NationStates Jolt Archive

How does the fact that she's topless make him any more of an asshole than a man who aproaches any other woman and starts talking to her?

Before we even ask that question:
How does the fact that he approached her and started talking make him an asshole?

Everyone is missing one important fact.

sure she asked him to whip it out... but the point is he was LISTENING to her... a topless woman and he was paying attention to the conversation and not "Miles away" as most men would be!

that's proof right there that he isn't a pervert! :D

Yes, because they are human beings gifted with a brain, and possibly even critical thinking skills.

You really should go read Kohlberg's work on morals and ethics sometime. The law isn't and shouldn't be the absolute guide of everything in the universe. A good law has to be obeyed and withheld because it is good and benefits or protects everyone in a fair manner. A bad or stupid law has to be ignored and/or changed because simply being the law does not make the be-all end-all in matters of what we do.
Pity there isn't some kind of machine that can distinguish good laws from bad for us.

Police officers with those brains and critical thinking skills of which I spoke ought to spend their time on meaningful operations to serve and protect the ordinary citizen. Not mindlessly and stupidly obeying the letter of retarded laws. This holds not just for the present case, but also for all instances in which this might be relevant.

A wise police chief/captain will use his brains in order to achieve maximum efficiency in doing his duty to protect the citizens. And that goes through good prioritization, and good usage of the limited resources he has to contend with.


Spending time trying to bait people into doing something illegal yet harmless in nature is retarded, no matter what activity we're talking about.

The police exist to enforce the law. Not to decide which laws are good and which are bad. That's what a judiciary is for.

The part I don't understand is why not being allowed to whip out one's so-called 'wii' in a public park is a bad thing.your cat is not allowed at the neighbor's yard.(I know, you dont have cat or maybe you do, I dont care)

scenario: He thinks he sees your cat at his yard taking his shit, he calls the animal control city number.

They send the 800$/hour hi-tech surveillance team to stalk you for a few days, while they are stalking you they figure you are downloading some MP3s + gay porn, so they arrest you; You tell that you would never show your wii unless a naked woman asks first, and it was not your cat anyways.. and that it has nothing to do with their excuse for their retarded police operation anyways.

They dismiss your questions and explain you that you broke the law anyways, and release you after you pay a 250$ fine.

Before we even ask that question:
How does the fact that he approached her and started talking make him an asshole?ask that to Neo_Art, he is tho one calling men (who would talk to a topless woman) assholes.
Well, the one question I have is...what kind of asshole walks up to a topless woman sunbathing whom he doesn't know and starts talking?

The_pantless_hero, waaaay back in the thread, you said this:<snip>And save your time Neo Art, I am not reading your pompous crap, sorry, I can't even see it.

I don't know whether that meant you had put Neo Art on Ignore, but whether you had or hadn't, it's flamebait.

Later on you said this ...

... and Neo Art is being an ass about it because people arn't taking his word as gospel and are presenting an actual counter argument.

and this ...

Maybe Neo Art is expressing his opinion that it is improper to go topless in public.

Which, if he's not on Ignore, is unremarkable. But, if he is on Ignore, note this:

When you put someone on Ignore, they cease to exist for you. You don't see their posts; you don't reply to quotes from them that other posters use; you don't hark back to earlier disagreements you had with them. They've gone from your life. If they were a blister on your behind, you can now put your pants back on.

If you haven't put Neo-Art on Ignore, then note this:

You really shouldn't feed him. All those sugary and fatty foods go straight to his already overinflated ego.
and this ...

... unless Neo Art has some unique information about this specific incident that he would like to share with the rest of the class, he can take his elitist attitude and blow it out his ass.

Those earlier posts are flamebait, too. Which brings me to this:

Warned for flamebaiting. Please clear up whether you have Neo Art on Ignore. And if you do, don't gloat about it, don't flame while you say it, just do it.

When you put someone on Ignore, they cease to exist for you. You don't see their posts; you don't reply to quotes from them that other posters use; you don't hark back to earlier disagreements you had with them. They've gone from your life. If they were a blister on your behind, you can now put your pants back on.
Which would be a bit difficult to do when said person is supposedly the expert on the subject and everyone is referencing them in the topic. Ignoring people does not make them magically disappear, though it is easy to pretend they do, that is not the case in such situations as has arisen here.

Pity there isn't some kind of machine that can distinguish good laws from bad for us.

Actually, it's what brains and critical thinking is for. Don't need a machine for it, unless you're stuck in stage 4 of Kolhberg's moral scale, and see the law as the be-all end-all of everything in existence.


The police exist to enforce the law. Not to decide which laws are good and which are bad. That's what a judiciary is for.
The police exists to serve and protect, last time I heard. Or so it does in Canada, maybe you do things differently where you live, I don't want to be presumptuous.

I never even once alluded, directly or indirectly, that the police should decide which laws are good and which are bad, and make or unmake laws. What I did say, and what I'll keep saying, is that the human beings who also happen to be the police officers in charge of deciding where they allocate police resources should use their brains a bit, and serve and protect instead of picking a silly law and purposefully laying traps in order to entice people in breaking the law just so they could give them trouble for it.

If you disagree with that, be my guest, but you'll see your tax account rising fast and your prisons get full over stupid harmless legal technicalities. If you enjoy living in a police state, I've got no say in this. But personally, I'm of a mind that the police forces are there to protect the innocent, not lay out traps and find reasons to punish those guilty of technically illegal but otherwise harmless offenses.

If you disagree with that, be my guest, but you'll see your tax account rising fast and your prisons get full over stupid harmless legal technicalities.
That statement is a few years too late.

Which would be a bit difficult to do when said person is supposedly the expert on the subject and everyone is referencing them in the topic. Ignoring people does not make them magically disappear, though it is easy to pretend they do, that is not the case in such situations as has arisen here.


Trying again, TPH:

1. Do you have Neo_Art on Ignore?

2. If yes, tough cheddar. You DO have to pretend he doesn't exist. For you, he HAS magically disappeared. If he's quoted in a post you quote, edit him out. If someone is commenting on a point he's made, you comment on their comment, ignoring Neo_Art's point.

3. Or you could, you know, just decide that you can cope with replying directly to him in a civilised and polite manner without any flamebait or snarkiness.

4. If you are unable to do either of these, then you'll end up subject to whatever mod action seems appropriate.

The criteria for entrapment have been laid out, we know that the judge informs the jury of the definition of the law and of entrapment. The OP clearly doesn't fit the definiton. For me, that's a full stop.

The OP clearly doesn't fit the definiton. For me, that's a full stop.
I fail to see where that has been clearly proven.

Well, the one question I have is...what kind of asshole walks up to a topless woman sunbathing whom he doesn't know and starts talking?

I guess I'm that kind of asshole - of course I also wouldn't whip my dick out just 'cause she asked to see it either :rolleyes:

And the moral of the story is:

Don't break the law.

Exactly, also, if you do break the law, don't whine about it being unfair if you get arrested.

Which would be a bit difficult to do when said person is supposedly the expert on the subject and everyone is referencing them in the topic. Ignoring people does not make them magically disappear, though it is easy to pretend they do, that is not the case in such situations as has arisen here.

You could just say "He irritates the crap out of me and I put him on ignore" then people wouldn't expect you to respond to him

For your information, I find it equally stupid to have good looking female officers patrolling the streets, trying to get prostitute clients arrested. Baiting people, no matter that it is entrapment or not, is something I find retarded.

Up until here I was agreeing with you. The police are trying to find people who violate the law and arrest them. So the goal is a test which will produce neither false positives (people who wouldn't have broken the law absent this situation) nor false negatives ("No, I won't buy drugs from you, you're a DEA agent. I see through your little ploy.") I think asking people in the park to expose themselves in a flirtatious manner will produce false positives, while standing in the red-light district and acting like a hooker, or a drug dealer will only get people, or mostly get people, who are anyway looking to do something illegal.

this thread doesn't live up to it's promises. :(

agreed

Up until here I was agreeing with you. The police are trying to find people who violate the law and arrest them. So the goal is a test which will produce neither false positives (people who wouldn't have broken the law absent this situation) nor false negatives ("No, I won't buy drugs from you, you're a DEA agent. I see through your little ploy.") I think asking people in the park to expose themselves in a flirtatious manner will produce false positives, while standing in the red-light district and acting like a hooker, or a drug dealer will only get people, or mostly get people, who are anyway looking to do something illegal.
Exactly. They arn't going to catch the people they are aiming to catch - people who masturbate and have sex in the park - by setting up half-naked bait to engage people. Like I said, if you want to catch those people for real, you set up a motion-activated camera. Or you can just set up a camera and watch it all day. Or you can do the former and try and establish and pattern then move to the latter. You know, real police work.

*Turns on air conditioner* Chiiiill.

Entrapment. Not a good thing.

Exactly. They arn't going to catch the people they are aiming to catch - people who masturbate and have sex in the park - by setting up half-naked bait to engage people.

Here's the thing though, as I wonder. The crime is not "masturbating in public" the crime is showing your genitals in public. Now, while those who masturbate in public are among those who would show her genitals in public, they're not the only ones.

So I don't think this was set up merely to catch those masturbating in public, but those who show genitals in public, in general. Which can include public masturbators, drunken urinators, those who have sex in public, and dumbasses who drop their pants because someone asks them to.

this thread doesn't live up to it's promises. :(

Tits or gtfo, you know the drill.

Exactly. They arn't going to catch the people they are aiming to catch - people who masturbate and have sex in the park - by setting up half-naked bait to engage people. Like I said, if you want to catch those people for real, you set up a motion-activated camera. Or you can just set up a camera and watch it all day. Or you can do the former and try and establish and pattern then move to the latter. You know, real police work.seconded.

seconded.

I've been saying that for about 5 pages.

I've been saying that for about 5 pages.
...

Seconds Skaladora as well for suggesting the use of motion activated cameras Instead of baiting men with tities and touching them with feet.

this is clearly an example of habeus corpus abuse of res ipsa loquitor and I move for an immediate writ of mens rea!

The woman was on her period? How do you know that?

Clearly the main part of the game sees I'm subscribing to this thread, as the first two issues I got today were:

# Police Consider "Big Brother" Anti-Crime System [legislation pending]
# Nudists Demand Time In Sun [legislation pending]

I fail to see where that has been clearly proven.

How does the plant make it any easier for the mark to break the law? Just because she asks him to? That's ridiculous.

Entrapment, as has been posted in this thread numerous times, involves creating a situation where someone who would normally not get the idea to break the law is given the idea via irresistable enticement. "Show me your cock" is completely resistable, regardless of the presence of bare breasts.

The woman was on her period? How do you know that?

They just don't trust anything that bleeds for five days and doesn't die. :p

Entrapment, as has been posted in this thread numerous times, involves creating a situation where someone who would normally not get the idea to break the law is given the idea via irresistable enticement. "Show me your cock" is completely resistable, regardless of the presence of bare breasts.

As I posted before, I have come to the conclusion that those who believe this is entrapment, rather than misunderstanding what entrapment is, instead believe that a bare chested women who smiles sweetly, talks nicely, and pats their leg with her foot really is an irresistable force.

Somewhat sad, really.

As I posted before, I have come to the conclusion that those who believe this is entrapment, rather than misunderstanding what entrapment is, instead believe that a bare chested women who smiles sweetly, talks nicely, and pats their leg with her foot really is an irresistable force.

Somewhat sad, really.

As sad, if not sadder, than the Shariya-humping Islamofascists who stone women daring to expose an ankle, intentional or not. How any hetero man comes to the conclusion that a woman is responsible for their own lack of control is beyond me.

As I posted before, I have come to the conclusion that those who believe this is entrapment, rather than misunderstanding what entrapment is, instead believe that a bare chested women who smiles sweetly, talks nicely, and pats their leg with her foot really is an irresistable force.

Somewhat sad, really.

I find it very telling that they claim that "80+ percent" of men couldn't resist a woman requesting to see their penis in a public park.

I am, however, curious how they got to the point of this woman asking him to expose himself? I'd love to see a transcript of the trial.

Ok, I (sort of) get why it’s, legally speaking, not entrapment. But still...

Isn’t entrapment, generally speaking, about the police trying to trick you into doing something illegal (buying stolen goods, paying for sex and so on) that you would not normally have done? If so, how can this not be entrapment? Would he have taken the family jewels out if she hadn’t asked him? Most likely not. So, in this case, there is only a crime because she tricked him into it. How is that not entrapment...?

Yes, he should have known better, but that defense can be used against any case of entrapment. He should have known better when offered a brand new TV for just $50. He should have known better when a hot blond offered him sex for $10. He should have known better when a sweet (almost) nude woman asked to see his “tool”...
If so, then you can never have entrapment of any kind. The “victim” should always have known better...

* Scratches head *

I’m confused...

Ok, I (sort of) get why it’s, legally speaking, not entrapment. But still...

Isn’t entrapment, generally speaking, about the police trying to trick you into doing something illegal (buying stolen goods, paying for sex and so on) that you would not normally have done? If so, how can this not be entrapment? Would he have taken the family jewels out if she hadn’t asked him? Most likely not. So, in this case, there is only a crime because she tricked him into it. How is that not entrapment...?

Yes, he should have known better, but that defense can be used against any case of entrapment. He should have known better when offered a brand new TV for just $50. He should have known better when a hot blond offered him sex for $10. He should have known better when a sweet (almost) nude woman asked to see his “tool”...
If so, then you can never have entrapment of any kind. The “victim” should always have known better...

* Scratches head *

I’m confused...

The point that's been made repeatedly is that in order to be entrapment they have to do more than just give you the opportunity to commit the crime. Here all she did was ask, essentially, gave him the opportunity.

In order to be entrapment, it has to be a level of coersion that meks it possible that a prefectly reasonable, normally law-abiding person would be enticed to break the law.

Don't they have anything better to do? She asked him to show it, and he complied. No one was harmed. Shouldn't the police be out trying to catch people who are actually dangerous?

For the record, I think public nudity should be legal.

The point that's been made repeatedly is that in order to be entrapment they have to do more than just give you the opportunity to commit the crime. Here all she did was ask, essentially, gave him the opportunity.

In order to be entrapment, it has to be a level of coersion that meks it possible that a prefectly reasonable, normally law-abiding person would be enticed to break the law.

I must admit that I’m having a hard time believing that there wasn’t some kind of coercion involved...

I mean, did it just go:

“Hey, why don’t you show me how big you are?”
“Ok.”

Somehow, that doesn’t make sense to me. If a stranger asked me such a question, I would most likely go: “You want to see WHAT? Here? Now? You gotta be nutz!” It would take a lot of talking and prodding to get me to drop my pants like that.

I guess that it’s not entirely inconceivable that he really just did drop his pants. In which case he deserved what he got. But I’m still not convinced...

How does the plant make it any easier for the mark to break the law? Just because she asks him to? That's ridiculous.
I've already explained this, but I will go through it again for you.

For starters, they are using a topless woman. Of course that sounds nice and harmless, especially if you arn't from America. But regardless of the law, breasts are sexual objects in America and using a topless woman as bait already gives, at least, the subconscious suggestion that the nudity is ok, for when she asks him to expose himself. Of course, without a mic, we don't know what was said, but whatever it was it took several minutes. I'm pretty sure a good deal of that time was her talking about how nice it is to be naked and free and repeated references to him and his penis. You don't just ask "hey, can I see your penis?" out of nowhere, nobody is going to fucking fall for that. Unless the woman was completely naked, then maybe. But if a topless woman walks up to anyone, or anyone walks up them, and she asks "can I see your wang?" no one is going to fucking do it because it is too absurd. Therefore, during that several minute chat, there had to be repeated references to the person exposing themselves and how it would be ok (probably referencing her own state of nudity). Then from what we could see, she is touching him. Not in a platonic manner, not even in a suggestive way with her hands. She was putting her feet on him. Do you go around putting your bare feet on strangers? Does anyone? No. Bare feet are used sensual instruments, so to say, and her touching him with them was further suggesting and cajoling.

Entrapment, as has been posted in this thread numerous times, involves creating a situation where someone who would normally not get the idea to break the law is given the idea via irresistable enticement. "Show me your cock" is completely resistable, regardless of the presence of bare breasts.
I demand you now prove these people would have walked into the park and exposed themselves to anyone, masturbated, or had sex with anyone before this incident. They were not trapping those people. They were trapping ordinary people walking by. The statement is perfectly resistible, but that isn't what happened. She spent several minutes convincing him that it would be ok if he exposed himself, and therefore he finally did. That's entrapment.

I've already explained this, but I will go through it again for you.

For starters, they are using a topless woman. Of course that sounds nice and harmless, especially if you arn't from America. But regardless of the law, breasts are sexual objects in America and using a topless woman as bait already gives, at least, the subconscious suggestion that the nudity is ok, for when she asks him to expose himself. Of course, without a mic, we don't know what was said, but whatever it was it took several minutes. I'm pretty sure a good deal of that time was her talking about how nice it is to be naked and free and repeated references to him and his penis. You don't just ask "hey, can I see your penis?" out of nowhere, nobody is going to fucking fall for that. Unless the woman was completely naked, then maybe. But if a topless woman walks up to anyone, or anyone walks up them, and she asks "can I see your wang?" no one is going to fucking do it because it is too absurd. Therefore, during that several minute chat, there had to be repeated references to the person exposing themselves and how it would be ok (probably referencing her own state of nudity). Then from what we could see, she is touching him. Not in a platonic manner, not even in a suggestive way with her hands. She was putting her feet on him. Do you go around putting your bare feet on strangers? Does anyone? No. Bare feet are used sensual instruments, so to say, and her touching him with them was further suggesting and cajoling.


