Virginia Saying No To Crack [Archive] - The Technodrome Forums

KROW

02-09-2005, 10:21 AM

RICHMOND, Va. - Virginians who wear their pants so low their underwear shows may want to think about investing in a stronger belt.

The state's House of Delegates passed a bill Tuesday authorizing a $50 fine for anyone who displays his or her underpants in a "lewd or indecent manner."

Del. Lionell Spruill Sr., a Democrat who opposed the bill, had pleaded with his colleagues to remember their own youthful fashion follies.

During an extended monologue Monday, he talked about how they dressed or wore their hair in their teens. On Tuesday, he said the measure was an unconstitutional attack on young blacks that would force parents to take off work to accompany their children to court just for making a fashion statement.

"This is a foolish bill, Mr. Speaker, because it will hurt so many," Spruill said before the measure was approved 60-34. It now goes to the state Senate.

The bill's sponsor, Del. Algie T. Howell, has said constituents were offended by the exposed underwear. He did not speak on the floor Tuesday.

Spruill and Howell, also a Democrat, are both black.

=================

I'd like to know what they plan to do about the situations at the Virginia beaches. What'll happen if a girl in a two-piece swimsuit puts shorts on and walks over to get a drink, and those shorts happen to slip down slightly to reveal her bikini? Would the same rule apply?

Is it really worth a fine if someone doesn't hike up their Levis?

What of the plumber's union?

Anarky

02-09-2005, 10:46 AM

Oh, man, that is just plain silly... thanks for telling me. I will watch my butt whenever I'm in Virginia.

Ryona

02-09-2005, 10:53 AM

Yes, I find that silly too...

Everyone has a right to express them selves. It's a free right! No one should take that right away...

However, I'm not saying that I like that style that some guys do... I think they look goofy with their pants so low. I lightly laugh when I see a guy with his pants down like that... :lol:

愛

02-09-2005, 11:04 AM

Even if you have freedom of expression or whatever, that sh*t is just intolerable. It's downright repulsive. I say good for Virgina. Get these idiots to stop that gay stuff.

Anarky

02-09-2005, 12:23 PM

"That gay stuff"? Ai, come on, Gay people are the same as heterosexuals... and some people not showing off their butts certainly won't keep gay people from being gay. That is a quite silly assumption.

And what do you want? Uniforms for US-citizens? I suggest a blue overall (looks the same on male and female) and a lot of telescreens to watch whether people really wear their overalls.

DrSpengler

02-09-2005, 01:01 PM

I love/hate living in Northern Virginia. It's a strange blend of conservative hillbilly good ole boys from the south and liberal hippy scum from the north. Kind like mixing dogs and cats. A crazy place to live, that's for sure.

Duke

02-09-2005, 01:07 PM

Well, everyone here keeps saying everyone has the right to express themselves but I really don't remember that in the United States Constitution. The closest thing is Freedom of Speech but even the Supreme Court has ruled that it isn't absolute. Americans cannot threaten someone's life and say we have the right to because of Freedom of Speech. So to caim that they have the right, isn't accurate.

Kid Icarus

02-09-2005, 01:13 PM

I'm a big fan of the First Amendment...

There was a ruling in Kansas back durring the vietnam war, by the US supreme court none the less, that proclaimed that people had the right to wear what they want to wear. It was over armbands that allowed a group of students to prostest the war quietly.

Based on that ruling, this is somewhat unconstitutional.

KROW

02-09-2005, 01:21 PM

I suggest a blue overall (looks the same on male and female) and a lot of telescreens to watch whether people really wear their overalls.
Kind of like a creepy version of that "Come On Eileen" video.

The First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or, abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So, no, expressionism is not in there. But, people can indeed petition this ruling to get rid of it.

Furthermore, I don't understand how having drooping trousers is a way of expressing yourself. What is it expressing exactly? Anybody know?

愛

02-09-2005, 01:32 PM

"That gay stuff"? Ai, come on, Gay people are the same as heterosexuals... and some people not showing off their butts certainly won't keep gay people from being gay. That is a quite silly assumption.

You're not from here, so you wouldn't understand. The impression I'm getting from people who do stuff like this is they're, for lack of a better word, idiots. I mean, come on. What the hell is wrong with society these days? I might as well throw my wang around in public and call it the newest fad.

And just because I don't dress myself in a unique way to "validate my existence and make a statement" doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about.

Anarky

02-09-2005, 01:40 PM

But if you're generally not happy with society you don't need to go and insult gay people.

There is a lot wrong with society. But homosexuals sure aren't the ones at fault. They are one of the few groups who go "if they want, just leave them alone". And for that, I thank them.

