In which I pit the fucker with the huge LCD screen

[MrMyth]

I'm out on the road last night. I happen to end up behind a Lincoln Navigator (for those that can't picture the vehicle, the only important part for the purposes of this story is that they have huge back windows) with a huge LCD screen facing the back area. Ordinarily, I wouldn't be fazed by such a thing. I mean, it was installed properly, not in view of the driver, so it didn't appear to be a safety hazard.
But the fuckwad driving said vehicle chose to have a porn movie playing. On a 15 inch screen. At night. Facing the huge back window of his Navigator. All of which makes it clearly visible at least three car lengths back.

And I had my five-year-old in the car with me.


You fuck. You sad little fuck. You couldn't possibly see the screen from your seat, so the only reason to be doing what you were doing had to have been for shock value. I hope the shock comes from some trucker mesmerized by the huge tits on your screen as he plows up your rear end at 60 miles an hour. Why would you broadcast something like that to the world? Don't you give a shit about anything but yourself? Some of us don't want our children exposed to fellatio until they are old enough to consent to it. You're lucky my daughter was alseep, fucko. That's the only thing that kept me calm. But I was still pissed enough to follow you and get your plate, bitch. And I'm the one who called the police on you. I wish I could've stayed during the stop just to laugh at you. I just hope that whatever ticket they gave you slips some sense into you, but I know it won't. You probably turned the screen right back on after the cop pulled off. I dunno, maybe it was home movies of your unfortunate conception you were showing. Maybe you're just a dipshit. Whatever it is, you piece of shit, maybe you ought to think about not showing it to every unlucky soul who gets close to your back bumper. I run into you again and I will probably run into you. Again and again.
Nobody thinks you're cool, genius. Nobody's impressed by your huge screen. They might be more impressed that a chimp such as yourself can operate a vehicle. I hope your dick falls off, for the double bonus of you never reproducing and making said porn movies useless to you.

You sorry little fuck.

[Ilsa_Lund]

Wait, wait, wait. Navigators have tinted windows.

:dubious:


Fifteen inches? At roughly ten feet away? Your kid was asleep?

You called the cops?

I mean, for fucks sake dude! Slow the fuck down!

Don't follow as closely:

Problem solved.

Overreact much?

[Ilsa_Lund]

[QUOTE]You couldn't possibly see the screen from your seat, so the only reason to be doing what you were doing had to have been for shock value./QUOTE]

OTHER FUCKING PASSENGERS?

[GorillaMan]

Three car lengths? Somebody was driving too close :p

[Algorithm]

Originally posted by Ilsa_Lund
OTHER FUCKING PASSENGERS?
While the car is moving?

[Mikahw]

Yeah, but if they were fucking, would they really need to be watching porn?

[BubbaDog]

Apparently the driver shared Ilsa_Lund's sophomoric attitude.

Which goes to prove how somebody can have such poor judgement while driving.

Not only was the choice of video rude to others on the road but the very fact that the thing was on meant the driver was clueless to the danger he imposed on himself.

My wife and kids and I have travelled in a van for long vacation trips and always have a TV or laptop w DVD for entertainment. Our one rule is that the videos stop at sundown. a video screen that is visible to other cars is dangerous. There are way too many idiots out there who will attempt to tag along and watch your movie with you. Whether the subject matter is Disney or Dreamgirls makes little difference.

While they tag along they most deffinately aren't watching the road.

Bubba

[Ilsa_Lund]

Originally posted by BubbaDog
Apparently the driver shared Ilsa_Lund's sophomoric attitude.

Which goes to prove how somebody can have such poor judgement while driving.

Not only was the choice of video rude to others on the road but the very fact that the thing was on meant the driver was clueless to the danger he imposed on himself.

My wife and kids and I have travelled in a van for long vacation trips and always have a TV or laptop w DVD for entertainment. Our one rule is that the videos stop at sundown. a video screen that is visible to other cars is dangerous. There are way too many idiots out there who will attempt to tag along and watch your movie with you. Whether the subject matter is Disney or Dreamgirls makes little difference.

While they tag along they most deffinately aren't watching the road.

Bubba

Can you say "their problem?"

I thought you could.


Some of us don't want our children exposed to fellatio until they are old enough to consent to it.

:rolleyes: Sure.

[Nanoda]

That seems tacky, asinine, and most probably illegal. I'm with MrMyth on this one.

[Miller]

This is one hysterical OP. And I don't mean that in the sense of "really, really funny."

[Master Wang-Ka]

Y'know, there are a lot of cops out there.

And most of them are LOOKING for a reason to pull you over. Expired tag? Inspection sticker? Broken taillight? They'll pull you over. That's their JOB.

Wonder what they'd do if they saw a fifteen-inch-screen with blowjob in progress? Me, I'D pull you over...

...but then, I'm not a cop.

[Mr2001]

Even though your daughter was asleep, she might still have been exposed to dangerous porn rays! Have you taken her to the doctor yet?

Trust me, you don't even want to think about what might happen to her as a result of this. The symptoms of exposure to porn go on and on. First she'll start waking up during the day and sleeping at night. Then she'll be using the bathroom once, maybe even twice a day. She might even grow up and turn into some kind of... heterosexual!

If any of those things start to happen, call your doctor immediately. Modern medicine can counter the harmful effects of the nude human form, but you must act quickly.

[Eleusis]

I've driven in the next lane to SUVs with LCDs and I can discern the details on screens a lot smaller than 15 inches. You don't have to be tailgating.

It is slightly distracting, and would be moreso if Ron Jeremy was whacking away on some chick.

[badmana]

Well, considering some of the flack people get when "following too closely" I'm surprised only 2 people is bitching about the following distance. Safety nazi's would want you to stay 200 feet behind the vehicle in front (citing a bunch of stuff like reaction time and braking distance).

You cannot watch a 15" screen from 200 feet away. And 3 car lengths (about 45 feet for a BIG vehicle, 36 feet for my own) is FAR TOO CLOSE at anything approaching regular road speeds...heck, at 40 mph your moving at 58 feet per second.

