San Francisco - Wiener doesn't want to see weiners

[<G Man>]

Originally Posted by rgraham

Have at it. It's such a new and provocative idea to run around nude in public. So very worthy a topic. What bullsh!t.

The only bullsh!t is the fact that you can't seem to understand the purpose of this thread which is the significance of this proposed ordinance. It is not a new idea to be naked. That has been the norm in that city district for a long time, hence the question I have about the significance of the proposal.

Originally Posted by HDSickness

Really? Bad parents not wanting our children to see the pervs sitting around nude? These freeks have their junk cut, mutilated and pierced.
Explain that to your child.
And as far as personal freedoms go, why is this ok but not the freedom to smoke in public or use plastic bags? What about those personal freedoms that have been taken away in SF?

Yes, please do explain it to your child, just like you do why so many people get shot on television or why daddy got an email saying he needs a bigger penis or why there are pictures of nude women on little Johnny's computer screen.

Or just don't take your kids there to see it to begin with.

Originally Posted by Michael Psycle

That kind of thinking, believing that nudity equals pedophilia leaves children open to abuse by true pedophiles. Best you learn about pedophilia to protect your children.

I have to agree. Why does public nudity always eaquate to pedophilia? I think somebody does not have a clue what these words mean.

Originally Posted by streetg

You can in SF on a schoolbus, lights on or off, it's your choice.
This is really a ridiculous argument, and it has nothing to do with personal freedom. We all know there are pervs out there who get their jollies just exposing themselves, whether it's to kids order not, they will participate in Michael's exhibition of freedom for jollies, not personal expression
All of them? Nope, but just one doing this is a form of sexual assault.
The whole "I don't believe the govt should legislate morality " thing is a load of crap. It just depends on the morals. a bunch o pervs shakin junk is out of bounds to govt, yet it's fine to force me/us to provide cradle to grave support to people who don't even try on their own, why?? well it's morally wrong for some to have so much while others have so little. More BS liberal hypocrisy.

I do not live in SF or know the laws there, but I am willing to bet that you cannot do what you are proposing.

Try to focus on the topic here. This has nothing to do with federal government or entitlement programs. If anything, this thread is turning into the proof of what I expected, which is that a lot of the biggest complainers in this R&P forum are not even capable of having an adult, focused conversation about a given topic. This is not thread drift, nobody has even begun to address the topic of the thread.

Again I will say it. The biggest problem with our government is the fact that those people so closely resemble the people who elected them to office. Here (this thread) is an example of how "discussions" go in government. Everyone just keeps shooting off their mouth about whatever pops into their head and nobody yet has heard the other side of the "argument" or even figured out that they are having the wrong "argument".

Does anyone have an adult-like comment to make about the implications of this proposed ordinance?

[Michael Psycle]

Originally Posted by Markk9

What a bunch of prudes.........................I guess the pussification of harley-davidson riders is true.

They are not just prudes, they are hypocrites. The two often go together.

[Michael Psycle]

Originally Posted by <G Man>

The only bullsh!t is the fact that you can't seem to understand the purpose of this thread which is the significance of this proposed ordinance. It is not a new idea to be naked. That has been the norm in that city district for a long time, hence the question I have about the significance of the proposal.



Yes, please do explain it to your child, just like you do why so many people get shot on television or why daddy got an email saying he needs a bigger penis or why there are pictures of nude women on little Johnny's computer screen.

Or just don't take your kids there to see it to begin with.



I have to agree. Why does public nudity always eaquate to pedophilia? I think somebody does not have a clue what these words mean.



I do not live in SF or know the laws there, but I am willing to bet that you cannot do what you are proposing.

Try to focus on the topic here. This has nothing to do with federal government or entitlement programs. If anything, this thread is turning into the proof of what I expected, which is that a lot of the biggest complainers in this R&P forum are not even capable of having an adult, focused conversation about a given topic. This is not thread drift, nobody has even begun to address the topic of the thread.

Again I will say it. The biggest problem with our government is the fact that those people so closely resemble the people who elected them to office. Here (this thread) is an example of how "discussions" go in government. Everyone just keeps shooting off their mouth about whatever pops into their head and nobody yet has heard the other side of the "argument" or even figured out that they are having the wrong "argument".

Does anyone have an adult-like comment to make about the implications of this proposed ordinance?

I for one have stated that I do not support this proposed legislation. I do not believe this is something the government should be involved in. As for implications, it has and will lessen my respect for Scott Weiner who is generally a fine supervisor (the SF term for a member of our city council). The next time he sends me a fund raising letter, it will go right into the recycle bin. I am just surprised at how many posters who are against big government totally support this proposed ordinance.

[streetg]

Originally Posted by <G Man>

I do not live in SF or know the laws there, but I am willing to bet that you cannot do what you are proposing.