I'm not from the US, yes, that is correct. However I can't stand people calling homosexuality something like a disease. It is not. Why do we like women? Same question.

愛

02-09-2005, 01:44 PM

There's a difference between something gay and someone who's gay. Gay people are for the most part pretty cool. And I just call stuff gay to be funny. Guess it's not funny to some people. Oh well. I think it's a New Jersey thing.

Anarky

02-09-2005, 01:47 PM

Oh well, I guess. But isn't there a better word to describe utterly disgusting and plain revolting stuff? I mean, there has to be something that isn't insulting... for some minority at least.

Kid Icarus

02-09-2005, 01:54 PM

Kind of like a creepy version of that "Come On Eileen" video.

The First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or, abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So, no, expressionism is not in there. But, people can indeed petition this ruling to get rid of it.

Furthermore, I don't understand how having drooping trousers is a way of expressing yourself. What is it expressing exactly? Anybody know?
I dunno... they're expressing their choice of underwear brand? You can BS a lotta stuff in our court system here... lol. But yeah, if they say they're expressing themselves, it falls under freedom of speech, and then this law's prohibiting that.

and about the "that's gay" thing... why not just say "that's stupid"? or "wow, that bad." or "gee, i wish that woulden't be that way". :lol:

DrSpengler

02-09-2005, 02:09 PM

IMO calling something "gay" is completely different than calling something "homosexual". The conotation is completely different. "Gay", in this instance, means "stupid".

Like saying "that sucks". Are you saying that whatever it is literally and physically sucks (as in, the verb)? No. Of course not. You're just saying it's stupid.

Gay is a word with multiple definitions.

Now, calling someone, as in a person, "gay" is a completely different thing. You call a guy "gay" and that's an insult to his masculinity and is certainly the same as calling them a "homosexual".

But if you look at a throw rug and say "that's pretty gay" you aren't a homophobe. THe only people getting terribly offended and losing sleep are the sensetive.

Machias Banshee

02-09-2005, 02:13 PM

I dunno... they're expressing their choice of underwear brand? You can BS a lotta stuff in our court system here... lol. But yeah, if they say they're expressing themselves, it falls under freedom of speech, and then this law's prohibiting that.

and about the "that's gay" thing... why not just say "that's stupid"? or "wow, that bad." or "gee, i wish that woulden't be that way". :lol:

It cant really be helped in some places. People just start up stupid phrases.

I had one girl in school, where she'd describbed stupid people as 'Immigrants', stupid stuff as 'jewish'... It wasnt right, but people got into the phrases (kinda).

If Ai wanted, he coulda described it as Queer, but then still people would make a fuss of it. Queer originally means 'strange or unusual'. Look at any old English writing or even Nightmare Before Christmas. Jack uses it in 'What is This?" Gay Used to mean Jolly or happy. It is only in recent times that these words got tied to homosexuals.

Every society has their strange sayings. I remember in England I almost fell over when someone said they had a few ******s to burn. It turned out that they meant cigarettes.

What was my point with this? Oh yeah... dont fall to pieces if you hear something that sounds unusual or offensive. Even PM folks if you want to understand what they meant. Who knows, you might learrn something interesting...

Jo Dawn

02-09-2005, 02:18 PM

*ahem* To stop this argument... :roll:

gay
adj. gay·er, gay·est

1. Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.

2. Showing or characterized by cheerfulness and lighthearted excitement; merry.

3. Bright or lively, especially in color: a gay, sunny room.

4. Given to social pleasures.

5. Dissolute; licentious.

n.

Nowhere in there does it say that it means 'that sucks'. Read the dictionary. And learn more adjectives.

But isn't there a better word to describe utterly disgusting and plain revolting stuff? I mean, there has to be something that isn't insulting... for some minority at least.

Exactly. That's what Thesaurases are for. ;) :P

愛

02-09-2005, 02:20 PM

It's a word used to describe something stupid where we live. It's a form of dialect, get over it.

Jo Dawn

02-09-2005, 02:23 PM

I don't use it, but I didn't say I was agreeing to it, either. I was merely stopping the argument over what it really meant. Slang not included, the ACTUAL meaning.

To stop people from arguing what it meant, it's definition. Can't argue with the true meaning.

ThirdMarioBro

02-09-2005, 02:26 PM

Virginia once again proves this country has gone to hell and become a self absorbed hole of middle aged losers who want to control society.

Jo Dawn

02-09-2005, 02:29 PM

DrSpengler

02-09-2005, 02:30 PM

Nowhere in there does it say that it means 'that sucks'. Read the dictionary. And learn more adjectives.