So either the OP was tailgating, the OP couldn't see the screen properly and the passengers were really watching cartoons that LOOK like porn :D or it was only visable when stopped.

Either way, it's not the LCD's fault, it's the driver's fault for tailing the guy with a LCD.

[Jpeg Jones]

Enough about the "tailgating" already.

...I happen to end up behind ...The OP never even stated he was in motion at the time of the encounter. He could have been stuck at a stoplight behind this guy.

Alternatively, if he was on the highway, he might have been in an adjacent lane, not riding the guy's tail.

Quit jumping to conclusions. I live in deep suburbia and I can tell you these screens are totally visible to all around at night.

[Goober McFly]

Maybe the driver was blind and he thought he was just listening to the DVD...

[BubbaDog]

Originally posted by Ilsa_Lund
Can you say "their problem?"

I thought you could.

:rolleyes: Sure.

Yes Ilsa it starts out to be their problem. When they move into the highway lane next to you and then fuck up they have the potentisl to make it your problem and quite possibly your family's problem of where your final resting place should be.

C'mon man! stop thinking with your dick here. You wanna watch porn? I got no problem with that:p. You wanna troll for idiots on the highway and contribute to an insurance statistic go ahead and show videos to the other drivers on the road.

sheeeesh!

Bubba

[Ilsa_Lund]

Ahhh, bullshit.

[Miller]

Honestly, BubbaDog, if a driver out there is going to get into a serious accident because he was watching a movie in someone else's car, the guy is clearly so stupid he's a risk to the general population no matter what he's doing. There's no end to the list of things that are dangerous because other people are morons.

[DeaganTheWolf]

I'm surprised that no one has yet shared the rage at the choice of material. I LIKE porn, my SO likes porn, porn is good all around. Porn is NOT good for small children. It is not a realistic portrayal of sex. Before any of you start, I'd like to know how many of you have suddenly had a threesome with bisexual nymphomaniacs with triple E breasts, and probably a midget shows up somewhere during the act for fun. Porn is kept in porn stores where consenting adults can go and get it. It doesn't need to be advertised for everyone's amusement, nor is it appropriate to subject drivers and their passengers to such material against their will.

[Ilsa_Lund]

Before any of you start, I'd like to know how many of you have suddenly had a threesome with bisexual nymphomaniacs with triple E breasts, and probably a midget shows up somewhere during the act for fun.

Alll the time, man!

[Miller]

Originally posted by DeaganTheWolf
I'm surprised that no one has yet shared the rage at the choice of material. I LIKE porn, my SO likes porn, porn is good all around. Porn is NOT good for small children. It is not a realistic portrayal of sex. Before any of you start, I'd like to know how many of you have suddenly had a threesome with bisexual nymphomaniacs with triple E breasts, and probably a midget shows up somewhere during the act for fun. Porn is kept in porn stores where consenting adults can go and get it. It doesn't need to be advertised for everyone's amusement, nor is it appropriate to subject drivers and their passengers to such material against their will.

Nor have I defended an office building from vaguely European terrorists, rescued magical religious artifacts from the Nazis, or hunted a giant shark off the coast of New England. What's your point?

[BubbaDog]

Originally posted by Ilsa_Lund
Ahhh,bullshit
Oh, fuck. I give up. When you hit me with such a logical argument I must bow to your wisdom. Sorry that I mistook your clowning around for actually having a valid opinion.

Originally posted by Miller
Honestly, BubbaDog, if a driver out there is going to get into a serious accident because he was watching a movie in someone else's car, the guy is clearly so stupid he's a risk to the general population no matter what he's doing. There's no end to the list of things that are dangerous because other people are morons.

Miller - Sorry to disagree with you but more than a few times I had to tell my kids to turn off the video because some dumbshit was in the passing lane of the highway, matching my speed and watching the movie being shown in my van. During the daytime it wasn't so bad, but right at dusk I could almost be assured that I would suddenly get a "buddy" on the highway. Granted none of these people caused an accident, but then, I didn't continue to provide them with the opportunity to watch my TV for very long.

And It's my opinion that the only threesome Ilsa's been involved in has been with himself and his left and right hands.

[racinchikki]

I can vouch that those screens are visible from other cars because Gunslinger and I saw one a few nights ago. We first noticed it when we were stuck behind the big SUV that had it, at a red light, but we could continue to see the bright colors and motion even after we'd started rolling again. We couldn't tell what exact film it was showing, but we COULD tell what TYPE of film was on - it was an animated children's show, and a cheap one at that - the animation was pretty crappy, definitely not a Disney flick. If it had been porn, we would have been able to tell that, too. And I don't think you should be watching porn while you drive, anyway, even if there aren't small children in the cars around you. Porn is made to watch for sexual pleasure, and there should not be sex in a moving vehicle even if the driver isn't involved.

[World Eater]

Well this is a bizarre variant of the weekly tailgater thread.

[Fern Forest]

I've run across this although not on the freeway but in heavy traffic. We were behind this moron moving slowly and stopping often through a nice traffic jam all the while the guy in front of us was watching porn on some video player hanging from his roof for all the world to see. And I'm sure that besides the cars to the left and right of me anyone walking down the sidewalk or waiting for the bus would have gotten an eyefull too.

Definately distasteful and highly inappropriate in my opinion. I would assume that's it's probably illegal too. Although I bet this is going to be more and more common. I expect to see, within the next few years, somebody sitting in a park and watching a porno on their laptop.

