. . . promoting capitalist acts between consenting adults.
Hmmm... It's hard to tell from a posed photo though, isn't it. Given the loose fit of the dress, I'm sure this lady's saggy-looking funbags could well have escaped, and whose to say she would notice after a few RTD's?Whilst you might think the complainants were being overly squeamish, I'm sure that being stared at by an oversized errant nipple across the table is enough to threaten anyones poker-face.DenMT
I am sure some people found it titillating...
"I'm sure that being stared at by an oversized errant nipple across the table is enough to threaten anyones poker-face."Hey DenMT, what if it winked at you?LGM
Seems offensive to me, yesMaria
Naaaaah. Seen it all before. Far preferable to a burkah. Grow up people. LGM
LGM: Call me picky, but I'd much rather have a burqa-clad opponent across the table than a partially-clad fatty-boom-boom and her tragically earthbound nungas (as pictured). Far less off-putting.It does make me wonder about the possibilities of the burqa as the ultimate stealth-garment for poker playing, however...DenMT
Far less off-putting, Den? Maybe for you, white man. For me it would depend upon the lady wearing it by choice or force.
Don't you people believe in property rights? So why the complaint? Why should anyone care?
I love those big breasts.
Not. A. Problem.
eric b, you just don't understand libertarianz. They love property rights, unless they stand in the way of sex, drugs, alcohol, smoking, prostitution or gambling.
DenMTYou can't be much of a poker player if that's all it'd take to put you off. You need to practice some. Try playing strip poker. It'd help.LGM
BerendWhat you wrote is false. Still, as is well known you are merely a liar and a cad anyway. LGM
PC never said there should be any consequences to the casino. He merely expressed the opinion that they should get a life. Exercising free speech to shape the market doesn't go against libertarianism at all as far as I'm aware.
"PC never said there should be any consequences to the casino."*legal consequences that is
Helen Simpson is hot. ;-)
Whoa, lgm, Berend may be a bit silly at times but your criticism is a bit too vicious. I'm trying to learn all I can about being a Libertarian but I hope it doesn't mean I have to give up being a gentleman.
AngloamericanBerend writes that LibertariaNZ "love property rights, unless they stand in the way of sex, drugs, alcohol, smoking, prostitution or gambling."That statement is clearly false and Berend is telling lies again. Hence my comments directed to his nature. What I've done is identify him for what he demonstrates himself to be.Tell you what. If he stops fibbing and playing the cad, then I'll not be pointing out that he's doing those things. How about that!---Angloamerican, you are an individual who is entitled to act as you see fit. As far as I'm aware you always have been your own man. You don't have to give up anything.LGM
angloamerican, this is a perfect private property case, and instead of PC defending them, he lays into them.Here a company that wants to uphold certain standards, and he gets berated for it.PC applauded one thing Labour did in its previous term: prostitution. Prostitution has quadrupled here in Manukau, but he, no problem. Libertarianz won't field any candidates because somehow it eggs them on.You just get cynical after you've seen libertarianz applied to the real world.
Property rights doesn't make you immune to criticism, Berend.Sheesh.
But the criticism is contradictory, to your often stated beliefs PC.I notice none of the libz sycophants actually try to address the underlying criticism, they attack the man instead, pathetic.
"But the criticism is contradictory, to your often stated beliefs PC."You're kidding, right? I presume you mean by support for property rights rather than my support for breasts, right?You don't get the point that property rights gives you the right to use your property as you see fit (as long as you recognise the same right with your neighbour) but doesn't make your use immune to criticism?Sheesh again.No wonder the Government can get away with dismembering one of NZ's largest companies -- so few people even understand the first thing about property rights. Or even care to know.
PC, you're contradicting yourself. Either this company had full rights to operate as they saw fit or they hadn't.You tried to blame them for having certain views, a certain position.You tried to use public shaming to force a company to change its stance. Which is your right, but it sounds pretty hollow next to a blog post that argues that Microsoft's business behaviour was perfectly valid.I just made the remark that if sex or drugs are involved, we can pretty much predict what the libertarianz are gonna say. And you can't held them responsible for their words, because they won't be involved in local elections to clean up the mess.A consistent response to this case would have been: this company is operating as they see fit, if you don't like it, go somewhere else.
Q: What's pathetic about criticising pathetic behaviour? This sounds like you again Ruth, sniffing around anonymously, attacking the individual as opposed to the argument. Pathetic.
