Montana Republican: NO YOGA PANTS, NO NO NO!!!

[Kosh]

Oops! Now you changed it from people looking like trash to people being (are) trash. The first is an evaluation of outward appearance, the second is a judgment on the intrinsic worthiness of people. I'm sure they are one and the same to you, but to the rest of us, the difference couldn't be greater.

That is probably the most intelligent post in this thread so far. This, I can work with....

If you go back to the beginning you will see that I have not changed anything. I've maintained that trashy is as trashy does. You are correct to note that what one projects is not necessarily equivalent to a person's "inner quality," if you will. But on the other hand, a person's outward behavior is typically a reflection of their inner character.

I think most people tend to consider a person's inner character as a static thing, and society as a whole certainly leans more in favor of that belief. Is it not normal for people to see past behavior as being a strong indicator of future behavior? If you know someone who has a history of excessive gambling and despite reforming their ways they have recently been made multiple requests of you to borrow petty amounts of money, would you not wonder if they've perhaps fallen off the wagon? Modern business practices have begun to focus much more heavily on an intrinsic view of employees and employment candidates, hence the surging popularity of the behavioral job interview and the nearly ubiquitous personality/talent assessments that more and more companies are using to pre-screen applicants and to evaluate their potential and qualifications for growth. In a more personal example, if a lover cheats on you, would you not lose trust in that person? Doesn't their behavior indicate something about the quality of their character? Isn't the act of losing trust a judgement about their intrinsic character; one based on their outward behavior, and including an expectation that said intrinsic character has a strong likelihood of re-creating similar future behavior?

I tend to take a somewhat different view in that I see intrinsic value to be much more flexible, and even malleable to a certain extent. A person can be dishonest and conniving one day, but a model of honesty the next day. A person's intrinsic value can change from day to day. If a person is a model of honest today, does that chance the fact that they were a dishonest person the day before? No, it does not. Neither assessment is wrong. Both are correct in their moment of time. In the long term, intrinsic value can also be assessed overall based on the behavioral trends. A person can be generally an honest person even though they've had times when they've been very dishonest. A person can be an overall kind and gentle person even if they've had times when they've been cruel and mean spirited.

We all have our demons, nobody is perfect. But that doesn't mean that a person is evil just because they've made some poor choices at some point. Speaking of choices, that's what it all comes down to at the end of the day. Whatever interior character a person has, all behavior is a decision. Your intrinsic qualities can influence your decisions, but they do not control them. You are always in control of your decisions. I believe that there is a chicken-and-egg reinforcement relationship between inner character and behavior. Good character influences you to make more good decisions. Bad character influences you to make more bad decisions. But we also have the ability to take conscious control and made decisions in spite of that influence. Start getting into the habit of making the kinds of better decisions that reflect a higher quality of character, and your inner character will grow to absorb those qualities.

So yes, intrinsic value is different than outward behavior. But the two have a very close relationship, and we as individuals have the ability to utilize that connection.

That was a lengthy, thoughtful response. Thank you. I'm elevating you in my mind as a poster of higher esteem and reconsidering my previous comments as having missed something.

The problem I see is asserting your opinion of how one dresses as indicative of their overall character. I know for a fact that the fatter people are, the harder it is to look good. And expensive. Walmart may be filled with these people but they don't cater to them in the clothing department; their merchandise no bigger than 3X. And you can't walk out of Destination XL without parting with a few hundred dollars. Finding things that fit can be a challenge. Now the debate over how much control they have over their obesity aside, I'm suggesting they don't have as much choice as you think.

And when it comes to character, I think it's better evaluated by what people do rather than how they appear. I know a woman tattooed head to toe that would give you her last morsel of food if you were hungry. Appearances don't tell the whole story.

But my biggest issue with this prude in Montana is pushing a law that targets clothes that reveal the outline of genitals, furthering the myth that the human body is obscene, shameful, and something to be hidden at all times. It's also a repugnant "Family Values" agenda that has government intruding on things I think should be none of its business. Unless people are posing a health hazard by going naked and leaving pubic hair and fecal smears all over, I don't think government has a compelling interest in telling people how to dress.

