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.
Thank God for that. Although your “point” is still a mystery to me.
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.
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.
I think what Ilsa was getting at was he wants children to be allowed to watch porn before the age of sixteen.
Perhaps you missed the part where MrMyth explained that there was no one else in the vehicle.
Ordinarily I’d agree. But there were no passengers. And the driver couldn’t see the screen.
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.
Okay, but that has little to do with the OP.
Almost…almost: two bisexuals, one with D cups and one with C cups, no midget.
The least the guy could do is tint his windows. I think blue might be an appropriate color.
My post was a joke.
Aww c’mon, it’s the midget that makes ALL the difference!
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.
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.
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.
ooooh, hurt me, baby! You seem a little…er…anally fixated, dude.
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.
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.
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.
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”?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.