[MrMyth]

Clarification - I ended up behind him because I was at a red light. This happened on the south side of Chicago, near 55th and State. I could clearly see the screen through his tints because it was at night, and he obviously had the brightness way up. There was no one else in the truck - the screen damn near lit up the entire back seat/cargo area. It was mounted on the roof in front of the rear seats, but behind the front seats. The only he could see this screen was if it swivelled and he looked over his shoulder.
Ilsa, you can show porn to your kids all you want. I choose not to. Yes, it was fairly dumb to follow him - my daughter could've woken up. I gave in to anger. As far as calling the cops, I figured there's got to be some kind of indecent exposure law prohibiting what he was doing. The operator didn't seem to think I was a nutjob, she was fairly disgusted as well. I can't imagine the cop who yanked him was too happy either.
Tailgating, huh? I don't know about any of you, but at night, on a screen that size, I can spot two darkskinned people against a white background fucking from a pretty good distance. If anything, I might be understating the size of the screen. The damn thing was huge. Maybe just as wide as the dick the girl was cramming down her throat.
The guy was an ass for playing a porn movie on the road. Plain and simple. Just like he would been an ass for blasting his music too loud, or waving his dick out the window, or talking on his cell phone and weaving. I don't bemoan some loss of innocence or some dumbass fear that I can't take my daughter in public anymore. I don't blame anybody else for what she's exposed to.
But I would rather not have it be porn at the age of five.

[Avalonian]

I think MrMyth's point (which I agree with) is that every driver on the road is responsible for what they do to contribute to the flow of traffic in general. Eating while driving, reading a map while driving, talking on a cell phone while driving, and watching porn while driving all have different effects... most of them detrimental. Watching porn, specifically, has the potential effect of not only distracting the driver watching, but also distracting other drivers, especially if done on a large screen. People like Ilsa_Lund may not agree, but even if one doesn't like porn much, it's a flashy distraction on the road at night, and it's clearly unnecessary.

In short, I agree that it's tacky, but more importantly, it's extremely irresponsible of the driver to be showing porn on a big screen while driving.

I suspect he was just doing it for the "I can watch porn in my car, oh yeah" factor. I also expect that Ilsa is so offended because he was the driver in question. ;)

[Dead Badger]

Originally posted by MrMyth
As far as calling the cops, I figured there's got to be some kind of indecent exposure law prohibiting what he was doing ... I can't imagine the cop who yanked him was too happy either.
*resists temptation*

*fails*

I thought the cop was supposed to be preventing the indecent exposure...

[BubbaDog]

Originally posted by Avalonian
........ I also expect that Ilsa is so offended because he was the driver in question. ;)
Ilsa has a license!?:eek:

I didn't know that he was old enough.

[Chastain86]

To everybody who is of the opinion that "porn's no big deal," I agree. However, there's a time and a place for sexually-explicit materials, and it ISN'T in traffic where other people who might be offended can see.

I don't even get how some of you think this is a shades-of-gray issue. This is black and white. Porn is for home, and places that cater to sexually-explicit materials. It's not for driving around, possibly exposing it to people who don't wish to be exposed.

How any of you can think to argue with the OPer is beyond me. Nobody's saying, "Porn sucks! We should ban it!"
Get a grip.

[Shade]

Originally posted by Ilsa_Lund
Alll the time, man! You type well for someone engaged in a threesome with two bisexual nymphomaniacs with triple E breasts! :D

[Lord Ashtar]

Originally posted by Ilsa_Lund
Originally posted by MrMyth
Some of us don't want our children exposed to fellatio until they are old enough to consent to it.

:rolleyes: Sure.

So the OP doesn't want his 5YO daughter seeing a blowjob. I don't see what's so strange about that.

Just what is your problem, Ilsa_Lund?

[Ilsa_Lund]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Avalonian
........ I also expect that Ilsa is so offended because he was the driver in question.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ilsa has a license!?

I didn't know that he was old enough.


Fuck you. Search my name and "cutlass."



So the OP doesn't want his 5YO daughter seeing a blowjob. I don't see what's so strange about that.

Just what is your problem, Ilsa_Lund?

I wouldn't want my (hypothetical) five year old to see a blowjob either, but the age of consent is sixteen. I imagine a bit of hyperbole is at play, but parents who don't want their kids to to know what oral sex is until they are sixteen are often parents of unwed teenage parents. That was what I took issue with.

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Ilsa_Lund
I wouldn't want my (hypothetical) five year old to see a blowjob either, but the age of consent is sixteen. I imagine a bit of hyperbole is at play, but parents who don't want their kids to to know what oral sex is until they are sixteen are often parents of unwed teenage parents. That was what I took issue with.

I have never actually seen a strawman created in such a blatant fashion before. Congratulations!

[Ilsa_Lund]

I have never actually seen a strawman created in such a blatant fashion before. Congratulations!

Honestly. Are you going to say that very restrictive, overprotective and dictatorial parents don't often foster the very behavior they are trying to avoid?

You think that trying to hide sex from a child until they are sixteen is a good idea? I conceded that hyperbole was probably at play.

[BubbaDog]

So how does a father not wanting his five year old kid to see a blow job in a public place equate to prudish parents overprotecting a 16 year old?

I was mistaken. You're not thinking with your dick. You don't appear to be thinking at all.

Go ahead and dazzle me with your logic by publishing another "fuck you" in my direction.

Bubba

[MrMyth]

I wouldn't be surprised if those pictures of Mars show Ilsa's house, 'cause you just don't live on this planet, son.

My kid's five. She shouldn't know what a blowjob is, let alone see one. How the fuck did you jump all the way to her being the town whore just because I wouldn't let her see porn at five? What the hell went on at your house growing up?

Methinks since I debunked your tailgating theory, you have nothing else left to harp on.

[Ilsa_Lund]

Originally posted by MrMyth
Some of us don't want our children exposed to fellatio until they are old enough to consent to it.

This is my final post on the matter.

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Ilsa_Lund
[B]Honestly. Are you going to say that very restrictive, overprotective and dictatorial parents don't often foster the very behavior they are trying to avoid?

You think that trying to hide sex from a child until they are sixteen is a good idea? I conceded that hyperbole was probably at play.

I'm honestly confused, here. Are you responding to any person in this thread? Or are you just pulling this "hide sex until sixteen" stuff out of the air? Maybe I'm just missing something in the thread.

