men have gotten away with blaming the women for the assault by claiming they were inticed by their scantily clad body(showing too much of that illegal skin). The skin is no longer illegal and whatever someone wears will never be an excuse. If you take the crime out of the female body no man will ever be able to use that excuse again.

It takes all burden away from women and puts the burden back on the true perpetrator.
__________________
Do Miss America is offline  
Old 03-09-2005, 09:22 AM   #229
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 06:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe

It's not legal,
A lot of things have been legal in the past. Because it's a law now is never a valid reason that it has to be that way. Every law should be revaluated from time to time.
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe

Liberals don't like laws that are based on gender differences and restrictions, so I'm not suprised you would think that.
You're stereotyping is old.
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe

Men and women are not the same. Again, I can care less if I'm not allowed to wear lipstick or earrings to work. I can care less about wearing a dress in public and being pointed at.
We're not talking about work.

We're not talking about getting pointed at.
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe

I can care less if I have to put all the food on the table. I can care less if I have to mow the lawn every few days.
That's pretty sexists. You've never heard of a woman that puts the food on the table or mowing the yard? Why would you even bring this up?

Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe

With a near 50% divorce rate, I don't think this is going to help it.
So wait divorce is about breasts? Divorce rates have nothing to do with breasts and little to even do with sex.

Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe

Does everyone want to see bare breasts, by anyone of any age? No.
This has nothing to do with wanting to see bare breasts? I or anyone else can see bare breast if they wanted to.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 03-09-2005, 09:24 AM   #230
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 04:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Do Miss America
Well when someone you know is assaulted and the perp gets off due to "the way she was dressed", then you may change your mind.
No, this does not happen.

No one has been found not guilty based on the way someone dressed. Slime ball attorneys may try to introduce it as evidence, but it is almost always rejected outright.

Your suggestion is an oversimplification of the criminal justice system.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 03-09-2005, 09:33 AM   #231
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 06:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


No, this does not happen.

No one has been found not guilty based on the way someone dressed. Slime ball attorneys may try to introduce it as evidence, but it is almost always rejected outright.
Come on now. This doesn't happen?

BS
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 03-09-2005, 09:56 AM   #232
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 04:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Come on now. This doesn't happen?

BS
Show me a case where a woman's manner of dress resulted in a not guilty verdict.

It is an old stereotype.

Shield laws have placed restrictions on a broad spectrum of imformation that can be used in trial. A lawyer must have a specific, valid basis to introduce such evidence. It is not easy.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 03-09-2005, 10:02 AM   #233
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 08:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
A lot of things have been legal in the past. Because it's a law now is never a valid reason that it has to be that way. Every law should be revaluated from time to time.
If you're going to overturn a law, you better have a better reason than "society should be this way..."

Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
That's pretty sexists. You've never heard of a woman that puts the food on the table or mowing the yard? Why would you even bring this up?
Sexist? no. Yes I've heard of that, but if I had a partner who wanted me to take on those jobs, rather than wash dishes, I wouldn't complain about it. This entire thread is devoted to complaining about a law that really isn't too hard to follow.

Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
So wait divorce is about breasts? Divorce rates have nothing to do with breasts and little to even do with sex.
Divorce is often about lust after others. Divorce is often about wanting something else. You've never thought breasts are used to attract men?

Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
This has nothing to do with wanting to see bare breasts? I or anyone else can see bare breast if they wanted to.
If they want to, not if they have to.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 03-09-2005, 10:36 AM   #234
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,271
Local Time: 06:18 AM
Actually, my dad told me a story of a case in...Wisconsin, I believe it was, one time in which a judge said that a guy who attacked a girl could go free because the girl should have known better than to dress the way she did, she was essentially asking for the attack. So yes, it has happened.

As for the "harm" definition...it's really not that hard a definition to understand, people. If there is an activity occurring in which someone is physically hurt, or killed, or forced to do something against their will, that activity needs to stop. Since breasts have not done a single one of those things to anybody else, I don't exactly see why people are so scared of the idea of letting women expose them if they wish. This whole thing bugs women because we're made to feel like we should be ashamed for exposing our chests, whereas guys can expose their chests and nobody chides them for doing so...nobody's given me a logical reason as to why guys can do that without shame, but girls can't. It's just a body, like the guy's body is just a body, and each body only means something to those who want it to mean something to them. Otherwise, they're both just bodies, and they aren't doing anyone any harm by just existing and being exposed, so I really, really fail to understand why people think they need to be hidden away.

