Subject:
|
Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 4 Feb 2004 16:21:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
333 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
| |
http://www.canoe.ca/Columnists/sa.html
Ahh Canada, where you can walk around topless, if you’re female and you so
choose (k, that’s Ontario only right now, but as yet I have seen no
evidence of women excercising that legal right), where you can have on
your person under 15 grams of wacky tobacky without it being a capital
offence, and where you can get married to someone of the same sex...
Though the last two may not last too long in Martins regime... we shall
see what transpires there...
But overall, those wacky Canadians, with their liberal laws and all!!
God love ‘em!
|
I’m curious. What do you think about the concept of “decency”?
|
Morality issue, out of bounds for legislators - shouldn’t it be so? Larry?
|
Laws need to be based on something
|
Yes. When they are necessary. You haven’t proven the case that this particular
law (banning public nudity) is *necessary* yet, though.
If a law isn’t protecting the rights of citizens from being infringed, it is not
necessary. (not every law that purports to so do is necessary, but this is a
good filter to start winnowing)
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
| (...) Laws need to be based on something (...) Of what value is freedom if nobody respects it? We don't have "absolute freedom" in this country (which is anarchy). If people aren't willing to respect others freedoms, the concept is moot. (...) In (...) (21 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
88 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