Berend. Like I said, PC wasn't advocating a breach of property rights. He was stating an opinion. There is nothing contradictory in his actions, why is that so hard to understand? Or do you really think you're in a position to predict what opinions PC should have on every subject? I'm reasonably sure if people were saying the casino should face legal consequences from this act that he would defend them, as he defends Microsoft from government intervention. That's not a valid comparison.
Whatever ain't me Sus - I just got emailed the link and was told someone was taking my name in vain.Agree with PC - most people don't seem to understand property rights, and they care even less.*****Now I don't think this lady's dress is flattering - if one is fortunate enough to have to great rack may I recommend a scoop neck, not a V. And not too low - leaving things to the imagination is sexier. Also the sleeveless look isn't good here - a long line semi-fitted trench is always flattering - the ones Trelise Cooper does are particularly nice.Happy now? XXX
David S, the casino is getting a lot of flak at the moment. TV has a field day it seems showing busty women and asking "is it offensive"?This would have been a perfect time to show that, yes, property rights mean you can do whatever you like.Not the time to say, you're pretty stupid if you do that.What would PC's response have been if someone had a cross on their neck, a burkha or a Bible in their hand and were refused by the casino?
Berend, I assume you were being facetious with your comment about property rights. Generically, libertarians support the private citizen being able to act in any manner they see fit provided he/she doesn't violate the rights of others - without necessarily endorsing that citizen's actions, e.g. I personally support the total legalisation of all drugs but I don't condone drug taking per se.The casino owners had every right to ask the well-endowed English tourist to cover up, it was their property she was on. PC and others can debate the wisdom of this action (the request to cover up), but would not, I am sure, question the right of the casino property owner to set the "house rules".
Unreserved apologies, Ruth. I take it all back. Further, in the spirit of conciliation, I agree with your dress tips - although Trinny and my namesake would suggest that a (not too deep) V-neck for large women is fine because it gives length rather than width *providing* they wear that most helpful accessory in the flattering dept: a well-fitting bra.I'm not just a pretty face, either. :)Berend: nobody would dare criticise the wearing of a burqa in our politically correct environment and the bible-carriers wouldn't be inside the casino; you'd more likely find them outside waving placards calling for its closure along with their equally insidious secular do-gooders.
richard, I know all that. I'm just commenting on what elicits a comment from pc and under what circumstances.As you saw we had two identical cases: M$ and this casino. Both operated within the law given their behaviour towards customers. I'm just contrasting the response both of them got. And highlighting my comment on that case that there is a difference between allowed and virtuous behaviour.I was savaged in M$ case, because what M$ was perfectly fine. But when you ask your customer to show less cleavage the tables are suddenly turned.No defence of this casino here, in particular contrast lgm's response.
Now I don't think this lady's dress is flattering I should dress up the way I feel comfortable with myself.
Thanx Sus.Fat Girl - of course you should dress to please yourself in situations where that is all that matters, that's not what I'm saying. The media - Christine Rankin in particular- have tried to turn this into a fat/feminist issue. It is not. It is a property rights issue.I do think one can objectively say what is flattering in dress sense, and what is not.That view is not held by many though, and I accept that.
"As you saw we had two identical cases: M$ and this casino."Identical huh.
BerendYou keep descending into fibbs and telling furfies. You should give it up as you're not very good at it. Regarding Microsoft.You claimed that M/soft FORCED people to purchase its product. That claim was rebutted. You continued in the lie and so you were excoriated. Regarding the CasinoThe visitor was asked to leave. The reason given was that some member/s of staff didn't like her body and how she dressed it. She left. Fair enough. NONE of the LibertariaNZ are objecting to the property rights of the Casino. The right to determine who can attend site and who must leave is properly a matter for the Casino staff/ management/ owners to determine. What has been commented on is the reason for the action to eject this particular lady. A number of contributors here consider that the reasons for the ejection are poor. Do you understand the difference? I suspect you do, but it suits you to be dishonest about it. Let's make it clear.Should the Casino make a determination that anyone who had a beard and a funny name (such as you for instance) could not attend the Casino site, the Libertarian position would be that such a decision is up to the Casino owners. Since it is their property, they can make the determination as to who is allowed in or devolve the authority to decide to various mambers of staff. Now some Libertarians may well agree with the reasons for keeping men with beards and funny names out of the Casino. For example, it may be thought that bearded funnies are dishonest and hence likely to cheat at gaming. The Casino would not want that of course. On the other hand some Libertarians may not agree with this view. They may disagree with the casino prohibiting (or ejecting) bearded funnies. Hence they are likely to to ask the casino for its reasoning. They may criticise that explanation and the reasoning behind it.Whatever side of the debate the Libertarian takes he or she is not attacking property rights. Those remain recognised even if the reasons for exercising them in a particular way are disputed or disagreed with.Simple stuff. Even for you.LGM
lgm, let's go over it again. Slowly, ok?I objected to how Microsoft behaved: it forced customers who bought a laptop to buy Windooze as well.PC objected how this casino behaved: it forced a customer to leave.In both cases the companies operated within the law.I just contrasted the different responses in both cases. Of course one should be able to criticize.My point was that it was very interesting, and very predictable, what behaviour libertarianz applauded and which would be derided.Simply that.