Try to focus on the topic here. This has nothing to do with federal government or entitlement programs. If anything, this thread is turning into the proof of what I expected, which is that a lot of the biggest complainers in this R&P forum are not even capable of having an adult, focused conversation about a given topic. This is not thread drift, nobody has even begun to address the topic of the thread

As far as not doing what I proposed, I guess your talkin bout my wacking off on the schoolbus comment. Of course, even in SF you can't do that, it was obviously exaggeration, and this guy is fun to use.
G, your lecture about what you feel we should be talkin about isn't needed, this stuff is all relevant to the legality or lack of, regarding public nudity.

[1bdBagr]

The whole subject of rights and or how they relate to a groups' rights should be one (or a group) can do whatever as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. Well, a bunch of nudists should NOT have the right to be naked in public, period. Nor should anybody else. Thats what nudist colonies are for....or legal nude beaches. Furthermore, i'm with the others that having the gay pride parades ought to keep their clothes on as well, i rarely hear of heterosexuals having parades wearing paint or lingerie in public, so why do the gays have to. Oh yeah, its to "further" the gay cause and ram this sh!t publicly down everybody's mouth. Michael, i don't have a problem with gays, its just the way everything is so in your face. Civil rights yes, Public displays such as depicted previously no. You didn't see Rosa Parks or MLK parading around naked to protest or celebrate Black causes, so why should the gay community get to????
Tim

[<G Man>]

Originally Posted by streetg

As far as not doing what I proposed, I guess your talkin bout my wacking off on the schoolbus comment. Of course, even in SF you can't do that, it was obviously exaggeration, and this guy is fun to use.
G, your lecture about what you feel we should be talkin about isn't needed, this stuff is all relevant to the legality or lack of, regarding public nudity.

Really? How is this relevant?

...yet it's fine to force me/us to provide cradle to grave support to people who don't even try on their own, why?? ...

Who am I to say what you should find fun?

It wasn't a lecture (trust me, I know how to lecture) but a reminder. I know my own reasons for starting this thread. I wasn't looking for a discussion about morality so much as "why is this happening now"? Why are the same people who have been tolerant of this behavior for so many years suddenly considering a change? Is this an example of abuse of a privilege catching up? Is it a result of political pressure from elsewhere? Is somebody getting paid to do this? Is the city trying to impress somebody? Why?

I was looking for an analysis of the situation, not yet another repeat of the same things you have already said a thousand times.

[RGRider]

Originally Posted by <G Man>

Really? How is this relevant?



Who am I to say what you should find fun?

It wasn't a lecture (trust me, I know how to lecture) but a reminder. I know my own reasons for starting this thread. I wasn't looking for a discussion about morality so much as "why is this happening now"? Why are the same people who have been tolerant of this behavior for so many years suddenly considering a change? Is this an example of abuse of a privilege catching up? Is it a result of political pressure from elsewhere? Is somebody getting paid to do this? Is the city trying to impress somebody? Why?

I was looking for an analysis of the situation, not yet another repeat of the same things you have already said a thousand times.

Since you're so concerned about the why? of the story, do some research and report back. You knew what the response would be yet posted it anyway.

[<G Man>]

Originally Posted by 1bdBagr

The whole subject of rights and or how they relate to a groups' rights should be one (or a group) can do whatever as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. Well, a bunch of nudists should NOT have the right to be naked in public, period. Nor should anybody else. Thats what nudist colonies are for....or legal nude beaches. Furthermore, i'm with the others that having the gay pride parades ought to keep their clothes on as well, i rarely hear of heterosexuals having parades wearing paint or lingerie in public, so why do the gays have to. Oh yeah, its to "further" the gay cause and ram this sh!t publicly down everybody's mouth. Michael, i don't have a problem with gays, its just the way everything is so in your face. Civil rights yes, Public displays such as depicted previously no. You didn't see Rosa Parks or MLK parading around naked to protest or celebrate Black causes, so why should the gay community get to????
Tim

It seems a bit of a contradiction to say that no one should be naked in public and then say that's what a nude beach is for. Isn't that public? I know the ones in Florida are.

Another point, I think, is the fact that until/unless the proposed ordinance is passed, then what these people are doing is legal. You and I may not like it, but public nudity is not against any laws there and has been tolerated for many years.

[RGRider]

Originally Posted by <G Man>

It seems a bit of a contradiction to say that no one should be naked in public and then say that's what a nude beach is for. Isn't that public? I know the ones in Florida are.

Another point, I think, is the fact that until/unless the proposed ordinance is passed, then what these people are doing is legal. You and I may not like it, but public nudity is not against any laws there and has been tolerated for many years.

Something doesn't have to be illegal for it to be wrong. Slavery ring a bell?

[<G Man>]

Originally Posted by RGRider

Since you're so concerned about the why? of the story, do some research and report back. You knew what the response would be yet posted it anyway.

So you're saying that if I am looking for a level headed adult conversation about a political issue, I should look elsewhere?

I understand the rant thing and I get having fun and being sarcastic. I do all that stuff too.

I still think you guys have some real thoughts tucked away in there somewhere and I'm just trying to find them.

[<G Man>]

Originally Posted by RGRider

Something doesn't have to be illegal for it to be wrong. Slavery ring a bell?