By the way, I also remember hearing that there were three cases in which women were brought to trial for "indecent exposure" for exposing their chests, and in each case, the judge ruled that the women were free to do that, since the guys could do that. Just something else to throw in here.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 03-09-2005, 10:45 AM   #235
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 04:18 AM
But, by your own definition, there is no harm is a law that requires a woman to keep her breasts covered.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 03-09-2005, 10:48 AM   #236
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 08:18 AM
If you don't mind, I'd like to bring back your definition.

Quote:
Originally posted by Moonlit_Angel
However, people mentioned Europe allowing for nude beaches, and then there was sulawesigirl4's post about her area of the world that allowed for that stuff, and she said that there wasn't any increase in that kind of behavior there, and I don't recall ever hearing about big outbreaks of harassment in Europe either (any of our European friends have the answer for that one?), so there is that to consider, too.
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
So, someone could stalk you (creating fear, apprehension, etc.), but never touch you, and you would not be harmed?
Quote:
Originally posted by Moonlit_Angel
I'd be creeped out, no doubt about that, but until it gets to the point where it's pretty obvious they could do physical harm to me or to anyone I know, or they're totally invading my privacy, which is violating one of my rights I'm guaranteed, just following me around isn't cause for being punished. Besides, even stalking definitions can vary from person to person-how far the person has to follow them in order for it to be considered stalking (some could say just following them down the street is stalking, some could say it's not such until they start invading their home, etc.).
I would hate to believe that any more than 20% of the population believes that non-violent crimes have no place for legislation. A creepy man at your doorbell every night may not physically harm you, but he has no business at your doorstep.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 03-09-2005, 10:50 AM   #237
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 07:18 AM
wasn't there a recent case in Italy where a woman was raped, but she was ruled against because she was wearing jeans, and the judge reasoned that the jeans were too tight to have been removed without consent?

just tossing that out there ...
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 03-09-2005, 10:51 AM   #238
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 08:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Moonlit_Angel
Actually, my dad told me a story of a case in...Wisconsin, I believe it was, one time in which a judge said that a guy who attacked a girl could go free because the girl should have known better than to dress the way she did, she was essentially asking for the attack. So yes, it has happened.

[...]

By the way, I also remember hearing that there were three cases in which women were brought to trial for "indecent exposure" for exposing their chests, and in each case, the judge ruled that the women were free to do that, since the guys could do that. Just something else to throw in here.

Angela
I would be happy to look over these cases if you can look it up. For the second paragraph, sometimes it depends on the context. It could've been a public nudity event, for all we know.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 03-09-2005, 10:56 AM   #239
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 06:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Show me a case where a woman's manner of dress resulted in a not guilty verdict.

It is an old stereotype.

Shield laws have placed restrictions on a broad spectrum of imformation that can be used in trial. A lawyer must have a specific, valid basis to introduce such evidence. It is not easy.
I can't find the specific case, I was going to post it here. This happened to a girl I went to college with. It made big new in Texas back in 95 or 96. A girl was assaulted at a frat party and the two boys got off. The judge claimed there was no case for the girl shouldn't dress like that at a frat party.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 03-09-2005, 11:01 AM   #240
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,271
Local Time: 06:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
But, by your own definition, there is no harm is a law that requires a woman to keep her breasts covered.
No-like I said, if people insist women remain covered up, fine. But then we should do that with the guys, too. If girls can't expose their chests, guys shouldn't be able to, either. If guys can, girls should be able to. It's merely a fairness thing.

Also, Macfistowannabe...course, then again, the guy could look creepy, but looks can be deceiving-he could turn out to be a really nice guy who needs help, too. I know there are some insanely cruel, sick people in this world, but I'd just hate to give up any sort of trust on humans in general. Until he actually starts to hurt me or anyone I know, he hasn't exactly committed a crime just by appearing at my doorstep, seeing as we don't know exactly what he's there for.

And I'll ask my dad where he found those cases, and see if I can pull them up for you.

Angela
__________________

__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com