Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (27240)	8/29/2006 8:30:14 AM
From: MrLucky	Respond to of 541851

They're going to have to pry my dead fingers from my fast food burger. ;-)

To: Lane3 who wrote (27240)	8/29/2006 9:33:14 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541851

Peeing on the street isn't very dangerous, but we ban that. Public nudity isn't dangerous at all, but again, we ban it. Sometimes manners need to be legislated. "Danger" is actually kind of rare- until you get in the car, or go in to your house- but the little things people do, that are unmannerly, can effect us tremendously. Even though it isn't dangerous, it probably has a big effect on people if they see their neighbors urinating on the public streets. It contributes to a feeling of squalor. While I can see courts granting extreme deference for acts that are like speech which occur in the public square, I don't see the need for such deference for acts that are more purely physical. I don't think sexual acts, though they hurt no one, need to go on in public, or urination (even though sometimes you could certainly make a statement with it), or smoking, or other acts that we could say are better carried out in one's own home. I don't see what's ugly about that. Obviously it's hard on people who want to copulate in public, or pee on the street, or smoke (although I'd argue that smoking, unlike copulation, is going to actually physically affect other people since the smoke really does get in your eyes...) Could you explain what's ugly about it?

To: Lane3 who wrote (27240)	8/30/2006 3:09:39 PM
From: RMF	Respond to of 541851

"lack of proportionality" Well...that's because you can only ban things that aren't supported by Big Business and voting blocks. Smokers are typically poorer than average and don't vote as much or give large campaign contributions. The Tobacco Industry has become "evil incarnate" and a major funder of state budgets (and large gouging lawfirms), so they are an easy and profitable target. They also had a lot of cash. The auto manufacturers of large gas guzzling, polluting, dangerous, road destroying monstrosities on 4 wheels have consumers that ARE voters and campaign contributors. So, you can't go after them.