Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

No, but that new mini-fridge for their department lounge is pretty bad-ass. A large part of that money, does indeed fund their actions. A bit of a cycle, really.

Quotas? We don't need no stinking quotas, we just need new cruisers.

So it would be illegal for me to call someone say a 'witch' (slang for female genitalia), but perfectly alright for me to call them a jism-harvesting kiddie-fiddler?

It really isn't the words, it's the context of them; frankly i don't attribute our own police force with sufficient intelligence to work this out :(

sebster wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Then we have to disagree. I personally don't see it as a good thing that people are allowed to enforce their own moral values on other people.

If I'm not actually hurting anyone else, or behaving in such a way as I am going to hurt someone else, there is, so far as I can see, no reasonable argument* that can be made for making my behaviour fineable.

So people should be able to walk around nude, if they want?

Sure.

Wrexasaur wrote:I would love to agree with you on this, I really would.

This law supposedly allows cops to give you a ticket, right on the spot. It is a means for the police departments to go fundraising for new cruisers. I have gotten plenty enough tickets to know when I am simply being forced to pay for a cops new mini-fridge.

In Australia all fines raised by police are paid to the Dept of Justice, which is a seperate body to the police. What's more, police in Australia are a state level organisation, not town or local. The policeman and his department will not see one red cent of any fine he issues.

I know that is different in the US and does cause problems there, but we have a very different set up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

sebster wrote:So people should be able to walk around nude, if they want?

Sure.

Masturbate in public? Sex in public? Is there no point where society can say 'we don't want to see you doing that'?

sebster wrote:Masturbate in public? Sex in public? Is there no point where society can say 'we don't want to see you doing that'?

Some people pay good money for that kind of thing

sebster wrote:Masturbate in public? Sex in public? Is there no point where society can say 'we don't want to see you doing that'?

Sure. The point at which what's being done is actually hurting someone or likely to hurt someone.

sebster
   So people should be able to walk around nude, if they want?
WARBOSS TZOO
   Sure.
sebster
   Masturbate in public? Sex in public? Is there no point where society can say 'we don't want to see you doing that'?

There is a point, I just don't think that's it.
Walking about in the buff does not equate to rubbing an easy one out. If that was the case, it would just take forever to get dressed in the morning.
Also, the people that you would hate to see naked probably aren't that easy-on-the-eyes clothed (Why am I in this hand-basket? Where are we going?).
In that line of thinking, I bet there would be some public transit towel laws quickly developed - mmmmm bus-rashes.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

generalgrog wrote:I think that's a good thing.

Why?

Why is it a good thing for it to be illegal to swear in front of a 17 years 364 days old teenager* but not illegal to swear in front of an 18 year old?

*substitute whatever just on the illegal side of the age limit is in this hypothetical

In fact, why is it bad to swear in front of kids at all? It seems something like the idea that teaching kids about how to have safe sex will make them want to have sex.

(If you don't understand why that argument is ridiculous I am happy to expand on it)

because as the parent of a child, if you swore in front of my kid I might take umbrage and then beat you to death.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:The end is upon us when Nanny State issues fines for swearing and peeing in public.

Why does anyone think that this behaviour is cool?

Please no, " This infringes on my right to behave like a 17th century guttersnipe!"
There is nothing civil about taking such liberties on other peoples' doorsteps.

Dietrich, it is a problem, usually after a belly full of beers.

Mark this day. Chibi and I agree on something.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

sebster wrote:Masturbate in public? Sex in public? Is there no point where society can say 'we don't want to see you doing that'?

Sure. The point at which what's being done is actually hurting someone or likely to hurt someone.

I think there are compelling hygienic reasons for society to prohibit sexual activity in public. The same goes for, say, cutting open your hand and running down the street. In fact, those same consideration of hygiene could probably be extended to public nudity; though that connection is far more tenuous.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
because as the parent of a child, if you swore in front of my kid I might take umbrage and then beat you to death.

That doesn't seem as though it would be in the best interests of your child.

sebster wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:I would love to agree with you on this, I really would.

This law supposedly allows cops to give you a ticket, right on the spot. It is a means for the police departments to go fundraising for new cruisers. I have gotten plenty enough tickets to know when I am simply being forced to pay for a cops new mini-fridge.

In Australia all fines raised by police are paid to the Dept of Justice, which is a seperate body to the police. What's more, police in Australia are a state level organisation, not town or local. The policeman and his department will not see one red cent of any fine he issues.

I know that is different in the US and does cause problems there, but we have a very different set up.

Forgive my presumptuous ignorance.

Perhaps you're right, and little will come of the whole thing.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Sure. The point at which what's being done is actually hurting someone or likely to hurt someone.

