Occupy Paizonians, it's time to start pontificating on Italy!
Corporate taxes are much higher here than in any of those countries you mentioned.
In 2010, GE paid zero dollars in taxes. Are you suggesting we should start giving them money for the privilege of having them here in this country?
In 2010, GE paid zero dollars in taxes. Are you suggesting we should start giving them money for the privilege of having them here in this country?
Corporate taxes are much higher here than in any of those countries you mentioned.
Actually, with the ammount of government grants they get, we mayhave.
|
Reporters? Heck, how about New York City Councilman Ydanis Rodriguez?
A friend of mine from college became a councilman, i believe he has already been arrested twice.
Reporters? Heck, how about New York City Councilman Ydanis Rodriguez?
I thought I read somewhere that 2 councilmen were arrested. But councilmen do not have protected privleges while members of the press do (so long as they are actively reporting and not participating, which holds true for the one in the video.)
|
|
I thought I read somewhere that 2 councilmen were arrested. But councilmen do not have protected privleges while members of the press do (so long as they are actively reporting and not participating, which holds true for the one in the video.)
Yeah, the NYPD don't care. What, is someone going to be arrested for this (snicker)?
Haha, yes. Make an enemy of the media while you're at it. That'll really contain the problem.
I would like to apologize for my last post in this thread which was unneccesarily inflammatory.
In my defense, I was quite high and that video upset me a great deal, especially the column of cops taking potshots at that woman in the tree.
In fact, it took a half-dozen more bong hits, listening to my favorite Kinks tunes at max volume, watching Thor and a night of further dissolution to restore me to my normal emotional equilibrium.
For the love of all that's holy, tell me you don't live in america. I don't think I can take any of your discourse seriously if you're talking about constitutional rights while flaunting the law.
It's not a personal thing, I've enjoyed a lot of your posts, but that's a bit too much for me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For the love of all that's holy, tell me you don't live in america. I don't think I can take any of your discourse seriously if you're talking about constitutional rights while flaunting the law.It's not a personal thing, I've enjoyed a lot of your posts, but that's a bit too much for me.
I'd have to go back through all of my posts, but I don't think I've written about Constitutional rights much. Maybe I mentioned the Second Amendment a couple of times.
I live in New Hampshire. Live free or die!
[bubble bubble bubble]
EDIT: I also speed on the highway.
From reddit
Anyone else find it distressing that:
1) The first move the police did was remove the press from the area
2) The airspace was locked down to prevent news helicopters from reporting
3) The only news we get is from 3 different live streams, two of which are down (as of 3:00 AM CST)
4) Legal monitors were prohibited from witnessing the serving of any papers
I would like to apologize for my last post in this thread which was unneccesarily inflammatory.
In my defense, I was quite high and that video upset me a great deal, especially the column of cops taking potshots at that woman in the tree.
In fact, it took a half-dozen more bong hits, listening to my favorite Kinks tunes at max volume, watching Thor and a night of further dissolution to restore me to my normal emotional equilibrium.
For the love of all that's holy, tell me you don't live in america. I don't think I can take any of your discourse seriously if you're talking about constitutional rights while flaunting the law.
It's not a personal thing, I've enjoyed a lot of your posts, but that's a bit too much for me.
Man, maybe he's got that medicinal marijuana thing? Or prescription drugs.
From reddit
Anyone else find it distressing that:
1) The first move the police did was remove the press from the area
2) The airspace was locked down to prevent news helicopters from reporting
3) The only news we get is from 3 different live streams, two of which are down (as of 3:00 AM CST)
4) Legal monitors were prohibited from witnessing the serving of any papers
Yes.
I would like to apologize for my last post in this thread which was unneccesarily inflammatory.
In my defense, I was quite high and that video upset me a great deal, especially the column of cops taking potshots at that woman in the tree.
In fact, it took a half-dozen more bong hits, listening to my favorite Kinks tunes at max volume, watching Thor and a night of further dissolution to restore me to my normal emotional equilibrium.
For the love of all that's holy, tell me you don't live in america. I don't think I can take any of your discourse seriously if you're talking about constitutional rights while flaunting the law.
It's not a personal thing, I've enjoyed a lot of your posts, but that's a bit too much for me.
Lolwut?
That's a pretty goofy ad hom. Because he breaks the law, one he presumably feels is unconstitutional, you can dismiss his opinions? That's a pretty outrageous suggestion. But then I sped home today. Guess you can ignore what I say.