I don't think attractiveness is really the issue so much. You don't have to look great to have class. You just need to be presentable and show that you have some basic self respect. My sister is one of the references that I always look to. She's been overweight pretty much her entire life. But she carries herself well. She makes the effort to present a good image of herself. Things like that do go well beyond clothing. But the decision to make the effort goes along way too. On Monday I start a new job. I'll be going in in a clean charcoal suit, pressed shirt, actually have a new tie I'll be wearing. Actually, the tie isn't necessary as they've already told me that the dress code is business casual and that ties are not required. But I do this in order to present the best image of myself as I can. For the second day, I plan for a navy blazer with gray slacks, and probably will not be donning a tie again without a specific need, so that I won't create the impression that I hold myself separate from the rest of the group. My presentation is a decision I make. Adults are expected to understand that our behaviors have consequences and that how we choose to present ourselves will create perceptions by those around us.

I agree that this guy in Montana is being a douche bag. If a woman wants to go out in public in yoga pants, that's her right. The government has no place getting involved. If people are bothered by it, they don't have to look. She'll reap the rewards and punishments from society on her own. Let individuals assess the moral quality of behaviors for their own selves, and live their lives accordingly.

What many are missing on this whole issue, especially the far left drones, that the law as written "could" be interrupted that way. However it would be up to law enforcement to use their own discretion.

That little key word is "could"..

As far as the senators comments on the subject, he is entitled to his opinion. However it looks as if his opinion is not the law..

Something the far left can not separate.

 

[SwimExpert]

Right. You have the right to change what you don't like about America, but everyone else has to leave?

What am I trying to change?

You're just now getting around to responding to that?

Nobody needs to go to Europe just because they believe Europeans do some things better.

But you do have to go to Europe if you want to experience European culture. The point I was trying to make is that social standards can differ across cultures, and that as a result public behavior carries with it different value in those different settings. Public nudity at a European beach can be perfectly fine, but public nudity in an American grocery store would not be acceptable. The same act conveys two very different messages in different settings.

 

[SwimExpert]

That little key word is "could"..

How a law could be interpreted is extremely important in evaluating its quality. A free people should always be diligent to protect themselves against unintended consequences of legislation and acts of government.

 

[Kosh]

That little key word is "could"..

How a law could be interpreted is extremely important in evaluating its quality. A free people should always be diligent to protect themselves against unintended consequences of legislation and acts of government.

Yes, but what difference does it make?

Many of the laws that govern this land are vague and "could" be interpreted in ways not intended.

So are you saying all laws must be ridged and spelled out in detail?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Right. You have the right to change what you don't like about America, but everyone else has to leave?

What am I trying to change?

You're just now getting around to responding to that?

Nobody needs to go to Europe just because they believe Europeans do some things better.

But you do have to go to Europe if you want to experience European culture. The point I was trying to make is that social standards can differ across cultures, and that as a result public behavior carries with it different value in those different settings. Public nudity at a European beach can be perfectly fine, but public nudity in an American grocery store would not be acceptable. The same act conveys two very different messages in different settings.

Doesn't it strike you funny that on the entire planet no country is as prudish as America? In Europe there aren't naked people in grocery stores but on the beaches women are topless and kids are completely skyclad. And there are places where even the adults bare all. Europe has a very mature take on the human body and nudity on the beaches doesn't mean nudity on city streets. And it's not just Europe but also on Asia and Southeast Asia, India, Africa, etc. In fact the only prudish country seems to be America, also the only country established by Protestant Puritans. There's nothing wrong with the rest of the world, there's something wrong with us. Being so terrified of the human body has to be a mental illness.

 

[boilermaker55]

Try again.

Oops! Now you changed it from people looking like trash to people being (are) trash. The first is an evaluation of outward appearance, the second is a judgment on the intrinsic worthiness of people. I'm sure they are one and the same to you, but to the rest of us, the difference couldn't be greater.

That is probably the most intelligent post in this thread so far. This, I can work with....

If you go back to the beginning you will see that I have not changed anything. I've maintained that trashy is as trashy does. You are correct to note that what one projects is not necessarily equivalent to a person's "inner quality," if you will. But on the other hand, a person's outward behavior is typically a reflection of their inner character.

I think most people tend to consider a person's inner character as a static thing, and society as a whole certainly leans more in favor of that belief. Is it not normal for people to see past behavior as being a strong indicator of future behavior? If you know someone who has a history of excessive gambling and despite reforming their ways they have recently been made multiple requests of you to borrow petty amounts of money, would you not wonder if they've perhaps fallen off the wagon? Modern business practices have begun to focus much more heavily on an intrinsic view of employees and employment candidates, hence the surging popularity of the behavioral job interview and the nearly ubiquitous personality/talent assessments that more and more companies are using to pre-screen applicants and to evaluate their potential and qualifications for growth. In a more personal example, if a lover cheats on you, would you not lose trust in that person? Doesn't their behavior indicate something about the quality of their character? Isn't the act of losing trust a judgement about their intrinsic character; one based on their outward behavior, and including an expectation that said intrinsic character has a strong likelihood of re-creating similar future behavior?