Okay, but you need to be aware that if you reject the idea of public decency entirely then you're part of a very small minority.

I mean, there's a discussion to be had about where a society might draw the line on public decency, and the problems with how it might be enforced. Rejecting the idea of public decency entirely basically removes you from that discussion and puts you into an odd fringe group.

Wrexasaur wrote:Forgive my presumptuous ignorance.

Perhaps you're right, and little will come of the whole thing.

Not a problem mate.

And I think this will most likely be an odd law that sits on the books to be used occasionally in place of 'resisting arrest' as a way of trumping up charges against some kid a policeman to a disliking towards.

dogma wrote:I think there are compelling hygienic reasons for society to prohibit sexual activity in public. The same goes for, say, cutting open your hand and running down the street. In fact, those same consideration of hygiene could probably be extended to public nudity; though that connection is far more tenuous.

Meh, hygiene is a way to sidestep to justify the restriction on some other cause than public decency, and I only raised public sex as a hypothetical to point out that there is a base level of public decency (although according to the netizens of Dakka there isn’t…)

Point is, if there were no health risks to people just doing whatever they wanted whenever they wanted, there would still be restrictions. While public decency was relaxed massively in the 20th century, it still exists.

Thank god I live in the 21st century...



DAMMIT! 20th century FOX tricked me, too. Just remember... st. 20st, doesn't make any sense.

I agree with you, even if we disagree to small degree. I consider the difference between 'fighting words', and 'inappropriate terms', to be within the same range. Even if one is on the edge of another opinion altogether, and the other on it's own side. The average person can walk away from almost any words, it really isn't a matter of truth; more, one of pride.

1-100: Where you are on Free speech, given the flexibility of that term. Something like that.

What's the line about "your rights end where the other guy's nose starts?" I agree that some things are never suitable in public, and some things shouldn't be done around kids in public. But, either the police fine everyone for using foul language, which seems excessive to me, or they fine no one. Because, if they are to use their judgement to determine when to hand out the fines, then it's open to all sorts of bias. And all sorts of challenges. I'd much rather have my tax dollars preventing crimes that physically hurt someone and/or catch the criminals, then have my tax dollars paying for a cop to stand at a corner and hand out tickets to anyone he feels is using vulgar language. And what is the standard for what is and isn't vulgar - George Carlin? As a parent, I don't want my kids exposed to lots of vulgar language. Unless I'm being held at gunpoint, I think that I have the option to remove them from the situation if I feel necessary. I don't let my kids watch violent movies, it doesn't mean that I think they shouldn't be made.

sebster wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Sure. The point at which what's being done is actually hurting someone or likely to hurt someone.

Okay, but you need to be aware that if you reject the idea of public decency entirely then you're part of a very small minority.

I mean, there's a discussion to be had about where a society might draw the line on public decency, and the problems with how it might be enforced. Rejecting the idea of public decency entirely basically removes you from that discussion and puts you into an odd fringe group.

I don't reject the idea of there being a common level of what people think is decent. I reject the idea that people should be able to legislate morality.

Isn't a large portion of law related to morality, if not completely based in it?

sebster wrote:
Meh, hygiene is a way to sidestep to justify the restriction on some other cause than public decency, and I only raised public sex as a hypothetical to point out that there is a base level of public decency (although according to the netizens of Dakka there isn’t…)

You seem to be missing my point. I don't think that its acceptable to create laws that work to keep people from being offended, and I see no other reason to make public profanity illegal. Compare that to say, public masturbation, which clearly creates problems with the spread of infectious diseases. Sure, people may also be offended by public masturbation, but there are other objectively sound and compelling reasons to make public masturbation illegal.

To me its irrelevant whether or not someone else considers certain behaviors decent (outside of those conditions in which said individual must be convinced of something), and others indecent, as I consider the distinction to be useless. If standards of public decency must be involved, then I might claim that they should not be defined by social sensibilities, but social risks.

sebster wrote:
Point is, if there were no health risks to people just doing whatever they wanted whenever they wanted, there would still be restrictions. While public decency was relaxed massively in the 20th century, it still exists.

Sure, but it seems like the whole point of this thread has been whether or not its acceptable to define public decency as that 'those qualities which do not offend others'. Or, for that matter, whether or not public decency should matter at all.

It's Qld, and Qld has always been like this.
2nd only to South Australia (the state where the Attorney General was pooh-poohing the 18+ video game classification for so long).

What is fine in other states is often not so up in our tropical neighbour's climes.

Girly magazines have a 'safe for qld' edition for sale up there (they generally feature less flesh).

