Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[zabu of nΩd]

Yeah, I think I would have just told them to take the fucking leash off the girl before getting on-board.

 

[skeptik]

I can see the issue of the leash being problematic to safety, but other than that I think that the woman is in the right, regardless of how oddball and fucked up it is.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Well I guess the safety issue is enough reason not to allow that on a bus, but I kinda feel like there's more to it than that. I almost want to say that behavior like that falls along similar lines to nudity in that it shouldn't exist in public as a role model to children. But I guess it's better in the end just to leave it to parents to (somehow) explain to their kids that that's just the way some people choose to live.

I really can't think of any kind of public behavior that's so offensive without actually being literally harmful to anyone. Even nudity doesn't seem as bad as that to me. Maybe that's just me though, I dunno.

 

[skeptik]

Well the laws of the land aren't meant to be moral doctrine. The government isn't here to be nanny. I don't find anything particularly morally objectionable about it anyway, since it doesn't actually affect anybody (like gay sex). Stupidity and general weirdness isn't a crime.

 

[Rabid Headbanger]

I can see the issue of the leash being problematic to safety, but other than that I think that the woman is in the right, regardless of how oddball and fucked up it is.

It isn't a basic human right to dress however you want. For instance, public nudity is illegal. I'm pretty sure I'd agree with the bus Driver whether it was some chick on a leash or some black metal guy with nail armbands.

Any business can remove you from their premises for whatever reason, and I think buses should be able to do that to.

 

[skeptik]

Public nudity is not illegal in many parts of Europe.

 

[Rabid Headbanger]

Well, Europe has the french.

 

[The Ozzman]

Fortunately for us

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Well the laws of the land aren't meant to be moral doctrine. The government isn't here to be nanny. I don't find anything particularly morally objectionable about it anyway, since it doesn't actually affect anybody (like gay sex). Stupidity and general weirdness isn't a crime.

Well there's nothing morally objectionable about a guy walking around in public with needles in his face, and blood pouring down from the wounds, but it's still fucking disgusting, and people shouldn't have to be forced to see it if they don't want to.

I think it could be argued that seeing a girl being led on a leash is disgusting enough to most people to warrant whatever slight inconvenience it might be to the couple to not do that shit in public.

 

[skeptik]

Don't look. You don't have any right to see whatever you want whenever you want. You have to respect the rights of others to practice their peculiar habits as long as it doesn't harm anybody else or does not have serious potential to do so (such as spiked armbands).

 

[zabu of nΩd]

So, it's okay to run around town naked, covered in your own shit, with needles stuck in your eyeballs, shouting "FUCK GOD, FUCK my pals, BURN THE JEWS," etc., and posting up pictures of Goatse, Tubgirl, and penis mutilation all over town?

I know I'm taking this to the point of absurdity, but you seem willing to take this aspect of free expression to that extreme.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

No because that is hateful.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Well, some of it is. But I think if you take out the shouted curses, it's not really hateful anymore.

 

[cookiecutter]

Don't look. You don't have any right to see whatever you want whenever you want. You have to respect the rights of others to practice their peculiar habits as long as it doesn't harm anybody else or does not have serious potential to do so (such as spiked armbands).

Yes. The government can't mandate what people do with themselves or with another consenting person. Unless it actually intrudes on you, there's no reason you can't just avoid what you find morally objectionable. For example I find the head scarves Muslim women wear rather disgusting since it just symbolizes that culture's subjugation of women. However, why should my morals dictate what someone else does of their own volition? It is their culture that is wrong for making those women think that they must wear that, and it would be equally wrong for my culture to tell them they can't.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I would say there's definitely a line to be drawn somewhere between freedom of speech and public decency. There's no good reason why people should have to be regularly disgusted just because someone feels they don't have to confine any of their behavior to privacy. At some point, the amount of upset you cause will outweigh the amount of happiness it gives you.

I'm not saying having chicks on leashes crosses the line necessarily (though many would, I'm sure), but no one here seems to be admitting that such a line exists. I'm curious to know where other people think the line is - or if I'm simply looking at the issue in the wrong way.

 

[MasterOLightning]

You don't have a right to not be offended. Period.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

That's a grossly oversimplified view.

The whole reason we have freedom of expression is so people are allowed to disagree with the status quo. It's okay for disagreement to offend people, but when you go out of your way to offend people for no reason other than your own pleasure or convenience, it's an abuse of your freedom.

 

[MasterOLightning]

No, I think people should try to offend others more often. I try to frequently. It reminds people that we have freedom of expression all of the time, not just when it's convenient for most people. Plus, it forces people to confront their own biases. I also think it's a desirable trait to resist being offended. It shows an ability to accept other (sometimes bad, or downright wrong) viewpoints, and look at them in a more reasonable, critical way, rather than having an emotional backlash.

 

[Rabid Headbanger]

No, I think people should try to offend others more often. I try to frequently.

Very George-Carlinesque.

 

[cookiecutter]

I would say there's definitely a line to be drawn somewhere between freedom of speech and public decency. There's no good reason why people should have to be regularly disgusted just because someone feels they don't have to confine any of their behavior to privacy. At some point, the amount of upset you cause will outweigh the amount of happiness it gives you.

I'm not saying having chicks on leashes crosses the line necessarily (though many would, I'm sure), but no one here seems to be admitting that such a line exists. I'm curious to know where other people think the line is - or if I'm simply looking at the issue in the wrong way.

I disagree. It's like saying there is a line for indecency in entertainment. Some say it's two men kissing like in Brokeback Mountain, some say it's pornography, some say there isn't one. No matter what it's something no one will ever agree on, and I think in absence of a consensus erring on the side of freedom is always better.

You don't have a right to not be offended. Period.

Agreed.

That's a grossly oversimplified view.

The whole reason we have freedom of expression is so people are allowed to disagree with the status quo. It's okay for disagreement to offend people, but when you go out of your way to offend people for no reason other than your own pleasure or convenience, it's an abuse of your freedom.

I disagree. There are no abuses of freedoms because freedoms are rights not privileges. There is a really easy way to not be offended, just don't look. Or better yet, stop being offended by things altogether.

No, I think people should try to offend others more often. I try to frequently. It reminds people that we have freedom of expression all of the time, not just when it's convenient for most people. Plus, it forces people to confront their own biases. I also think it's a desirable trait to resist being offended. It shows an ability to accept other (sometimes bad, or downright wrong) viewpoints, and look at them in a more reasonable, critical way, rather than having an emotional backlash.

Agreed wholeheartedly (although I don't try to offend people).