I demand you now prove these people would have walked into the park and exposed themselves to anyone, masturbated, or had sex with anyone before this incident. They were not trapping those people. They were trapping ordinary people walking by. The statement is perfectly resistible, but that isn't what happened. She spent several minutes convincing him that it would be ok if he exposed himself, and therefore he finally did. That's entrapment.

Actually, the burden of proof is on you. Demonstrate there were repeated reference and that you aren't just pulling out bs from the regularly mentioned dark and smelly place. Obviously his lawyer couldn't demonstrate such repeated mentions and cajoling since that would have made a claim of entrapment stick. The evidence we have doesn't support entrapment, so now you're making up evidence about what was said. Prove such evidence exists or quit lying.

You've got to demonstrate that she spent several minutes convincing him that exposing himself would be ok. I used to live in Miami. I never went to the beach, saw topless women (which is actually illegal there) and suddenly thought it would be okay to pull down my pants. In Columbus, it's more unusual, but not illegal. She wasn't brreaking the law, and her toplessness doesn't induce him to break the law, unless he's not aware of the law, which, of course, is not an excuse for breaking it.

It's quite sad that your belief is that men are so incapable of self-control that the mere presence of a sexual woman is reason for them to start doing things that are illegal in every state and territory in the US, which is to expose male parts.

that meks it possible that a perfectly reasonable, normally law-abiding person would be enticed to break the law.A good looking woman shows me her tits, flirts for a while, rubs me with her foot then ask me to show her my wii, YES its perfectly reasonable to look around, see no1 is looking under the tree and show her my wii for a couple of seconds.. why? because I want to :fluffle: do her thats why.

YES its reasonable for a healthy man with normal levels of testosterone/potency...

I never went to the beach, saw topless women (which is actually illegal there) and suddenly thought it would be okay to pull down my pants.
How many talked to you and touched you for several minutes?

She wasn't brreaking the law, and her toplessness doesn't induce him to break the law
Why reply to that when I addressed it as my first two damn sentences of the paragraph in the post you quoted.

A good looking woman shows me her tits, flirts for a while, rubs me with her foot then ask me to show her my wii, YES its perfectly reasonable to look around, see no1 is looking under the tree and show her my wii for a couple of seconds.. why? because I want to :fluffle: do her thats why.

YES its reasonable for a healthy man with normal levels of testosterone/potency...

Seriously sad, that is. A good-looking woman shows me her tits and rubs me with her foot then asks me to show my "wii', my reply is, sure, let's go somewhere more private. why? because I want to :fluffle: do her thats why.

Without the mocking of your post, though, it's worse, because if some woman I've known for a couple of minutes is being so forward about sex (and I would think the same thing if I was into men and man said such a thing), I would assume they get around a bit more than I'd be comfortable with. Not so surprisingly, lots of men, the reasonable sort, don't have sex with everyone who offers, and particularly aren't enticed into breaking the law by the slightest modicum of suggestion that it's a possibility.

I'm quite glad that it hasn't become a matter of law, that a topless and flirtatious woman hasn't become considered an irresistable force suggesting lawbreaking. I hope it never becomes such a thing.

Naked woman: *flirt* *flirt*
Man: Yes, your highness. What do you command?

How many talked to you and touched you for several minutes?

Actually, a fair number did. Actually, at the beach touching with feet is pretty common because you're often leaning back to get a tan. None of them could have made me pull down my pants. Being an adult means taking responsiblity for your actions.


Why reply to that when I addressed it as my first two damn sentences of the paragraph in the post you quoted.

Because you addressed it inadequately in the first two "damn" sentences. She was not breaking the law. Her legal nudity is not a subconscious enticement to break the law, regardless of your rather ridiculous claiim. There is nowhere in the US where a man can show his penis in public. There are tons of places where women can show their breasts and for plenty of reasons. That you would associate naked breasts with lawbreaking automatically and subconsciously is a matter for you to deal with, with a therapist, because it, in this case and many cases, is not illegal.

Naked woman: *flirt* *flirt*
Man: Yes...it was more like this:
Naked woman: *flirt* *flirt*
Naked woman: foot rubing
Naked woman: how big it is?
Naked woman: show me for half a second.
##: Yes !!!YES indeed. :D

YES indeed. :D

A - you're required to make it clear if you alter my posts that you altered it. Do so in the future.

B - Your "normal healthy male" is incompetent and should not be allowed out in public. I'm sorry your view of men and particularly yourself makes you think such things are normal, but your average "normal healthy male" can quite honestly keep it in his pants. Your argument smacks of the ol' "did you see how she was dressed and she was flirting with me blah blah blah" rape defenses of the past, that once we get to a certain point we can no longer control ourselves. It's not true. It's never been true.

And if you have that much trouble controlling yourself around naked breasts you probably, and I'm quite serious, should consider scheduling a visit with a psychologist.

I'm quite glad that it hasn't become a matter of law, that a topless and flirtatious woman hasn't become considered an irresistable force suggesting lawbreaking. I hope it never becomes such a thing.I dont give a shit about all that legalese (lawyer) talk..

either the Police is retarded or
The Law is retarded.

This bullshit Police operation is wrong.

A - you're required to make it clear if you alter my posts that you altered it. Do so in the future.LOL this coming from you.

You really have a short memory dont you?
I asked moderation to clarify the rules -when you were happily editing my Quotes using the ()- and Kat said it was Kosher (gave you a pass).

and now you are complaining?

Not so surprisingly, lots of men, the reasonable sort, don't have sex with everyone who offers

Also not surprisingly, lots of men(including the otherwise reasonable sort) would have sex with anybody who offers.

LOL this coming from you.

You really have a short memory dont you?
I asked moderation to clarify the rules -when you were happily editing my Quotes using the ()- and Kat said it was Kosher (gave you a pass).

and now you are complaining?

And the rules were that if one is to change your post they must simply make it clear they did so. Shall I link to it? My memory is not as short as yours it appears. But now I see you've gone back and edited your post. Apparently your memory is improving and you've admitted I was right to correct you.

Also not surprisingly, lots of men(including the otherwise reasonable sort) would have sex with anybody who offers.

If you don't break the law, you're free to be unreasonable in that way, but I don't accept the claim that it's reasonable to have sex with whatever woman asks.

I dont give a shit about all that legalese (lawyer) talk..

either the Police is retarded or
The Law is retarded.

This bullshit Police operation is wrong.

Oh, it was a complete waste of resources. I would agree with that. It is not entrapment, however, and this man broke the law knowing full well he was breaking the law.

And the rules were that if one is to change your post they must simply make it clear they did so. Shall I link to it? Yes..

Bring it on. (microwaves some pop corn) :D

I cant wait, this is going to be fun.

Yes, Yes DO link to Katghanistan Ruling when you were editing my Quotes with the ()

I cant wait, this is going to be fun.

Why? You've already admitted I'm right by editing your post to make it clear that you'd changed what I said. It was all I asked you to do since that is what is required.

Sorry? It is unreasonable to have sex with what ever woman asks? On what grounds do you find that unreasonable? I mean in this context (public display) yes I can see that, but sex between two consenting adults is unreasonable with any woman that asks?

Um, yes, I'd say it is. For one, it's a question of public health. Second, unless you're impotent, and since we're talking about the average male and haven't made any special exceptions, you're taking a risk that would create children, something that reasonably you should consider when considering sex. To not consider the consequences of sex, both to your health and to any children that might result is not reasonable.

And we're not talking about having sex with any woman that asks. We're talking about having sex with every woman that asks.

If you don't break the law, you're free to be unreasonable in that way, but I don't accept the claim that it's reasonable to have sex with whatever woman asks.

Sorry? It is unreasonable to have sex with what ever woman asks? On what grounds do you find that unreasonable? I mean in this context (public display) yes I can see that, but sex between two consenting adults is unreasonable with any woman that asks?

Why?because You offered to pull the link.. and maybe because you have normal levels of testosterone.. maybe.

either way, I am going to tone down my reply (post#301) to your "Shall I link to it?" because I believe she is a good mod, I dont want to disturb the balance of the force.. (sith sense speaking)

because You offered to pull the link.. and maybe because you have normal levels of testosterone.. maybe.

either way, I am going to tone down my reply to your "Shall I link to it?" because I believe she is a good mod, and she should not be embarrassed by me..

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10391468&postcount=149

As she says, it is required that you make it clear you've edited the post, something I did and you didn't until after I'd requested it. The reasons for doing so were outlined by Kat, because you absurdly complain everytime someone paraphrases you AND you absurdly complain ignore any attempts to point out your unsupported assertions, so I rationally pointed them directly in your post while telling everyone I'd added those comments. Your continued complaining just went on to show that you were more interested in avoiding the point than addressing it. You talked about everything but supporting your assertion, because you came on here to rant, not to make an argument. I was asking you to make an argument in a way that was abundantly clear to Kat and any reasonable person. That you are still complaining about it is, well, laughable.

Thank you for fixing it and tacitly admitting you were wrong. Hopefully, this bodes well for the future.

Um, yes, I'd say it is. For one, it's a question of public health. Second, unless you're impotent, and since we're talking about the average male and haven't made any special exceptions, you're taking a risk that would create children, something that reasonably you should consider when considering sex. To not consider the consequences of sex, both to your health and to any children that might result is not reasonable.

And we're not talking about having sex with any woman that asks. We're talking about having sex with every woman that asks.


Ahhh you are adding conditions now? So unprotected sex with every woman that asks is unreasonable?

What if you are a young man, with no kids, and never have unprotected sex, what then, is that still unreasonable?

Ohh and you did say whatever woman that asks, you now wish to change it to every woman that asks?

Ahhh you are adding conditions now? So unprotected sex with every woman that asks is unreasonable?

What if you are a young man, with no kids, and never have unprotected sex, what then, is that still unreasonable?

Ohh and you did say whatever woman that asks, you now wish to change it to every woman that asks?

Nope. Who said unprotected sex? Children and disease are a risk for all sexual contact even protected sexual contact. If your behavior is risky, and sex with everyone you can have sex with is absolutely risky behavior, using a condom will not stop you from being at risk.

And, no, whatever woman that asks means every woman. It doesn't mean that you would choose some and not others.

Not so surprisingly, lots of men, the reasonable sort, don't have sex with everyone who offers.

Let's remind you that I started this and I was always talking about "everyone".

Nope. Who said unprotected sex? Children and disease are a risk for all sexual contact even protected sexual contact. If your behavior is risky, and sex with everyone you can have sex with is absolutely risky behavior, using a condom will not stop you from being at risk.

And, no, whatever woman that asks means every woman. It doesn't mean that you would choose some and not others.

So you are basically saying that, nobody should have too many sexual partners? What is the magic number you are thinking about? When does the sexual partner count become unreasonable?

If as you say that all sex even protected sex may lead to disease then is abstinence the most reasonable response?

Lastly isn't it up to the individual to assess what are reasonable risks and what are not?

So you are basically saying that, nobody should have too many sexual partners? What is the magic number you are thinking about? When does the sexual partner count become unreasonable?

If as you say that all sex even protected sex may lead to disease then is abstinence the most reasonable response?

Lastly isn't it up to the individual to assess what are reasonable risks and what are not?

No, I'm saying that reasonably one should recognize that accepting every offer for sex creates a risky situation. There are a number of ways to mitigate such a situation.

And, no, it isn't. In this case, this person broke the law. Clearly, his ability to assess what is reasonable and what isn't was compromised. Reasonable, by definition, must be subject to reason, not simply opinion. I'm not saying he should be required by law to wait to have sex or to take certain precautions, but pretending like everything that is legal is reasonable is simply not factual.

No, I'm saying that reasonably one should recognize that accepting every offer for sex creates a risky situation. There are a number of ways to mitigate such a situation.

And, no, it isn't. In this case, this person broke the law. Clearly, his ability to assess what is reasonable and what isn't was compromised. Reasonable, by definition, must be subject to reason, not simply opinion. I'm not saying he should be required by law to wait to have sex or to take certain precautions, but pretending like everything that is legal is reasonable is simply not factual.

Ahhhh I can understand that, but it is sorta backtracking from your original statement. You said it is unreasonable for a man to have sex with every woman that asks.

Yet here you say that this man should realise that his actions carry certain risks, and that he perhaps should look into abstinence as a way to mitigate this risks.

In this case, the man broke a public indecency law, yes I agree he should have asked the woman to go home with him. However the point I'm after is that it is certainly not beyond the bounds to expect a normal, non law braking man to act in this manner.

Yeah I know you say that there are many(the reasonable ones) men that would not have been caught like this, and my counter is really, yep and there are many(just as reasonable) who would.

Sex is a powerful tool, why else does it 'sell'?

Ahhhh I can understand that, but it is sorta backtracking from your original statement. You said it is unreasonable for a man to have sex with every woman that asks.

Yet here you say that this man should realise that his actions carry certain risks, and that he perhaps should look into abstinence as a way to mitigate this risks.


Um, no, I never suggested abstinence. I said one should not have sex with every woman that asks. Not having sex with everyone you can is not quite abstinence. In fact, there is a huge spectrum of sexual activity between the two as they are opposite ends of the spectrum. Having sex with everyone you can on one end and having sex with no one. Abstinence is simply a strawman you brought up. I could literally be having sex as often as possible and be turning down new partners. Abstinence has no part in anything I said.


In this case, the man broke a public indecency law, yes I agree he should have asked the woman to go home with him. However the point I'm after is that it is certainly not beyond the bounds to expect a normal, non law braking man to act in this manner.

Yeah I know you say that there are many(the reasonable ones) men that would not have been caught like this, and my counter is really, yep and there are many(just as reasonable) who would.

Sex is a powerful tool, why else does it 'sell'?

No, breaking the law knowingly is not reasonable. Everywhere in the US, this was against the law. You cannot claim it is just as reasonable to pull your penis out in public as it is to not do so. It simply isn't true. There are no consequences for not pulling out your penis and obvious and clear consequences for pulling out your penis.

Do I particularly care? Nope. But this guy was speeding. He got caught. He then tried to weasel out of it. His actions defy reason. He was an adult who broke the law and got caught. I won't excuse his actions because some people think rational adults cannot control their actions.

No, breaking the law knowingly is not reasonable. going 57m/h on a 55m/h freeway @ 8h00 am.

is that unreasonable?

As I posted before, I have come to the conclusion that those who believe this is entrapment, rather than misunderstanding what entrapment is, instead believe that a bare chested women who smiles sweetly, talks nicely, and pats their leg with her foot really is an irresistable force.

I'm pretty sure this isn't entrapment.

I'm also fairly sure that "irresistible force" is not the standard... or, at least, that if it were, none of the examples you posted would work.

You cannot claim it is just as reasonable to pull your penis out in public .. Context is everything.
If a good looking, naked, flirty, feet rubbing, asks me show her hog big it is.. and after I see no-one is around.. showing the wii for 1/2 seconds... is not unreasonable.

Um, no, I never suggested abstinence. I said one should not have sex with every woman that asks. Not having sex with everyone you can is not quite abstinence. In fact, there is a huge spectrum of sexual activity between the two as they are opposite ends of the spectrum. Having sex with everyone you can on one end and having sex with no one. Abstinence is simply a strawman you brought up. I could literally be having sex as often as possible and be turning down new partners. Abstinence has no part in anything I said.



No strawman from me sorry. Perhaps I should have said some abstinence. I mean if I choose not to have sex with every woman that asks, I am abstaining from sex with some women, am I not?


No, breaking the law knowingly is not reasonable. Everywhere in the US, this was against the law. You cannot claim it is just as reasonable to pull your penis out in public as it is to not do so. It simply isn't true. There are no consequences for not pulling out your penis and obvious and clear consequences for pulling out your penis.


Ahh come now, we all brake the law, sometimes on porpuse should we all be punished? Let me get this straight though, I'm not defending the mans actions, rather I am not defending the entrapment, nor do I agree with this idea that every man can totally control thier sexual urges, which is what you seem to be saying.



Do I particularly care? Nope. But this guy was speeding. He got caught. He then tried to weasel out of it. His actions defy reason. He was an adult who broke the law and got caught. I won't excuse his actions because some people think rational adults cannot control their actions.

Would you though say that all rational adults can control all of their actions all of the time?

going 57m/h on a 55m/h freeway @ 8h00 am.
55 meters in hour? That's like 1.5 cm/second - I knew the traffic jams were bad but that's a new low! :D

Don't you mean km/h, mi/h or mph? :cool:

A good looking woman shows me her tits, flirts for a while, rubs me with her foot then ask me to show her my wii, YES its perfectly reasonable to look around, see no1 is looking under the tree and show her my wii for a couple of seconds.. why? because I want to :fluffle: do her thats why.

YES its reasonable for a healthy man with normal levels of testosterone/potency...

Reasonable? Maybe.

Legal? No.

And that's where the dude crossesd the line - he decided his 'reason' was above the law.

As for it being "reasonable for a healthy man with normal levels of testosterone/potency..." I don't buy it. Normal levels of potency and no brains? Maybe.

55 meters in hour? That's like 1.5 cm/second - I knew the traffic jams were bad but that's a new low! :D

Don't you mean km/h, mi/h or mph? :cool:old imperial system still used in the US.

in metric it should be:

going 102K/h on a 100K/h autobahn @ 8h00 am. (Yes I know Autobahns probably dont have any speed limit)

old imperial system still used in the US.

in metric it should be:

going 102K/h on a 100K/h autobahn @ 8h00 am. (Yes I know Autobahns probably dont have any speed limit)

The other poster was quiblling your notation for units.

m/h would be meters per hour. mph would be miles per hour.

old imperial system still used in the US.

in metric it should be:

going 102K/h on a 100K/h autobahn @ 8h00 am. (Yes I know Autobahns probably dont have any speed limit)
102K is -171.5 Celsius or -276 Fahrenheit.