I agree with you completely. I also believe the converse, that just because something is illegal, doesn't automatically make it wrong.

This is an isolated incidence though of a city very well known for a particular image for a very long time that seems to be trying to make a big statement about "breaking" that image. It just seems a bit surprising to me. It's kind of like Milwaukee outlawing beer or St. Petersburg outlawing old people or the state of Idaho outlawing potatoes.

I do believe that this movement in SF is 100% politically driven and not a function of morality at all.

[streetg]

Originally Posted by <G Man>

Really? How is this relevant?



Who am I to say what you should find fun?

It wasn't a lecture (trust me, I know how to lecture) but a reminder. I know my own reasons for starting this thread. I wasn't looking for a discussion about morality so much as "why is this happening now"? Why are the same people who have been tolerant of this behavior for so many years suddenly considering a change? Is this an example of abuse of a privilege catching up? Is it a result of political pressure from elsewhere? Is somebody getting paid to do this? Is the city trying to impress somebody? Why?

I was looking for an analysis of the situation, not yet another repeat of the same things you have already said a thousand times.

I couldn't say why they're doing this now, Michael might have something to add to this as he knows more bout SF politics than most of us. Id guess that some local pol is using this issue to try to gain points somehow, although I don't think He/She is gonna gain with this issue in that city.
How bout you G? Instead of scolding us for responding to your post from the angle that we feel relevant, why don't you give us your thoughts instead Of noncommittal questions and referee duties.

[claytp1]

Originally Posted by <G Man>

I wasn't looking for a discussion about morality so much as "why is this happening now"? Why are the same people who have been tolerant of this behavior for so many years suddenly considering a change? Is this an example of abuse of a privilege catching up? Is it a result of political pressure from elsewhere? Is somebody getting paid to do this? Is the city trying to impress somebody? Why?

I'll venture a guess to try and answer your question. At some point everyone has their level of standards that differentiate between acceptable/innocent and deviant behavior which others find harmful and/or excessively offensive. In this situation I'd guess that either Wiener or his constituency as a whole have said that line has been crossed.

Others here in this thread have thought that line was crossed a long time ago and have been criticized for saying so. Others think there's no problem with it.

So where should that line be drawn? In "progressive" thinking (I use the quotes to distinguish I don't think it's representing progress) that line keeps being re-established further and further away from what would be defined as traditional. Not sure why this is considered progress.

I really don't see why I have to avoid what really is a nice area that the S.F. are is because I really don't want to have to explain to my 9 year old why that man is sucking on that other man's pecker. Am I really a prude because of this? I really don't want others to have to explain to their children what it is I'm doing with my wife out there in the park? I have a bedroom for that and keep it private.

What I'm getting at here is the slow but steady "progress" away from what has been defined as traditional. I do believe whether Michael supports it or not, is that the intention of that crowd as a whole is to continue pushing the boundaries further and further away to legitimize that which they know is deviant and/or out of spite to those who see it that way.

But as I said earlier, at some point everyone has their standards and sooner or later you bump into them. Apparently even in S.F. they have those standards too and there's a clash.

As far as these exhibitionists go, I'd like to know what their motivation is for their public display? If they really want to have their big party where they're free and swinging, well let them have their party. But please do so behind some sort of enclosure where the rest of us do not have to see it. If they insist on being out where those would be offended will see them, then again I question the motive of intentionally offending.

So where does it stop? Public nudity......public sex......how about NAMBLA?

[<G Man>]

Originally Posted by streetg

I couldn't say why they're doing this now, Michael might have something to add to this as he knows more bout SF politics than most of us. Id guess that some local pol is using this issue to try to gain points somehow, although I don't think He/She is gonna gain with this issue in that city.
How bout you G? Instead of scolding us for responding to your post from the angle that we feel relevant, why don't you give us your thoughts instead Of noncommittal questions and referee duties.

Thanks street. Fair enough.

I find the move intriguing which is the basis of my starting this thread. I'm not well versed in politics so I was actually looking for some insight from those who seem to delve more into the process than myself.

I suppose the best thought I would have on the matter is that it represents a trend of society "wearing out its welcome" so to speak. I mean I have a general feeling of hating being held back by "the dumb kid", you know there is always one of a few that screw things up for the rest of us. I think the city has always been tolerant of the behavior so long as it wasn't generating a lot of complaints and people weren't abusing the privilege afforded them. I have seen this same thing play out in many other situations. One example (as you like to discuss) would be government "assistance". I've never had a problem with helping out people who needed it, but when that system starts to get abused it becomes intolerable and ultimately it will be the ones who actually "deserve" some help who will suffer.

The old expression "give them an inch and they will take a mile" seems to be very applicable in today's society.

[rgraham]

The only real reason these old fat naked guys are being called out is because they have become yesterdays news. They are also bad for business. Not everyone thinks that it's cool to have to sit on a chair that some sweaty, hairy ass, that you don't know where it's been, just sat there. Consider it a hygienic reality.