TubeNet

In a very small, rural high school where I taught for one year (a little over a decade ago), the principal kept a supply of padlocks in his office. If a student showed up for school with sagging pants, his belt loops got padlocked together to tighten up the pants.

I lived a few towns away from there (West Palm) for about 2 years. Florida has some serious issues.

Matthew Gilchrest wrote:I lived a few towns away from there (West Palm) for about 2 years. Florida has some serious issues.

This is probably true, but trying to do something about those stupid pants isn't one of them.

Save for the pants issue, I really do like some of the styles that some people (many times similar to those in the article in the first post) around here sport around.

I never understood why you would want to ban saggy pants. The criminals can't run in them, so they make law enforcement easier. The non-criminals...well, leave them alone!

Doug@GT wrote:I never understood why you would want to ban saggy pants. The criminals can't run in them, so they make law enforcement easier. The non-criminals...well, leave them alone!

You make a very good point.

A couple of the main reasons that some abandon their "first dreams" in life to pursue things that give them better chances of becoming wealthy are

- the ability to better physically isolate their homes and families from these types of disgusting actitivities
- the ability to donate to causes that effectively work to elevate people to a higher level of existence

Excellent points.

This is probably true, but trying to do something about those stupid pants isn't one of them

It is closely related to an attitude about public behavior that is leading the country down the sewer hole.

I never understood why you would want to ban saggy pants. The criminals can't run in them, so they make law enforcement easier. The non-criminals...well, leave them alone!

You were obviously born after 1980.

Have you seen the bumper sticker, "I listen to wrap music - at red lights"?

"I MUST DESTROY THINGS I DO NOT UNDERSTAND OR LIKE!!!!!! RRROOOOOOAAARRRRRR. THE AMERICAN WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!"

That is really the only thing I can image that would go thought some ones head who supports this horrible violation of personal rights. What happened to freedom, liberty, choice? Is there some way that his dress is hurting you or is violating your rights?

EVERY generation has had the older one not understand their style of dress and finds it offensive and wants that horrible action stopped for the good of society, why not stop, realize that people will be people, you will not understand why they do what the do and unless it violates YOUR rights, just let them have their way.

If they went to a real job interview dressed like that, they wouldn't get the job. They would them have to decide for themselves, "do I want to get a good job and change what I wear or get a crappy job and keep on truckin'?" Either way it has no effect on me, why would you let it effect you?

Bill

Greg wrote:I find it offensive when someone invades my personal space with incredibly loud music. I don't want to hear or much less feel the music from the car behind me, I keep my music inside the vehicle. I expect that same behavior from those around me. When the car behind me has music so loud that it shakes the seat in my car and I cannot hear my own radio that form of self expression is preventing my freedom to listen to whatever music I prefer.

Sorry for the confusion, I was referring to the style of dress, loud music, you would have a point there. I guess you would have to set a decibel limit.

D'oh, no more listening to Scottish National in my car.


Bill

Tubadork wrote:Is there some way that his dress is hurting you or is violating your rights?

No. But there is no reason why folks should be exposing their undergarments/buttocks/mons pubis in public.

If they went to a real job interview dressed like that, they wouldn't get the job. They would them have to decide for themselves, "do I want to get a good job and change what I wear or get a crappy job and keep on truckin'?" Either way it has no effect on me, why would you let it effect you?

These people do go into interviews like that. They often won't get the job. So then they become unemployed thugs who leech off the welfare system. How does this not effect you? They intimidate others and ruin neighborhoods. How does this not effect you?

Realistically, this law is a way to stop young(er) citizens and inspect them for drugs (often found) and run their record for open warrants (sometimes found). You'd have to know the area in question, but the crime index in Riviera Beach is high, property values are in the toilet, and the people are leaving if they can. This statute/ordinance is to simply help the police better filter out some of the crap that walks their streets. Is it perfect? No. Does it work? To a degree.

I would argue that there are FAR more wall street types doing drugs and have committed so many crimes (lying, stealing, fraud) so it would be just as fitting to arrest anyone wearing a suit.

To judge people only based on the way they are dressed that day (pre-judging/ prejudice) is silly and is only a form of harassment and will only lead resentment among citizens and police.

Bill

Tubadork wrote:I would argue that there are FAR more wall street types doing drugs and have committed so many crimes (lying, stealing, fraud) so it would be just as fitting to arrest anyone wearing a suit.
Bill

Can you document this to be true, or is it simply your opinion? I am not able to document it, but my opinion is that you are completely wrong about this. So, in my opinion, it would not be just as fitting to arrest anyone wearing a suit.

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/ ... ll-street/" target="_blank

offensive? runing society?

offensive? ruining society?

I agree with Bill. I think the baggy pants fad (or style or whatever) is stupid, but a "city ordinance governing low-slung trousers (or, legally speaking, "exposure of undergarment in public")" is quite overboard. That's no different than having a city ordinance against flip flops or against wearing sandals with socks.

Tubadork wrote:http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/ ... ll-street/" target="_blank

If this represents your documentation, I don't see it. To quote from the article, "There are few statistics to back up this claim, Mr. Granahan concedes...." Even his principal point is very non-specific. He "reports that abuse of cocain, prescription drugs and alcohol remains widespread on the Street." To be fair, I have no documentation to support my assertion, either. I don't believe you are presenting anything substantially more than anecdotal evidence.


Let me add this to the mix. I notice that cjk thinks having a city ordinance to govern is "over the top." I have mixed feelings about this one. On the one hand, I find the attire to be offensive. And, yes, I find the thong showing in that manner to be offensive, as well. I don't have a daughter, but if I did, I would not like her wearing clothes in that fashion. On the otherhand, I believe in freedom(not Joe's definition). To me, in the final analysis it is where do we draw the line. I don't believe we should be permitted to go around totally naked. And, no, I don't want to debate that particular issue. So, although I find the attire very offensive, I'm not certain I am actually for passing city ordinances to control them.

The other issue that was mentioned had to do with car stereos, etc. On this one, I believe the issue is much more clear. If your music is so loud that I not only cannot hear mine, but also causes my butt to vibrate, that goes over the line totally(in my opinion).

Anyway, while I can appreciate the debate on the issue, I'm not sure I'm the person to argue the side in favor of the ordinance.

I find that style of clothing to be absolutely ridiculous. I do not think it's a bad idea to have a sort-of "dress code" enforced by the city. Some could argue that it is a violation of freedom, but let's not kid ourselves. There is so much of that going on right now, would this particular one be actually bad? I would much rather have a rule about appropriate dress than have my phone tapped/which sites I visit logged/etc.

TexTuba wrote:I find that style of clothing to be absolutely ridiculous. I do not think it's a bad idea to have a sort-of "dress code" enforced by the city. Some could argue that it is a violation of freedom, but let's not kid ourselves. There is so much of that going on right now, would this particular one be actually bad? I would much rather have a rule about appropriate dress than have my phone tapped/which sites I visit logged/etc.

So the point you make is;
You want to choose which of your freedom's you'd like violated?
--

bloke wrote:..... If we're offended by the behavior or appearance (odors/excretions/etc.) of others, freedom gives us the opportunity to become wealthy enough to (mostly) isolate ourselves from those who we find offensive...and those who are wealthy *AND* benevolent can use some of their resources to try to help instruct the offensive towards less offensive ways.

Actually, sometimes I'm much more offended by them 'wealthy folks' as I am by the poor 'stinky' ones!

And... I can't stand that repulsive 'mixed smell' that rolls out of the doors of stores like 'The Bath & Body Store' and 'Victoria's Secret' at the Mall.