What you're looking for is 102 km/h on a 100 km/h freeway.

m = meter
mi = mile
K = kelvin
km = kilometer

See, simple ;)

Context is everything.
If a good looking, naked, flirty, feet rubbing, asks me show her hog big it is.. and after I see no-one is around.. showing the wii for 1/2 seconds... is not unreasonable.If you'd have looked around though, you might have seen the cops taping you...

As for it being "reasonable for a healthy man with normal levels of testosterone/potency..." I don't buy it.Maybe we need to perform a scientific test..

I was told in late 2007 (Med tests athletics etc) that I am 100% healthy and all my hormone levels are normal.
Lets get the best looking NSG female to.. rub me at the right place.. and after a long flirt-hot conversation.. she asks me to show her.. lets see If I can resist her charm :cool:

what are the odds of me refusing to play along? :D

going 57m/h on a 55m/h freeway @ 8h00 am.

is that unreasonable?

I'd say no, but it's also unreasonable to suggest that if I were caught doing so that I should waste the courts time by lying about and claiming that I was coerced.

Given that consequences for public exposure can be much more severe. The penalty for a misdemeanor of the fourth degree (public indecency first offense in Ohio) is up to 30 days in jail. There is no danger of incarceration for simply speeding, so, no, they are not equivalent.

Now, we could debate the level of public endangerment, but it would require analyzing a LOT of specifics and a lot of opinion.

Context is everything.
If a good looking, naked, flirty, feet rubbing, asks me show her hog big it is.. and after I see no-one is around.. showing the wii for 1/2 seconds... is not unreasonable.

No, it is unreasonable. And that you would risk a jail term to show her proves that you're not applying reason.

As for it being "reasonable for a healthy man with normal levels of testosterone/potency..." I don't buy it. Normal levels of potency and no brains? Maybe.

sadly, it seems some on this board think they're on and the same. Somehow, they believe a "healthy man with normal levels of testosterone" is rendered totally able to control himself or think like a rational human being when confronted with the sight of naked breasts.

How sad and utterly weak willed....

If you'd have looked around though, you might have seen the cops taping you...I looked around and saw no-one.. If I did see some people passing, I would keep the conversation going, stall a bit, until they are away.

Maybe we need to perform a scientific test..

I was told in late 2007 (Med tests athletics etc) that I am 100% healthy and all my hormone levels are normal.
Lets get the best looking NSG female to.. rub me at the right place.. and after a long flirt-hot conversation.. she asks me to show her.. lets see If I can resist her charm :cool:

what are the odds of me refusing to play along? :D

truly sad.

truly sad.

What's sad is that there is so little understanding for the male: It might be indecent exposure but penalizing the act beyond 'No need for that here'-chat is beyond my comprehension.

This thread and the original news bit are, in my opinion, made of epic fail. :rolleyes:

No strawman from me sorry. Perhaps I should have said some abstinence. I mean if I choose not to have sex with every woman that asks, I am abstaining from sex with some women, am I not?

Now, who's changing the argument. You know what abstinence implies, and I'm not preaching it. I'm preaching reason. One cannot reasonably expect it is physically or socially safe to have sex with every woman who offers.

(By socially, I'm referring to the very real possibility that she has a husband, a boyfriend, a family, etc.)


Ahh come now, we all brake the law, sometimes on porpuse should we all be punished? Let me get this straight though, I'm not defending the mans actions, rather I am not defending the entrapment, nor do I agree with this idea that every man can totally control thier sexual urges, which is what you seem to be saying.

Every man can totally control whether they act on their sexual urges.



Would you though say that all rational adults can control all of their actions all of the time?

No. I would say in limited circumstances we cannot. For example, if you received a head injury. Also, there are cicumstances where claiming temporary insanity is perfectly reasonable, in my humble opinion. Are you now claiming this man was temporarily incapacitated?

Were this circumstances so extreme that he could not control himself due to either physical or emotional injury?

truly sad.I am fine.. maybe when I am older I will feel the same way you feel.. but for now I am happy the way I am.

sadly, it seems some on this board think they're on and the same. Somehow, they believe a "healthy man with normal levels of testosterone" is rendered totally able to control himself or think like a rational human being when confronted with the sight of naked breasts.

How sad and utterly weak willed....

Heh do you realise how funny what you have just said is?

In essence you have said that the weak willed man, is umm weak willed!

Maybe we need to perform a scientific test..

I was told in late 2007 (Med tests athletics etc) that I am 100% healthy and all my hormone levels are normal.
Lets get the best looking NSG female to.. rub me at the right place.. and after a long flirt-hot conversation.. she asks me to show her.. lets see If I can resist her charm :cool:

what are the odds of me refusing to play along? :D

This assumes you are reasonable, an assumption that I think some posters would actively dispute. No insult intended, honestly, but such an experiment wouldn't change whether or not your behavior was reasonable. It never could.

In essence you have said that the weak willed man, is umm weak willed!

No, I said the weak willed man is weak willed, while at the same time thinking he isn't, believing that he's just the same as the rest of us, while we, unlike him, are quite capable of keeping it in our pants

What's sad is that there is so little understanding for the male: It might be indecent exposure but penalizing the act beyond 'No need for that here'-chat is beyond my comprehension.

This thread and the original news bit are, in my opinion, made of epic fail. :rolleyes:

Understanding for the male? What? He broke the law. He knew he was breaking the law. It's so annoying that people are acting like he was just being a typical male. As a male, I find the very idea wildly insulting. I'm not rendered mentally incapacitated by naked breasts. That some men are should be a subject of embarrassment.

No, I said the weak willed man is weak willed, while at the same time thinking he isn't, believing that he's just the same as the rest of us, while we, unlike him, are quite capable of keeping it in our pants

It really is crazy that some people are openly admtting that they are rendered mentally incapacitated by a topless woman. It's more than sad. It's scary. I have sisters.

Understanding for the male? What? He broke the law. He knew he was breaking the law. It's so annoying that people are acting like he was just being a typical male. As a male, I find the very idea wildly insulting. I'm not rendered mentally incapacitated by naked breasts. That some men are should be a subject of embarrassment.

I wonder, and maybe it's just me, but I wonder if we should take those who think it was "reasonable" for him to do this and those who think he was an idiot who deserved what he got, and compare those viewpoints to those of us getting regular sex, heh.

I have a vague feeling that those of us who actually have somewhat regular access to naked women of our own tend to fall into the "what a fucking idiot" catagory....

<snip>

We seem to be going around in an endless pointless circle here. All I am saying is that some men when faced with a topless woman asking to see their dicks, will think fuck it (both literally and metaphorically), and just whip it out.

This is because a lot of men would indeed, choose to have the sex with what (not all) ever consenting woman was offering it. Do you deny this?

The police knowing this, laid this trap, and it worked, and yes the man got caught(too bad for him) but it was a lousy trap to set. On the whole I don't think it helped get perves off of the street, and it makes me even more cynical about the methods that our boys in blue use.

Do you really believe that all men, have the capacity to keep a straight mind if offered seemingly 'no strings' sex?

This assumes you are reasonable, an assumption that I think some posters would actively dispute. No insult intended, honestly, but such an experiment wouldn't change whether or not your behavior was reasonable. It never could.LOL :D ... I guess you have a point ... Fair-enough©

What about we ask (poll) all NSG males if they would play along.

unless you consider NSG males to be not-normal.. unreasonable, etc.

We seem to be going around in an endless pointless circle here. All I am saying is that some men when faced with a topless woman asking to see their dicks, will think fuck it (both literally and metaphorically), and just whip it out.

This is because a lot of men would indeed, choose to have the sex with what (not all) ever consenting woman was offering it. Do you deny this?

The police knowing this, laid this trap, and it worked, and yes the man got caught(too bad for him) but it was a lousy trap to set. On the whole I don't think it helped get perves off of the street, and it makes me even more cynical about the methods that our boys in blue use.

Do you really believe that all men, have the capacity to keep a straight mind if offered seemingly 'no strings' sex?

I'm not denying that some men would do so. I'm also not denying that some men would by a cheap but obviously stolen television or look up women's skirts at malls, but it doesn't make it legal or reasonable.

No, I don't believe all men have the capability of keeping a straight mind. I do however think that if you cannot control yourself when faced with the offer of "no strings" sex, then you really are dangerous.

do I think this sting helped anyone? Nope. Do I think it found a man that cannot control himself? I'll bet not, actually. I bet you dollars to the hole in a donut that this guy manages to keep it in his pants in the future. If he does, then he is, by fact, quite capable of controlling himself at the prospect of "no strings" sex. The problem here is that this guy decided that he wouldn't get caught. He was wrong.

No, I said the weak willed man is weak willed, while at the same time thinking he isn't, believing that he's just the same as the rest of us, while we, unlike him, are quite capable of keeping it in our pants

Yet if he was 'just like us' then what is the differance?:D

We seem to be going around in an endless pointless circle here. All I am saying is that some men when faced with a topless woman asking to see their dicks, will think fuck it (both literally and metaphorically), and just whip it out.

This is because a lot of men would indeed, choose to have the sex with what (not all) ever consenting woman was offering it. Do you deny this?

The police knowing this, laid this trap, and it worked, and yes the man got caught(too bad for him) but it was a lousy trap to set. On the whole I don't think it helped get perves off of the street, and it makes me even more cynical about the methods that our boys in blue use.

Do you really believe that all men, have the capacity to keep a straight mind if offered seemingly 'no strings' sex?Has anyone seriously been arguing in favor of the cops doing this? I thought the main argument whether the guy should be let off or not on account of entrapment.

LOL :D ... I guess you have a point ... Fair-enough©

What about we ask (poll) all NSG males if they would play along.

unless you consider NSG males to be not-normal.. unreasonable, etc.

Normal and reasonable are not the same thing, by fact. Do not mix the two. Meanwhile, I sincerely doubt if people were answering honestly that the outcome would be as you say.

I think that the man was the one who had the fault because he shouldnt of unzipped his pants.

We seem to be going around in an endless pointless circle here. All I am saying is that some men when faced with a topless woman asking to see their dicks, will think fuck it (both literally and metaphorically), and just whip it out.

All you've managed to say is that some people, when faced with temptation, will break the law. No shit. Of course! Some men, when faced with someone offering to sell them drugs, will buy drugs. It doesn't make it "entrapment". It doesn't make it "illegal". It doesn't make it anything, other than catching a criminal.

Do you really believe that all men, have the capacity to keep a straight mind if offered seemingly 'no strings' sex?

All men? Of course not. Reasonable, rational men, yes. And since the test for entrapment tests for the reasonable, rational person, what a weak willed, no impulse control idiot would do, is sort of irrelevant to the question of what would a reasonable person do.

Entrapment has always been a reasonable person standard. Nothing else. If the entrapment question because "will SOMEONE fall for it?" then any undercover is useless. Someone will always fall for it. It's whether the inducement was such that a normal, reasonable, law abiding person would.

Not whether a drug addict would, not whether a thief would, not whether some guy with low impulse control and a poor sense of decency would.

I'm not denying that some men would do so. I'm also not denying that some men would by a cheap but obviously stolen television or look up women's skirts at malls, but it doesn't make it legal or reasonable.

No, I don't believe all men have the capability of keeping a straight mind. I do however think that if you cannot control yourself when faced with the offer of "no strings" sex, then you really are dangerous.

do I think this sting helped anyone? Nope. Do I think it found a man that cannot control himself? I'll bet not, actually. I bet you dollars to the hole in a donut that this guy manages to keep it in his pants in the future. If he does, then he is, by fact, quite capable of controlling himself at the prospect of "no strings" sex. The problem here is that this guy decided that he wouldn't get caught. He was wrong.

Heh then get the champagne out, for you and I are oddly enough, in agreement.

I wonder, and maybe it's just me, but I wonder if we should take those who think it was "reasonable" for him to do this and those who think he was an idiot who deserved what he got, and compare those viewpoints to those of us getting regular sex, heh.

I have a vague feeling that those of us who actually have somewhat regular access to naked women of our own tend to fall into the "what a fucking idiot" catagory....

I wonder as well. I'm not sure how I compare to other men, but frankly I don't find the prospect of actually finding a willing partner all that daunting. It's more about finding a willing partner, that I'd actually want to have sex with. That's the rub (pun intended).

Honestly, I think many men don't realize they do have access to regular sex because they don't know how to look, or wouldn't know what to do if they found it. Grave has regularly pointed out how easy it is for him to get the ladies and I've seen him; he's hideous. (Kidding, Mike.)

What I don't get it is, as wonderful as sex is and all, why these individuals are willing to risk jail in order to avoid rubbing one out?

I wonder if we should take those who think it was "reasonable" for him to do this

Wait, you're the one who thinks it's "reasonable" to pay someone for sex if the person is attractive, the chemistry is "fantastic", and the price is very low.

What's the difference? It clearly isn't a matter of "irresistible force", so you can drop that line of attack.

I'm rather surprised that a female going topless is not considered indecent exposure in Columbus, Ohio. :eek:

The fireman should know better than to expose himself in public no matter whether it was a sting or not.

I thought the main argument whether the guy should be let off or not on account of entrapment.
This made the front page of News sites because this police Department tough it was a good idea to put a naked/flirty/foot-rubbing woman on a park.. to -so they say- catch "men likely to masturbate in public" ..

If this was a man was caught showing his wii to a -non inviting/non naked- undercover cop.. It would have never made it to the NEWS front pages.

The main issue is the Police operation.

It is wrong.

I think that the man was the one who had the fault because he shouldnt of unzipped his pants.

Short. Sweet. To the point. Excellent first post.

A good looking woman shows me her tits, flirts for a while, rubs me with her foot then ask me to show her my wii, YES its perfectly reasonable to look around, see no1 is looking under the tree and show her my wii for a couple of seconds.. why? because I want to :fluffle: do her thats why.

YES its reasonable for a healthy man with normal levels of testosterone/potency...

...aaaaaand still illegal. The question isn't whether it's reasonable for a man to WANT to whip it out, but whether it's reasonable for him to DECIDE TO BREAK THE LAW in order to do it. That's where I say no.

We seem to be going around in an endless pointless circle here. All I am saying is that some men when faced with a topless woman asking to see their dicks, will think fuck it (both literally and metaphorically), and just whip it out.

This is because a lot of men would indeed, choose to have the sex with what (not all) ever consenting woman was offering it. Do you deny this?

The police knowing this, laid this trap, and it worked, and yes the man got caught(too bad for him) but it was a lousy trap to set. On the whole I don't think it helped get perves off of the street, and it makes me even more cynical about the methods that our boys in blue use.

Do you really believe that all men, have the capacity to keep a straight mind if offered seemingly 'no strings' sex?

All men? No. Most men, men with brains, consideration and senses of decency, men who I believe don't deserve fines because they don't need to be told by the authorities that whipping it out in public is wrong? Yes.

Maybe we need to perform a scientific test..

I was told in late 2007 (Med tests athletics etc) that I am 100% healthy and all my hormone levels are normal.
Lets get the best looking NSG female to.. rub me at the right place.. and after a long flirt-hot conversation.. she asks me to show her.. lets see If I can resist her charm

what are the odds of me refusing to play along?

One more time: without transcripts and/or clear video, only the woman and those who were electronically privy to the conversation know exactly what she said and how she touched him. Anything else is speculation. All the people defending the guy believe that she talked to him like a 900-line sex worker and fondled his cock with her foot. You simply don't know that -- nobody outside the sting does.

By that logic, every man receiving a lap dance at a strip joint is within his rights to bust out and rape the dancer providing the service. Even in a place where sex is selling explicity, what he did would be illegal. In a public park? Illegal and stupid.

That said, this thread has reached the chasing-its-tail stage, and I don't particularly enjoy that part of it. I'll continue to read, but avoid posting with things I've already said -- I will agree to disagree.

This made the front page of News sites because of the way this Police dept decided to mount an expensive police trap to -so they say- catch "men likely to masturbate in public" ..

If this was a man was caught showing his wii to a -non inviting/normally dressed- undercover cop.. It would have never made it to the NEWS front pages.

The main issue is the Police operation.

It is wrong.Read through the thread and try and tell me again that the main issue here has been that the police were wasting time and money.

What I don't get it is, as wonderful as sex is and all, why these individuals are willing to risk jail in order to avoid rubbing one out?

The answer to that is easy and one that you have already provided. Because the man was not thinking, ummm reasonably.

This made the front page of News sites because of the way this Police dept decided to mount an expensive police trap to -so they say- catch "men likely to masturbate in public" ..

If this was a man was caught showing his wii to a -non inviting/normally dressed- undercover cop.. It would have never made it to the NEWS front pages.

The main issue is the Police operation.

It is wrong.

Dude, it's your addition of normally-dressed that is so incredibly concerning. You get very much into the "she was asking for it" territory when you suggest that by merely being topless she induces public indecency. It's a disgusting protrayal of men to keep suggesting we are such base creatures.

By that logic, every man receiving a lap dance at a strip joint is within his rights to bust out and rape the dancer providing the service. Even in a place where sex is selling explicity, what he did would be illegal. In a public park? Illegal and stupid.Actually, I must disagree here. A place that's explicitely selling sex is still a private institution, and therefore their rules apply. I'm sure that if a strip club had the rule that patrons were allowed to do that, it wouldn't be illegal. It wouldn't be an issue of indecent exposure (and certainly not in public), but an issue of breaking house rules.

... consideration and senses of decency, men who I believe don't deserve fines because they don't need to be told by the authorities that ..translation "Holier that thou" :rolleyes:

Anyhow, going AFK in 2'

Wait, you're the one who thinks it's "reasonable" to pay someone for sex if the person is attractive, the chemistry is "fantastic", and the price is very low.