Stand-up comics have found themselves facing arrest for performing in public venues because of language usage.

dietrich wrote:What's the line about "your rights end where the other guy's nose starts?" I agree that some things are never suitable in public, and some things shouldn't be done around kids in public. But, either the police fine everyone for using foul language, which seems excessive to me, or they fine no one. Because, if they are to use their judgement to determine when to hand out the fines, then it's open to all sorts of bias. And all sorts of challenges.

All policing is open to bias. This is why we have strict procedures and evidentiary standards.

I'd much rather have my tax dollars preventing crimes that physically hurt someone and/or catch the criminals, then have my tax dollars paying for a cop to stand at a corner and hand out tickets to anyone he feels is using vulgar language.

Sure, if the QLD state government announced a big crackdown on foul language that involved huge numbers of policemen being sent into the city to supervise I’d agree with you, that’d be a huge waste of time. But we’re not looking at extra policeman, we’re looking at a new fine that can be issued by policemen who are already there.

And what is the standard for what is and isn't vulgar - George Carlin?

The standard is that set by that society, reflected in the legislation set by their democratically elected representatives. And yeah, I don’t always agree with the standard set, I don’t particularly agree with the standard in this instance, but it’s crazy to claim no standard can exist at all.

As a parent, I don't want my kids exposed to lots of vulgar language. Unless I'm being held at gunpoint, I think that I have the option to remove them from the situation if I feel necessary. I don't let my kids watch violent movies, it doesn't mean that I think they shouldn't be made.

Sure, and no-one is saying there are to be no more violent movies or no more swearing. They’re saying that just as you don’t show a violent movie on the big screen in a public park, you can be fined for swearing in a public venue.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:I don't reject the idea of there being a common level of what people think is decent. I reject the idea that people should be able to legislate morality.

All law is derived from morality. The laws against murder are based on the idea that murder is morally wrong.

dogma wrote:Compare that to say, public masturbation, which clearly creates problems with the spread of infectious diseases. Sure, people may also be offended by public masturbation, but there are other objectively sound and compelling reasons to make public masturbation illegal.

I had too...

NSFW.

dogma wrote:You seem to be missing my point. I don't think that its acceptable to create laws that work to keep people from being offended, and I see no other reason to make public profanity illegal. Compare that to say, public masturbation, which clearly creates problems with the spread of infectious diseases. Sure, people may also be offended by public masturbation, but there are other objectively sound and compelling reasons to make public masturbation illegal.

What I’m saying is that I was using public nudity or public sex purely in terms of the offense created, not any other reason. There may well be other reasons, it doesn’t matter. My point was to get people to see that purely on terms of public offense they would not accept public sex, and from there beginning to extend that line out to any other matters of public decency.

It didn’t work because people are saying they really don’t see anything wrong with people being allowed to have sex in public. Which is a brave new world.

To me its irrelevant whether or not someone else considers certain behaviors decent (outside of those conditions in which said individual must be convinced of something), and others indecent, as I consider the distinction to be useless. If standards of public decency must be involved, then I might claim that they should not be defined by social sensibilities, but social risks.

And I’m saying the idea that someone wants to do something in public that 99% of us find disgusting is a basic element of society. It’s a really basic thing, and this’d be the first time I’d ever seen a group of people saying that no such consideration should exist.

Yes, people should be free to do whatever in private, or to form private groups to do whatever harmless activity they want in an area organised for them. But in public space openly accessible to everyone you follow certain social standards.

Sure, but it seems like the whole point of this thread has been whether or not its acceptable to define public decency as that 'those qualities which do not offend others'. Or, for that matter, whether or not public decency should matter at all.

Sure, people were criticising the idea of a ban on swearing from a line of argument that assumed there should be no issue of public decency at all, and so I came in to say ‘hang on, we might think this social standard is dubious but it isn’t because all social standards are wrong’ and now there’s people saying there shouldn’t be.

The internet. Strange place.

chromedog wrote:It's Qld, and Qld has always been like this.

Yeah, there is also this. Our old people move to QLD, like in the US they move to Florida. There’s also a lot of farmers. So there’s always going to be an element of social conservatism.

sebster wrote:All law is derived from morality. The laws against murder are based on the idea that murder is morally wrong.

Are you saying that they're enforced now based on the idea that murder is morally wrong, or that they originated (way back when) based on the idea that murder is morally wrong?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Because if it's the former, not necessarily. Laws against murder have more reasons for their existence than "murder is morally wrong". Among them: "The state has a duty to protect its citizens", and "Murderers are more likely to murder twice than most people are to murder once".

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Are you saying that they're enforced now based on the idea that murder is morally wrong, or that they originated (way back when) based on the idea that murder is morally wrong?

I'm saying that the reason laws against murder were put in place and continue to be supported are because we feel murder is morally wrong.

Because if it's the former, not necessarily. Laws against murder have more reasons for their existence than "murder is morally wrong". Among them: "The state has a duty to protect its citizens",

That's a moral position.