I fail to see how not wanting to let a five-year-old watch porn on a public street equates to "very restrictive, overprotective and dictatorial parents."

Frankly, I didn't realize screens in vehicles could be as large as they apparently can. I thought they had to be fairly small, both to avoid distracting other drivers and to allow the driver to see behind his/her vehicle using the rearview mirror.

[MrMyth]

Ilsa, is that all you can see out of my entire rant? That somehow, I'm an evil parent because I don't want my five-year-old exposed to porn? Again, how does that translate to her being the town whore at sixteen? Did you see porn at five? Are you 'normal' because of it?

Sauron, this was the first time I've seen a screen that big. And I didn't even think about the lack of rearview angle. Now I'm even more pissed at the greedy-ass shop that installed the fucking thing.

[Lord Ashtar]

Originally posted by Ilsa_Lund
This is my final post on the matter.

Thank God for that. Although your "point" is still a mystery to me.

[rjung]

While I sympathise with the OP -- I would not want to be driving home with my four-year-old and inadvertently exposing him to hardcore porn -- untimately I have to say that I can't think of anything the driver of the Lincoln Navigator did that was wrong. After all, the point of the "in-vehicle entertainment system" was for his passengers; if they wanted to see porn, that was between the occupants of the vehicle and the driver. Just because a passing motorist might get a glimpse doesn't mean the driver has a responsibility to show stranger-friendly fare.

Example: Say I am out for an evening stroll with my four-year-old son. We're passing by a house halfway down the block, and when we look into the house (via the nice, big, picture-view window there), we see someone playing a hardcore porn movie on a 65" projection TV. While I might want to hustle my son along quickly and/or cover his eyes, I don't see myself having the right to to rant at the occupants for (a) showing hardcore porn, or (b) not closing the curtains.

And while you might be able to make an argument against showing sexually-explicit material, what if the TV was showing "The Last Temptation of Christ," and the offended passer-by was a devout Christian who felt the movie was heresy? Same problem.

In the end, there's nothing you can really do but get out of there toot sweet, IMO.

[Avalonian]

Originally posted by rjung
Example: Say I am out for an evening stroll with my four-year-old son. We're passing by a house halfway down the block, and when we look into the house (via the nice, big, picture-view window there), we see someone playing a hardcore porn movie on a 65" projection TV. While I might want to hustle my son along quickly and/or cover his eyes, I don't see myself having the right to to rant at the occupants for (a) showing hardcore porn, or (b) not closing the curtains.

What this analogy ignores is what I brought up earlier: the responsibility every driver bears to the drivers around them. It is every driver's responsibility to keep the roads safe, and to provide as few distractions as possible to other drivers.

I'll give you a counter-example, which I think addresses the issue more pertinently: A car on the road, driver in the driver's seat, female passenger in the passenger seat. The passenger decides to give the driver a little thrill and flashes her breasts for him. The driver encourages her to leave her blouse open so he can enjoy the view. Another passing driver sees this unexpected sight, and is distracted for a few moments (who wouldn't be?), long enough to rear-end the car ahead of him and cause a three-car pile-up.

Now, who do you feel is responsible for the accident? Was it responsible behavior for the driver is question to encourage the passenger's nudity, or is this irresposible behavior?

It's not about somebody getting offended (not completely anyway). It's also about what constitutes responsible driving... and Mr. Porn-in-the-Car obviously did not.

[Geobabe]

Originally posted by Lord Ashtar
Thank God for that. Although your "point" is still a mystery to me. I think what Ilsa was getting at was he wants children to be allowed to watch porn before the age of sixteen.

[Orbifold]

Originally posted by rjung
After all, the point of the "in-vehicle entertainment system" was for his passengers; if they wanted to see porn, that was between the occupants of the vehicle and the driver.

Perhaps you missed the part where MrMyth explained that there was no one else in the vehicle.

[MrMyth]

Originally posted by rjung
While I sympathise with the OP -- I would not want to be driving home with my four-year-old and inadvertently exposing him to hardcore porn -- untimately I have to say that I can't think of anything the driver of the Lincoln Navigator did that was wrong. After all, the point of the "in-vehicle entertainment system" was for his passengers; if they wanted to see porn, that was between the occupants of the vehicle and the driver. Just because a passing motorist might get a glimpse doesn't mean the driver has a responsibility to show stranger-friendly fare.

Ordinarily I'd agree. But there were no passengers. And the driver couldn't see the screen.

Example: Say I am out for an evening stroll with my four-year-old son. We're passing by a house halfway down the block, and when we look into the house (via the nice, big, picture-view window there), we see someone playing a hardcore porn movie on a 65" projection TV. While I might want to hustle my son along quickly and/or cover his eyes, I don't see myself having the right to to rant at the occupants for (a) showing hardcore porn, or (b) not closing the curtains.


What if they moved that projection TV right in front of the window while they sat in a chair behind it reading a book? Wouldn't it feel like they were purposefully trying to force porn on passersby?

And I get your point about Last Temptation of Christ and other possibly offensive material. I'm trying not to be that sensitive. But it felt like this guy was doing what he was doing simply to be an ass, and that pissed me off.

[Lord Ashtar]

Originally posted by Geobabe
I think what Ilsa was getting at was he wants children to be allowed to watch porn before the age of sixteen.

Okay, but that has little to do with the OP.

[Bongmaster]

Originally posted by DeaganTheWolf
Before any of you start, I'd like to know how many of you have suddenly had a threesome with bisexual nymphomaniacs with triple E breasts, and probably a midget shows up somewhere during the act for fun.

Almost...almost: two bisexuals, one with D cups and one with C cups, no midget.

[lieu]

The least the guy could do is tint his windows. I think blue might be an appropriate color.

[Geobabe]

Originally posted by Lord Ashtar
Okay, but that has little to do with the OP. My post was a joke.

[DeaganTheWolf]

Originally posted by Bongmaster
Almost...almost: two bisexuals, one with D cups and one with C cups, no midget.