I suggest you go back and read the post you are refering to. In fact, read it twice. If I recall, I said one would have a "stronger argument for entrapment". Not that such argument would win, merely that it would be stronger than if a cop came right out and said "50 bucks, let's fuck".

In fact, it's probably stil wouldn't be a winning argument. I was dicussing a very specific point, in making a very specific argument, in response to a poster saying it is entrapment if the police mention "a price". My post, if you had bothered to actually pay attention, was in that vein, discussing how while mentioning "a price" in general is not entrapment, sometimes, a specific price, in a specific context might give rise to entrapment.

And even then, it's not very likely. In fact, you even manage to make my point for me, in that such actions would still probably not be entrapment.

Again, that post you keep wanting to bring up was in a context of a side discussion about whether a mention of a specific price is entrapment or not, and my comment was trying to find a position when mentioning a price, so low as to be considered inconsequential, would rise to entrapment, and, as you point out, even then, it might not.

You see, we use this thing called "context". Look it up, you wont seem so silly.

I love the smell of entrapment in the morning. It smells like... *sniff* tyrrany.

Dude, it's your addition of normally-dressed that is so incredibly concerning. ...what I meant to say is not showing tits on a park..

as a matter of fact I edited it the norm-dressed to non-naked.. so its clear what I mean.
Do this addresses you concerns?

what I meant to say is not showing tits on a park..

as a matter of fact I edited it the norm-dressed to non-naked.. so its clear what I mean.
Do this addresses you concerns?

Nope. How does how a woman is dressed induce you to commit a crime?

Hell, I wouldn't care if she was naked. I wouldn't care if you wandered up on two people having sex and they invited you to join in. If you pull your tallywacker out, then you're guilty of a crime. Guilty. Seriously, what kind of argument is "well, she had her boobs out. What could I do?"

translation "Holier that thou" :rolleyes:

Anyhow, going AFK in 2'

I'll say I'm "holier than thou". I'll say it explicitly. I am a more reasonable human being than someone who cannot keep their pants zipped in a public park because a woman isn't wearing a top. I'll say it and I mean it.

I suggest you go back and read the post you are refering to. In fact, read it twice.

I did.

I read it once the first time, and I have a great memory for this sort of thing, so that was actually enough.

I read it again after you told me to read it again the first time, just to be sure I hadn't misinterpreted it somewhere... and I saw I hadn't.

Now I'm going back and reading it again, so I can show you explicitly how you misrepresent your own (former?) position.

If I recall, I said one would have a "stronger argument for entrapment".

No, you didn't. What you actually said was that "you'd have a great argument for entrapment."

"Great" is an absolute term, "stronger" a relative one. Very big difference.

In fact, it's probably stil wouldn't be a winning argument.

But it would be a "great" one? And the equivalent with a "plasma screen HDTV" is "getting into entrapment land"?

I was dicussing a very specific point, in making a very specific argument, in response to a poster saying it is entrapment if the police mention "a price". My post, if you had bothered to actually pay attention, was in that vein, discussing how while mentioning "a price" in general is not entrapment, sometimes, a specific price, in a specific context might give rise to entrapment.

That's right. Your point was that a price can be so low as to entrap someone, and that therefore there is a "prohibition" (another absolute statement, and one that by implication references winning arguments) on prices that are too low (but not on offering a price at all.)

But, obviously, however low the price is, there still is no "irresistible force." We can resist very low prices. We can even resist the offer of free stuff. We might be tempted. But that is not the same as compulsion.

I'm sure you're right, that the distinction is not "she offered a price" but rather has something to do with the price level. But the distinction is, clearly, not that of "irresistible force" or its equivalent, which is what you have been maintaining against your opponents.

And even then, it's not very likely.

That goes entirely against the direction of your former post. You said it was "a great argument." You said "there is a prohibition is HOW MUCH they offer."

It's okay if you made a mistake in the context of trying to make your point, if the standard for entrapment is in fact so high that none of those cases qualify. It would be nice if you would admit it, though. And it would be nice if you provided some cases that really would be entrapment so we can see how the doctrine actually works in practice.

You see, we use this thing called "context".

You see, some of us have this thing called "honesty."

And once again we see why law is not as easy as some people think it is. You are discussing two areas. You are talking about an offer to engage in an illegal activity in such a way where the offer itself can be considered entrapment. IE if you remove all such external factors from consideration and merely examine the offer, is the offer itself so good as to strongly entice an otherwise law abiding person.

The other circumstance we are talking about, in the case of this woman, is not whether the offer itself, devoid of any outside factors, is strongly enticing. "I want to see your penis" is hardly an offer, in and of itself, that is strongly enticing. If that's the case we have to look at the method in which the offer, itself, not sufficient, is enticing enough to consider whether it is sufficient to entice a normally law abiding person to violate the law.

You are trying to smash together two seperate concepts when it really doesn't work that way.

You are discussing two areas. You are talking about an offer to engage in an illegal activity in such a way where the offer itself can be considered entrapment. IE if you remove all such external factors from consideration and merely examine the offer, is the offer itself so good as to strongly entice an otherwise law abiding person.

So the standard is "strongly entice." Are you willing to admit--as you stubbornly resisted admitting in your last post, to the point of distorting your original post--that this is not the same standard as "irresistible force"?

If that's the case we have to look at the method in which the offer, itself, not sufficient, is enticing enough to consider whether it is sufficient to entice a normally law abiding person to violate the law.

Right. But in considering the "external factors" that might make an otherwise not "strongly enticing" offer qualify as entrapment, why would one use a standard other than "strongly enticing"? Why bring in the incapability to resist?

So the standard is "strongly entice." Are you willing to admit--as you stubbornly resisted admitting in your last post, to the point of distorting your original post--that this is not the same standard as "irresistible force"?


And once again you're missing the point entirely. A lot of things can "strongly entice" a lot of people. A sale of drugs can strongly entice a drug addict. An offer of sex for money can strongly entire a sex addict. An offer to kill someone's wife for payment can strongly entice someone who truly hates his wife and wants to kill her.

It is not merely something that is "strongly enticing". It is something that is "strongly enticing" to the point that an otherwise normal law abiding person would be compelled to do so, for whatever reason.

My argument about "sex for 25 cents" was not merely that the price was "so low" as to intice someone to commit a crime by paying sex for money, and, if you approached it in that direction, MERELY that it was "very low" you'd probably wouldn't win.

The stronger argument for entrapment comes from that if a woman whom you have interacted with were to offer you sex for an inconsequential amount, the entrapment may be, not merely that the amount is low, but by being such an inconsequential offer, may cause a person to not even truly consider it to be nay real offer at all.

And again, as you seem to completely and totally miss, it is not "the impulse to have sex" which is compelling, it is "the impulse not to pay an inconsequential and irrelevant amount to have sex with someone you desire to have sex with."

Once again, the desire TO HAVE SEX is not what is compelling, and, indeed, that desire is irrelevant, as having sex is entirely legal. Nothing stopping it. So even if the desire to have sex with this woman was, for any rational person, extraordinarily high, that's not entrapment, and never will be, as having sex isn't illegal.

The question of entrapment becomes is whether there was set up, a near irresistable compulsion, when you desire sex with a woman, to, as a joke, in humor and/or jest, to hand her over a quarter.

THAT is the question, not "can anyone resist having sex with a woman for a quarter." which is a silly and erronious position. Of course people can. It's the same as asking "can anyone resist having sex with a woman". The question of importance is, would anyone be stopped merely by the request for a quarter. That is the relevant proposition.

And the fact that you keep utterly mangling it just proves my point. Law ain't for amateurs.

It is a stupid law, but it is this simple: If you cannot help but pull-out your reproductive organs every time a woman does not wear a shirt (regardless of talk, or rubbing), you have a problem. Topless or nude does not matter.

The guy was not "bad", but I would say he was dumb. He approached if I recall. He probably started with a sexual comment. Now that offends me. A woman cannot sunbathe without someone approaching her with an "ooh, lala"? It is because of immature people like this man that the U.S. would have problems with allowing nudity. How irritating.

So, supposing we set it-up so that nudity is not a crime. This guy would get-off. But, I will bet you 10-1 that he would harass the hell out of any nude woman sunbather. If we did not have perverts like this guy, than this would never have been considered a crime in the first place.

Maybe we need to perform a scientific test..

I was told in late 2007 (Med tests athletics etc) that I am 100% healthy and all my hormone levels are normal.
Lets get the best looking NSG female to.. rub me at the right place.. and after a long flirt-hot conversation.. she asks me to show her.. lets see If I can resist her charm :cool:

what are the odds of me refusing to play along? :D

I have been fairly consistently healthy, and my hormone levels might finally be down to what might be termed 'normal', now that I'm in my mid-30's.

Under the same circumstances, when the best looking female on NS asks me to flop my tackle out in a public place, she can look forward to disappointment - because it's illegal, and I'm not an idiot.

On the other hand, if she's really interested, she'll be welcome to check out the merchandise in a more suitable location.

Honestly, I think many men don't realize they do have access to regular sex because they don't know how to look, or wouldn't know what to do if they found it. Grave has regularly pointed out how easy it is for him to get the ladies and I've seen him; he's hideous. (Kidding, Mike.)


I know you were cheap-shotting me... but I'm also pretty sure that you would be aware of how - despite my certainly-not-model-looks - I'm not that un-noticable, and do get the attention of females, even when not soliciting it.

If I have no problems finding companionship, despite my rough looks, bookish demeanour and acidic sense of humour... I can work up little sympathy for those who would use partner-less-ness as an excuse for the kind of behaviour I keep seeing endorsed as 'normal'...?

I know you were cheap-shotting me... but I'm also pretty sure that you would be aware of how - despite my certainly-not-model-looks - I'm not that un-noticable, and do get the attention of females, even when not soliciting it.

If I have no problems finding companionship, despite my rough looks, bookish demeanour and acidic sense of humour... I can work up little sympathy for those who would use partner-less-ness as an excuse for the kind of behaviour I keep seeing endorsed as 'normal'...?

Actually, I was using you, because you actually have a look that most women would realize does really well with women and most men wouldn't. I can say with complete honesty that I would not want to compete with you for a woman's affections.

You kind of stepped all over my joke, but since we're being serious, I hear a good explanation of why Dr. Drew of Loveline was goodlooking. It was by Adam Corrolla. It was that there is nothing wrong with him. Nothing stands out to you as something to make fun of and as such he's goodlooking in that way.

What many, many men don't realize is that while that works pretty well for actors and famous people, the vast majority of women find that a bit boring. Most women wouldn't call me ugly, but they also wouldn't be considering shagging me either. I'm just that bland guy that looks like everyone and no one and really isn't going to inspire a major reaction in any direction.

And, frankly, I've got no beef with that.

The stronger argument for entrapment comes from that if a woman whom you have interacted with were to offer you sex for an inconsequential amount, the entrapment may be, not merely that the amount is low, but by being such an inconsequential offer, may cause a person to not even truly consider it to be nay real offer at all.

But then, one could argue that to show a person your penis when so invited in the midst of flirtation is also "inconsequential"... you may or may not accept that argument, but certainly it does not amount to stating that men cannot control themselves around women.

And again, as you seem to completely and totally miss, it is not "the impulse to have sex" which is compelling, it is "the impulse not to pay an inconsequential and irrelevant amount to have sex with someone you desire to have sex with."

So? It still isn't compelling. Obviously. You don't have to give her the quarter.

The question of entrapment becomes is whether there was set up, a near irresistable compulsion,

Oh... now it's near irresistible.

The question of importance is, would anyone be stopped merely by the request for a quarter.

Um... yes? After all, doing so is illegal--isn't that the reason you gave me for why it's inappropriate for a person to show his penis when so invited?

Now, that's obviously not a sufficient criterion to make it not entrapment, because then the defense would be useless. But certainly it's a reason to resist (if a weak one), and certainly we're capable of resisting.

Is it that the illegality is so minor, in the context a tempting offer, as to not "count"? But then at the very least you must admit that this is an avenue for those who think the case in the article is entrapment to follow, one that, again, does not require them to deny male self-control. Showing someone one's penis isn't murder or rape, and isn't even the public masturbation that apparently warranted the concern.

Not only that, but under that explanation your example of the plasma screen HDTV certainly doesn't work: buying stolen goods worth $3000 is not "inconsequential" or "irrelevant", but if the price is low enough, you claim, it is "getting into entrapment land."

Um... yes? After all, doing so is illegal--isn't that the reason you gave me for why it's inappropriate for a person to show his penis when so invited?

The fact that it is illegal is certainly one reason why something is inappropriate, yes. However, that's not really relevant to the question of entrapment. If it were the case that mere illegality was always a sufficient deterrant to all people, regardless of context, then the doctrine of entrapment would not exist.

As for the plasma tv example, you are quite correct, it is a poor example of true entrapment, it is, however, "closer" to entrapment than otherwise.

Is it that the illegality is so minor, in the context a tempting offer, as to not "count"? But then at the very least you must admit that this is an avenue for those who think the case in the article is entrapment to follow, one that, again, does not require them to deny male self-control.

Ah, here you make a good point, and one that as far as I have seen, has not been raised in any articulate form yet. Those who have argued it was entrapment, and have bothered to articulate this belief, have done so in an argument that this man was "seduced" or "tricked" or "manipulated" into do it by the sight of a flirtatious barechested woman. That is to say, he was near irresistably compelled to do so.

Now, if your argument, and thank you for actually making a good one, is that it was not THAT strong a compulsion, but a strong, yet not irresistable compulsion, coupled with a minor, and "mere inonsequential" violation of the law, that he was strongly compelled to commit a....extraordinarily minor legal violation, is that sufficient to raise an entrapment defense?

Let me get back to this argument when I have time to formulate a proper response to this.

So? It still isn't compelling. Obviously. You don't have to give her the quarter.
The problem with all these "price" arguments is that there was no buying or selling involved here. Which makes all those arguments irrelevant. You can't judge the price of an apple by debating the size of a dog.

Clearly the main part of the game sees I'm subscribing to this thread, as the first two issues I got today were:

# Police Consider "Big Brother" Anti-Crime System [legislation pending]
# Nudists Demand Time In Sun [legislation pending]
Those were my first two issues when I joined. I banned the cop-cameras, and made public nudity compulsory.

Those who have argued it was entrapment, and have bothered to articulate this belief, have done so in an argument that this man was "seduced" or "tricked" or "manipulated" into do it by the sight of a flirtatious barechested woman.

Yes, I've seen. But in fairness to them, the element of inconsequentialness probably played a role in their judgment: they would (hopefully) not be willing to say the same for, say, rape.

Now, if your argument, and thank you for actually making a good one, is that it was not THAT strong a compulsion, but a strong, yet not irresistable compulsion, coupled with a minor, and "mere inonsequential" violation of the law, that he was strongly compelled to commit a....extraordinarily minor legal violation, is that sufficient to raise an entrapment defense?

Yeah, something like that.

The temptation was there--he didn't do it out of the blue--and the action itself was not much of a crime.

Let me get back to this argument when I have time to formulate a proper response to this.

Fair enough.

The problem with all these "price" arguments is that there was no buying or selling involved here. Which makes all those arguments irrelevant. You can't judge the price of an apple by debating the size of a dog.

He brought up the price part because someone else asked about it. People keep involving it in the argument, which is why he keeps explaining the part about prices. He has repeatedly pointed out that such parts of law regarding entrapment do not apply here.

What does apply is that in order for it to be entrapment it has to be shown that absent the offer being made in the way it was made, this person would almost assuredly not have broken the law, AND that a reasonable person would have been similarly enticed. However, we've been shown nothing about this offer that would made it necessary that a reasonable person would have broken the law. Nothing.

And despite your repeated claims, you've not demonstrated that there is entrapment here. He has shown all the reasons it doesn't qualify. All you've shown is your lack of respect for the ability of men to control their sexual urges. You even added facts to this case that we don't have to make that argument because your original argument wasn't even remotely compelling.

Meanwhile, for someone supposed "ignoring" Neo Art, you sure talk to him a lot. This really smacks of, "I'm going to put you on ignore, so I only have to reply to your arguments when it serves me."

No, breaking the law knowingly is not reasonable.

Then you're saying there is NO SUCH THING as entrapment.

This thread is a monument to the amount of attention that can be attracted by the title "topless women."

Well, I have to admit: it's the only reason I opened up the thread.

Amen bra.
Amen.

This thread is a monument to the amount of attention that can be attracted by the title "topless women."
Well, I have to admit: it's the only reason I opened up the thread.

Actually, I was using you, because you actually have a look that most women would realize does really well with women and most men wouldn't. I can say with complete honesty that I would not want to compete with you for a woman's affections.

You kind of stepped all over my joke, but since we're being serious, I hear a good explanation of why Dr. Drew of Loveline was goodlooking. It was by Adam Corrolla. It was that there is nothing wrong with him. Nothing stands out to you as something to make fun of and as such he's goodlooking in that way.

What many, many men don't realize is that while that works pretty well for actors and famous people, the vast majority of women find that a bit boring. Most women wouldn't call me ugly, but they also wouldn't be considering shagging me either. I'm just that bland guy that looks like everyone and no one and really isn't going to inspire a major reaction in any direction.

And, frankly, I've got no beef with that.

Oops, the bad man broke the joke. :o

A lot of it is in the confidence. A guy that carries himself right - even if he's kinda shy, like me - can stop girls in the street, apparently.

I'm not sure how I managed to get so far off topic. If it helps, my wife thinks you're a cutey. :D

If it helps, my wife thinks you're a cutey. :D
There's pix of him, eh?