"Murderers are more likely to murder twice than most people are to murder once".

That's a position derived from the idea that murder is wrong. If we didn't feel it morally wrong, we wouldn't care if they murdered once, twice or a hundred times.

it would be interesting to see if murder was a crime in the Roman Empire. If so, how was it defined.

sebster wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Are you saying that they're enforced now based on the idea that murder is morally wrong, or that they originated (way back when) based on the idea that murder is morally wrong?

I'm saying that the reason laws against murder were put in place and continue to be supported are because we feel murder is morally wrong.

That's one reason. It's not the only one.

Because if it's the former, not necessarily. Laws against murder have more reasons for their existence than "murder is morally wrong". Among them: "The state has a duty to protect its citizens",

That's a moral position.

It's a position, certainly. I don't regard premises as necessarily moral in nature just because they're subjective. However, if you want to say that they are, fine, I concede the point.

"Murderers are more likely to murder twice than most people are to murder once".

That's a position derived from the idea that murder is wrong. If we didn't feel it morally wrong, we wouldn't care if they murdered once, twice or a hundred times.

No, it's a position derived from statistics. It derives nothing from the idea that murder is wrong except for the existence of a thing classified as murder; no judgements about whether murder is a good or bad thing can be inferred solely from it.


My point is ultimately that there are reasons to make murder illegal that aren't based around the idea that "I don't like seeing or hearing it" which lift it out of the category which is the legislation of morality. Saying that it's derived from morality is just a semantics bitchslapping contest.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:No, it's a position derived from statistics. It derives nothing from the idea that murder is wrong except for the existence of a thing classified as murder; no judgements about whether murder is a good or bad thing can be inferred solely from it.

Yeah, it can. The argument 'a murderer is more likely to murder again' is a simple stats answer. But the application of this to the idea 'therefore we should lock murderers up' is based on the moral idea that murder is wrong.

My point is ultimately that there are reasons to make murder illegal that aren't based around the idea that "I don't like seeing or hearing it" which lift it out of the category which is the legislation of morality. Saying that it's derived from morality is just a semantics bitchslapping contest.

Sure, a law about murder is fundamentally different to a law about swearing in public. But ultimately they both derive from the idea that society finds the action morally wrong and seeks to punish whoever commits it.

Sorry if you feel that's a semantic point, I try to avoid those arguments where I can. I don't feel it is semantic personally, but a fairly important point - that no law has an inherent, objective grounding. It's all just community standards.

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:

dietrich wrote:Are Queenslanders the red headed step children of Australia?

No we are the awesomest children in the world.

The law will be used to crack down on the ratbags in the city.
Not only does it affect swearing, but there are provisions for fines for public urination.

Don't swear and there will be no problem.

I fear there are too many ferals (white trash/chavs) breeding too fast, to overtake the rest of society.

Waagh has it..

There is also a fine for hanging your arm out of a car window.. Yet I have never received a fine for it. I think this is more for when a cop tries to arrest a drunk person and they swear through their teeth at them.

sebster wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:No, it's a position derived from statistics. It derives nothing from the idea that murder is wrong except for the existence of a thing classified as murder; no judgements about whether murder is a good or bad thing can be inferred solely from it.

Yeah, it can. The argument 'a murderer is more likely to murder again' is a simple stats answer. But the application of this to the idea 'therefore we should lock murderers up' is based on the moral idea that murder is wrong.

You can't make the argument that murderers should be locked up with "Murderers are more likely to murder again" as your only premise.

On the other hand, if you add in other premises to that argument, you can.

But either way, statistics are not based in morality.

sebster wrote:

My point is ultimately that there are reasons to make murder illegal that aren't based around the idea that "I don't like seeing or hearing it" which lift it out of the category which is the legislation of morality. Saying that it's derived from morality is just a semantics bitchslapping contest.

Sure, a law about murder is fundamentally different to a law about swearing in public. But ultimately they both derive from the idea that society finds the action morally wrong and seeks to punish whoever commits it.

Sorry if you feel that's a semantic point, I try to avoid those arguments where I can. I don't feel it is semantic personally, but a fairly important point - that no law has an inherent, objective grounding. It's all just community standards.

Okay. But that clearly isn't what I meant. I explicitly defined what I took legislating morality to mean in what you quoted there. If, on the other hand, we go where you're taking us then it's very nearly a tautology to even talk about morality in the same breath as law, because all law is morality.

I work in the capital City of Queensland, Brisbane.

Waaagh has the sum of it.

The foul-mouthed plebs that infest the City must be purged. Fiscally seems to be the only weapon we have here in Aus.

Vote Rudd.

Stop Swearing.


Think of the Children.

Vote Julia lol.