+- The Lurker Lounge Forums (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums)
+-- Forum: The Lurker Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: finally (/thread-165.html)
Pages:
1
2
finally - Crusader - 02-15-2010
Quote:Now that is liberal bullcrap. The whole idea that moderate right wing parties want to keep government spending low. They just want to spend it on other things, like fighter planes and roads. And that is their good right.....I just don't like their complaints that left wing parties spend too much money.
I can tell you that farmers trying to milk their cows will not be in any trouble.
(and anyway this is not relevant because all cow milking is done automatically).
Roads are an investment that earn themselves back. Our fighter planes are up for replacement and the left-wing parties also supported this (although they want to look at more options). So you can't shove that on the right-winged parties alone, it's carried across the political landscape.
Quote:The same goes for anti-pedophilia laws. A mother breastfeeding her baby will not get in trouble. To connect the two thinks is just stupid.
And by the way, how would you envision a court case on this topic? Someone that wants to test this would have to state that he/she thinks manual cow milking is erotic......I don't think anybody would do this.:blink:
Are you kidding me? There are already people sued for photographing their own (nakid) babies. (you know, the cute type of photo of baby you on a blanky in the nude you hate aunt Sally digging up from the photo box every year). And while it is unlikely that farmers get sued for milking their cows, as you say, imagine this. A bad man® touched the intimate parts of a sheep (ok, no finger pointing to certain groups in the population now). He gets sued under this new law. He gets convicted and fined. He appeals the decision and he gets a smart lawyer. This lawyer sues a farmer touching a cow's udders (the kind who milks old-style), stating that this is exactly what his client did. The judge lets the farmer go. There is now precedent, the bad man® wins his appeal thanks to it. End of example. The law is too unclear. It needs to specify exactly what does and doesn't go, else it's rubbish and judges won't be able to use it as it was intended.
finally - --Pete - 02-15-2010
Hi,
Quote:The law is too unclear. It needs to specify exactly what does and doesn't go, else it's rubbish and judges won't be able to use it as it was intended.Worse than that, judges will be able to use it to force their values on the population. In that way, it is a bad law. But that is usually the case with laws based on 'moral values' rather than logic.
--Pete