There's pix of him, eh?

Gosh yes.

Er... I mean... apparently. :)

Gosh yes.

Er... I mean... apparently. :)

How far back to i have to go for those? Pre-Straughn?
I'm curious as to my mental attribution as compared to the "reality". Like most.
And perhaps some photoshop. :p

How far back to i have to go for those? Pre-Straughn?
I'm curious as to my mental attribution as compared to the "reality". Like most.
And perhaps some photoshop. :p

There used to be one right on this site, although I think it's a dead link now. You'll just have to be real sweet to him. :D

There used to be one right on this site, although I think it's a dead link now. You'll just have to be real sweet to him. :D

Maybe i'll have to initiate a joint writing adventure of some sort. :p

Maybe i'll have to initiate a joint writing adventure of some sort. :p

Yeah, that's what he needs... another project to not-write-on... :D

Yeah, that's what he needs... another project to not-write-on... :D

Perhaps i could chime him in as consultant on a joint Straughn-Jhahannam project .. ghostwriter/researcher.

Wow, that's the second time I've been called out by name...

Alright, entrapment. This is a tricky area, because most people only know the subject from TV, and TV, like for most legal topics, does a poor job of portraying it properly.

Entrapment, generally, is when the police (or agents of) coerce, force, threaten, trick, or otherwise manipulate someone into breaking the law. Now, what exactly is manipulation is, of course, subject to much debate.

For it to be entrapment, the defendant has to demonstrate that while he broke the law, it was not something he would have otherwise done but for the manipulation of the police. Despite popular perception, an officer posing as a drug dealer and going "hey, want some drugs?" or a prostitute and going "hey, want some sex?" is not entrapment. You can't argue that you would not have otherwise done it because, well, you bought the drugs. You paid for sex.

Mere solicitation is not entrapment. Mere offering of the opportunity to break the law is not entrapment. The question is whether the police did something that coerced, manipulated or tricked the man into exposing himself when he would not have otherwise done it. Whether the police did something in creating the opportunity to break the law so that a reasonable, law abiding person could not be expected to resist. So, the question is, is it unreasonable to expect an otherwise law abiding man to resist the suggestions of a friendly, topless woman?

Is this real coercion and manipulation? Sneaky and underhanded and praying on base instincts yes, but do we really want to go down the line of argument that a man is incapable of controlling himself, and he was manipulated, because a half naked woman was nice to him? That he, an otherwise innocent, law abiding man, was coerced and manipulated into breaking the law by the sight of bare breasts?

I don't think that cuts it. I don't think you can argue that this fellow could not be expected to resist the urge to pull out his penis in public because a half naked girl asked him to do so.
The biggest problem I see here is, watching the video footage, is how animated and sensual the topless woman appears acts. She has her legs apart, lies back several times on her back (again with her legs apart), places one leg over his and even runs her leg up his arm and over her shoulder.
That's, imo, is pretty damn coercive and manipulative behaviour. She's not just sunbathing and then he whips his dick out. She's (from the footage at least, w/o knowing their conversation but I'd hazard it wasn't about futures trading) is really coming onto him and doing her best to arouse him. I'd argue that this is indeed manipulation and entrapment. It wasn't just her tits that made him expose himself, twould appear (lacking any other info) that her actions and behaviour played a big part in it as well.

The biggest problem I see here is, watching the video footage, is how animated and sensual the topless woman appears acts. She has her legs apart, lies back several times on her back (again with her legs apart), places one leg over his and even runs her leg up his arm and over her shoulder.
That's, imo, is pretty damn coercive and manipulative behaviour. She's not just sunbathing and then he whips his dick out. She's (from the footage at least, w/o knowing their conversation but I'd hazard it wasn't about futures trading) is really coming onto him and doing her best to arouse him. I'd argue that this is indeed manipulation and entrapment. It wasn't just her tits that made him expose himself, twould appear (lacking any other info) that her actions and behaviour played a big part in it as well.

None of which makes it legal to drop trou in a public place.

None of which makes it legal to drop trou in a public place.
true, but I think her behaviour goes beyond simple enticement and into possible entrapment.

My guess is that the guy didn't fight it cause he either couldn't afford to, was offered a plea bargain or was just hoping a guilty plea + fine would slip under the media radar.

Actually, I must disagree here. A place that's explicitely selling sex is still a private institution, and therefore their rules apply. I'm sure that if a strip club had the rule that patrons were allowed to do that, it wouldn't be illegal. It wouldn't be an issue of indecent exposure (and certainly not in public), but an issue of breaking house rules.

Tell that to Paul Reubens (okay, he was in a theater, but the principle's similar -- overt titillation to arousal).

Sorry, but waxing your carrot in a strip club is illegal, regardless of the establishment's policies.

translation "Holier that thou" :rolleyes:

Anyhow, going AFK in 2'

Going AFK because firing that last snide shot over your shoulder was the best you've got? Fine.

If knowing NOT to expose my genitals in public, regardless of who asks and how makes me "holier than thou", then I'm the Pope. If you can't argue, just leave the ad hominems at the door as it hits you in the ass on the way out.

Going AFK because firing that last snide shot over your shoulder was the best you've got?No.

going AFK because I have some work to do.
I will reply when I have time, The world does not stop spinning for me.. :rolleyes:
.
If knowing NOT to expose my genitals in public, regardless of who asks and how makes me "holier than thou", then I'm the Pope.Fine, you are the Pope. *shrugs*

The biggest problem I see here is, watching the video footage, is how animated and sensual the topless woman appears acts. She has her legs apart, lies back several times on her back (again with her legs apart), places one leg over his and even runs her leg up his arm and over her shoulder.
That's, imo, is pretty damn coercive and manipulative behaviour. She's not just sunbathing and then he whips his dick out. She's (from the footage at least, w/o knowing their conversation but I'd hazard it wasn't about futures trading) is really coming onto him and doing her best to arouse him. I'd argue that this is indeed manipulation and entrapment. It wasn't just her tits that made him expose himself, twould appear (lacking any other info) that her actions and behaviour played a big part in it as well.
Oh give me a break.

If you are incapable of refraining from whipping it out at the sight of something arousing, then you need serious and immediate therapy. Or maybe just obedience school so you can get house trained.

Hell, I used to work across the street from a gay strip club, and I saw some of the most arousing shit in my life in the parking lot of that place. On several occasions I required an hour of "personal time" as soon as I got home. But seeing as how I'm house-trained and all, I was able to not expose my genitals in a public place.

I can guarantee you that if you put a hot woman in front of me, topless and performing the way that woman was, I would be every bit as likely to get aroused by the sight as any hetero man would. I could control myself and behave like a grown human being.

If you want to tell me that men simply can't control themselves in that situation, then I'd say you just made a great argument for the total disenfranchisement of males. I think it was simply the case that ONE male in that situation chose not to control himself. He's a tool. Most guys aren't.

-snip-

Pft, you're about 300 posts late to the party :p

Pft, you're about 300 posts late to the party :p

better late then never.

(still imagining Bottle's "Hour of 'personal time'" :D)

it's a sad thing to see so many people arguing that adults cannot control themselves... :(

Pft, you're about 300 posts late to the party :p
Heh, I'm playing catch-up today. My vacation was gloriously full of food, friends, and liquor, but devastatingly empty of forum posting!

Heh, I'm playing catch-up today. My vacation was gloriously full of food, friends, and liquor, but devastatingly empty of forum posting!

What, you think you can waltz in here and make a post I already made 2 days ago? Well TOO BAD!\

Though frankly I was wondering where the hell you were in this post.....

Though frankly I was wondering where the hell you were in this post.....
Two days ago...

I woke up on a deflated air mattress to find a large dog asleep across my legs and a small gay man using my tummy for a pillow, with a bottle of gin digging into the small of my back, and my stomach attempting to slither up the back of my throat and out through my nose.

Seriously, it was a fantastic vacation. I played Mario Galaxy until one of my hands went numb and then spent 2 hours showing my friends' wives my tongue ring. Then there was gin, and then blackness. :D

Seriously, it was a fantastic vacation. I played Mario Galaxy until one of my hands went numb and then spent 2 hours showing my friends' wives my tongue ring. Then there was gin, and then blackness. :D

OK, how much do you want to hear a british man named Yahtzee talking extraordinarily fast giving an utterly hillarious review of mario galaxy?

I must be missing something. Apart from the risk of falling afoul a fucked up bit of legislation, why should the guy have denied the girl's request?

It's mostly the legislation bit. Whether you agree with the law or not, it is still the law, and showing your penis in public is illegal.

I must be missing something. Apart from the risk of falling afoul a fucked up bit of legislation, why should the guy have denied the girl's request? Were they lying atop The Annual Soccer Mom Convention's picnic table or something?

OK, how much do you want to hear a british man named Yahtzee talking extraordinarily fast giving an utterly hillarious review of mario galaxy?
Oh man, I think I've watched some of that guy's reviews...I'm blanking on the name, but I watched his review of the Orange Box and nearly peed myself.

I must be missing something. Apart from the risk of falling afoul a fucked up bit of legislation, why should the guy have denied the girl's request? Were they lying atop The Annual Soccer Mom Convention's picnic table or something?
To be sure, I'm all for legalized public nudity in areas where it won't interfere with health codes.

However, like it or not, there are laws about where and when people can expose their genitals. My annoyance with the bloke in question, and with some folks on this thread, has to do with the lame-ass claim that he couldn't help himself. The hell he couldn't. He decided to expose himself in a situation where he should not have. He fucked up. Not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, but I've had quite enough of people blaming women when men choose to be stupid with their penises. In this case, it's quite obviously only the fault of the fellow who took his junk out. He did something illegal. He got busted. Boo fucking hoo for him. :D

Oh man, I think I've watched some of that guy's reviews...I'm blanking on the name, but I watched his review of the Orange Box and nearly peed myself.

Here's his mario galaxy (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/zeropunctuation/2768-Zero-Punctuation-Super-Mario-Galaxy) one. He is, without a doubt, the best reviewer in the business. During his heavenly sword demo review, he stops about half way short and goes "well that was the demo, let's talk about something else now" and proceeds to discuss the upcoming resident evil.

Just, watch it, cause it's so damned funny.

And as I said on another thread, I hate your signature because I get that song stuck in my head, then linked you a flash video of the song.

What exactly did he do wrong? Break the law? Screw that. Laws aren't perfect & a hell of a lot aren't in any way justifiable.

If he claimed to be mind controlled by Teh Boob of Ebil, I understand & share your loathing of the git. Cowardly & idiotic thing to say. But if you think it was wrong of him to show her what she asked to see, then surely you think she's as guilty as he, right? After all, she was the one who wanted to see the Dangly Bits of Ebil. He didn't just come running out of a shrubbery, shouting "Oi! Titties! Ring me bellend!"

What exactly did he do wrong? Break the law? Screw that. Laws aren't perfect & a hell of a lot aren't in any way justifiable.

And yet, they are the law, are they not? We can't go around breaking the law because we disagree with them.

But if you think it was wrong of him to show her what she asked to see, then surely you think she's as guilty as he, right?

No more so than the undercover cop who offers to sell someone drugs.

Tell that to Paul Reubens (okay, he was in a theater, but the principle's similar -- overt titillation to arousal).

Sorry, but waxing your carrot in a strip club is illegal, regardless of the establishment's policies.After a bit of research, I'll concede. I am, however, in disagreement that such clubs "sell sex explicitely" under these circumstances.

We can't go around breaking the law because we disagree with them.



We can't? Shit better never smoke grass again. Of course we can, other wise we have an all powerful force that controls our lives. Indeed isn't it our civic duty to oppose draconian laws?

Are you saying that the poll tax laws are fair and just and that the riots never happend? Coz I'm sure I saw them.

We can't? Shit better never smoke grass again. Of course we can, other wise we have an all powerful force that controls our lives.

Well, of course you can in the literal sense. I suppose I should amend to say you can't just break the law, and expect to remain free from punishment

Are you saying that the poll tax laws are fair and just and that the riots never happend? Coz I'm sure I saw them.

Poor example. The poll tax laws were neither fair, nor, in fact, were the legitimate laws. In fact, most of the laws that were of issue during the civil rights riots were not legitimate laws at all.

Well, they were indeed laws, but they were not any laws that had the legitimate legal power. We have a duty and obligation to obey legitimate laws, much of what was at issue in the civil rights era protests were not legitimate laws.

No more so than the undercover cop who offers to sell someone drugs.Are they equivalent?
Does undercover coppers try to buy illegal drugs off people, because those drugs have properties similar to the cock in question? Does the fireman's cock, for example, fund international terrorism, get people addicted, undermine 3rd world economies and democratic movements?We have a duty and obligation to obey legitimate laws, much of what was at issue in the civil rights era protests were not legitimate laws.My point exactly. There's nothing justifiable about being cruel to people simply because they decide to get a bit intimate in a place where others might see them.

Are they equivalent?
Does undercover coppers try to buy illegal drugs off people, because those drugs have properties similar to the cock in question? Does the fireman's cock, for example, fund international terrorism, get people addicted, undermine 3rd world economies and democratic movements?My point exactly. Whether the cops were wasting time and money with the operation, or whether asking people to expose themselves serves a purpose to make a city safer is largely irrelevant when asking the question of how guilty the guy is.
There's nothing justifiable about being cruel to people simply because they decide to get a bit intimate in a place where others might see them."Cruel" how? Why would giving him the regular sentence for indecent exposure qualify as cruel? Especially considering that not only did people see him, they caught him on tape (again, that it was police officers pursuing a nonsensical goal is largely irrelevant).

Whether the cops were wasting time and money with the operation, or whether asking people to expose themselves serves a purpose to make a city safer is largely irrelevant when asking the question of how guilty the guy is.Indeed. However, it is relevant to the question of whether or not the law is justified. If enforcing a law is pointless, then the question of guilt is equally pointless. Again, I'm not saying he's not a criminal. Far from it. Obviously he is. I'm saying he did no wrong."Cruel" how? Why would giving him the regular sentence for indecent exposure qualify as cruel?Did his punishment prevent harm or inconvenience to the girl? The police? Himself? Anyone at all? If not, his punishment is cruel.Especially considering that not only did people see him, they caught him on tape (again, that it was police officers pursuing a nonsensical goal is largely irrelevant).On the contrary. That consideration is entirely besides the point, while it is critically relevant whether or not the goal the police were pursuing was sensible. If it wasn't, punishing the guy is equally nonsensical, and since it is to his harm, cruel.

My point exactly. There's nothing justifiable about being cruel to people simply because they decide to get a bit intimate in a place where others might see them.

They are not in any way equivalent. The poll tax laws were illegitimate laws not because of some sense of subjective morality, or some silly idea that a crime somehow isn't a crime if nobody happens to get hurt this time.

The poll tax laws were illegitimate, and thus created no obligation to obey them, for a very simple reason. They were unconstitutional.

They are not in any way equivalent. The poll tax laws were illegitimate laws not because of some sense of subjective morality, or some silly idea that a crime somehow isn't a crime if nobody happens to get hurt this time.Soo... A law derives it's legitimacy not from whether or not it is justifiable, but from whether or not it meshes with another law?

A question then. If harm/benefit is purely incidental, why bother with them at all? It's not like they're cost-free to invent, administer and enforce.

Indeed isn't it our civic duty to oppose draconian laws?


Technically speaking, Draconian laws are not bad restrictions, just overly-harsh punishment. Like the death-sentence for graffiti. Graffiti should be against the law, but the punishment is a matter of debate.

A question then. If harm/benefit is purely incidental, why bother with them at all? It's not like they're cost-free to invent, administer and enforce.

Because our democratically elected government decided to create them. Don't like it? Vote someone into office that will change it.

Because our democratically elected government decided to create them. Don't like it? Vote someone into office that will change it.

Just so. You do not see me protesting seatbelt laws by not wearing a seatbelt.

Because our democratically elected government decided to create them. Don't like it? Vote someone into office that will change it.I'd seek asylum in a first world country instead. You know, one of those where the legitimacy of the laws & the legislators derives from the people, not from itself.

Anyway, I seem to recall something about cruel & unusual punishment being unconstitutional in the US. On the off chance that I'm not simply imagining the world to be better than it is, wouldn't that make the law in question illegitimate by the criteria you've outlined, and thus exactly like the Poll Tax?

Two days ago...

I woke up on a deflated air mattress to find a large dog asleep across my legs and a small gay man using my tummy for a pillow, with a bottle of gin digging into the small of my back, and my stomach attempting to slither up the back of my throat and out through my nose. Who let the large dogs out?


Feliz A~o Nuevo Botella :D :D :p :D

They are not in any way equivalent. The poll tax laws were illegitimate laws not because of some sense of subjective morality, or some silly idea that a crime somehow isn't a crime if nobody happens to get hurt this time.

The poll tax laws were illegitimate, and thus created no obligation to obey them, for a very simple reason. They were unconstitutional.
You are mistaken. The poll tax laws were perfectly constitutional at the time they were protested against; it required an amendment to the constitution to change that.

Anyway, I seem to recall something about cruel & unusual punishment being unconstitutional in the US. On the off chance that I'm not simply imagining the world to be better than it is, wouldn't that make the law in question illegitimate by the criteria you've outlined, and thus exactly like the Poll Tax?

Not at all. The prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment is, as you just said, in regard to the punishment of a crime. The "cruel and unusual punishment" prohibition does not, in and of itself, prevent the state from criminalizing anything (other amendments do, however). That cruel and unusual section merely prevents the government from imposing cruel and disproportionate punishments for the crime.

He was fined $250. Now if you want to make the argument that a $250 is "cruel" and disproportionate to the crime of public nudity, go ahead and try. It'll be amusing.