Aww c'mon, it's the midget that makes ALL the difference!:D

[BubbaDog]

Originally posted by Geobabe
My post was a joke.

Yep, but the way Ilsa was acting it doesn't appear to be a joke.

MrMyth was on target when he said that, once he debunked Ilsa's tailgating rant that Ilsa had nothing else to harp on.

It looks like Ilsa was just trying to maintain his side of the argument though he had little amunition left other than some far fetched association between five year olds who are prevented from watching porn are destined to grow up to be unwed teenage mothers.

He does better when he sticks to his smilie-art career.

[Dryga_Yes]

MrMyth did say that he didn't want his children to know about fellatio until they'd reached the age of consent. That is mind-bogglingly stupid. I don't really know where the Ilsa-Lund pile-on free-for-all came from.

[Geobabe]

Originally posted by BubbaDog
Yep, but the way Ilsa was acting it doesn't appear to be a joke.

MrMyth was on target when he said that, once he debunked Ilsa's tailgating rant that Ilsa had nothing else to harp on.

It looks like Ilsa was just trying to maintain his side of the argument though he had little amunition left other than some far fetched association between five year olds who are prevented from watching porn are destined to grow up to be unwed teenage mothers.

He does better when he sticks to his smilie-art career. I think it was poorly expressed, but I gathered that he was of the opinion that the OP was going to withhold all knowledge of sex from his daughter until she reaches the age of consent. Now, a reasonable person would see that it's quite a stretch from not wanting a five-year-old to watch a porn movie to wanting to keep her locked in a cage until she's sixteen, but Ilsa's logical abilities are sometimes, how shall we say, lacking.

[Chefguy]

Originally posted by MrMyth
I hope the shock comes from some trucker mesmerized by the huge tits on your screen as he plows up your rear end at 60 miles an hour.

I run into you again and I will probably run into you. Again and again.

ooooh, hurt me, baby! You seem a little...er...anally fixated, dude.

:D

[Will Repair]

Can't find a cite but IIRReadingNewspaperC someone, teenagers, did get stopped and arrested for showing porno in a SUV/Minivan. The tailgater was a cop. I don't know if the teenagers were sixteen years old.

[Giraffe]

Originally posted by BubbaDog
Ilsa has a license!?:eek:

I didn't know that he was old enough. No way he has a license. You have to have rudimentary critical thinking skills to pass the written test. Maybe he's from Guam or something, where the standards are lower... :dubious:

Regarding the OP, I'm the least "won't somebody think of the children?!" person I know, as well as very much pro-pornography, but that is seriously fucked up. Driving around broastcasting porn is nasty (not to mention unnecessary what with the miracle of home video player technology). And as a driver, any visible car tv screen pisses me off -- the motion is incredibly distracting, even if it doesn't have someone else's nasty porno on it. Blech.

[Chefguy]

Oh hell, a screen in a truck isn't tacky. I'll tell you what's tacky: when the U.S. Ambassador to Portugal cruises on the Tejo River in Lisbon showing porno films to his friends, and projecting them on the boat's sails for anyone looking out their windows to see.

What a class act THAT guy was!

No, no cite; only what was related to me by the employees at the embassy in Lisbon where I worked.

[rjung]

Originally posted by Avalonian
What this analogy ignores is what I brought up earlier: the responsibility every driver bears to the drivers around them. It is every driver's responsibility to keep the roads safe, and to provide as few distractions as possible to other drivers.
To a degree, yeah, but AFAIK there's no way to draw a line where the burden shifts from the distracted driver to the guy with the distracting vehicle. I mean, there are cars with neon undercarriage lights, cars with ultra-bright "viper light" LEDs for the windshield washers, cars with oddball and foul-mouthed bumper stickers, cars with eye-catching detail work -- where do we say "this is too much, tone it down"?

Now, who do you feel is responsible for the accident? Was it responsible behavior for the driver is question to encourage the passenger's nudity, or is this irresposible behavior?
I'm 100% on blaming the driver who was watching the ta-tas instead of the road. For instance, if you replace "girl with open blouse" with "car with awesome paint job," and the second driver gets into an accident because he was ogling the detail work, do you honestly believe that the first driver was at fault for making his car attractive? I can't buy that.

It's also about what constitutes responsible driving... and Mr. Porn-in-the-Car obviously did not.
Ultimately, what constitutes responsible driving is the driver of the vehicle. If you've had an accident and told the arriving police officer that you were distracted by someone in another car playing a porno, the cop's still gonna chide you for not paying attention to your driving anyway.


Originally posted by Orbifold
Perhaps you missed the part where MrMyth explained that there was no one else in the vehicle.
Irrelevant. Firstly, just because MrMyth didn't see anyone else in the vehicle doesn't mean there wasn't anyone else -- maybe there was a passenger slumped down in the seat, hidden by the tinted glass and seatback. Secondly, even if there were no other passengers in the vehicle, MrMyth's primary responsibility was the safe operation of his vehicle, not the monitoring of other people's movies. As I said before, there's really not much to do about it other than to be somewhere else.


Originally posted by MrMyth
What if they moved that projection TV right in front of the window while they sat in a chair behind it reading a book? Wouldn't it feel like they were purposefully trying to force porn on passersby?
Sure. So what? I'd make sure not to stroll by that house any more (unless I wanted to catch a free show ;) ), but assuming no laws were broken, it's just one guy exercising his freedoms.

Here's another example: the other night, on my way home from work, I stopped behind a car where the entire rear window was covered with religious decals -- "Jesus is the only salvation," "No entry to heaven without God," "In case of rapture you can have my car," etc. etc. etc. Obviously a case of forcing religion on passersby. While I, as an atheist, was rather offended, I didn't see the point in getting angry or doing anything other than moving along and letting Mr. Religion exercise his freedoms.

But it felt like this guy was doing what he was doing simply to be an ass, and that pissed me off.
Yeah, I know. But that's the price of living in a free society, that we have to put up with people who piss us off.

