• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Upskirting to become a criminal offence

VanceMack said:
No thanks...sounds like you have done all the 'research' any of us needs.
Click to expand...

hey, i'd like to take credit for being able to search for stuff on the interwebs.

somebody owes me major $$$.
 
HK.227 said:
Merely a caution against abandoning principle for expediency. It speaks of narcissism, which you ironically substantiated with your last comment.
Click to expand...

I suppose you just answered in the positive. Have fun under that tin-foil.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
I suppose you just answered in the positive. Have fun under that tin-foil.
Click to expand...

So to recap:
A: "Something must be done about X. This is something, so we should do that."
B: "That is dangerous."
A: "You misunderstood me."
B: "You said this. Unless you misspoke, here is the reason why that is dangerous."
A: "You are a doodoo head."

Yeah, those are some real hardcore arguments you are rocking there...
Sorry, but the literal reason for civil liberty principles existing in the first place is to avoid scenarios like the one I presented. People who are ignorant of them are plebs, and being smug about it does not give them extra interwebz pointz, it just makes them deluded plebs. Have a nice day.
 
Pretty sure it's already been criminalized in Japan, where it more or less started.
 
HK.227 said:
So to recap ~ Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

Same message without the ad hominem.

Piece of advice - when you have lost an argument or the person you THINK you are disagreeing with walks away, no point indulging in baring your bottom like a baboon or putting fake words or considerations on them, it does you no favours.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Piece of advice - when you have lost an argument or the person you THINK you are disagreeing with walks away, no point indulging in baring your bottom like a baboon or putting fake words or considerations on them, it does you no favours.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should take your own advice, sport.
Missing the obvious and accusing people of wearing tinfoil hats when they spell it out for you doesn't actually mean you "win" anything. Least of all an argument, since that would require you to actually participate in one. Acting like a grownup, which I assume you consider yourself, means that when something is unclear you either seek or offer clarification. You didn't; you went straight to posturing. Like it or not, that is going to make people make some assumptions about you, no matter how inaccurate or "fake" you consider them.
 
HK.227 said:
Maybe you should take your own advice, sport.
Missing the obvious and accusing people of wearing tinfoil hats when they spell it out for you doesn't actually mean you "win" anything. Least of all an argument, since that would require you to actually participate in one. Acting like a grownup, which I assume you consider yourself, means that when something is unclear you either seek or offer clarification. You didn't; you went straight to posturing. Like it or not, that is going to make people make some assumptions about you, no matter how inaccurate or "fake" you consider them.
Click to expand...

That's actually the most coherent and cogent you've been in the thread. Shame you weren't doing the same when trying to make a relevant point.

Anyhow, you've proven better at ad hominem than at trying to put together any credible argument so I'll leave you there to your "win."
 
Felis Leo said:
How is this not already a crime? I would say this falls under already-existing laws of sexual assault and battery.
Click to expand...
It was technically already illegal but very difficult to prosecute under the wording of existing legislation where the incident happened in a public place (as is usually the case) and with a requirement for the prosecution to actively prove a sexual motive.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
I am pretty sure this is mostly urban legend, but any excuse to expand the Law Book especially when Victim Culture is at the same time promoted is not to be passed up.....there is a job to do.
Click to expand...

You are aware of internet search engines? I mean as much bull**** as you try to pass off as facts and wisdom you have to be unaware of google, yahoo, bing, duckduckgo, right?

That's gotta be it. Only explanation.

Quickest way to prove you wrong. Go to pornhub.com and type in the bar that has a magnifying glass in it. That's called the search function. Type. Upskirt. And then report back the total number of results.

Then tell me it's an urban legend.

:beat
 
Should it be a crime.? Yes, but a misdemeanor. Repeat behavior should be dealt with progressively harsher.

But where do you draw the line?

When I was in college, I was walking to class on a windy day. A women stopped and bent over to tie her shoe, and the wind lifted her skirt. I happened to be in the right place at the right time, and saw her panties. Her friend saw me looking, and stepped in front of her. Under this law, I could have been convicted.
 
beancounter said:
When I was in college, I was walking to class on a windy day. A women stopped and bent over to tie her shoe, and the wind lifted her skirt. I happened to be in the right place at the right time, and saw her panties. Her friend saw me looking, and stepped in front of her. Under this law, I could have been convicted.
Click to expand...