I'm pretty sure "fo shizzle", "chillaxing" and other slang, regardless of how stupid they are, won't wind up in Websters anytime soon.

Regardless of what Mr. Dictionary says, people use it, WIDELY, to say "it sucks". And it isn't a matter of learning more adjectives. Sometimes saying "oh sh*t" is a lot more appropriate than saying "My goodness gracious".

Jo Dawn

02-09-2005, 02:33 PM

ThirdMarioBro

02-09-2005, 02:34 PM

Passing laws that tell you how to dress is just plain iditoic. Hell, take a lesson from Europe. Let there be nude parks.

DrSpengler

02-09-2005, 02:36 PM

Well, I lived 25 years using multiple adjectives and such to never swear. And not saying things that may offend others, because of the word.

So, really, I do think there are many more 'appropriate' things to say other than swearing, or something that may be offensive.

It's not difficult. I did it the first 25 years of my life.

Diffrent strokes, I suppose. But when someone cuts my finger off I'm not going to be calling them a "miserable cretin", or rooting around in my vocabulary for an alternative to swearing that doesn't offend the overly sensetive by-standers.

And some people aren't so worried about offending the sheltered. Not a matter of it being difficult or not, and it certainly isn't a matter of that person being rude. If a full grown adult can't handle hearing a swear word then that's their problem.

Jo Dawn

02-09-2005, 02:36 PM

Passing laws that tell you how to dress is just plain iditoic. Hell, take a lesson from Europe. Let there be nude parks.

Oh, I agree with that. But, it's sad that we let things get so bad with letting people do whatever they want, and all that, that we have to if there's to be any decency sometimes. People lack common sense (not just with this subject) and that's sad.

Machias Banshee

02-09-2005, 02:37 PM

This all gets me worked up. We allow people to argue any point at all, 'because they can'.

Like in the schools. You can't do ANYTHING to the kids. Detentions or anything, because, (literally, I witnessed this) the kids say (to the principal, too) 'I dare you to give me detention. I'll have my lawyer down here so fast...'

*shakes head* It's a sad state of affairs... like how you can sue for ANYthing. *rolls eyes*

That kinda stuff I Really cant stand. We've had things where teachers have been FIRED because some bleeding heart parents were offended by something in the textbooks or whatever.

We've basically gone from one extreme to another. People cant do Anything these days without having to worry about getting sued or whatever.

My Nephew (the feral one), pulls stuff like this. if you do something that he doesnt like (he is Beyond spoiled), he'll go to his teachers at school and say that you threatened to kill him, his sister and his pets... or pull a gun on him... or say that you taught him to look up girls' skirts...

I miss the days when a swat on the ass wasnt considered abuse. :roll:

And I agree with you Jo, the lack of common sense in people these days is Apalling...

Jo Dawn

02-09-2005, 02:39 PM

Diffrent strokes, I suppose. But when someone cuts my finge off I'm not going to be calling them a "miserable cretin", or rooting around in my vocabulary for an alternative to swearing that doesn't offend the overly sensetive by-standers.

I could care less about by-standers and how sensitive they are. I know what I... you know what? Doesn't matter, heh. No one listens anyway. Plus, getting a finger cut off is an extreme situation, anyway. I'm talking how people feel compelled to have every other word be some ludicrous, nonsensical, un-needed offensive word, just because 'that's how they talk'. In normal conversations. :roll:

Am I saying people who swear are bad? Not at all. I don't wanna be accused of that.

Jo Dawn

02-09-2005, 02:40 PM

I miss the days when a swat on the ass wasnt considered abuse. :roll:

I completely agree. They never should have gotten rid of paddling students. They obviously need it. There's no respect there anymore. As is obvious.

Enough on that. I can feel my blood pressure skyrocketing. Blah. It really gets me fired up.

DrSpengler

02-09-2005, 02:44 PM

I could care less about by-standers and how sensitive they are. I know what I... you know what? Doesn't matter, heh. No one listens anyway. Plus, getting a finger cut off is an extreme situation, anyway. I'm talking how people feel compelled to have every other word be some ludicrous, nonsensical, un-needed offensive word, just because 'that's how they talk'. In normal conversations. :roll:

Am I saying people who swear are bad? Not at all. I don't wanna be accused of that.

Like I said, sometimes "Oh sh*t" is more appropriate.

And not everyone talks like a Kevin Smith film. I agree people shouldn't swear in front of children. But people who use swear words casually and not excessively aren't stupid and they don't have a limited vocabulary, which seems to be what you were implying earlier.

Jo Dawn

02-09-2005, 02:47 PM

If that's how I came off, then I apologise. Trust me, there's someone who's the smartest person I know, and he occasionally lets the swear words fly, heh.