[Rilchiam]

Originally posted by rjung
And while you might be able to make an argument against showing sexually-explicit material, what if the TV was showing "The Last Temptation of Christ," and the offended passer-by was a devout Christian who felt the movie was heresy? Same problem.

People who were offfended by LToC were offended by the movie in its entirety. People who are offended by porn are mostly offended by the visuals. (Some take offense at the scenarios as well, but IMO, you have to suspend your disbelief to enjoy porn at all, so who cares what the setup is.) Any one frame of a porn movie is potentially offensive (excluding the minute or so it takes for the performers to walk onto the set and exchange rudimentary dialogue). Only a very few frames of LToC, absent the dialogue and exposition, are potentially offensive, so the odds are much lower that someone would see the screen at the exact moment that those visuals appeared.

[Lute Skywatcher]

Originally posted by rjung
To a degree, yeah, but AFAIK there's no way to draw a line where the burden shifts from the distracted driver to the guy with the distracting vehicle. I mean, there are cars with neon undercarriage lights, cars with ultra-bright "viper light" LEDs for the windshield washers, cars with oddball and foul-mouthed bumper stickers, cars with eye-catching detail work -- where do we say "this is too much, tone it down"? The undercarriage lights are not legal here, they're too distractive. I'd bet that everthing you mentioned, with the exception of the detail work, is illegal in one place or another.

[Orbifold]

Originally posted by rjung
Irrelevant. Firstly, just because MrMyth didn't see anyone else in the vehicle doesn't mean there wasn't anyone else -- maybe there was a passenger slumped down in the seat, hidden by the tinted glass and seatback. Secondly, even if there were no other passengers in the vehicle, MrMyth's primary responsibility was the safe operation of his vehicle, not the monitoring of other people's movies. As I said before, there's really not much to do about it other than to be somewhere else.

You know, this reminds me of an event that happened six years ago when I was waiting in line to check in at an airport.

Long story short, there had been a blizzard the previous day and it took me three hours just to check in at the ticket counter. But at hour two-and-a-half, three people who weren't in line started to have a conversation a few feet to my left. They had apparently arrived at the last minute and so a ticket clerk had just checked them in specially to help them not miss their flight. Now they were congratulating themselves on their good fortune, and commenting on "the idiots who are spending hours standing in line".

They were literally less than four feet away from me, not to mention everyone else in line around me. So I turned around and said "Some of those 'idiots' can hear you."

Judging from the reaction of one of them, you'd think I'd gone through their baggage and spat in their undies. "What are you doing butting in on a private conversation?!?" or some such. But you know what? They insulted me within my earshot. At that point, their privacy became pretty much null and void because they threw it out themselves.

You have to right to privacy in your own home, but if you start having sex on your front lawn then you're going to get arrested, and claiming that the cops are invading your privacy is just stupid. Same if you project a pornographic movie on the outside wall of your house, and same if you start showing porn from a moving car where it can be seen by anyone who pulls up behind you at an intersection. The fact that the movie might be for the benefit of a hypothetical midget hiding in the wheel-well is what's irrelevant. In this society we have chosen not to tolerate lewd public displays, and that's what this is. The driver of the car in the OP threw out his own privacy when he made his porn visible to the public at large.

Maybe there is no way to draw a bright line between neon undercarriage lights, foul-mouthed bumper stickers and backseat porn. Maybe there's only a fuzzy line. But I'm pretty damned sure that the situation described in the OP is on the wrong side of that line, however fuzzy it may be. Just because we can't enforce community standards with pinpoint accuracy and perfect legalistic rigour all the time doesn't mean that some situations aren't clearly wrong.

[Futile Gesture]

Originally posted by Dryga_Yes
MrMyth did say that he didn't want his children to know about fellatio until they'd reached the age of consent. That is mind-bogglingly stupid. I don't really know where the Ilsa-Lund pile-on free-for-all came from. Well obviously you didn't read what was said and have bought into Isla-Lund's strawman. What MrMyth said was he didn't wish his daughter exposed to it. If you and Isla-Lund can't figure the difference between that and knowing about perhaps you should go ask someone to explain.

[rjung]

Originally posted by Jeff Olsen
The undercarriage lights are not legal here, they're too distractive. I'd bet that everthing you mentioned, with the exception of the detail work, is illegal in one place or another.
Well, when "playing porn in your in-car entertainment system" is illegal where MrMyth lives, then let's talk. :)

(I personally find high beams in my rear-view mirror distracting as hell, but nobody takes up the cause for that...)

[OpalCat]

Originally posted by Ilsa_Lund
I wouldn't want my (hypothetical) five year old to see a blowjob either, but the age of consent is sixteen. I imagine a bit of hyperbole is at play, but parents who don't want their kids to to know what oral sex is until they are sixteen are often parents of unwed teenage parents. That was what I took issue with.

1) Age of consent varies by state. In many it is 18.
2) Who said anything about not knowing what a blowjob is? The words used were "exposed to" which I took as meaning "being shown" in this case on a tv screen. (continued reading shows that Futile Gesture has already pointed this out...)

On a total side note, my van (full size conversion van with a high top) has a 9" tv in it and we do watch movies and play video games at night... but only with all the pull-down blinds and curtains closed. The side widnows have pull-down blinds AND curtains, and the windows in the rear doors have curtains (and the windows out the back doors are so small as to be nearly useless for actual driver visibility anyway, so it isn't a great loss.) and we have a curtain that closes off the whole rear of the van from the front seats. We close that when the people in the back want to have reading lights or something on as well. Again, with the curtains closed.

rjung - I'd be willing to bet that it IS illegal. Public broadcast of porn is no doubt against the law most places.

