MrSmith Posted April 27, 2013 Share Posted April 27, 2013 You do have the right to wear what you want in your own home as does the chap in the article you linked to. However, you failed to do any in depth research (3 seconds on Google) which would have shown you that he was found not guilty. Fairfax Naked Guy -- Not Guilty He wouldn't have been taken to court if he had pants on, there for he didn’t have the same rights as someone with pants on. ---------- Post added 27-04-2013 at 20:38 ---------- This is a wind-up.. He has the right to wonder around his home naked..that isn't in dispute, what is in dispute is indecent exposure (which applies to all)..not the right to indecently expose yourself or not while making coffee. He also stated it was dark, making it much easier to see inside his property..and directly across from a school. Did he choose that law, did he agree to that law or is he just expected to abide by the law he had no say in setting. Seems to me he is expected to live his life according to the rules set by others which means he doesn't have the same rights as everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted April 27, 2013 Share Posted April 27, 2013 He wouldn't have been taken to court if he had pants on, there for he didn’t have the same rights as someone with pants on. But the court decided that he wasn't doing anything wrong, so he had to right to make his coffee in the nude. ---------- Post added 27-04-2013 at 20:39 ---------- Did he choose that law, did he agree to that law or is he just expected to abide by the law he had no say in setting. Seems to me he is expected to live his life according to the rules set by others which means he doesn't have the same rights as everyone. So what right doesn't he have that others do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted April 27, 2013 Share Posted April 27, 2013 But the court decided that he wasn't doing anything wrong, so he had to right to make his coffee in the nude. Yet the man next door making coffee with his pants on didn't get arrested. If he had had the right he wouldn't have been arrested in the first place and he wouldn't have had to face a court of law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted April 27, 2013 Share Posted April 27, 2013 Yet the man next door making coffee with his pants on didn't get arrested. If he had had the right he wouldn't have been arrested in the first place and he wouldn't have had to face a court of law. HE HAS THE RIGHT, HE WAS FOUND NOT GUILTY! Sorry for shouting but you seem to have missed this subtle point, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max Posted April 27, 2013 Share Posted April 27, 2013 Yet the man next door making coffee with his pants on didn't get arrested. If he had had the right he wouldn't have been arrested in the first place and he wouldn't have had to face a court of law. You got it wrong so a simple oops will suffice, no apology needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted April 27, 2013 Share Posted April 27, 2013 HE HAS THE RIGHT, HE WAS FOUND NOT GUILTY! Sorry for shouting but you seem to have missed this subtle point, OK I will rephrase it, he didn't have the right without being arrested and facing court, unlike the man with pants on that wouldn't have been arrested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted April 27, 2013 Share Posted April 27, 2013 Yet the man next door making coffee with his pants on didn't get arrested. If he had had the right he wouldn't have been arrested in the first place and he wouldn't have had to face a court of law. Had a right to what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted April 27, 2013 Share Posted April 27, 2013 You got it wrong so a simple oops will suffice, no apology needed. I proved the points I made here. Yes, The wishes of the few shouldn’t out way the wishes of the many. The rights of the few shouldn’t out way rights of the many. Eradicate those that wish to change your way of life through violent means before they have the opertunaty. Respect the right and laws of other countries unless they wish to destroy you through violent means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted April 27, 2013 Share Posted April 27, 2013 OK I will rephrase it, he didn't have the right without being arrested and facing court, unlike the man with pants on that wouldn't have been arrested. He was wrongly arrested doing something that he is allowed to do, are you seriously trying to argue that his next door neighbour has the right not to be wrongly arrested for something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max Posted April 27, 2013 Share Posted April 27, 2013 I proved the points I made here. No you didn't, you used a badly researched instance to attempt to make a point. It back fired so, in order to regain a little respect, admit it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.