愛

02-09-2005, 02:54 PM

Swear words are just part of my basic conversation vocabulary. It was just all around me in school, and I have yet to rip it out. I'm an adult, anyway, and like DrSpengler said, if an adult can't handle my swear words, then that's his problem.

Jester

02-09-2005, 03:09 PM

Swear words are just part of my basic conversation vocabulary.
i see no reason for them seriously, there are plenty of perfectly good and often underused adjectives in the English language. all cursing shows me is that the person has little grasp of adjectives and other discriber words.

愛

02-09-2005, 03:11 PM

If you say so. Swear words are funny to me, so I end up using them. And they show casualty in the conversation. I don't want to be a stuck up geek who is an English Nazi.

Jester

02-09-2005, 03:13 PM

I find that some words are funnier than a curse. take the case of turd, dung, or doodie....isn't that funnier than...well u know??

愛

02-09-2005, 03:17 PM

Not really, but that's just me.

This is getting way off-topic. Let's get back to it, shall we?

Jester

02-09-2005, 03:21 PM

First it'll be our pants than our right to say doodie!!!!

KROW

02-09-2005, 03:50 PM

Wow. Funny how this turned into a big debate on swearing.

I dunno... they're expressing their choice of underwear brand? You can BS a lotta stuff in our court system here... lol. But yeah, if they say they're expressing themselves, it falls under freedom of speech, and then this law's prohibiting that.
Well, I would still like to know what exactly is expressed by this low-riding pants thing. What does it mean? There needs to be proof in this pudding, otherwise the government is not going to consider this as an issue worth looking into.

Jo Dawn

02-09-2005, 03:50 PM

If you say so. Swear words are funny to me, so I end up using them. And they show casualty in the conversation. I don't want to be a stuck up geek who is an English Nazi.

They show casualty in the conversation?

'Stuck up geek'. Nice. Wanting to converse in plain old english does not make one stuck up. *rolls eyes*

Not saying I don't converse with people who swear. I've even let a few slip from time to time. But saying that someone who doesn't swear is a 'stuck up geek and english nazi' is like me saying people who swear are 'uncouth and unintelligent imbeciles' (NO, I'm not saying they are... I'm making a point.). Unfair to put them into groups like that.

Peanut

02-09-2005, 03:53 PM

The whole argument is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of. Ever.

Jester

02-09-2005, 03:54 PM

Preach it!!!

愛

02-09-2005, 03:56 PM

I was just using that as a mold for the point I was trying to make. I know not everyone is the same way. I just find it easier to have a conversation with swear words included. What, am I not allowed to do that? I find myself to be quite intelligent, not to sound full of myself. I just don't care. I don't care what others think of me when I swear like a sailor. I'm not always thinking, "gee, I better use a more appropriate term or I might offend somebody!" I'm an offensive person, I'll admit. I just don't see the big deal here. We all talk the way we want to. There's no norm here.

I'm done with this thread. Stay on topic, fellas.

Ryona

02-09-2005, 04:00 PM

Well, I would still like to know what exactly is expressed by this low-riding pants thing. What does it mean? There needs to be proof in this pudding, otherwise the government is not going to consider this as an issue worth looking into.

I don't get it myself either...

These guys who do that look like they havent changed their diapers for a week! :lol:

Jester

02-09-2005, 04:01 PM

ha....i wonder if they have a problem with women's hip huggers??

Jo Dawn

02-09-2005, 04:04 PM

Ai... you can do whatever you want. Hence, the freedom of speech thing. Swearing in NO WAY (I'll say AGAIN) makes one less intelligent.

This is a topic no one will win with... everyone is different. So, whatever floats one boat. ;)

KROW

02-09-2005, 04:12 PM

You know, I kind of feel sorry I started this thread.

Weird. I start a topic on a new technology in taxi cabs, and only two people reply. I start one on underwear and the forum goes nuts.

I love you guys.

Jo Dawn

02-09-2005, 04:14 PM

Hehe, oh Krow... you remember the 'underwear thread' on the GD forums and how we loved it so. ;) :)

Ryona

02-09-2005, 04:15 PM

ha....i wonder if they have a problem with women's hip huggers??

Hmmm... They may or may not... though I honestly don't think so...

Hip huggers are not insightly and crude looking like wearing your pants around your thighs.

Do these silly goofs with their low pants honestly think females find that attractive???

Jo Dawn

02-09-2005, 04:17 PM

Here's the thing with that. They won't say anything about that if they like looking at the hiphuggers. ;) Totally unfair, I know, but...

And, really. DO they think they look cool with their pants all low like that? As a female, I shudder at that.