And in closing, this line:
The fact that the movie might be for the benefit of a hypothetical midget hiding in the wheel-well is what's irrelevant. is priceless. In fact, Orbifold's whole post is an awfully disturbing pile of rational thinking that really has no place in a pit thread ;)

[Orbifold]

Originally posted by rjung
Well, when "playing porn in your in-car entertainment system" is illegal where MrMyth lives, then let's talk. :)


Just for you, rjung, I performed a Google search that has probably already drawn the attention of the Department of Homeland Security:

The Lewdness Public Nuisance Act (http://www.legis.state.il.us/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=2042&ChapAct=740%C2%A0ILCS%C2%A0105/&ChapterID=57&ChapterName=CIVIL+LIABILITIES&ActName=Lewdness+Public+Nuisance+Act%2E) from the state of Illinois. Note in particular the bit about "all moveable contents thereof".

There's also the charge of "obscenity", a misdemeanor which includes anyone who "publishes, exhibits or otherwise makes available anything obscene", but I can't find a reference to the Illinois criminal code online. I have found far too many naturist web sites, however, so now I'm going home.

OpalCat: aw shucks, 'tweren't nothin'.

[Cervaise]

Well, this certainly gives new meaning to "Junk in the Trunk."




What do I win?

[Ca3799]

The guy (or gal) playing porn in is car is just as wrong as the example of the guy playing porn in his living room with the curtains open. Both of these examples are just as wrong as if someone were standing in thier window naked. All of these examples are forms of exposure. Playing your music too loud is annoying (and possible illegal in some places), but attempting to Force others to view sexual organs or activity is an illness and should be illegal if it is not already.

Because we are such inventive folks, perhaps the laws and
DSMII will lag. It is still wrong.

I don't think anyone here would defend the guy standing naked in his living room window which, to me, is exactly the same as the car or the movie in the window of the house.

[Lute Skywatcher]

Originally posted by Ca3799
Playing your music too loud is annoying (and possible illegal in some places)... Here, for example. Arlington County has noise restrictions which some consider Draconian. They did come in handy when a couple of curbside mechanics were parked up the street from my apartment one night, blasting their car stereo loud enough to hear with my windows closed.

[Mr. Goofballz]

Originally posted by Sauron
I have never actually seen a strawman created in such a blatant fashion before. Congratulations!

Amen Brother! This thread is hilarious. I've been reading this board for a long time and seen some amazing leaps of logic. But I must say Ilsa's leap really impressed me for some reason. I think I'd like to party with that dude. Or maybe not. I'm not quite sure.

I must take an emphatic stand. I believe a 5 year old is slightly too young to watch porn.

[rjung]

Originally posted by Orbifold
The Lewdness Public Nuisance Act (http://www.legis.state.il.us/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=2042&ChapAct=740%C2%A0ILCS%C2%A0105/&ChapterID=57&ChapterName=CIVIL+LIABILITIES&ActName=Lewdness+Public+Nuisance+Act%2E) from the state of Illinois. Note in particular the bit about "all moveable contents thereof".
Well, there, hit 'im with that. Matter closed.

But just to be mildly contrarian here, ;) I still maintain the view that -- assuming no laws were being broken -- even if Driver A is ridin' down the street in a ride that is distracting or in-your-face provocative or whatever, it's still the responsibility of Drivers B, C, and D to not get distracted by the spectacle and remain focused on driving their own vehicles. Either that, or pass laws requiring all motor vehicles to be unadorned and painted flat black...

[BubbaDog]

Originally posted by rjung
Well, there, hit 'im with that. Matter closed.

But just to be mildly contrarian here, ;) I still maintain the view that -- assuming no laws were being broken -- even if Driver A is ridin' down the street in a ride that is distracting or in-your-face provocative or whatever, it's still the responsibility of Drivers B, C, and D to not get distracted by the spectacle and remain focused on driving their own vehicles. Either that, or pass laws requiring all motor vehicles to be unadorned and painted flat black...

Agreed. And if this were a court of law then we'd have to abide by law. But its a discussion that also includes safety, consideration of others, and just plain old common sense.

In a way this argument reminds me of something that happened to me two years ago.

While teaching my son to drive we almost had an accident because he started to pull through an intersection just as a guy ran the stop sign. I could tell by the way the guy was not even beginning to brake his car as he approached that he might run the stop sign. I had to yell at my son to stop just as we started up through the intersection.
My son turned to me and said,"If that guy hit us it would have been his fault".

I said,"Yes". They could write
It was the Other Guys Fault on our tombstones.

The law says who is right or wrong. common sense says who survives.

Just because the law may allow you to distract other drivers doesn't mean its a good idea.

Bubba

[Debaser]

rjung, I think you live on a different planet sometimes. You actually think that playing porn on a rear facing 15 inch screen is the same as having religious bumper stickers on your car?

[Giraffe]

Originally posted by rjung
I still maintain the view that -- assuming no laws were being broken -- even if Driver A is ridin' down the street in a ride that is distracting or in-your-face provocative or whatever, it's still the responsibility of Drivers B, C, and D to not get distracted by the spectacle and remain focused on driving their own vehicles.I agree. From now on, I'm only going to drive with my high beams on. It's clearly the responsibility of oncoming drivers to pay attention to the road and not get distracted by my headlights in their eyes.

[rjung]

Originally posted by Debaser
You actually think that playing porn on a rear facing 15 inch screen is the same as having religious bumper stickers on your car?
Not exactly. The person playing porn in his car might be trying to shove porn down people's throats. On the other hand, he might merely be amusing himself, or entertaining his passengers, or doing it for some unknown reason.

The person who has "JESUS SAVES - REPENT OR BURN" in foot-tall vinyl letters on the back of his car is definitely trying to shove religion down people's throats.


As I was saying before, the price of living in a free society is that everyone has to tolerate obnoxious behavior from everyone else. Unless, of course, there's a law specifically against the behavior.

[Orbifold]

Originally posted by rjung
But just to be mildly contrarian here, ;) I still maintain the view that -- assuming no laws were being broken --

Yeah, and if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a bus.

What exactly is your point here? And by "here", I mean in the entire thread?

