Second Class citizen

I didn't intentionally flip the argument. My point was that some of these things having nothing to do with safety or legal issues. They are simply perceptions of society, although some would like to make a fictitious safety, health, or legal issue out of them as a way of trying to support their argument.

 

i'm all for allowing it to become more acceptable in society...but i think ultimately it needs to be up to the owner of an establishment whether he wants to permit it or not....

i dont know why disneyland would ban long hair..it does seem illogical...i've seen warning signs for women with long hair about hottubs..i can only think that its a safetery hazard instead of targetting an undesirable group but who knows...


was disneyland banning women also from going? Most women i know have long hair, i have a hard time believing they'd remove half their customer base. Also, how long is "long," out of curiosity? I personally consider long to be below shoulder....but if we're talking below the butt, it is probably for safety reasons...but i'd think they would bar you on a ride by ride by ride basis if it was a safety issue....you arent gonna get hut on the teacups with long hair, whereas you might on a roller coaster(especially one that hangs below the track)....but who knows...

 

Ask the other person in the thread regarding Disneyland and hair (it wasn't my remark). I know they can be very picky about bare feet, even if just standing somewhere. It's clear that Disneyland has a conservative philosophy. That's their style.

Personally, I don't pick fights with a store owner regarding bare feet. I try to reason with them that it's not a logical approach. If they tell me it's simply their store policy, it doesn't bother me. If they use fictitious excuses, I shop somewhere else.

 

It is not "forcing our lifestyle on them" to expect them to respect our wish to be barefoot. Nothing about our being barefoot does anything to harm them, or their business or property. It's no different from wearing big work boots or dainty sandals. The reason we "don't respect their wishes" (I disagree that this is what we're doing) is that they are making a requirement of us that not only is counter to our desires, it has no basis in actual NEED or JUSTIFICATION apart from simple, opinionated preference.

Hate to tell you this, but you're giving evidence here of being uninformed on this issue. A person going barefoot in stores is NOT risking some athlete's foot infection, as you claim is your reason for avoiding doing so. Bare feet, open to air and sunlight, do NOT contract athlete's foot, not nearly like you are likely to if you confine your feet in sweaty, dark, damp environments -- like shoes.

Once again, misinformation. There is nothing about the Declaration of Independence that is legally binding. It is a statement of principle, but it is not the law of the land.

The taking off of shoes at the airport is not for "legal reasons," it is so that the shoes can be scanned for explosive devices or other concealed weapons.

What rights of others are we not respecting if we go barefoot? If any problem arises, it's ours. I can't hurt someone else's by baring mine. My going barefoot, and expecting people to let me, does not put anyone else at risk. People who are paranoid about lawsuits don't have the right to curtail how others wish to live just because they're afraid of lawsuits. If that were the case, you'd probably have to wear a hard hat in Walmart to avoid getting hurt by objects falling off of shelves, or wear gloves at the supermarket. This "CYA" bullshit by people trying to stave off lawsuits is not justified. I have never heard of a barefoot patron getting hurt for being barefoot (where they would not have been hurt if shod) suing anyone. Barefoot people know there are risks. Courts would recognize that, too, and a lawsuit would go nowhere.

Blue skies,
-

 

EXACTLY. This is a great example of the absurdity of the claims that "we require you to wear shoes for your own protection."

Places like Action Park in Vernon Valley NJ are set up as ski mountains in winter and water parks in summer. In summer, all people wear are their bathing suits, and possibly some wear aqua-sock type shoes (the pansies do, anyway). Why, if bare feet are so endangered, is it perfectly okay to go barefoot all over a park, walking from ride to ride, going up and down stairs? Do laws of physics suspend themselves only in water parks?

But Disney would prohibit you from going barefoot. Why? No good reason. If it's okay in a place like a water park, it's okay anywhere. And the water park is not worried about lawsuits, so why should any other company be?

Blue skies,
-Jeffrey

 

Um, how does this get around the fact that WOMEN were not barred from Disney for having their hair long?? Are the machines only capable of snagging MALE long hair?

Sheesh, the shit you have managed to get yourself to believe, despite all sane logic to the contrary...