No, you couldn't be successfully prosecuted. It was not premeditated, and a gust of wind is an act of nature.

What this law is about is guys affixing miniature cameras to their shoes etc.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
That's actually the most coherent and cogent you've been in the thread. Shame you weren't doing the same when trying to make a relevant point.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me?
The argument was about disproportionality in sentencing versus rationalizing a perceived good. Are you saying you got mad because I used blatant disproportionality to illustrate my point?
Was that what that hyperbole comment was about? You wanted me to limit the amount of disproportionality I used in making a point about disproportionality? Because that is fricking hillarious.
But sure, feel free to ignore me if you're not here to debate.
 
HK.227 said:
~ you saying you got mad because ~
Click to expand...

Jeebus cripes, we got a live one here. You were never responding to my point in your original comment to me and you have gone wider and wider of the mark since. I'm going to keep responding - you're too much fun to walk away.

Please entertain me some more with your ridiculous understanding of what I originally wrote.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Jeebus cripes, we got a live one here. You were never responding to my point in your original comment to me and you have gone wider and wider of the mark since. I'm going to keep responding - you're too much fun to walk away.
Please entertain me some more with your ridiculous understanding of what I originally wrote.
Click to expand...

At your service.
"What is more important than length of sentence is wholesale cultural change and education" is not really a point. It's an opinion, much like saying you prefer marshmallows to lemon tea.
For you to have a point, you would have to somehow substantiate or demonstrate relevance. (Hint: Musing that the courts might not utilize the full range of sentencing is not a very convincing way of doing so.)
 
HK.227 said:
At your service.
"What is more important than length of sentence is wholesale cultural change and education" is not really a point. It's an opinion, much like saying you prefer marshmallows to lemon tea.
For you to have a point, you would have to somehow substantiate or demonstrate relevance. (Hint: Musing that the courts might not utilize the full range of sentencing is not a very convincing way of doing so.)
Click to expand...

Ah, so educating people about particular behaviour is not something that has been scientifically tried, nor proven, never been tried and is simply "an opinion?"

You must keep your local hardware store busy with tin-foil hat purchases. Meanwhile, I hope you can't drive otherwise you'd be one of those people who think the money spent educating drivers about the dangers of drinking and driving or driving the wrong way down the motorway would be better spent on "marshmallows to lemon tea."

Like I said, you are genuinely entertaining in how stupid your opinions are, please keep replying.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Ah, so educating people about particular behaviour is not something that has been scientifically tried, nor proven, never been tried and is simply "an opinion?"
You must keep your local hardware store busy with tin-foil hat purchases. Meanwhile, I hope you can't drive otherwise you'd be one of those people who think the money spent educating drivers about the dangers of drinking and driving or driving the wrong way down the motorway would be better spent on "marshmallows to lemon tea."

Like I said, you are genuinely entertaining in how stupid your opinions are, please keep replying.
Click to expand...

Things just go "whoosh" around you all day long, don't they?
You did not suggest education as a voluntary addendum to sentencing, you prioritized it over sentencing. You don't really understand the difference, do you?
 
HK.227 said:
Things just go "whoosh" around you all day long, don't they?
You did not suggest education as a voluntary addendum to sentencing, you prioritized it over sentencing. You don't really understand the difference, do you?
Click to expand...

Why would I suggest education as a voluntary addendum to sentencing? Do you expect would be drivers to have to discover the stupidity of driving down the wrong way on the motorway before someone suggests education of the risks?

Keep replying, you are funny.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Why would I suggest education as a voluntary addendum to sentencing? Do you expect would be drivers to have to discover the stupidity of driving down the wrong way on the motorway before someone suggests education of the risks?

Keep replying, you are funny.
Click to expand...

Sure.

