The article didn't say that.So it's ok for you to wear your pants to your ankles with your ass hanging out?
Fuck Israel
Definitely. While I wear what's comfortable, and probably wouldn't pass any sort of moderately restrictive dress code wearing any of my clothes, I still see this as something completely tasteless. I don't want to look at someone's ass hanging out any more than I want to see someone strutting their hairy chest while I eat.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Malls are privately owned and subject to rules set forth by their private owners.CameronPoe wrote:
Why on earth would someone get banned from a public place for a pretty inoffensive fashion trend?
People should consider the anti-sag thing to be an extension of 'no shirt, no shoes, no service.'
Do what you want within the law in public, but when you're on private property, you respect the rules of the establishment.
Last edited by mikkel (2008-01-03 04:06:13)
I do it, not that far, but a little, half the reason is just to piss people off. Just another way to rebel. I think its pathetic that they are using this as a excuse and shit though.
Completely off topic, and my apologies, but I couldn't help but think of Apollo Creed's entrance vs. Ivan Drago with the James Brown song "Living in America" transposed with the words "Saggin' in America".
On topic - I'm fairly sure there is far worse crime going on in Orlando that would warrant attention. The reality is the kid got arrested for tresspassing, not sagging his jeans.
On topic - I'm fairly sure there is far worse crime going on in Orlando that would warrant attention. The reality is the kid got arrested for tresspassing, not sagging his jeans.
See, that's why you are racist. You just don't notice that almost just as many white people act the same way. You only see the blacks acting disrespectuflly, but you will find the same sort of person in every single race. In my area at least, I know a hell of a lot more obnoxious, disrespectful white kids than I know blacks.Mitch wrote:
And i do classify the stereotype gangster black as a N**ger. thats how i define the N word, the scumbag disrespectful 'black stereotype' you find getting arrested for indecent behavior or whatever it was.
read the quote above it assclownDilbert_X wrote:
The article didn't say that.So it's ok for you to wear your pants to your ankles with your ass hanging out?
I was unaware of the fact it was private property. As such, it's perfectly legit, if a little 'racially directed'.mikkel wrote:
Definitely. While I wear what's comfortable, and probably wouldn't pass any sort of moderately restrictive dress code wearing any of my clothes, I still see this as something completely tasteless. I don't want to look at someone's ass hanging out any more than I want to see someone strutting their hairy chest while I eat.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Malls are privately owned and subject to rules set forth by their private owners.CameronPoe wrote:
Why on earth would someone get banned from a public place for a pretty inoffensive fashion trend?
People should consider the anti-sag thing to be an extension of 'no shirt, no shoes, no service.'
Do what you want within the law in public, but when you're on private property, you respect the rules of the establishment.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-01-03 14:17:31)
All shopping malls are private property unless it is owned by the town/state.CameronPoe wrote:
I was unaware of the fact it was private property. As such, it's perfectly legit, if a little 'racially directed'.mikkel wrote:
Definitely. While I wear what's comfortable, and probably wouldn't pass any sort of moderately restrictive dress code wearing any of my clothes, I still see this as something completely tasteless. I don't want to look at someone's ass hanging out any more than I want to see someone strutting their hairy chest while I eat.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Malls are privately owned and subject to rules set forth by their private owners.
People should consider the anti-sag thing to be an extension of 'no shirt, no shoes, no service.'
Do what you want within the law in public, but when you're on private property, you respect the rules of the establishment.
Malloy must go
I wouldn't give a fuck..he was not shitting on the floor in the center of this mall, right? BTW in Russia he might be arrested for a couple of days
well we could all dress like this.. how up tight do you want to be?lowing wrote:
http://www.local6.com/news/14957504/detail.html
I can not stand this saggin' bullshit. I say pull up your fuckin pants and carry yourself with some respect.
or not.
Hi! Welcome to 15 years ago, champ!lowing wrote:
http://www.local6.com/news/14957504/detail.html
I can not stand this saggin' bullshit. I say pull up your fuckin pants and carry yourself with some respect. These are the same people that wonder why they no one will ever cut them a break.
Having said that, I am torn between my beliefs in personal freedom, (to be able to do what you want, as long as it does not infringe on another right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness) and this article.
Saggin' to me is obnoxious and disrespectful, but it does not infringe on anyone elses personal freedoms. I do not know if it was right to ban someone from the mall for it. I guess streaking does not infringe on the rights or freedoms of others either, but it is right to prohibit it.
Thoughts?
I really don't get this, what's the problem, showing underwear? nudity? what?
Some commonly accepted yet clearly WAAAAAAAY more offensive clothing. (prepare for a shocking, nasty, yet non-nude and socially acceptable image in this url showing why bike shorts should always be black)
http://www.randonneurs.bc.ca/Resources/ … -black.jpg
Clearly the same size and shape as visible boxer shorts, yet more acceptable?
Is this offensive, the underwear is showing?
If idiots want to wear fashions that make them look stupid and restrict their movement then that's up to them. As far as I'm aware they're not wandering around with their dicks hanging out.
Some commonly accepted yet clearly WAAAAAAAY more offensive clothing. (prepare for a shocking, nasty, yet non-nude and socially acceptable image in this url showing why bike shorts should always be black)
http://www.randonneurs.bc.ca/Resources/ … -black.jpg
Clearly the same size and shape as visible boxer shorts, yet more acceptable?
Is this offensive, the underwear is showing?
If idiots want to wear fashions that make them look stupid and restrict their movement then that's up to them. As far as I'm aware they're not wandering around with their dicks hanging out.
Private property. Owner makes the rules. Those who don't like em can leave. Kinda like BF2s.
But more generally, what's the big problem with saggin' other than lokking stupid?Stingray24 wrote:
Private property. Owner makes the rules. Those who don't like em can leave. Kinda like BF2s.
lolool
I'm gonna guess that some could say that having pants sag like the pic above, you could Hide a whole damned tv in your crotch. Or shit down the legs.PureFodder wrote:
But more generally, what's the big problem with saggin' other than lokking stupid?Stingray24 wrote:
Private property. Owner makes the rules. Those who don't like em can leave. Kinda like BF2s.
Last edited by RoosterCantrell (2008-01-03 20:21:42)
Holy Fuck. The great Pants Debate.
Also, what you people fail to realise or maybe do realise that if this twat entered the Mall even in a three peice suit, he *shoud* be arrested.
*should* perfect world were security guards follow protocols.
Also, what you people fail to realise or maybe do realise that if this twat entered the Mall even in a three peice suit, he *shoud* be arrested.
*should* perfect world were security guards follow protocols.
Last edited by S3v3N (2008-01-03 20:30:14)
15years ago!!?? was that the date on this article??!!........................................................champgeNius wrote:
Hi! Welcome to 15 years ago, champ!lowing wrote:
http://www.local6.com/news/14957504/detail.html
I can not stand this saggin' bullshit. I say pull up your fuckin pants and carry yourself with some respect. These are the same people that wonder why they no one will ever cut them a break.
Having said that, I am torn between my beliefs in personal freedom, (to be able to do what you want, as long as it does not infringe on another right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness) and this article.
Saggin' to me is obnoxious and disrespectful, but it does not infringe on anyone elses personal freedoms. I do not know if it was right to ban someone from the mall for it. I guess streaking does not infringe on the rights or freedoms of others either, but it is right to prohibit it.
Thoughts?