Peanut

02-09-2005, 04:20 PM

Well obviously to the mainstream it's normal, and obviously females so entrenched in the "gangsta life style" are attracted to it. As goofy as they really do look, it's the cool thing.

ThirdMarioBro

02-09-2005, 04:46 PM

KROW

02-09-2005, 04:52 PM

Yes. No swearing in that post at all. :D :thumbsup:

Duke

02-09-2005, 06:25 PM

The First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or, abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Actually it isn't unconstitutional for Virginia to pass a law at all banning expressionism at all. The first admendment clearly states that Congress (the federal government) cannot make a law violating these rights. It was never intended to apply to state governments at all. The whole idea was that if Virginia or any other state passed a law against the freedom of speech then people who disagreed with these laws had the opportunity to move to another state. If the federal government passed these laws then the only choice people would have would to move to another country. Anyways that is how it was intended not how it is.

***This is not a post saying I believe the Bill of Rights should only apply to the Federal Government. I'm simply pointing out a historical fact.***

jeff the cheff

02-09-2005, 07:51 PM

http://media1.funnyjunk.com/pics/euro_vs_america.jpg

That Matt Guy

02-09-2005, 10:13 PM

Wow, such a heated thread about butt cracks. Nobody enforces laws like this.

And it looks like I'll be moving to Europe.

ThirdMarioBro

02-10-2005, 12:22 AM

Have fun. I'm diying m hair blue and heading for Japan *runs*

*edit*

Correction, the pic loaded. Hold the plane Matt :evilgrin:

KROW

02-10-2005, 10:52 AM

Actually it isn't unconstitutional for Virginia to pass a law at all banning expressionism at all. The first admendment clearly states that Congress (the federal government) cannot make a law violating these rights. It was never intended to apply to state governments at all. The whole idea was that if Virginia or any other state passed a law against the freedom of speech then people who disagreed with these laws had the opportunity to move to another state. If the federal government passed these laws then the only choice people would have would to move to another country. Anyways that is how it was intended not how it is.
*ahem*

So, no, expressionism is not in there. But, people can indeed petition this ruling to get rid of it.
:D

Demented Utrom

02-11-2005, 04:04 PM

Nobody wants to see a full moon during the day.

Anarky

02-11-2005, 05:24 PM

And nobody wants to see your random posts neither during the day nor during the night.

Thank you for stopping that behaviour, Shredder Utrom.

Machias Banshee

02-13-2005, 09:10 PM

Update!!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050211/od_afp/uspoliticsfashion_050211204334&e=5

the law was kicked out! :D

Kazari

02-14-2005, 06:58 AM

*reads topic* LOL Sometimes my state is soo weird.

kyabetsu

02-16-2005, 08:12 AM

... a law. ...about pants. like a state-wide dresscode? what next? Do our shorts all have to be longer than our fingertips when we put our hands to our sides? no open-toed shoes?

i'm RELIEVED to see that the upper state house rejected the bill. Not only do i strongly object to anyone policing my wardrobe, (ha ha fashion police!) but for crying out loud! These people work for the STATE. They make the LAWS.

SURELY there are more important things to worry about than the height of PANTS?

how about corporate regulations? spousal abuse laws? children's rights laws? TEACHERS' rights laws? I KNOW that Virgina's not so perfect in every other aspect that the only thing their legislators have LEFT to work on is the "droopy drawers" bill.

Voltron

02-16-2005, 09:52 AM

Well sh*t. This is damn retarded. Whoever thought up that idea is an ass.

jeff the cheff

02-17-2005, 01:29 PM

There are definatly more important things to be taken care of than showing your underwear in public, but I think its a good idea.

kyabetsu

02-18-2005, 01:37 PM

but jeff... it's BOXER SHORTS. not their bare backsides.

it's no more "obscene" than a guy's swim-trunks and WAY less revealing than any bathing suit designed for women.

the fashion is stupid. but fashion often is. look at the 1960's trend of "Paper dresses" or the whole "POMPADOUR" hair style like the guys have in Grease. ... it makes'em look like they've got a duck's butt on their heads! but being stupid in public isn't a crime. ...and if it IS, i'd rather they found some OTHER way to measure it.

but let's say that you DO find the underwear obscene... does that mean you're okay with outlawing others forms of shorts/swim suits/etc that could be seen in public?

if the fashion were pant-LESS ...or there were actually lewd public indecency... then i'd be more likely to think 'something should be done!'... but no one fines fat, middle-aged, white suburbanites from mowing their lawn without shirts.

All that aged, white, hairy, sweaty man-flesh is WAY more offensive to me than anybody's CLOTHED body.