I tend to take a somewhat different view in that I see intrinsic value to be much more flexible, and even malleable to a certain extent. A person can be dishonest and conniving one day, but a model of honesty the next day. A person's intrinsic value can change from day to day. If a person is a model of honest today, does that chance the fact that they were a dishonest person the day before? No, it does not. Neither assessment is wrong. Both are correct in their moment of time. In the long term, intrinsic value can also be assessed overall based on the behavioral trends. A person can be generally an honest person even though they've had times when they've been very dishonest. A person can be an overall kind and gentle person even if they've had times when they've been cruel and mean spirited.

We all have our demons, nobody is perfect. But that doesn't mean that a person is evil just because they've made some poor choices at some point. Speaking of choices, that's what it all comes down to at the end of the day. Whatever interior character a person has, all behavior is a decision. Your intrinsic qualities can influence your decisions, but they do not control them. You are always in control of your decisions. I believe that there is a chicken-and-egg reinforcement relationship between inner character and behavior. Good character influences you to make more good decisions. Bad character influences you to make more bad decisions. But we also have the ability to take conscious control and made decisions in spite of that influence. Start getting into the habit of making the kinds of better decisions that reflect a higher quality of character, and your inner character will grow to absorb those qualities.

So yes, intrinsic value is different than outward behavior. But the two have a very close relationship, and we as individuals have the ability to utilize that connection.

That was a lengthy, thoughtful response. Thank you. I'm elevating you in my mind as a poster of higher esteem and reconsidering my previous comments as having missed something.

The problem I see is asserting your opinion of how one dresses as indicative of their overall character. I know for a fact that the fatter people are, the harder it is to look good. And expensive. Walmart may be filled with these people but they don't cater to them in the clothing department; their merchandise no bigger than 3X. And you can't walk out of Destination XL without parting with a few hundred dollars. Finding things that fit can be a challenge. Now the debate over how much control they have over their obesity aside, I'm suggesting they don't have as much choice as you think.

And when it comes to character, I think it's better evaluated by what people do rather than how they appear. I know a woman tattooed head to toe that would give you her last morsel of food if you were hungry. Appearances don't tell the whole story.

But my biggest issue with this prude in Montana is pushing a law that targets clothes that reveal the outline of genitals, furthering the myth that the human body is obscene, shameful, and something to be hidden at all times. It's also a repugnant "Family Values" agenda that has government intruding on things I think should be none of its business. Unless people are posing a health hazard by going naked and leaving pubic hair and fecal smears all over, I don't think government has a compelling interest in telling people how to dress.

I don't think attractiveness is really the issue so much. You don't have to look great to have class. You just need to be presentable and show that you have some basic self respect. My sister is one of the references that I always look to. She's been overweight pretty much her entire life. But she carries herself well. She makes the effort to present a good image of herself. Things like that do go well beyond clothing. But the decision to make the effort goes along way too. On Monday I start a new job. I'll be going in in a clean charcoal suit, pressed shirt, actually have a new tie I'll be wearing. Actually, the tie isn't necessary as they've already told me that the dress code is business casual and that ties are not required. But I do this in order to present the best image of myself as I can. For the second day, I plan for a navy blazer with gray slacks, and probably will not be donning a tie again without a specific need, so that I won't create the impression that I hold myself separate from the rest of the group. My presentation is a decision I make. Adults are expected to understand that our behaviors have consequences and that how we choose to present ourselves will create perceptions by those around us.

I agree that this guy in Montana is being a douche bag. If a woman wants to go out in public in yoga pants, that's her right. The government has no place getting involved. If people are bothered by it, they don't have to look. She'll reap the rewards and punishments from society on her own. Let individuals assess the moral quality of behaviors for their own selves, and live their lives accordingly.

What many are missing on this whole issue, especially the far left drones, that the law as written "could" be interrupted that way. However it would be up to law enforcement to use their own discretion.

That little key word is "could"..

As far as the senators comments on the subject, he is entitled to his opinion. However it looks as if his opinion is not the law..

Something the far left can not separate.

 

[SwimExpert]

Yes, but what difference does it make?

Many of the laws that govern this land are vague and "could" be interpreted in ways not intended.

So are you saying all laws must be ridged and spelled out in detail?