That porn is somehow no worse than "Jesus Saves" in foot-high neon letters? That's preposterous. Show "Jesus Saves" in foot-high vinyl letters to a three-year old in the park. Then show porn to a three-year old in the park. See which one gets you arrested. (And spare me the "well if it wasn't illegal" hypotheticals.)

Or is your point perhaps that MrMyth should have been paying attention to his own driving? Is there the slightest evidence that he wasn't? Pulling up behind a car at an intersection and noticing porn on a fifteen inch screen in the car in front of you doesn't constitute bad driving.

This entire thread just gets more and more ludicrous.

[Giraffe]

Originally posted by rjung
As I was saying before, the price of living in a free society is that everyone has to tolerate obnoxious behavior from everyone else. Unless, of course, there's a law specifically against the behavior. Then you won't mind if I follow you around, shining a laser pointer in your eye? I'm pretty sure there is currently no law against it, so you'll just quietly go about your day, right?

You can still have a free society and expect people to have some basic consideration for others. And complain about them when they don't.

[rjung]

Originally posted by Orbifold
What exactly is your point here? And by "here", I mean in the entire thread?
Just that each of us individual drivers must bear the burden of not being distracted or outraged by what our fellow drivers are doing with their vehicles.

That porn is somehow no worse than "Jesus Saves" in foot-high neon letters?
Actually, that "Jesus Saves" in foot-high neon letters is as bad as porn. ;)

Originally posted by Giraffe
Then you won't mind if I follow you around, shining a laser pointer in your eye? I'm pretty sure there is currently no law against it, so you'll just quietly go about your day, right?
Assuming my eye doesn't get physically damaged by it, I can't see this being any different than the guy driving behind me with his high beams on last night. Somehow, I managed to avoid having a hissy-fit about that, too.

[Giraffe]

Originally posted by rjung
Assuming my eye doesn't get physically damaged by it, I can't see this being any different than the guy driving behind me with his high beams on last night. Somehow, I managed to avoid having a hissy-fit about that, too. First of all, I'm not talking about shining a laser pointer in your eye once. I'm talking about following you around 24 hours a day, and every time you are in or near a public place, I'm there shining a laser in your eye. From what you've said in this thread, I can only conclude that you feel it would be your duty as a citizen in a free society to silently ignore me. The fact that my behavior is obnoxious and unnecessary and likely to eventually drive you completely batshit wouldn't phase you at all? There's nothing I can do that would prompt you to complain about me to others, as long as I don't break any laws?

Second of all, congratulations on not having a hissy fit last night. While I agree that someone's high beams briefly in your face is nothing to lose your shit over, it doesn't change the fact that a person who consistently drives around with their high beams on is a dick. As is a person who stalks you and shines a laser pointer in your eye. As is a person who drives around broadcasting a porno.

[OpalCat]

Originally posted by rjung
As I was saying before, the price of living in a free society is that everyone has to tolerate obnoxious behavior from everyone else. Unless, of course, there's a law specifically against the behavior.

Public displays of nudity are illegal in most places in the US.

[GusNSpot]

Well, actually, nudity in front of windows in houses is against the law in many places IF there is not a reasonable attempt to keep it from the public view. Your house is right near the sidewalk or street? No, you can't stand in the window having sex, or show porn movies on big screen TV's etc. Might want to check your local ordinances...

[SPOOFE]

Don't want your daughter finding out what a blowjob is? Lock her in her room until she's 18, buddy, 'cuz you're not gonna get it. Hell, if she's in school, I bet she knows what a blowjob is NOW.

Get over yourself. Seeing naked flesh isn't gonna turn your kid into a psycho sex-monster. However, anal-retentive parents probably will.

[rjung]

Originally posted by Giraffe
From what you've said in this thread, I can only conclude that you feel it would be your duty as a citizen in a free society to silently ignore me.
Yep. Now you see the point.

There's nothing I can do that would prompt you to complain about me to others, as long as I don't break any laws?
Probably not. My emotional well-being is sufficiently secure that boorish behavior from you is not enough to disturb it. My zen is securely fastened. :)

While I agree that someone's high beams briefly in your face is nothing to lose your shit over, it doesn't change the fact that a person who consistently drives around with their high beams on is a dick. As is a person who stalks you and shines a laser pointer in your eye. As is a person who drives around broadcasting a porno.
The world is full of dicks doing obnoxious things. If you cannot learn to cope, you may as well sequester yourself in a darkened bedroom for the rest of your days.

(Why is it that some people have a hard time accepting the idea that society is not always obligated to shield them from stuff they don't like?)

[Ravenman]

When I first read the OP, I was mildly surprised that car companies don't have some sort of parental-block sort of thing hard-wired into their car-mounted, factory installed DVD players.

Then I remembered that one of those car companies - maybe it was GM? - has a controlling interest in a few of those PPV porn channels.

Don't get me wrong, I like porn as much as the next Internet user. But I just thought someone at the car company would have thought about the potential for this situation for a moment... Then again, maybe it was an aftermarket 15" flat-panel display.

[MrMyth]

Originally posted by SPOOFE
Don't want your daughter finding out what a blowjob is? Lock her in her room until she's 18, buddy, 'cuz you're not gonna get it. Hell, if she's in school, I bet she knows what a blowjob is NOW.

Get over yourself. Seeing naked flesh isn't gonna turn your kid into a psycho sex-monster. However, anal-retentive parents probably will.


Did ya read any of the thread besides the OP?

Expose does not mean know. I'll have 'the talk' with her when she's ready. She's not ready to see a blowjob at five.
Besides that point, I never expressed the sentiment that she'd go crazy over seeing naked flesh. Others took this thread in that direction. If she had seen the guy's screen, then I'd be in for some uncomfortable (to me, at least) explaining. It wouldn't be the end of the world.

But the guy was still an ass for broadcasting porn from his vehicle.

Ravenman, there was no way in hell that screen was factory installed. I'm not even sure it was meant to be installed in a vehicle.

[OpalCat]

Raven: I'm not sure I understand what a parental block would have done in this case?