I would first have to understand your reasoning behind such a requirement (parental consent). What is it about Hooters that minors should have to obtain consent?
so now you want to equate a topless facility with hooters
your weird, off-the-mark analogies, have no credibility
hooters is a public restaurant, open to all ages ... not so the topless facility you would want us to - unreasonably - compare it to
come back when you have something to offer which reasonable people would find convincing
my pleasure:It is a logical analogy... sorry that you don't understand it. *shrugs*
Not understanding my valid point in no way diminishes its value. Also, was bolding "anal" supposed to add to your credibility as capable of mature, intelligent discussion? :roll:
1. Show how my analogy was illogical.
not only illogical, but also quite weird ... the adjective i previously usedWhy it is not what?
Woman also get abortions when it is not needed since it is legal, does that make it right or positive?
translation: this is the defense used when accepted conventions are presented to buttress argumnents which undermine your own2. Stop with the pathetic Logical Fallacies (i.e. Appeal to Popularity).
easiest one of all. hooters is presently a public restaurant which is not subject to an age limit for its customers. because government is prepared to protect the public's interests and has not chosen to do so by imposing an age restriction, it is obvious to anyone who cares to see that hooters is simply a restaurant, no different from other restaurants other than its unique cachet. which uniqueness is needed to survive in a competitive environment, to distinguish it from its competitors and to offer something compelling to the public to elicit their patronage3. Explain why Hooters is incapable of being reclassified to a restaurant that should not allow minors. Logically. Good luck. :roll:
my pleasure:
not only illogical, but also quite weird ... the adjective i previously used
i will invite you to share the "logic" found within that "analogy
translation: this is the defense used when accepted conventions are presented to buttress argumnents which undermine your own
i refuse to place reason and reality on the shelf simply because you do not like that they utterly destroy your weak assertions
easiest one of all. hooters is presently a public restaurant which is not subject to an age limit for its customers. because government is prepared to protect the public's interests and has not chosen to do so by imposing an age restriction, it is obvious to anyone who cares to see that hooters is simply a restaurant, no different from other restaurants other than its unique cachet. which uniqueness is needed to survive in a competitive environment, to distinguish it from its competitors and to offer something compelling to the public to elicit their patronage
what you don't get is what you want - hooters off limits to minors - is not the reality
deal with it. that reality devastates your lame, unsustainable argument
had the teacher taken the students to a place of business where minors were not legally able to be patrons, your position would have considerable traction. unfortunately for you and your wrong headed assertions, the students dined at a restaurant lawfully licensed to serve all ages. you, like that teacher's school administration, got this one wrong
Of course I get that this is the reality at this moment...
You are talking about basic math and I am trying to get you into particle physics.
Reality was, at one time, Prohibition was in place... people didn't like it, violence occured and the law was repealed.
That could happen here, probably won't, but that is were you fall into Logical fallacy as the entire construct of your argument. :roll:
What you call lame is apparently a concept that you are simply unable to understand. Deal with that.
You are one of those, "reality is what people tell me it is and nothing else" kinda people... huh? :lol:
Attack the person and not the argument. Pathetic. Weak. Predictable. Well, if that is your style then... see ya.
Portraying women specifically as sex objects over the value of the food aspect...
your unconditional surrender is hereby accepted
You mean they're not sex objects?
What are they good for, then?
A high school teacher took her male choir to "Hooters" restaurant after performing Christmas carols. As a result she was suspended.
What do you think? Should this teacher have been suspended for this?
Here is the article: Paradise Valley High School teacher who took students to Hooters in Phoenix is put on leave
Personally, I think it is ridiculous. "Hooters" is not a strip club. It is a restaurant, not reallly different from Chili's or TGI Fridays and I doubt the teacher would have been suspended for that.
The reality is....the parents of ONE boy complained.
Which raises a bigger question....should the parents of one child dictate what is "appropriate" for everyone else?
Being Phoenix I'm sure the class had never seen a micro mini, hot babe in a bikini, silicon breasticles pouring out of a t-shirt, soft porn on ABC, NBC, or CBS... or adults drinking alcohol.
I wouldn't have done it, but it's not exactly suspension material. Perhaps a talking to... Like... hey, see any Honey's, get any phone numbers? I mean Jeezuz Willard... don't use the class to pick up chicks...OK? Get a dog. Chicks like dogs.
.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?