Vague laws have created many problems in times past. They have afforded great power to police and the government that was not mean to be. Sometimes the law is subsequently changed. But often times, there will be no amendment to the law and the end result will be more government power over the people and less freedom. In some of the worst cases, overly vague laws are knocked down by the courts as being so vague they are found to violate the constitution's due process clause.

I believe that laws should avoid vagueness as much as possible, and that the people should be inherently skeptical and opposed to vague laws. The purpose and intent of a law should be clear and the results if its enforcement should be easily predictable so that well intended law abiding citizens do not have to second guess their actions and can enjoy every ounce of their freedom without having to withhold themselves simply because the legal consequences cannot be predicted. And it is important to craft legislation so as to minimize the potential for a hot head cop or an over zealous AG to turn a law into a weapon of tyranny.

 

[JWBooth]

Missoula lawmaker Yoga pants Speedos should be illegal in public Politics

A Montana lawmaker is seeking to strengthen the state’s indecent exposure law, stopping just short of his wish to outlaw yoga pants.

Rep. David Moore on Tuesday introduced House Bill 365 in the House Judiciary Committee in response to a group of naked bicyclists who rolled through Missoula in August.

The proposal would expand indecent exposure law to include any nipple exposure, including men’s, and any garment that “gives the appearance or simulates” a person’s buttocks, genitals, pelvic area or female nipple.

The Republican from Missoula said tight-fitting beige clothing could be considered indecent exposure under his proposal.

“Yoga pants should be illegal in public anyway,” Moore said after the hearing.

Moore said he wouldn’t have a problem with people being arrested for wearing provocative clothing but that he’d trust law enforcement officials to use their discretion. He couldn’t be sure whether police would act on that provision or if Montana residents would challenge it.

Now, who is this unbelievable studmuffin of a legislator?

State Rep. Daivid Moore (R- Missoula)

Dude may have a point, if maybe this is what he had in mind:

 

[Old Rocks]

Can they pray to the Lord in pants like that?

Maybe not, but I can, and guess what the request is LOL.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Missoula lawmaker Yoga pants Speedos should be illegal in public Politics

A Montana lawmaker is seeking to strengthen the state’s indecent exposure law, stopping just short of his wish to outlaw yoga pants.

Rep. David Moore on Tuesday introduced House Bill 365 in the House Judiciary Committee in response to a group of naked bicyclists who rolled through Missoula in August.

The proposal would expand indecent exposure law to include any nipple exposure, including men’s, and any garment that “gives the appearance or simulates” a person’s buttocks, genitals, pelvic area or female nipple.

The Republican from Missoula said tight-fitting beige clothing could be considered indecent exposure under his proposal.

“Yoga pants should be illegal in public anyway,” Moore said after the hearing.

Moore said he wouldn’t have a problem with people being arrested for wearing provocative clothing but that he’d trust law enforcement officials to use their discretion. He couldn’t be sure whether police would act on that provision or if Montana residents would challenge it.

Now, who is this unbelievable studmuffin of a legislator?

State Rep. Daivid Moore (R- Missoula)

Dude may have a point, if maybe this is what he had in mind:

Oy, Gewalt!

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Kosh]

Yes, but what difference does it make?

Many of the laws that govern this land are vague and "could" be interpreted in ways not intended.

So are you saying all laws must be ridged and spelled out in detail?

Vague laws have created many problems in times past. They have afforded great power to police and the government that was not mean to be. Sometimes the law is subsequently changed. But often times, there will be no amendment to the law and the end result will be more government power over the people and less freedom. In some of the worst cases, overly vague laws are knocked down by the courts as being so vague they are found to violate the constitution's due process clause.

I believe that laws should avoid vagueness as much as possible, and that the people should be inherently skeptical and opposed to vague laws. The purpose and intent of a law should be clear and the results if its enforcement should be easily predictable so that well intended law abiding citizens do not have to second guess their actions and can enjoy every ounce of their freedom without having to withhold themselves simply because the legal consequences cannot be predicted. And it is important to craft legislation so as to minimize the potential for a hot head cop or an over zealous AG to turn a law into a weapon of tyranny.

Well that is not going to happen anytime as they need those vague laws to raise money and for the far left to enslave their groups to vote for them. At some point people have to rely on personal responsibility and pin all their hopes on a government that could care less about the masses.

If everything must be dictated in such a way to where there are no grey areas then we might as well become a socialist government with a full on dictator. Is that what you really want?

 

[SwimExpert]

Is that what you really want?

Why in the world would you think that I want that?