"My point was that it was very interesting, and very predictable, what behaviour libertarianz applauded and which would be derided."Whose Libertarians? Looking over the comments (and I'm assuming most of these guys consider themselves Libz) Some people agreed with the Casinos call and some people agreed with Peter. That the Casino should have the legal right to kick her out is agreed upon by all Libertarians and reading your 1st comment it looks like you were in fact (stupidly) arguing that Peters criticism of the Casinos call contradicted his views on property rights, I think you're back peddling. In regards to Microsoft the Libertarian objection is that their company is being stomped on by the courts. The view that Microsoft is actually a good company with good products is a personal opinion of Peters and has nothing to do with any official Libertarian stance.Oh and by the way, what do you care if there's more prostitution now that it's legal? Consenting adults can pay for sex without having their dicks chopped off, I'm happy with that. I don't care if solicitation of prostitutes goes up by %1000, it's none of my business.
rage_against_the_caffeine, never read someone's post before you comment.I did never argue that M$ should be punished by the courts. I objected against their behaviour. And that behaviour was vigorously defended here.Whilst this casino's behaviour was berated.My point.And your view on prostitution shows us exactly why libertarianz don't participate in local elections, because they cannot face the consequences of what they advocate. Street prostitution ballooned here in Manukau after we got more "freedom". We have more 14 year olds on the street than ever (prostitution is now legal, nannny state says it's a perfectly normal occupation). Street prostitution comes with an enormous amount of negatives for people living in that area. But no problem for the libz, we got more "freedom". But not exactly for the ordinary resident and no wonder no libz wants to face them in an election.
Ok so the behavior was defended,s o what? Libertarianism is only about what the government should be able to do. If the vast majority of Libz happen to have favorable views towards a company and that companies behavior then that's just incidental. As far as is concerned every company has equal rights. Your observation shows no contradiction in Libertarianism what so ever. Meaningless. Prostitution: It's not legal for a 14 year old to be a prostitute yet it's still happening, just as it did when prostitution as a whole was illegal. At least now prostitutes subject to assault can go to the police without worrying about legal ramifications and people who are soliciting sex from another consenting adult aren't going to be punished for committing a completely victim less crime. It's a good fucking thing.What can I say, I'm a whiz with puns.
Gee, Berend, you really are dishonest (either that or extraordinarily obtuse). How low.You wrote, "I objected to how Microsoft behaved: it forced customers who bought a laptop to buy Windooze as well."And your claim was demonstrated to be false. Customers were not forced to buy MS product. So stop telling fibs. Repeating lies over and over again does not make them true! As to the Casino; they asked the lady to leave. That is their prerogative. They own the property. What SOME have criticised is the REASON for the ejection decsion. The two cases are not the same. They are not similar. --The objection to your position regarding Microsoft relates to your false claims against Microsoft. The objection raised by some regarding the Casino's decision, is that the lady looked OK and should not have been ejected for her appearance.Different situations entirely. Your claims are once again false. You are getting desperate...LGM
"Street prostitution ballooned here in Manukau after we got more "freedom"."Hi Berend. Just commenting upon this sentence, I'm reminded of what Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1791:'I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.'You'll be waiting a long time to find the 'perfect' system. TJ knew it more than 200 years ago. Whatever your/my personal opinion, it's better to leave people alone rather than the alternative, eh.