You are mistaken. The poll tax laws were perfectly constitutional at the time they were protested against; it required an amendment to the constitution to change that.

Not at all. The 24th amendment, ratified in 1964, was passed to prevent poll taxes on federal elections, however poll taxes in general had been unconstitutional since 1868 when the 14th amendment was ratified. The court merely did not rule on this until 1966, in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 2 years after the 24th amendment was ratified.

Which makes the 24th amendment, as a matter of law, entirely superfluous, as it accomplishes nothing that the 14th amendment didn't already accomplish, and the courts ruled, in 1966, that poll taxes had always been unconstitutional, since the 14th amendment was ratified.

It is an interesting little historical note that the states ratified a completely irrelevant amendment, they just didn't know it was irrelevant until 2 years after the fact.

Not at all. The prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment is, as you just said, in regard to the punishment of a crime.Oh. Well, where I am, it's about the severity of the wrong, not the crime per se. But then, we also have things like civil disobedience & such.

But then, my entire point was that what the guy's gone through was unjustified. I'm not questioning the legality, but the legitimacy of unjustifed legislation - and in your case, apparently the existence of an unjustified legal system.

To me, "this bit of paper sez so" isn't sufficient reason to hurt or inconvenience people.

Apart from that, the $250 is the very least of it. His livelihood has been endangered. And again; for what? Why has [insert name of state, 'cus it slipped my mind] done this to the man? Because it's illegal? What then when some mad fuck criminalizes breathing, or being below the age of 3? Will breathers & children then be punished? What if they, unlike the dick-guy, refuse to desist with their criminal activities for years? Will they be shot or permanently imprisoned?

You need some sort of reason to punish people that goes beyond "because I sez so". Otherwise the unlucky fireman might just draft his own constitution, declare unquestioning authoritarianism a capital offence, and start killing people like yourself.

Apart from that, the $250 is the very least of it. His livelihood has been endangered. And again; for what? Why has [insert name of state, 'cus it slipped my mind] done this to the man? Because it's illegal?

That's not the state's problem. He committed a crime, the extra-legal consequences of that are not the concern of the state.

What then when some mad fuck criminalizes breathing, or being below the age of 3? Will breathers & children then be punished? What if they, unlike the dick-guy, refuse to desist with their criminal activities for years? Will they be shot or permanently imprisoned?

See, that would be unconstitutional

You need some sort of reason to punish people that goes beyond "because I sez so". Otherwise the unlucky fireman might just draft his own constitution, declare unquestioning authoritarianism a capital offence, and start killing people like yourself.

Quite a nice fallacy you got going there.

The poll tax laws were illegitimate, and thus created no obligation to obey them, for a very simple reason. They were unconstitutional.

Slavery wasn't. Were laws permitting people to be owned legitimate laws?

Slavery wasn't. Were laws permitting people to be owned legitimate laws?

Were they legitimate laws? Yes. They were passed pursuant to legislative authority, with no superceding authority preventing them.

Were they horrible, immoral, unethical and extraordinarily disguisting? Yes. But they were legitimate, in the sense that they were passed by legitimate authority.

Well this thread has taken an interesting turn.

They were passed pursuant to legislative authority, with no superceding authority preventing them.
Were they horrible, immoral, unethical and extraordinarily disguisting? Yes. retarded Law.

Just like this sex Law.
Just like many US sex laws.

Why do actual police work when you can borderline entrap people and say you are fighting crime.

And see a topless woman while you're at it.

retarded Law.

Just like this sex Law.
Just like many US sex laws.

I guess They don't know you can't legislate libido.

If a correctly recall a debate with Neeska if the coerce you to do it then it is entrapment, for example if they catch you for buying drugs you need to ask them, they can say I have _______, but they can't push it on you, hold on I'll google the definition for us.

Here: ENTRAPMENT - A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e024.htm

I'd say a topless woman asking to see a man's penis is inducement. I'm pretty sure that if I was topless and asked a man if I could see his penis, he'd do it. Just because he was talking to me doesn't mean he came over with the intention of whipping it out.

I'd say a topless woman asking to see a man's penis is inducement. I'm pretty sure that if I was topless and asked a man if I could see his penis, he'd do it. Just because he was talking to me doesn't mean he came over with the intention of whipping it out.

Um, frankly, any man who would simply pull his pecker out every time someone asks, really needs to have the light switch turned on. $250 seems a perfect way to do it, actually.

Do I think it was worth all the effort? Hell, no. Nor do I think it's generally a problem, but if you are going to break the law because you see tits, then you need to be whacked upside the head.

Um, frankly, any man who would simply pull his pecker out every time someone asks, really needs to have the light switch turned on. $250 seems a perfect way to do it, actually.

Do I think it was worth all the effort? Hell, no. Nor do I think it's generally a problem, but if you are going to break the law because you see tits, then you need to be whacked upside the head.

I'm not saying you don't. But, I'm pretty sure the conversation before hand didn't go "Hey, how ya doin'? Can I see your penis?" She was probably flirting or something before they got to that point in the conversation. Most men that I know aren't going to say no to a topless woman that's flirting with them. I would hope they'd have enough sense to go someplace private before going that far, but some people like the excitement.

I'm not saying you don't. But, I'm pretty sure the conversation before hand didn't go "Hey, how ya doin'? Can I see your penis?" She was probably flirting or something before they got to that point in the conversation. Most men that I know aren't going to say no to a topless woman that's flirting with them. I would hope they'd have enough sense to go someplace private before going that far, but some people like the excitement.

if you think most men you know can't resist the urge to whip their penis out in public after a bit of flirting, you are either extraordinarily underestimating the men you know, and should be ashamed of yourself, or the men you know should be ashamed of themselves.

I, frankly, am inclined to believe the former.

I'm not saying you don't. But, I'm pretty sure the conversation before hand didn't go "Hey, how ya doin'? Can I see your penis?" She was probably flirting or something before they got to that point in the conversation. Most men that I know aren't going to say no to a topless woman that's flirting with them. I would hope they'd have enough sense to go someplace private before going that far, but some people like the excitement.

Then the men you know need to learn some self-control. Or perhaps you're talking about children?

I've not seen anyone tempted to pull their penis out in public places by the mere prospect of sex as an adult. It's generally something that healthy adults grow out of.

And this man got excitement. $250 dollars worth and a chance to lose his job. I think that's plenty of excitement. Perhaps next time he'll opt for the less exciting outcome.

Stop agreeing with me, dammit. People are gonna start thinking we're on the same side and that cannot be good.

hah, well I've found we tend to be about 50/50, typically we agree when it comes to the actions of stupid people, as we tend to both have very low tolerance for stupidity, it seems.

if you think most men you know can't resist the urge to whip their penis out in public after a bit of flirting, you are either extraordinarily underestimating the men you know, and should be ashamed of yourself, or the men you know should be ashamed of themselves.

I, frankly, am inclined to believe the former.

Stop agreeing with me, dammit. People are gonna start thinking we're on the same side and that cannot be good.

OK, how much do you want to hear a british man named Yahtzee talking extraordinarily fast giving an utterly hillarious review of mario galaxy?

This seals your place in the Hall Of Win. Yahtzee is some kind of demigod who walks(and talks, very quickly) among us.

hah, well I've found we tend to be about 50/50, typically we agree when it comes to the actions of stupid people, as we tend to both have very low tolerance for stupidity, it seems.

It's actually funny because when we disagree we tend to go for each other's throats. Just goes to show it's not personal.

Except that one time when you called me fat. That really hurt.

None of which makes it legal to drop trou in a public place.
Neither is buying drugs, but if the cop walks up to you as you leave drug rehab and pitches them to you for an hour....

Neither is buying drugs, but if the cop walks up to you as you leave drug rehab and pitches them to you for an hour....

Which isn't what happened. You're making things up again. You've continually repeated that she talked him into it. Now, he's doing the equivalent of "coming out of rehab". What's the matter? What really happened isn't convincing so you have keep altering the events until your argument for it being entrapment actually works?

Face it. Your alteration of the events is an admission that as things happened, it's not entrapment. That you understand this is evidenced every time you change the events to make your argument work.

Were they horrible, immoral, unethical and extraordinarily disguisting? Yes. But they were legitimate, in the sense that they were passed by legitimate authority.

Was there a moral obligation to obey the laws protecting slavery, the same way there might be a moral obligation to obey an "ordinary" law even if you disagree with it?

Anyway, I deny that considerations of "legitimacy" need be restricted to constitutions. Among other things, such a standard for legitimacy is self-defeating: if the only basis for legitimacy is consistency with other laws, why care about that consistency in the first place? (Is there a law that says we should? But that's circular.)

Was there a moral obligation to obey the laws protecting slavery, the same way there might be a moral obligation to obey an "ordinary" law even if you disagree with it?

Anyway, I deny that considerations of "legitimacy" need be restricted to constitutions. Among other things, such a standard for legitimacy is self-defeating: if the only basis for legitimacy is consistency with other laws, why care about that consistency in the first place? (Is there a law that says we should? But that's circular.)

Here would be my take on it, Soh. I'd say I've got not the first problem with people protesting laws in order to get them changed or because their illegitimate. If you want to strip down and walk through your closest park naked in order to protest, I'd be saying I agree with you. Good on you.

This guy wasn't protesting and when he got caught he pretended she entrapped him. If he was protesting he should have just said, it's a stupid law judge and I don't recognize it as legitimate. I wasn't visible to anyone but the person who asked me to show it. This whole process is stupid.

And he still gets fined but he stood up for what was right. Instead he claimed that as a male he can't control himself and by seeing boobs he was trapped into doing it. Much different.

If you're protesting, you do so with the understanding that you have to face the music until the laws are changed. The people who got us where we are today in terms of respect for civil rights and whatnot were willing to do their time for the crimes they committed for long-term justice. That's how it goes.

Was there a moral obligation to obey the laws protecting slavery, the same way there might be a moral obligation to obey an "ordinary" law even if you disagree with it?

That depends on ones own morality. There are two ways to protest the law. One is peacefully, and within the bounds of the law, as King and others advocated. This, I believe, is the best solution. We live in a democracy and you have many avenues open to you to change the law.

The second is willfully disobey the law. And, if you wish to disobey the law out of protest, and feel this is a moral duty, then so be it, however that doesn't make you suddenly immune from conviction. In some instances I think people SHOULD protest the law, however, I also recognize that this does mean you can, and often will, get arrested as a result.

I also think that is a secondary way to do it, only after legal methods have been exhausted.

Let's see here:
Would he have committed the crime if there was no sting? Almost certainly not.
Therefore, regardless of whether it is technically entrapment or not, the police scammed this guy out of $250.
And I'd argue that it was entrapment, despite Neo Art's rather inconsistent standard of it. I'll edit this once I look up the actual standard.

EDIT: From the most recent case involving this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._United_States), entrapment seems to have FAR lower standards then you think it does.
Basically, the Jacobson from the title of the case got off buying kiddie porn because the government had suggested (under an alias, of course) that it wouldn't be that bad of an idea to buy it. The standard for entrapment was "lack of predisposition to commit the crime".
Now, I don't think anyone here is arguing that this guy had a predisposition to go show his dick to naked women. He did it only because the police were there trying to get him to. He might have fallen for it, but he wouldn't have committed any crime had there been no police, so he was most definitely entrapped.

EDIT2: The system is now redirecting my posts to the mods; if I had to guess why I'd say it's because it caught the string "kiddie porn". That's why I haven't posted yet, if you're wondering.

Let's see here:
Would he have committed the crime if there was no sting? Almost certainly not.
Therefore, regardless of whether it is technically entrapment or not, the police scammed this guy out of $250.
And I'd argue that it was entrapment, despite Neo Art's rather inconsistent standard of it. I'll edit this once I look up the actual standard.

Again, if your standard were true, then undercover police work essentially wouldn't exist. What do you think is different about a woman asking to see his penis and a cop asking if you'd like to buy a joint.

By law, simply allowing for the opportunity to commit the crime, a cop cannot entrap you. It requires MUCH more than that. THere is no evidence that much more was done here. The fact that her boobs were out or she flirted doesn't change the law, nor does it any way compel him to break it.

And I'd argue that it was entrapment, despite Neo Art's rather inconsistent standard of it. I'll edit this once I look up the actual standard.

If you can't understand the argument, that is not my fault. My stance has not been in any way "inconsistent" or erronious. Rather, I have been given different hypotheticals and dealt with them all differently. The fact that people keep trying to cobble together different scenarios into some sort of frankenstein-esq argument is not my problem...

Moreover, the fact that he was so willing to expose himself with such little prompting demonstrates he likely has some impulse control issues, so why is everyone so sure that he would never would have done this sort of thing?

That depends on ones own morality. There are two ways to protest the law. One is peacefully, and within the bounds of the law, as King and others advocated.

Wait, Martin Luther King? He very explicitly advocated civil disobedience in some circumstances.

This, I believe, is the best solution. We live in a democracy and you have many avenues open to you to change the law.

Well, it depends on the law.

I think the one in the article is legitimate, and I think we have a weak political obligation to obey it--weak because the law itself is so minor, not because I think the law is wrong (as I do.)

I think the laws protecting slavery, on the other hand, were fundamentally illegitimate, and should not have been recognized as "law" at all. A law enabling slavery fundamentally rejects the basic principles of liberal democracy. Instead of obeying a set of universal laws that treat us all as equal citizens, in a slave society some of us obey laws that enable us to arbitrarily rule over others, and some of us obey laws that force us to arbitrarily submit.

I can say that the law in the article is wrong but fair. It occurred through the democratic process, it applies equally to all, and it can be justified in public terms, terms that do more than appeal to the private whim of part of the population. The fact that the social valuation lying at the heart of it--"a society where people do not expose themselves is better than one where they have the freedom to do so"--is one I reject does not change the law's fairness.

But the same is not true for laws that are in and of themselves unfair, like laws protecting slavery, or laws that do not meet democratic standards.

In some instances I think people SHOULD protest the law, however, I also recognize that this does mean you can, and often will, get arrested as a result.

Of course. The question is whether we should be arrested as a result.

As a legal matter, I say yes: otherwise, we fundamentally undermine the rule of law. As a moral matter, however, I say no. As an individual, if I disobey an unjust law it is not clear to me at all that I should, as a consequence, be willing to voluntarily submit to the consequences. (Rationally I should expect them. But morally there is no "ought.")

Uh... "So little prompting?"
We don't have a transcript of the conversation, and they were talking for a few minutes. That's plenty of time to coerce someone into showing their dick, using the same coersion standards as the case I linked, mind you. The woman was the one who suggested taking his penis out, and the woman was with the police. That's entrapment.
Basically it's like:
Like you said, if the police go up to people and ask them if they want to buy drugs, it's not entrapment.
It is entrapment if the police mention it's a good idea to buy drugs.
If a normally clothed woman went up to this guy and asked him if he would pull out his penis, and he did, that wouldn't be entrapment.
But a naked woman flirting with him is entrapment, even if he was a total idiot to go along with it, because come on, you wouldn't buy kiddie porn based on suggestions that it wasn't wrong, would you? Only an idiot would. But it's entrapment according to the U.S Supreme Court.

Wait, Martin Luther King? He very explicitly advocated civil disobedience in some circumstances.

Yes he did, however, one of the principles of King's political philosophy is that refusal to obey certain laws should be used as an option after the normal efforts of the democratic process had not been fruitful.

And, even after such an effort, King advocated breaking the law only as needed as a means to an end, not an end of itself, which is what I mean.

Sorry, I wasn't clear.

As a legal matter, I say yes: otherwise, we fundamentally undermine the rule of law. As a moral matter, however, I say no.

Quite, which is a point of my discussion. He violated the law, and, as a matter of law, deserves to be punished in accordance with the law. That is necessary for our society to function.

Whether this is morally right and whether the law was morally sound I leave as an exercise for the reader to determine for his/her own self.

As an individual, if I disobey an unjust law it is not clear to me at all that I should, as a consequence, be willing to voluntarily submit to the consequences. (Rationally I should expect them. But morally there is no "ought.")

Again, quite right, note that I said one who disobeys the law, even for moral reasons should realize he can, and just might, suffer legal consequences for that. Ones moral stand point does not excuse or diminish the fact that he broke the law.

Again, I leave the moral ramifications of such to each of our own morality, as it's not really relevant to my point, which is, he broke the law, and whether you agree with the law or not, the integrity of our legal system requires he be punished accordingly.

Basically you are speaking of law as legitimate from a moral and ethical stance, I use it from a legal stance, because, while I have my own particular moral beliefs and ethical standards, does not change whether a law is valid or not. A law is legitimate, in a legal sense, if it is promulgated pursuant to legitimate authority, nothing more nothing less.

That says nothing about the moral legitimacy, and I have made no attempt to do so.

This guy wasn't protesting and when he got caught he pretended she entrapped him.

Who said he was? I am not intent upon defending the person in question.

If you're protesting, you do so with the understanding that you have to face the music until the laws are changed.

Yes, rationally we should expect punishment. But should we accept it? Should we submit to it or run from it (assuming the second option is practical)?

Again, if your standard were true, then undercover police work essentially wouldn't exist. What do you think is different about a woman asking to see his penis and a cop asking if you'd like to buy a joint.

By law, simply allowing for the opportunity to commit the crime, a cop cannot entrap you. It requires MUCH more than that. THere is no evidence that much more was done here. The fact that her boobs were out or she flirted doesn't change the law, nor does it any way compel him to break it.

Just asking? Nothing. That is obviously not entrapment.
However, her flirting with him was a suggestion to break the law, however flimsy, and since she suggested he break the law, they can't prove that he would have if she didn't. In fact, he probably wouldn't have if she didn't. And THAT is the standard for entrapment according to the SCOTUS.

