Quote:
|
Originally Posted by razorsharp What is your defintion of being exposed? Does the child have to particpate (or at least join the ACLU)? Obviously the child is being exposed to the sounds of loud sex and that is exposure enough. Your opinion is simply wrong. |
That is exposure enough? So let me get this straight, are you or are you not agreeing with me that hotels then have the responsibility to ensure their guests do not have sex in their rooms (sound carries you know)?
You have yet to provide an even slightly convincing argument as to why my argument is wrong, much less simply wrong.
The argument that something could corrupt children is an interesting one, but it in and of itself is not a faultless argument.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by razorsharp Ok, so the guy in the stall next to you in a government owned building is having a heart attack and dying, (he makes growns of pain but can't say the words "help me")the government paramedics can't enter without an invitation because they would be invading his privacy? That is the result of your position. |
Interesting question. I suspect that that would indeed constitute an invasion of privacy, but that it would not be punished. It is an interesting question though - I must admit that I am not aware of whether or not the law allows for mitigating circumstances like imminent harm to breach someone's privacy rights.