Another court decision...

[Outis]

But they cover the same areas.

It's the intent of the wearer. If the wearer intends to display her (or his) body, that's their business ... within certain limits that vary state to state. The photographer took that decision away from his victims.

(I'm playing devil's advocate here... I think the guy is a slime ball who would have eaten that cell phone)

I assumed so, but thank you for the clarification.

[Sparko]

No, Sparko. The reference to "government" is another way of saying "providence"--God's purported governance of the earth, and of the circumstances of life.

I despise arguments based on ambiguity. They are irritating under the best of circumstances.

[Outis]

Be as stupid as you wish, Sparko. When you wish to discuss real issues instead of your idiocy, let me know.

[Sparko]

Be as stupid as you wish, Sparko. When you wish to discuss real issues instead of your idiocy, let me know.

well I was being facetious to begin with Outis.

But the "government" referred to is the actual government because they believed that God gave them the authority to rule.

[Outis]

well I was being facetious to begin with Outis.

Did you not see earlier where I noted that I can't tell the difference? Or do you just not give a damn about other people so long as you have your fun?

[Sparko]

Did you not see earlier where I noted that I can't tell the difference? Or do you just not give a damn about other people so long as you have your fun?

actually no I didn't see that. sorry to spit in your oatmeal. sheesh.

[Teallaura]

Um, you're both mistaken. From the context it's referring to God's governance (the way God governs) not to a specific type of government or administration. It clearly does not refer to providence - that means God's provision whereas government refers to authority.

Sparky's argument can be made for the time period (since government was, as per the Roman's citation, viewed as being ordained by God any given government must necessarily be His - might well have been the law's intent, actually). In modern law, probably not. Since he's being sarcastic, I doubt it matters...

Seriously, Out, you gotta learn to tell the difference between serious and sarcastic. You're missing out on a lot of fun - and tilting at a lot of windmills - by assuming serious all the time.

[rogue06]

I like this law they have on the books...

Section 36. Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.

IIRC Massachusetts requires that all men carry a rifle to church on Sunday (I guess they don't trust the wimmenfolk to do so) and that you must take a bath before going to bed (whereas in Boston you need a prescription to take more than one bath per week).

[Teallaura]

You shoot ONE guy for being annoying...

[rogue06]

Amen.



We REALLY need 'amens' back....

Amen

[Jedidiah]

Amen.



We REALLY need 'amens' back....

Amen.

[KingsGambit]

Massachusetts already passed a new law: http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/06/us/mas...ban/index.html

[Bill the Cat]

Massachusetts already passed a new law: http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/06/us/mas...ban/index.html

And the governor signed it today. Makes it a crime punishable by up to 2 years in prison.

[KingsGambit]

A man has become the first person charged under the law. His defense was that he heard on the radio a few months ago that it was now legal to do this.

http://fox4kc.com/2014/06/26/boston-...ng-upskirting/