Blue skies,
-Jeffrey

 

The problem is an american problem. Self responsebility will be taken away from individuals and transfered to courts or the government. I think its very redicolous that someone can sue a company because the coffee was to hot that he spilled over his trousers and that he want's compensation. That would never happen in europe. Here people are responsible for what they are doing and and the have to THINK first. In america hundreds of lawyers are waiting for such cases because they can succeed in court. That's maybe why companies forbid barefeet because the have to fear that if some idiots are just waiting to step on something, get hurt and to sue them to compesations which are redicolous (In my opionion the doctor bills would be enough, but the pay much more).

If people would be responsible again for what they're doing everything would change. Companies should not be liable for dangers which are obvious.

Here in europe it's different. I can go wherever I want barefoot and no store manager would say a word. Maybe you get strange looks in some countries because it's not common to go barefoot there. But you never see this nasty NSNSNS signs. In my opinion I would also not be very happy sitting in a restaurant an watching at a big fat hairy swetting belly in front of me. Not very appetizing.

I am not against america, but I think that "In the land of the free" you loose more and more of your freedom, which we still have in europe.

Frank

 

"was disneyland banning women also from going? Most women i know have long hair, i have a hard time believing they'd remove half their customer base. Also, how long is "long," out of curiosity? I personally consider long to be below shoulder....but if we're talking below the butt, it is probably for safety reasons...but i'd think they would bar you on a ride by ride by ride basis if it was a safety issue....you arent gonna get hut on the teacups with long hair, whereas you might on a roller coaster(especially one that hangs below the track)....but who knows..."

actually reading helps.

 

Barefooting is not a standard they want in THEIR store...the key word being THEIR store. We arent talking about the public street or the beach..we are talking about PERSONAL PROPERTY whree they have the right to decide what they want in THEIR OWN PLACE.

I never said we should ban barefooting to STOP the spread of athletes foot...i said I WONT go barefoot in public places so I dont catch athletes foot. also, where do you get your evidence that you can ONLY get athletes foot in dark/sweaty places and not in ones where there is sunlight?

Uh, when you go THROUGH the metal dector it is to search for bombs......when they ask you to put them on once you're THROUGH it is for liability not so they can somehow secretly continue to search for bombs while you're in the rest of the airport on the plane.


here, let me quote the US constitution for you..

Amendment XIV

1868
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

1870
"
Amendment XV



Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. "

Plessy vs Ferusson was 1896. So pelase tell me how race wasnt protected in the constitution. The fact is, blacks are included in every sense of the constitution...unless you dont consider blacks to be "THE PEOPLE."

you are not respecting the right of the person to RUN his store how he sees fit. It is HIS store..we arent talking about public property, we are talking about PRIVATE PROPERTY. Yes, i agree that this lawsuit shit is bullshit, except thats how america is now because of idiots and tort lawyers, so companies need to protect themselves from frivilous lawsuits. Blame the idiots and lawyers, not the stores who have to protect themselves.

Yes, you are forcing your lifestyle on them by telling them how they should run their store and what they should find acceptable. You dont have that right.

 

It's interesting that the NSNSNS signs starting going up in the U.S. at the same time as the hippie movement. Some of the businesses were doing this as a response to the hippie lifestyle, although others will always claim that it was totally due to fear of lawsuits. Again, one can't get injured by being shirtless. NSNSNS seemed to be the most prevalent in the 70s and 80s. I've noticed less signs like this in my area over the past ten years. Maybe the policy is finally waning.

What a store owner perceives in his mind affects his policies. If he thinks he's going to get sued, he may change his policy, even if the chance of it happening are one in a million. The same goes for the general public. Some people don't go barefoot because they think they are going to contract hook worm. The chances of getting hit by lightning are much greater, yet people will behave in an irrational way if they believe something is true.

 

A study was conducted in India in the early 1980's comparing foot-related disorders between shoe-wearers and people who didn't wear shoes. It was found that people who wear shoes all their life had a high incidence (approx. 1 in 4 by age 65) of athletes foot, bunions, ingrown toenails, toenail infections, corns, arch problems, or back problems related to poor walking posture. On the other hand, the sample group of people who walked barefoot everywhere had ZERO incidence of athletes foot, and much fewer (1 in 100) of the other problems. This study clearly indicates a correlation between wearing shoes and foot disorders including fungal infection. According to the analysis, the health factor for going barefoot is 25 times better than wearing shoes.