Who said he was? I am not intent upon defending the person in question.



Yes, rationally we should expect punishment. But should we accept it? Should we submit to it or run from it (assuming the second option is practical)?

Honestly, it would depend. If your goal is to protest, then accepting the consequences is practically necessary, unless of course you're actually planning to overthrow the group you're protesting. Otherwise, you're not showing yourself to disagree with the laww, but simply unwilling to be punished like, well, every criminal.

If your goal is simply to do whatever it is, then that's a whole different issue, since then you're balancing the crime with the consequences and choosing to commit it as a matter of it being worth it. However, essentially when you flee, you're doing this again, committing another crime and facing another penalty. I don't agree with hiding from the consequences, because I believe in personal responsiblity, and such behavior denies it.

That says nothing about the moral legitimacy, and I have made no attempt to do so.

I know. But you cannot isolate the two so easily.

As an citizen, as a jury member, as a judge, as a Supreme Court justice, a person may at some point be faced with what is, like all questions of right action, a moral question: what to do with respect to a particular law. To speak of "legal legitimacy" is in a sense a cop-out. It tells me what the law says; it doesn't tell me what I should do.

If we believe in the rule of law, we must, of course, attach to positive law a high ethical importance. But that does not mean that we need accept it as the be-all and end-all of justice, even within the framework of the legal system.

Otherwise, you're not showing yourself to disagree with the laww, but simply unwilling to be punished like, well, every criminal.

What if the act itself is inherently political, such that no one would believe that you had done other than protest? Perhaps you were arrested for blocking a street in a protest?

To make the point of my question clearer, is the problem here a practical one--"If I don't accept the consequences, my protest will not be effective"--or one on the level of principle--"If I don't accept the consequences, my protest does not escape the moral stain of common criminality"?

I don't agree with hiding from the consequences, because I believe in personal responsiblity, and such behavior denies it.

How so? I perfectly admit that I am responsible for my actions. I simply deny that others should punish me for them.

I know. But you cannot isolate the two so easily.

As an citizen, as a jury member, as a judge, as a Supreme Court justice, a person may at some point be faced with what is, like all questions of right action, a moral question: what to do with respect to a particular law. To speak of "legal legitimacy" is in a sense a cop-out. It tells me what the law says; it doesn't tell me what I should do.

If we believe in the rule of law, we must, of course, attach to positive law a high ethical importance. But that does not mean that we need accept it as the be-all and end-all of justice, even within the framework of the legal system.

Actually I would argue strongly that a jury, and especially a judge should do his or her very best to seperate the two. A judge rules on what the law is, not what he or she believes it should be. While a judge may have moral problems, perhaps serious ones, with the law, it is not his place to use his moral beliefs in his rulings

What if the act itself is inherently political, such that no one would believe that you had done other than protest? Perhaps you were arrested for blocking a street in a protest?

To make the point of my question clearer, is the problem here a practical one--"If I don't accept the consequences, my protest will not be effective"--or one on the level of principle--"If I don't accept the consequences, my protest does not escape the moral stain of common criminality"?

I think it's complicated. Yes, I'd say it's both practical and on principle. I'd say that when you decide that you will break laws you agree with in order to protect yourself from the consequences of the laws you don't agree with, you simply are showing that you believe criminality is perfectly acceptable provided you think you have a good reason. It goes well beyond any level of protest.

How so? I perfectly admit that I am responsible for my actions. I simply deny that others should punish me for them.

As you commit crime after crime. I'd argue that at some point, your claim to protest is lost in a sea of simply being a criminal.

While a judge may have moral problems, perhaps serious ones, with the law, it is not his place to use his moral beliefs in his rulings

I agree. To a point.

But what if the nature of the law itself is such that it violates the principles of the rule of law? What, again, of a law like slavery, which violates not only morality but the fundamental principles of political legitimacy?

How can we appeal to the rule of law in defense of a "law" that itself contradicts the rule of law?

To be sure, I'm all for legalized public nudity in areas where it won't interfere with health codes.

However, like it or not, there are laws about where and when people can expose their genitals. My annoyance with the bloke in question, and with some folks on this thread, has to do with the lame-ass claim that he couldn't help himself. The hell he couldn't. He decided to expose himself in a situation where he should not have. He fucked up. Not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, but I've had quite enough of people blaming women when men choose to be stupid with their penises. In this case, it's quite obviously only the fault of the fellow who took his junk out. He did something illegal. He got busted. Boo fucking hoo for him. :D

It's been said. I've said it myself. But now it's been said by Bottle. As far as I can see, this is the definitive version, and it's all cleaning up stragglers from here.

Welcome back, Bottle. :D

retarded Law.

Just like this sex Law.
Just like many US sex laws.

Yes, because what society really needs is random guys flopping it out where the kids can see it.

Not on my watch.

On the other hand - if the US were to totally legalise nudity, such that sex organs became... well, just 'organs'... then I'd have no problem with the dude wandering the park with his wang at the ready.

But, those aren't our laws. So the dumass deserved to get punished for being piloted by hs cock-pit.

you simply are showing that you believe criminality is perfectly acceptable provided you think you have a good reason.

Isn't that true of all civil disobedience?

I simply say here that my "good reason" applies not only against the law itself, but also against other laws that I might agree with in other contexts, insofar as they serve to enforce the original law.

Indeed, ordinary civil disobedience often involves breaking laws with which we otherwise would agree: I am not inclined to argue that people should be legally entitled to block traffic, but breaking that good law is a perfectly legitimate civil disobedience tactic.

As you commit crime after crime. I'd argue that at some point, your claim to protest is lost in a sea of simply being a criminal.

Why, as long as my criminality is still connected to my protest?

I may not arbitrarily break any law, and I have never said as much.

I'm not saying you don't. But, I'm pretty sure the conversation before hand didn't go "Hey, how ya doin'? Can I see your penis?" She was probably flirting or something


Which makes it neither 'okay', nor legal.

And that's why all the maybes and 'but it should' arguments are a waste of breath. The law says the snake stays in the cage. A girl flirting with you doesn't change that.

Hence, law broken. Mr Badman, meet Mr Handcuffs.


...before they got to that point in the conversation. Most men that I know aren't going to say no to a topless woman that's flirting with them.

Then most of the men you know shouldn't be allowed out without an adult to supervise them.

Neither is buying drugs, but if the cop walks up to you as you leave drug rehab and pitches them to you for an hour....

Yes...?

Is it suddenly legal? No.

I suspect that little scenario is likely to be considered a lot more realistically as 'entrapment', than the idea that mere exposure of breasts equates to un irresistible temptation.

What if the act itself is inherently political, such that no one would believe that you had done other than protest? Perhaps you were arrested for blocking a street in a protest?


I really hope we're not getting to the point where people are claiming that a guy being unable to restrain his todger is some kind of hero of the revolution, and his flasher moment was intended as some kind of civili rights call-to-arms.

a guy being unable to restrain his todger

I'm long past talking about that.

Come on, we're in the 460s on this thread. Surely we can get off-topic a little... especially since the circumstances under which we are obligated to obey the law are actually kinda-sorta relevant, in a broad sense.

Isn't that true of all civil disobedience?

It's true if your civil disobedience is with the purposes of changing the law you're disobeying. When you start breaking laws you agree with, it's not civil disobedience, it's been a crook.


I simply say here that my "good reason" applies not only against the law itself, but also against other laws that I might agree with in other contexts, insofar as they serve to enforce the original law.

Indeed, ordinary civil disobedience often involves breaking laws with which we otherwise would agree: I am not inclined to argue that people should be legally entitled to block traffic, but breaking that good law is a perfectly legitimate civil disobedience tactic.

I actually don't agree with blocking traffic to protest a law that has nothing to do with traffic.



Why, as long as my criminality is still connected to my protest?

I may not arbitrarily break any law, and I have never said as much.
Lying in court isn't a protest. In fact, it denies that it was a protest or that you broke the law. Avoiding the law isn't connected to the protest. You know you're going into not so hazy territory. The KKK is merely protesting, right? Somewhere they decided that the law, legitimate or not, doesn't apply to them. What's the difference in your scenario? When is it not justified anymore? Murder? Theft? Torture? Terrorism?

I actually don't agree with blocking traffic to protest a law that has nothing to do with traffic.

Protesting without a permit? Refusing to move from a place when legitimately told to do so? Even if you don't agree with blocking traffic for whatever reason, there are plenty of other reasons.

Lying in court isn't a protest. In fact, it denies that it was a protest or that you broke the law.

You're right that lying in court runs contrary to the point of a protest. But running doesn't, not necessarily anyway... and the point is not that it aids the protest, the point is that because your initial act was justified as protest, your avoidance of the penalty is merely an extension of that justification.

You know you're going into not so hazy territory. The KKK is merely protesting, right?

Wrong.

Somewhere they decided that the law, legitimate or not, doesn't apply to them.

Look, if you can distinguish on justified bases between moral views at all--and you must be able to, otherwise you would not be making a moral argument--then it does not follow that any claim of right at all is equal in terms of violating the law.

The KKK's actions were morally wrong in and of themselves. We need not even consider any obligation to obey the law before recognizing that.

Protesting without a permit? Refusing to move from a place when legitimately told to do so? Even if you don't agree with blocking traffic for whatever reason, there are plenty of other reasons.

You should get a permit. Regardless of how you keep trying to twist it around, if the crime is a required part of your protest, it's a lot different than if the crime is a require part of you escaping prosecution for crimes you committed.


You're right that lying in court runs contrary to the point of a protest. But running doesn't, not necessarily anyway... and the point is not that it aids the protest, the point is that because your initial act was justified as protest, your avoidance of the penalty is merely an extension of that justification.

And, hey, shooting a cop. Also justified. You're just trying to prevent and unjust prosecution. Let me know where this string of crimes ends. I don't even have to pull out the slippery slope, you're actually talking about intentionally going down the slope.




Wrong.

Am I? They are protesting the idea that black people have rights. This is their justification for their actions.


Look, if you can distinguish on justified bases between moral views at all--and you must be able to, otherwise you would not be making a moral argument--then it does not follow that any claim of right at all is equal in terms of violating the law.

The KKK's actions were morally wrong in and of themselves. We need not even consider any obligation to obey the law before recognizing that.

Oh, so, whether it's okay depends on what you feel is morally correct. So we're back to it's not the protest that is justified by what YOU think about it. Good to know.

So if the KKK can find people just look like you except ALSO racists on their juries then they're all set. Yay for the rule of law!

Regardless of how you keep trying to twist it around, if the crime is a required part of your protest, it's a lot different than if the crime is a require part of you escaping prosecution for crimes you committed.

Certainly. But what you actually said was that I should not violate laws I actually agree with, and I was contesting that.

I don't even have to pull out the slippery slope, you're actually talking about intentionally going down the slope.

What? Where have I said that killing anyone is acceptable? No, that argument is clearly a slippery slope fallacy: in the simple act of escaping prosecution, I am causing no one any harm. Everything changes if I must kill someone, or steal from someone, or otherwise abuse someone to attain that end.

They are protesting the idea that black people have rights.

"Merely" is the crucial term.

Oh, so, whether it's okay depends on what you feel is morally correct.

No, actually it doesn't. But it's nice to know that you think you can read my mind.

Certainly there is a moral standard that can justify breaking the law and escaping prosecution, but it is not (merely) that I feel the law is wrong, and I have said as much. The clearest case would be where the law is not only wrong but also illegitimate: it is the product of a gross procedural violation. Thus, I have no obligation to regard laws protecting slavery as "law" in any morally relevant sense. I can break them and I can treat attempts to enforce them as arbitrary and unworthy of respect.

Certainly. But what you actually said was that I should not violate laws I actually agree with, and I was contesting that.
I still hold that. However, keep swimming. Your head's still above water.


What? Where have I said that killing anyone is acceptable? No, that argument is clearly a slippery slope fallacy: in the simple act of escaping prosecution, I am causing no one any harm. Everything changes if I must kill someone, or steal from someone, or otherwise abuse someone to attain that end.
Bullshit. When you are violating laws you're always hurting someone. People are trying to prosecute you and until they succeed they generally keep trying. So you're wasting money. You're wasting people's time. Shall I keep going. So now the rule is as long as you don't actively injure someone, then it's okay. You realize said caveat was just added. Why is that the sudden stop to your crime spree?


"Merely" is the crucial term.

I think you'd find their argument similar to yours. That it's the point and the other crimes are merely in support of that point. Something you've justified.


No, actually it doesn't. But it's nice to know that you think you can read my mind.

Certainly there is a moral standard that can justify breaking the law and escaping prosecution, but it is not (merely) that I feel the law is wrong, and I have said as much. The clearest case would be where the law is not only wrong but also illegitimate: it is the product of a gross procedural violation. Thus, I have no obligation to regard laws protecting slavery as "law" in any morally relevant sense. I can break them and I can treat attempts to enforce them as arbitrary and unworthy of respect.

So morality is universal now? Hmmm... that's news. Where does this universal morality come from? Because it seems to me that the majority of people believed the KKK were right at one time. It was thanks to the minority of people changing the view of the majority that the law was changed. So now the KKK is the minority but they believe they are right. So if it's not okay for them to do it, it must because of either your views on morality or some universal law. Given you've denied the former, it must be the latter.

Bullshit. When you are violating laws you're always hurting someone. People are trying to prosecute you and until they succeed they generally keep trying.

A rather minor harm compared to someone's death. And one that, still, does not exist on the level of principle: it does not tell me that I should not avoid punishment for civil disobedience, period. It tells me that I should not do so when the harm caused by the act (perhaps a common feature, but not a necessary one) reaches a certain level, which is a very different kind of argument, and one for which I might have more sympathy (though not necessarily to the point of accepting an obligation to accept, say, imprisonment to save the government money.)

I think you'd find their argument similar to yours.

Maybe, and all moral arguments, including the KKK's, are of the form "We should do x, because x is right."

Does that mean we should assert an equivalence between "We should kill six million Jews, because doing so is right", and "We should try to end mass starvation, because doing so is right"?

So if it's not okay for them to do it, it must because of either your views on morality or some universal law.

Paying attention can help sometimes.

Your challenge was that the determining standard was "what feel is morally correct", implicitly indicating the standard's arbitrariness and proneness to bias. I pointed out that, in fact, it was not: I actually hold that we must meet a higher moral standard than our action being morally non-objectionable when considered independently of the law. Namely, I argued that at least one plausible standard is not whether the law is [I]right (in our personal opinion), but whether it is legitimate--for instance, whether or not it is the product of the democratic process, or whether or not it is consistent with the basic principle of equal citizens under law.

If a given law is not, of course, we are not saved from arbitrariness and bias: these are necessary parts of human decision-making. But we have no obligation to regard the results of a grossly unfair procedure as any more decisive than our own moral consideration.

Regardless of any of that, the KKK is wrong before we even consider the political question of civil disobedience, because its moral views regarding how society ought to be organized are wrong. Yes, they believe they are right... but this is not a sufficient basis to give their views equal credibility to everyone else's. We have objective ways of differentiating between views: reason, evidence, etc.

Lets say the total -tities- operation cost was $500000,

Is that the fault of the Fireman?

If the Police i stupid enough to expend half-a-million on a stupid trap.. I would say the ridiculous waste of resources is the Fault of the Police dpt.

Any particular reason for that figure?

Is that cited somewhere, or the average cost for a sting operation, or something?

Or... and I'm suspecting this one, personally, did you pull it out of your arse?


Good argument though - we shouldn't fight crime, because we might have to spend some money.

Bullshit. When you are violating laws you're always hurting someone. People are trying to prosecute you and until they succeed they generally keep trying. So you're wasting money. You're wasting people's time. Lets say the total -tities- operation cost was $100000,

Is that the fault of the Fireman?

If the Police is stupid enough to waste police resources on that kind of retarded operation.. I would say the ridiculous waste of public money is the fault of people who decided this kind of operation was a good idea.

A rather minor harm compared to someone's death. And one that, still, does not exist on the level of principle: it does not tell me that I should not avoid punishment for civil disobedience, period. It tells me that I should not do so when the harm caused by the act (perhaps a common feature, but not a necessary one) reaches a certain level, which is a very different kind of argument, and one for which I might have more sympathy (though not necessarily to the point of accepting an obligation to accept, say, imprisonment to save the government money.)

So unless you draw some arbitrary line the only choices are to accept responsibility for your actions or decide that you are more important than other people and take actions that harm others. Those really are the only choices.

The government doesn't have money. It spends the people's money and taking money from the government necessarily takes it from the people, and if you do so on purpose and in violation of the law, you're stealing.


Maybe, and all moral arguments, including the KKK's, are of the form "We should do x, because x is right."

Does that mean we should assert an equivalence between "We should kill six million Jews, because doing so is right", and "We should try to end mass starvation, because doing so is right"?

No, it means, that saying "because I think this is right, any act of breaking the law is justified" is a dangerous path for the very reasons you've outlined.


Paying attention can help sometimes.

Your challenge was that the determining standard was "what feel is morally correct", implicitly indicating the standard's arbitrariness and proneness to bias. I pointed out that, in fact, it was not: I actually hold that we must meet a higher moral standard than our action being morally non-objectionable when considered independently of the law. Namely, I argued that at least one plausible standard is not whether the law is [I]right (in our personal opinion), but whether it is legitimate--for instance, whether or not it is the product of the democratic process, or whether or not it is consistent with the basic principle of equal citizens under law.

Ah, the old practice of taking things as given so you don't have to address them. Your claim that your not using your personal morality defies itself when you add in principles that are added in by your personal bias. Your personal bias is determining legitimacy. Or are we to go by the Constitution, which you claimed was a illegitimate way to do it, not so long ago.