Offering education for voluntary consumption is one thing. Making it mandatory quite another.
Requiring people to educate themselves about driving before they get behind the wheel is an admirable example of why education should sometimes be mandatory.
Unfortunately it does nothing to adress your point, for a number of reasons. First of all, it is a proportionate requirement, balancing the loss of freedom the wannabe driving citizen experiences versus the potential harm he's liable to inflict. Secondly, it says nothing about applying your "education is more important than sentence lenght" principle; all we know is that you will prioritize education over sentencing length, hence violating the proportionality principle. Third, the thread subject is about creeps upskirting; since that would offer a plethora of information about exactly how your prioritization was to be implemented and how society would benefit (presumably making a great point that would have forumites whispering your name in awe) why didn't you use that as an example?
 
HK.227 said:
Sure.

Offering education for voluntary consumption is one thing. Making it mandatory quite another.
Requiring people to educate themselves about driving before they get behind the wheel is an admirable example of why education should sometimes be mandatory.
Unfortunately it does nothing to adress your point, for a number of reasons. First of all, it is a proportionate requirement, balancing the loss of freedom the wannabe driving citizen experiences versus the potential harm he's liable to inflict. Secondly, it says nothing about applying your "education is more important than sentence lenght" principle; all we know is that you will prioritize education over sentencing length, hence violating the proportionality principle. Third, the thread subject is about creeps upskirting; since that would offer a plethora of information about exactly how your prioritization was to be implemented and how society would benefit (presumably making a great point that would have forumites whispering your name in awe) why didn't you use that as an example?
Click to expand...

Meaningless blather. Your first point minimises the harm done to the victim of upskirting. You must be American - women have lost cases against upskirters because they cannot prove their covered up genitals are "private" and they cannot prove invasion of privacy. Your points are based in misogyny. The second point is rooted in unreality - you never heard of the basic principle of "prevention being better than cure?" Your Third point is lost in the sheer tin-foil hattedness of your position.

You were doing better when you were just making an idiotic argument to cover up for why you went all out attack on my post.
 
If up-skirting is ever made illegal in the United States, Fox Network will be in serious trouble.

LOL! All in good fun guys, right?

 
Infinite Chaos said:
Meaningless blather. Your first point minimises the harm done to the victim of upskirting. You must be American - women have lost cases against upskirters because they cannot prove their covered up genitals are "private" and they cannot prove invasion of privacy. Your points are based in misogyny. The second point is rooted in unreality - you never heard of the basic principle of "prevention being better than cure?" Your Third point is lost in the sheer tin-foil hattedness of your position.

You were doing better when you were just making an idiotic argument to cover up for why you went all out attack on my post.
Click to expand...

I think that you certainly were doing better as long as you contained yourself to flinging poo.
First, no it doesn't, because it doesn't address it. You haven't got a clue what I consider just sentencing guidelines. If you'll care to look back at post #20 where this started, you can see that I was solely addressing that you wanted to ignore them. Second, why are you avoiding my second issue with the point you were claiming to make? Should I consider it a case of silent acquiescence or an attempt to sidestep? And third, do you realize what it says about your stated position when you dare not argue it in the context in which you presented it? It's the Internet and you are anonymous. Go for it! What's the worst that could happen? Someone posting a killer meme?
 
ecofarm said:
How was this ever not criminal.
Click to expand...

Largely because historically, traditionally male law-makers and judges have had no clue that for years women have employed strategies in public places to keep themelves safe and largely kept quiet or been silenced about the behaviour of some men.
Ever wondered why so many women on a two-seater on the bus choose to take the aisle seat and not the window seat? So that they don't get boxed in by some creep. Or why when standing they make sure their bum is against a hard surface and they protect their genitals with their bag slung across their front in just the right place? You've guessed it.

The fanny grabbing remark above says it all. Women are largely not that safe in many public areas and upskirting is just another form of abuse.

No, I'm not having a go at all you decent men who never dream of doing such things, but sadly creeps are everywhere and numerous. Witness post #2.

The Me Too movement may have its faults but it has largely been successful in bringing these issues out into the open and into the mainstream. Feminists have been complaining about stuff like this for years, but of course, we're all just man-hating hairy lesbians who need a good f*** to sort us out :roll:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom