RE: Master and pet banned from the bus

RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Alternative Lifestyles in the News

Message

subrob1967 -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (1/24/2008 5:15:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 You should at least read the article. According to the particulars contained thereing, the bus driver was off duty, and far from enforcing regulations, insulted the couple and assaulted the man. If there was a regulatory issue with the lead, it was not reported. I did, maybe YOU should reread it... Here, I'll point out the pertinent parts for ya. quote: "I am a pet, I generally act animal like and I lead a really easy life," she said. "I don't cook or clean and I don't go anywhere without Dani. It might seem strange but it makes us both happy. It's my culture and my choice. It isn't hurting anyone." The bus driver, however, has obviously not been listening. He has repeatedly refused to allow Mr Graves, 25, and his "pet" on to his bus in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire. Last month, with Miss Maltby on a leash as usual, the couple tried to board a bus at the bus station. The driver, who was off duty, was standing near the door. Mr Graves alleged: "He shoved me off the bus. He called us freaks and he called Tasha a dog. "He said, 'We don't let freaks and dogs like you on'. "He basically grabbed my T-shirt and slammed me backwards. "I got a bit angry and called him a fascist pig." In a separate incident, police were called when the driver, who has not been named, refused to allow other passengers on board after the couple ignored his orders and sat down. 1) Mr Graves ALLEGED... We don't know what happened, right now it's a he said/she said type of situation... We don't have all the facts. 2) This isn't the first incident for "Master & Pet", and we don't know how the police resolved that previous incident. 3) If they were following the bus company's code of conduct, why didn't the ON DUTY driver step in and allow the couple to ride? Right now we don't have all of the facts, and until we do, I'm not jumping to conclusions, and declaring the Goths innocent of all wrong doing.

RCdc -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (1/24/2008 6:36:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 3) If they were following the bus company's code of conduct, why didn't the ON DUTY driver step in and allow the couple to ride? Ha - it's a UK story, there wouldn't of been any on duty drivers around - seriously. You could wait all day and not see one, then 5 would turn up all at once. the.dark.

celticlord2112 -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (1/24/2008 6:41:00 AM)
Keep rereading. You may get there eventually. As reported, it is the bus driver's behavior that steps outside the realm of civilized conduct. (Remember, nice people, even nice vanilla people, do not go around calling people freaks and shoving them around. If someone shoved me, for whatever reason, "fascist pig" would be the nicest thing I would have to say about him)

celticlord2112 -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (1/24/2008 6:46:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rukna whats sick is this picture http://psyriac.com/2008/01/05/disturbing-on-so-many-levels/ how can a mother put an infant on a leash? consenting adults is ok, but kids is a strick no no What's wrong with it? Looks like conscientious parenting to me.

thetammyjo -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (1/24/2008 7:01:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: NakedOnMyChain When it gets hard to explain to a child, that's where the public display should stop. The world is really for adults, and kids are simply adults in the making; they can deal with any reality we can create, although what we as parents can deal with may be significantly more limited. Where the adult is a ripe peach, the child is an inedible one, but it is still a peach, not a peach blossom. It may be the case that we find the blossoms so entrancing that we want to pretend- for as long as we can- that they are indeed a different kind of being than we are. But that is a lie, and while we may delude ourselves as much as we like, I think it is irresponsible when we allow that delusion to affect how we care for our children, and worse yet to pass it on to them. Why would we want adults to grow into childhood, rather than have children grow into adulthood? There is such a thing as coddling a child to death. Health, al-Aswad. I strongly agree. Trying to protect the young from reality only makes them less likely to be able to deal with and live with the reality when they are adults themselves. Having dealt with two different helicopter parents at the college level was two too many of them in my experience. That doesn't mean that we go out of our way to act offensive but I don't think we should go out of our way to protect other people's ums when those people bring them into public venues. I can think of a lot more offensive things I've seen on public buses than someone in a collar with a leash in another person's hands. I've seen people slapped and hit. I've heard a lot of profanity that seemed to serve no purpose. I've see sexual assault and exposure. I've seen couples (always straight) making out. I've heard things that frankly should be private because the fools feel they must talk really loudly on their cellphones. I've heard/seen racist, sexist, and religious statements that urged violence. Heck, I've even seen parents let their ums wander around the bus while it was moving. The only person I have ever seen kicked off the bus was some folks who got into an actual fight.

brainiacsub -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (1/24/2008 7:56:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: But they were not ejected from the bus for their appearance, which I agree would be discrimination. They were ejected because of their behavior, i.e., one leading the other by a leash. People here are crying foul because they are saying this couple received unequal treatment. I disagree that the leash is an adjunct of behavior rather than appearance, but even accepting your distinction for the sake of argument, how does their behavior warrant such treatment? If two children are playing patty cake on the bus, would it be acceptable for the bus driver to eject them as "freaks"? If two college professors are discussing particle physics, would it be acceptable for the bus driver to eject them as "freaks"? If two lawyers were debating constitutional law, would it be acceptable for the bus driver to eject them as "freaks"? It would be one thing if their behavior was overly loud, or if they intruded upon other people's personal space. If their behavior directly interrupted or disturbed other passenger's behavior, that would be grounds for intervention. Such was not reported in the article. Attacking someone as a "freak" and physically assaulting them merely because their behavior offends is as rude and lacking in manners as it is discriminatory. Because their behavior was well outside social norms. Discussing particle physics and constitutional law is not. Every society dictates rules of social behavior. We can always debate whether or not this particular rule is a good one, but that is a different argument.

celticlord2112 -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (1/24/2008 8:05:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: brainiacsub Because their behavior was well outside social norms. Discussing particle physics and constitutional law is not. Every society dictates rules of social behavior. We can always debate whether or not this particular rule is a good one, but that is a different argument. You are seriously arguing that it is acceptable to insult and assualt people for being outside of social norms? For being "different"? You are, in effect, arguing that prejudice is "ok". Suffice it to say, I could not disagree more strongly.

brainiacsub -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (1/24/2008 8:56:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: ORIGINAL: brainiacsub Because their behavior was well outside social norms. Discussing particle physics and constitutional law is not. Every society dictates rules of social behavior. We can always debate whether or not this particular rule is a good one, but that is a different argument. You are seriously arguing that it is acceptable to insult and assualt people for being outside of social norms? For being "different"? You are, in effect, arguing that prejudice is "ok". Suffice it to say, I could not disagree more strongly. No, and I have already said so. I never condoned the actions of the bus driver. I have only said the couple being denied the right to ride/kicked off the bus was justifiable based on their behavior and not discrimination based on their Goth attire.

GreedyTop -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (1/24/2008 9:02:01 AM)
behaviour? if all they were doing was dressing Gothy, and using a leash, what behaviour was it that justified discrimination? The article gives no indication that they were being disruptive in any manner other than the way they were dressed (and yes, I consider the leash to be a fashion accessory).

celticlord2112 -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (1/24/2008 9:04:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: brainiacsub quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: ORIGINAL: brainiacsub Because their behavior was well outside social norms. Discussing particle physics and constitutional law is not. Every society dictates rules of social behavior. We can always debate whether or not this particular rule is a good one, but that is a different argument. You are seriously arguing that it is acceptable to insult and assualt people for being outside of social norms? For being "different"? You are, in effect, arguing that prejudice is "ok". Suffice it to say, I could not disagree more strongly. No, and I have already said so. I never condoned the actions of the bus driver. I have only said the couple being denied the right to ride/kicked off the bus was justifiable based on their behavior and not discrimination based on their Goth attire. Walks like a duck. Quacks like a duck. Burns crosses like the KKK. Merely saying behavior is outside of social norms does not justify differential treatment on that basis. Said differential treatment is discrimination by definition.

brainiacsub -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (1/24/2008 9:46:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: brainiacsub Ugghhh...I'm not following you here. You lost me. I was trying to explain that the reaction this couple received was due to their behavior which cannot be construed as discriminatory if the behavior is universally unacceptable. I'm not quite sure what you were trying to say above. Help me out? Okay, my apologies for not being clear enough. What I was asking you, is whether you are saying that the right to hold hands is about the specific act of holding hands, or about the right to express affection in a manner that does not violate laws. Because if you are talking about the former, then I shall have to be disagreeing with you about that, at length, whereas if you are talking about the latter, I believe it is clear that we're talking about the same thing, and that your position is untenable. Thus, I am asking you for a clarification regarding this (style vs substance; form vs meaning; content vs presentation; action vs expression). Disregard the bits about Eskimos, gays, rubbing noses, vaginal intercourse, etc. for now. Am I making more sense this time? Health, al-Aswad. OK, I got you now. I wasn't talking about holding hands in terms of 'rights.' I only mentioned it because it was used as an example on this thread of discrimination against gays and compared to the treatment received by the kinky couple for wearing the leash. I disagreed because holding hands, as either an act unto itself or as an expression of affection (doesn't matter) is a behavior that is socially acceptable for some, therefore it should be for all. In the case of gays and lesbians, a double standard was applied which is what made it discrimination. Being led by a leash is not socially acceptable for anyone, therefore a Goth cannot claim discrimination if they are not allowed to do it. Again, should there be some debate and dialogue as to whether or not this behavior is acceptable? Probably, but that was not the point of my objection.

celticlord2112 -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (1/24/2008 9:58:21 AM)
quote: Being led by a leash is not socially acceptable for anyone, therefore a Goth cannot claim discrimination if they are not allowed to do it. Again, should there be some debate and dialogue as to whether or not this behavior is acceptable? Probably, but that was not the point of my objection. Why are we limited to what is "socially acceptable"? Since when does one need ask neighbor's permission to live one's life?

brainiacsub -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (1/24/2008 10:00:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 Merely saying behavior is outside of social norms does not justify differential treatment on that basis. Yes, it does. Every society has rules and guidelines for acceptable social behavior. You cannot go to France or Japan or anywhere else and violate their standards for public behavior and not expect differential treatment. The US is no different. quote: Said differential treatment is discrimination by definition. No, it is not, unless the differential treatment is applied is a result of unequal application of the standard.

FreeAgent -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (1/24/2008 10:04:56 AM)
I know I'm getting off topic but, in reply to celtic: Your rights begin where mine end. But, if I force you to see what you do not want to see, I'm infringing on your rights. It becomes in a sense, play without consent. The point of asking a neighbor's permission to live one's life is two fold. Since when does your neighbor have to live by your standards and be ok with seeing your kink?

Stephann -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (1/24/2008 10:05:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: Being led by a leash is not socially acceptable for anyone, therefore a Goth cannot claim discrimination if they are not allowed to do it. Again, should there be some debate and dialogue as to whether or not this behavior is acceptable? Probably, but that was not the point of my objection. Why are we limited to what is "socially acceptable"? Since when does one need ask neighbor's permission to live one's life? One doesn't. Yet, since when did the neighbor need permission to strongly voice their opinion in a legal manner, against how I live? If I'm a bus driver, I have an enormous amount of responsibility. The lives of the dozen or so people are literally in my care. I'm entitled to work that job as I see fit; if I saw people in white sheets and hoods trying to get on the bus, I'd (personally) deny their entry. Yet, they're well within their rights to be part of the KKK, and express their dislike of blacks. If my boss doesn't agree, he can always fire me. But no law says any employee (city or otherwise) is obligated to service anyone if they refuse. You can't force someone to do a job they don't want to do; all you can do is fire them. Stephan

brainiacsub -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (1/24/2008 10:06:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: celticlord2112 quote: Being led by a leash is not socially acceptable for anyone, therefore a Goth cannot claim discrimination if they are not allowed to do it. Again, should there be some debate and dialogue as to whether or not this behavior is acceptable? Probably, but that was not the point of my objection. Why are we limited to what is "socially acceptable"? Since when does one need ask neighbor's permission to live one's life? You can live your life in private any way you want. Again, as I have said, that is a separate argument. There are many people on this thread answering that question more eloquently than I could. But for me personally, I side with those who are arguing that no one has the right to impose their lifestyle choices on another. Flaunting this behavior in public qualifies.

Stephann -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (1/24/2008 10:09:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FreeAgent I know I'm getting off topic but, in reply to celtic: Your rights begin where mine end. But, if I force you to see what you do not want to see, I'm infringing on your rights. It becomes in a sense, play without consent. The point of asking a neighbor's permission to live one's life is two fold. Since when does your neighbor have to live by your standards and be ok with seeing your kink? Erm, this might seem like I'm playing both sides of the fence; I'm not. I have every right to act as I wish in public; in effect, 'forcing' you to see me kiss my girlfriend. Your recourse is to look away. I have the right to walk up to someone, and ask them the time, their full name, or if they like dancing in jello. They, of course, have the right to refuse to answer, and walk away. Being in public, means you expect to be exposed to things you have no real control over. The only recourse, is to never be in public. If I want to do kinky things that are legal under the letter of the law in my front yard, I have that right. My neighbor has the right to not watch, or to build a fence if he wishes. Stephan

celticlord2112 -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (1/24/2008 10:12:24 AM)
quote: Your rights begin where mine end. But, if I force you to see what you do not want to see, I'm infringing on your rights. It becomes in a sense, play without consent. The point of asking a neighbor's permission to live one's life is two fold. Since when does your neighbor have to live by your standards and be ok with seeing your kink? Straw man argument. No one is "forced" to see that which they deem unpleasant. One always has the choice to look away. If you insist on looking my direction and getting offended by what you see, the infringement is by you against me, not the other way around.

FreeAgent -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (1/24/2008 10:14:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Stephann quote: ORIGINAL: FreeAgent I know I'm getting off topic but, in reply to celtic: Your rights begin where mine end. But, if I force you to see what you do not want to see, I'm infringing on your rights. It becomes in a sense, play without consent. The point of asking a neighbor's permission to live one's life is two fold. Since when does your neighbor have to live by your standards and be ok with seeing your kink? Erm, this might seem like I'm playing both sides of the fence; I'm not. I have every right to act as I wish in public; in effect, 'forcing' you to see me kiss my girlfriend. Your recourse is to look away. I have the right to walk up to someone, and ask them the time, their full name, or if they like dancing in jello. They, of course, have the right to refuse to answer, and walk away. Being in public, means you expect to be exposed to things you have no real control over. The only recourse, is to never be in public. If I want to do kinky things that are legal under the letter of the law in my front yard, I have that right. My neighbor has the right to not watch, or to build a fence if he wishes. Stephan And I can definitely see your point here. However, in a situation i.e. a moving bus I don't have the ability to just walk away. And you're right, if you wanted to do kinky things outside someone's house that were technically legal, you'd have that right. However, does it make it "right" to do them? Is it ok to force play on those without consent?

celticlord2112 -> RE: Master and pet banned from the bus (1/24/2008 10:17:14 AM)
quote: I side with those who are arguing that no one has the right to impose their lifestyle choices on another. Flaunting this behavior in public qualifies. Flaunting is a wonderfully normative word. Who decides when behavior is "flaunting"? Moreover, whomever arrogates that decision to themselves is the party guilty of imposing personal lifestyle choices on another.

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.53125