The mechanism for athletes foot disease is as follows: someone harboring athletes foot takes their shoes off in a public shower and walks around spreading the fungus. The moist dark environment in the shower allows the fungus to remain on the floor for long periods of time. The next victim steps on the fungus and it goes onto the feet. Then they put shoes on, while still inside of the shower facility. The fungus is then allowed to multiply on the feet while inside the shoes. On the other hand, someone going barefoot everywhere may pick up some of the fungus in a public shower, but when he/she goes outside in the sun again, their feet dry up on the hot ground, get exposed to sunlight and fresh air, and the fungus dies or gets scraped off before it gets a chance to take hold. So if everyone went barefoot outside, then all athletes foot fungus may actually die out to harmless levels. It is shoes that allow the fungus to grow and multiply.

Dry air and sunlight both kill fungus effectively. Fungus and mold are highly dependent on humidity for survival, and sunlight kills them both by heating and drying them and also by ionizing their DNA and denaturing their proteins with the ultraviolet radiation contained in the sunlight spectrum.

Therefore, the best way to avoid disease is to go barefoot outside in dry conditions, as often as possible, and to put flip-flops on your feet while using a public shower or other public place where shoe-wearers temporarily go barefoot. Then take the flip-flops back off after you've left the public shower. In other words, do the opposite of what the shoe-wearers do and protect yourself from their smelly germy feet when they take their filthy shoes off.

I've been mostly barefoot for 17 years now and have never had athletes foot and have never even had foot odors (generated by microbial activity) except for the few times I put shoes on for extended periods.

Shoes are dirty, bare feet are clean. I know it sounds backwards, but it really is true. Bare feet may look dirty, but that is only particulate dirt (clean dirt) that rubs off completely with a garden hose. I use a hose on my feet just before I enter the house and my white rugs stay white year after year. I avoid stepping on car grease. It's easy- just watch out for it while in parking lots and streets.

As a result of going barefoot for many years, my feet are strong and healthy and that helps me have good posture and promotes an active lifestyle. It really is the healthier choice.

Unfortunately, however, there are many cities, towns, and communities, especially in the US, that are somehow hostile toward bare feet. So that makes it a challenge for many to successfully take this alternative.

Hopefully we are now contributing to the re-education of our population, here with our fledgling discussion group, and this may change the Western world's attitudes about bare feet. Maybe we are even seeding a new revolution of healthful living starting by liberating the feet. More scientific and epidemiological studies need to be conducted, with conclusions made available to the average citizen using adequate publicity channels. This could be the next "Atkins diet", but with nothing to sell. Of course, our efforts may meet with friction from those pesky big shoe companies...

sweet_dream

 

thats interesting thanks for posting that up

 

What about the poor who can't afford shoes? It's not a choice for them.

there is much you can do about it. just do what you want. don't wear shoes. it's not mandatory for life.

if I am ever told to do anything, I just laugh.

 

That's what the British used to tell the American colonists. It's good that some people questioned the rules. If no one ever did, we wouldn't be here with freedoms (Astaroth included)

Yeah, I know, the colonies were owned by the British and they had the right to enforce those rules. And people didn't have the right to tell the British how to run their colonies.

 

i've seen a lot of poor people in new york city, and i've never seen a bum without shoes.....maybe there is a local shelter that provides them shoes....but they all seem to have a jacket and shoes.

 

Cheers Megara, nice job. It is good to see that someone (still) is willing to look at both sides of the issue, even if one side of the issue rubs you wrong.

Isn't it just wonderful that freedom goes only as far as someone getting his/her way? Some posts in this thread bought me a few good chuckles. As to why I keep arguing about something I find insignificant - it's fun. They say that in a liberal crowd you'd be lucky to find one person in ten who exhibits common sense and is willing to stand up for it. Let's see, so far I found (besides myself) - one in... HOW MANY?

 

my,aren't we self righteous.

 

Hehehehe, self-righteous? Hardly.

Another fun thing about liberal crowds: the moment a disagreement surfaces, ad-hominem attacks fly like bullets

'Sall good tho, I like it

 

What do you mean'liberal crowds?

 

This is a hippie forum, folks. In general, you're not going to find most of the people here vigorously defending the establishment. There are other forums on the web for that. I'm not telling people to get lost, though. It's a healthy debate as long as it doesn't deteriorate into a flame war.