If a given law is not, of course, we are not saved from arbitrariness and bias: these are necessary parts of human decision-making. But we have no obligation to regard the results of a grossly unfair procedure as any more decisive than our own moral consideration.

Regardless of any of that, the KKK is wrong before we even consider the political question of civil disobedience, because its moral views regarding how society ought to be organized are wrong. Yes, they believe they are right... but this is not a sufficient basis to give their views equal credibility to everyone else's. We have objective ways of differentiating between views: reason, evidence, etc.[/QUOTE]

Ah, "objective". Really. You can objectively prove that any view that denies the equality of some subgroup of humans is inherently wrong? I'd be interested to see that. You'll have to forgive the snickering though. Because of course the idea that such things are a given when a fifty years ago they were hotly disputed and still are in some places is laughable.

I would say the ridiculous waste of public money is the fault of people who decided this kind of operation was a good idea.

In after the edit: since I already addressed the main follies of the original:

This kind of operation is a good idea - won't somebody please think of the children? :o

Lets say the total -tities- operation cost was $100000,

Is that the fault of the Fireman?

If the Police is stupid enough to waste police resources on that kind of retarded operation.. I would say the ridiculous waste of public money is the fault of people who decided this kind of operation was a good idea.

Um, what the hell are you talking about? Seriously, perhaps you should get, oh, I don't know, a clue as to what you're speaking about before you start to speak. That would be good.

I've not seen many argue that this operation was good use of time and money. Regardless, when you claim you're innocent of a crime you actually committed, you waste more money. His waste of money, time and his rather absurd claim that it's reasonable to whip your penis out because a topless woman flirts with you is insulting and criminal. The jury agreed.

You might think that committing crimes and then claiming you were forced to do so is criminal, but your admission of your inability to control yourself does make an argument for allowing people to break the law.

Looks to me to be a simple case of ignorance not being a valid defense to breaking a law. The guy didn't know/didn't care that only certain kinds of nudity were permitted, and he got burned for it. Next time, read your city ordinances. I sure do. Or perhaps, next time offer to be nude indoors someplace. :p

Looks to me to be a simple case of ignorance not being a valid defense to breaking a law. The guy didn't know/didn't care that only certain kinds of nudity were permitted, and he got burned for it. Next time, read your city ordinances. I sure do. Or perhaps, next time offer to be nude indoors someplace. :p

City? What place in the US allows you to swing your penis around like a hose?

City? What place in the US allows you to swing your penis around like a hose?

Honestly, I didn't know toplessness was legal until I read this thread. So who knows? Not my town, I'm sure. :p Still, I do read my ordinances before doing certain things. Well, except that 'dig permit' thing for holes deeper than 3 feet. That's a bunch of crap.

Fine, you are the Pope. *shrugs*

You all heard him. BRING ME A MITRE AND A PLATE OF BRUSCHETTA, CARDINAL FANG!

After a bit of research, I'll concede. I am, however, in disagreement that such clubs "sell sex explicitely" under these circumstances.

*blinks*

What? Strip clubs don't sell sex explicity? Jeez, the joints in your town must really stink. Either that or your post needs clarification.

So unless you draw some arbitrary line

Who said anything about "arbitrary"? We weigh different moral considerations all the time. Does that mean that deciding one way or another is "arbitrary"? Is it "arbitrary" to say that one may lie to save an innocent from a murderer?

the only choices are to accept responsibility for your actions

"Accept responsibility for your actions"? Do you even know what that means?

A denial of responsibility would be, "It may have been wrong, but I could not control myself." When one denies responsibility, one has already conceded the argument about justification.

That is not my argument at all. I am arguing that it is right. Or at least acceptable.

The government doesn't have money. It spends the people's money and taking money from the government necessarily takes it from the people, and if you do so on purpose and in violation of the law, you're stealing.

If a random person decides to try to imprison you, are you obligated to let him, to spare him the effort and expense of the chase? Of course not. "Harm" is obviously not a sufficient criterion.

No, there must be a standard of legitimacy the government must meet in its enforcement. I have argued, in effect, that when enforcing a law that is illegitimate--a law like a law protecting the ownership of human beings--any basis for the legitimacy of political authority disappears. If I am a slave, I have no obligation to my oppressor. If I am helping a slave, I have no obligation to pay the prescribed price for defying oppression. In the context of enforcing that kind of law, the government is no longer meaningfully distinct from the vigilante: it seeks to punish me, but it cannot speak to me as a rightful authority, because that law is intrinsically incompatible with legitimate political authority.

No, it means, that saying "because I think this is right, any act of breaking the law is justified" is a dangerous path for the very reasons you've outlined.

Are you really so narrow-minded that you can't even consider an analogy for what it is?

Ah, the old practice of taking things as given so you don't have to address them. Your claim that your not using your personal morality defies itself when you add in principles that are added in by your personal bias. Your personal bias is determining legitimacy.

Maybe, but you aren't getting out of that one. Unless you want to claim that I should submit to the whim of everyone always.

Ah, "objective". Really. You can objectively prove that any view that denies the equality of some subgroup of humans is inherently wrong?

Actually, yes. But I don't need to. Intersubjectivity is as good as objectivity here, and certainly that applies--otherwise we would have to conclude that racists cannot be convinced that they are wrong, and that is an empirically false claim.

Because of course the idea that such things are a given

Who said anything about "a given"?

when a fifty years ago they were hotly disputed and still are in some places

Which tells us what, exactly, about the objective or subjective nature of their truth value? For that matter, it doesn't even tell us anything about whether or not they are "a given" nowadays. Plenty of things that were "hotly disputed" fifty years ago are more or less settled now.

Who said anything about "arbitrary"? We weigh different moral considerations all the time. Does that mean that deciding one way or another is "arbitrary"? Is it "arbitrary" to say that one may lie to save an innocent from a murderer?

Yep.



"Accept responsibility for your actions"? Do you even know what that means?

A denial of responsibility would be, "It may have been wrong, but I could not control myself." When one denies responsibility, one has already conceded the argument about justification.

You recognize that phrases are more than just the individual words. That phrase includes accepting consequences. Would it be accepting responsiblity to say, I'm at fault for the car accident while lying or cheating to make someone else pay for it. The full meaning of the term is to actually take on the consequences. But, hey, somehow it will be helpful to change the meaning, won't it?


That is not my argument at all. I am arguing that it is right. Or at least acceptable.

I'm not sure you know what your argument is. You keep taking arbitrary stands and when I point out they're arbitrary you backpedal. But, hey, without arbitrary claims of "right" and "wrong", you wouldn't have an argument. This isn't about reason. This about what YOUR arbitrary definition of what is moral.



If a random person decides to try to imprison you, are you obligated to let him, to spare him the effort and expense of the chase? Of course not. "Harm" is obviously not a sufficient criterion.

Then why did you bring it up? Whoops.




No, there must be a standard of legitimacy the government must meet in its enforcement. I have argued, in effect, that when enforcing a law that is illegitimate--a law like a law protecting the ownership of human beings--any basis for the legitimacy of political authority disappears. If I am a slave, I have no obligation to my oppressor. If I am helping a slave, I have no obligation to pay the prescribed price for defying oppression. In the context of enforcing that kind of law, the government is no longer meaningfully distinct from the vigilante: it seeks to punish me, but it cannot speak to me as a rightful authority, because that law is intrinsically incompatible with legitimate political authority.

So since you said this isn't your arbitrary morality, then what decides legitmacy? Remember that you started this argument when you climbed way up on that high horse to start lecturing NA. Looks like after how many pages, you're still just talking about your completely arbitrary claims. But, hey, maybe if you deny that again, it will become true.




Are you really so narrow-minded that you can't even consider an analogy for what it is?

No, I'm so broad-minded that I know when you're squirming. You've utterly failed to recognize the arbitrariness of your claims. You might as well be claiming that the only explanation for the origin of the universe is design by God. It would equally arbitrary and equally silly to pretend as if just saying it's so makes it so.



Maybe, but you aren't getting out of that one. Unless you want to claim that I should submit to the whim of everyone always.

Why? Apparently, they are subject to your whim based on whether a law is "legitimate" or not.




Actually, yes. But I don't need to. Intersubjectivity is as good as objectivity here, and certainly that applies--otherwise we would have to conclude that racists cannot be convinced that they are wrong, and that is an empirically false claim.

Amusing. At the same time, for you to be right, we'd have to accept that people who are originally non-racist could not be convinced to be racist. Neither is true. So, again, your argument rests on assertions you're unwilling to support. "It's right cuz I said so." I deny your claim that you decide what is right and wrong.

But, then, hey, you wouldn't want me to just be subject to your whim, now would you?



Who said anything about "a given"?

A "given" is when you argue something as true without actually demonstrating it true. You know what you just did above? Where you said you "could" prove it, but you don't have to. That argues it's a given. You don't have access to the internet? You couldn't have found out what a given is? Seriously, I'm sure Google comes with instructions.



Which tells us what, exactly, about the objective or subjective nature of their truth value? For that matter, it doesn't even tell us anything about whether or not they are "a given" nowadays. Plenty of things that were "hotly disputed" fifty years ago are more or less settled now.

Fortunately, they got hotly disputed because protestors bucked what was considered a "given". You claimed they were right to do so.

Are we now going to say that if it's popular it's right? That's totally arbitrary.

See, I know you don't see it, but you just keep claiming one arbitrary line after another. The same line that made it okay for abolitionists to change the world in the past, defends racists for attempting to do the same. Unless you set an personal morality as universal, something you claimed you aren't doing, but you've done repeatedly. This kind of intellectual masturbation is fun, but I'm pretty sure I've demonstrated just how ludicrous it was for you to lecture NA with a very spurious understanding of what he said, of what he'd shown, and amusingly, while making arbitrary claims as if they were universal.

I've not seen many argue that this operation was good use of time and money. It is a waste.

Yep.





You recognize that phrases are more than just the individual words. That phrase includes accepting consequences. Would it be accepting responsiblity to say, I'm at fault for the car accident while lying or cheating to make someone else pay for it. The full meaning of the term is to actually take on the consequences. But, hey, somehow it will be helpful to change the meaning, won't it?




I'm not sure you know what your argument is. You keep taking arbitrary stands and when I point out they're arbitrary you backpedal. But, hey, without arbitrary claims of "right" and "wrong", you wouldn't have an argument. This isn't about reason. This about what YOUR arbitrary definition of what is moral.





Then why did you bring it up? Whoops.






So since you said this isn't your arbitrary morality, then what decides legitmacy? Remember that you started this argument when you climbed way up on that high horse to start lecturing NA. Looks like after how many pages, you're still just talking about your completely arbitrary claims. But, hey, maybe if you deny that again, it will become true.






No, I'm so broad-minded that I know when you're squirming. You've utterly failed to recognize the arbitrariness of your claims. You might as well be claiming that the only explanation for the origin of the universe is design by God. It would equally arbitrary and equally silly to pretend as if just saying it's so makes it so.





Why? Apparently, they are subject to your whim based on whether a law is "legitimate" or not.






Amusing. At the same time, for you to be right, we'd have to accept that people who are originally non-racist could not be convinced to be racist. Neither is true. So, again, your argument rests on assertions you're unwilling to support. "It's right cuz I said so." I deny your claim that you decide what is right and wrong.

But, then, hey, you wouldn't want me to just be subject to your whim, now would you?





A "given" is when you argue something as true without actually demonstrating it true. You know what you just did above? Where you said you "could" prove it, but you don't have to. That argues it's a given. You don't have access to the internet? You couldn't have found out what a given is? Seriously, I'm sure Google comes with instructions.





Fortunately, they got hotly disputed because protestors bucked what was considered a "given". You claimed they were right to do so.

Are we now going to say that if it's popular it's right? That's totally arbitrary.

See, I know you don't see it, but you just keep claiming one arbitrary line after another. The same line that made it okay for abolitionists to change the world in the past, defends racists for attempting to do the same. Unless you set an personal morality as universal, something you claimed you aren't doing, but you've done repeatedly. This kind of intellectual masturbation is fun, but I'm pretty sure I've demonstrated just how ludicrous it was for you to lecture NA with a very spurious understanding of what he said, of what he'd shown, and amusingly, while making arbitrary claims as if they were universal.




STOP QUOTING

please

In after the edit: since I already addressed the main follies of the original:

This kind of operation is a good idea - won't somebody please think of the children? :o:rolleyes: There is absolutely no proof this fireman was likely to harm children.
They say this retarded operation was staged to protect children from masturbating adults.. and it fails miserably.

Its like if you would pretend investing millions in the Bush Library somehow helps the NewOrleans victims of KatrinaGate.

It doesn't.

I'm going to be generous and say that a public good came out of this, in that public sex crimes in this park are probably now more unlikely to occur.

But I wonder if the potential for seriously damaging the life of someone who would never had otherwise committed a crime is worth that. Perhaps it is, but I think that everyone can understand why this man took out his penis, even if they don't condone it.

He committed a private act between two people in a public place, with the intent of nobody else seeing it. It is hard to argue that this is a usual circumstance (a topless stranger asking to see your penis?!?!? who has encountered this?), or a particularly harmful one. I can't see who the victim is here, aside from my sympathy for the man who did not resist a unique, externally-presented temptation.

I don't believe something being against the letter of the law makes it damaging or "immoral" (in whatever context that may be relevant). Maybe some pervert will change his mind about exposing himself to a child in this park, or maybe this man will learn to not overvalue sex and control himself, so some good can come of this.

But committing this act under these circumstances does not make this man a public nuisance. At the very least, the loss of this man's productivity at the job he is likely to lose, combined with the public good of what the police could have been doing instead, contribute some loss for society.

:rolleyes: There is absolutely no proof this fireman was likely to harm children.
They say this retarded operation was staged to protect children from masturbating adults.. and it fails miserably.

Its like if you would pretend investing millions in the Bush Library somehow helps the NewOrleans victims of KatrinaGate.

It doesn't.

That was only one of the reasons they were there. Whether he was going to harm children he was going to illegally take his pecker out in public.

However, I'd argue any lunatic who can't keep his pecker in his pants because some woman with boobs out asks him to pull it out, needs medical attention and probably something to make him realize that such things are not acceptable.

Meanwhile, he was kidding.

wrongo. if anything this shows how screwed up organized beliefs have made this world that people make such a big deal out of partial nakedness. any partial nakedness.

granted public masterbation is unaesthetic, but without sexual repression, what would be the motivation and sourse of obsession with the whole subject?

now human FERTILITY does need to be lowered and lowered effectively (because currently there ARE too damd many of us). but do i need though, to point out the obvious? THIS ISN'T THE WAY TO GO ABOUT IT!

=^^=
.../\...

OMG! This is unbelievable! What's so wrong about nudity in public? I say, you should cover your genitals primarily not to catch cold, etc. Not because it's immoral!
I just HATE how people (mainly in the USA) go about with their morality! Not that I care about them, it's the fact that the rest of the world gladly follows that scares me. What's up with you?
If it was up to me I wouldn't limit anybody in their sexual life, unless he would threaten or limit someone else. But if they are all consenting? (and I mean REALLY consenting, not in the word of the law) Leave them alone! You don't have to look if they're doing their stuff somewhere you can see, you know. What if the children see them, you ask? So what? They'll do it too, when the time comes.

Most men that I know aren't going to say no to a topless woman that's flirting with them.

You need new friends.

You need new friends.

And to get help for the one's she has. They clearly have issues with self-control. Hell, I'm at home and your posts almost always turn me on, but I manage to keep my pants on out of respect.

And to get help for the one's she has. They clearly have issues with self-control. Hell, I'm at home and your posts almost always turn me on, but I manage to keep my pants on out of respect.
As somebody who is fond of sitting around pantsless, I appreciate what a sacrifice that can be. :D

Which makes it neither 'okay', nor legal.

And that's why all the maybes and 'but it should' arguments are a waste of breath. The law says the snake stays in the cage. A girl flirting with you doesn't change that.

Hence, law broken. Mr Badman, meet Mr Handcuffs.
So you are dismissing the very claim of entrapment in all cases?

Honestly, I didn't know toplessness was legal until I read this thread. So who knows? Not my town, I'm sure. :p Still, I do read my ordinances before doing certain things. Well, except that 'dig permit' thing for holes deeper than 3 feet. That's a bunch of crap.

You can probably count the places in the US where female toplessness is allowed on one hand.

He only commited a crime because the police asked him to. It really fuckin stupid. Its the same with drug dealers that catch some guy thats never smoked before, after they give him the shit. Its fuckin stupid.

As I have pointed out before, this IS legally entrapment according to the most recent SCOTUS case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._United_States) involving entrapment.
The standard according to that case is whether he was already predisposed to commit the crime.
So, was he predisposed to indecent exposure (which in my view is a stupid crime, but that's not important right now)? Or did it take a naked woman and a minute of flirting to get him to expose himself?
Well, it did take a naked woman and a minute of flirting. Nobody here is arguing with that.
Any argument that he should have been smarter then that is irrelevant. Entrapment doesn't only apply when you're against a gun, you know. It's entrapment if the policeman pushes drugs to you for an hour. Do you know anyone who would buy drugs under that circumstance? No? Doesn't matter, it's still entrapment.

So you are dismissing the very claim of entrapment in all cases?

Um, no, that's not what he said. Just another time you had to change the argument because otherwise, yours isn't strong enough.

He only commited a crime because the police asked him to. It really fuckin stupid. Its the same with drug dealers that catch some guy thats never smoked before, after they give him the shit. Its fuckin stupid.
Boo hoo hoo.

You don't have to break the law just because somebody asks you to. And I say this as somebody with a lot of history breaking the law. :P