Hope this catches on...

usafpilot07 wrote: RoboCop wrote: I personally would rather not see someone's undergarments in public places. Their are kids around and they don't need to be influenced to have to wear their pants low enough where they can trip or have them soo loose that they have to hold them while they walk. Soon we might have kids walking around showing their tighty whities. Shouldn't it be up to the parent's of those children to teach them what is right and wrong?  If you aren't more influential in your child's life than an image they see on the street, maybe you should reconsider your abilities to rear children.

I love this argument-dude, you realize by your definition of freedom of speech (or we'll say freedom of expression for now), what's wrong if I just want to rip it out and wank my girlfriend in front of the daycare? Your kids shouldn't be so easily influenced, right?

The streets belong to the public at whole. And like it or not, public streets are not the place to express your ass to the rest of the world.

usafpilot07 wrote: So, you consider walking around in a pair of short-shorts the same as exposing your penis and masterbating in front of toddlers?  Good to know.

Exactly-you can't back up your own argument. You're using biased logic.

Masturbating in front of toddlers being wrong is your set of morals. However, my set of morals says that having my pants pulled down giving little kids get the impression that I'm trying to show off my underoos is wrong. Who are you to back up one set of morals but not mine?

You guys just remember when you're sticking to society and being an individual, that it's a two way street.

BTW-I wasn't talking about masturbating, I was actually speaking of sex in public, but what the hell. The point's still the same.

High Voltage wrote: stratoaxe wrote: usafpilot07 wrote: Linus wrote: No, morally wrong is you showing your underwear and complaining when you can't. How is wanting to wear YOUR clothes the way YOU want morally wrong? I forgot freedom of speech was immoral As long as they're not revealing, who cares?  Boxers are no different than a pair of shorts. If someone is going commando, should their single layer of clothing be considered underwear?  Unless you speak from your ass, I don't see how this falls under freedom of speech by any stretch. And I agree, boxers are really no different than shorts. But looking at it from a different perspective, even if you have a whole other set of clothing underneath, it's still indecent to have your pants pulled half mast. It's suggestive, and lots and lots of people don't care to see it. Oh I'm sorry, I forgot the first amendment protects only what I say, not any other non-violent method of expressing my opinions.

Tell me how showing off your underwear to the world is expressing your opinions, and I'll show you and USAF how choking your chicken in public is expressing your opinions.

stratoaxe wrote: usafpilot07 wrote: RoboCop wrote: I personally would rather not see someone's undergarments in public places. Their are kids around and they don't need to be influenced to have to wear their pants low enough where they can trip or have them soo loose that they have to hold them while they walk. Soon we might have kids walking around showing their tighty whities. Shouldn't it be up to the parent's of those children to teach them what is right and wrong?  If you aren't more influential in your child's life than an image they see on the street, maybe you should reconsider your abilities to rear children. I love this argument-dude, you realize by your definition of freedom of speech (or we'll say freedom of expression for now), what's wrong if I just want to rip it out and wank my girlfriend in front of the daycare? Your kids shouldn't be so easily influenced, right? The streets belong to the public at whole. And like it or not, public streets are not the place to express your ass to the rest of the world.

maybe one of the parents should be home looking after there toddlers instead of dumping them off at a daycare

High Voltage wrote: Strato, in protest of this law that allows profiling. Now tell me why I can't sag them in a peaceful manner in protest of this unconstitutional legislation. Just because you don't want to see or do something is no reason to attempt to police the rest of society. If you hear something offensive on the radio, change the station. If you see something distasteful in a movie or out on the street, look away.

I understand your point, and I agree to a certain extent. And a shocker-I wear my pants fairly low on my waist. Generally speaking, my boxers go a few inches above my jeans. However, at almost all times my shirt is covering this up, and I'm not giving off the appearance that I've purposely pulled down my pants. Again, maybe we're not talking about the same fashion trend, but I find it fairly vulgar to walk down the street with your pants at your knees.

But the logic that I can yank my pants if I want because it's freedom of expression can apply to anything. The previous arguments that boxers look nothing like underwear, and it's no more revealing than any other modern fashion trend were legit, but this one's not. I can throw around freedom of speech all day, just because you don't want to see grandpa jerking it in public doesn't mean he can't? Who are you to define what's sexually inappropriate? It's a double standard, no matter what way you look at it.