Because he breaks the law, one he presumably feels is unconstitutional, you can dismiss his opinions? That's a pretty outrageous suggestion. But then I sped home today. Guess you can ignore what I say.Man, he doesn't really care about laws OR constitutions. (Also not really an ad hom.)
Saying that you can reject, dismiss, or ignore arguments because of the source is the definition of ad hominem fallacy. Or am I missing some nuance?
What if you only break laws you think are unconstitutional?Well, then you have a pretty good defense, I'd say its hard to claim youre immoral for breaking laws that truly are unconstitutional, but I think you'd need real info; and youd have to research it to know if its unconstitutional.
Regardless of whether some laws are unconstitutional or not it's okay to bend/break them. I drove home going about 65 mph today on the highway where the speed limit is 55. Everyone else was doing it. No one was pulled over. In fact it's almost generally accepted around here that if you aren't going at least 5 over you're going too slow. Of course, going 20 over makes you a speed demon and a danger to society :).
There are laws and regulations that we all break on a daily basis because it's convenient or useful or pleasant and we know, categorically, that we aren't harming others doing so. A couple more examples:
Where I live there are laws on the books about noise pollution and I can guarantee that when the garbage truck comes on Mondays he breaks the threshold. They're not exempted from these laws, but they can still not carry out their duties without creating this noise.
When I was 18 I had my first real girlfriend. She was 17 (*gasp*) which is against the law, albeit a misdemeanor in my state.
The other day I crossed a street despite the red hand saying "don't walk!" because there was no traffic and I might have been late to class otherwise.
These infractions are so insignificant that, while infringing upon established law, do no harm and are inoffensive. I think pot smoking falls under this category. Legal or no, it's so utterly benign and harmless that no one should care.
|
|
That's something I've been wrestling with the last few months myself.
'Is a rule no one enforces still a rule?'
There are certain things in the military we are supposed to do, and rules and regs to be followed. However, I've noticed some things go uncorrected, making me realize that said regs really have no power. Power only lies in the hands of those we agree to obey. Thus, the question.
I feel it is still a rule, although I have yet to define why to myself.
That's something I've been wrestling with the last few months myself.
'Is a rule no one enforces still a rule?'
There are certain things in the military we are supposed to do, and rules and regs to be followed. However, I've noticed some things go uncorrected, making me realize that said regs really have no power. Power only lies in the hands of those we agree to obey. Thus, the question.
I feel it is still a rule, although I have yet to define why to myself.
There are laws no one follows, and laws no one enforces. Why are they still there? Even the laws people generally follow and are more or less enforced aren't always so, or to the letter of the law itself. When you start to realize that the rules which govern our society are not as hard and fast as they appear, and not equally applied, you start to see just how much of a construct civilization is rather than a natural state. This is itself is not an argument, just an observation.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting. All this from a mostly toothless audit. I am sure that there is a ton of stuff that is still kept hidden.
Federal Reserve Audit Uncovers $16 Trillion in "Off of the books" Bailouts
Stuff like this is why I think that OWS is concentrating on only half of the problem. The need to turn their gaze towards occupying East Capitol Street and L Street as well.
There are laws no one follows, and laws no one enforces. Why are they still there?It sounds like you agree that they are still laws, empty as they may be. And I agree with your observation, as it was what brought the question to my attention.
I guess it's a matter of ontology. We think of laws as being inviolate, a barrier impenetrable but for serious consequences, but they're just legislation. They're still laws in the sense they are passed by the legislature (or by dictator fiat, or however else laws come to be) but they no longer have the mandate of the masses, or the mores of the general populace have changed so much that no one even thinks about it.
Practically though they're still laws, still on the books, because it takes SOME effort to repeal them. There's all sorts of obsolete laws as well that pertain to technologies or scenarios that no longer exist.
There's a lot of different kind of laws, too, and I'm no expert so I'm just talking out of my ass, but the ones that govern our every day behavior are the most susceptible to this sort of social molding. The law only has teeth if it's illegal, socially unacceptable, and inflicts harm on another party enough that they complain. We assume that laws are put in place to protect us from whatever sociopaths are out there that want to kill and/or rape us, but there's a good amount of laws that are just there as a statement of social acceptability. As far as I know my neighbor is shooting up heroin right now, but if he keeps it to himself and doesn't steal my mail why would I ever care?
In short. F@%~ if I know.
Of course, no one is under any obligation to take my discourse seriously. I'm pretty sure most people here don't.
I am rather surprised, not to mention amused, that it took Citizen Blackmer's discovery that I am a pothead to place him in this camp. I hold many much more controversial views than a taste for marijuana and a desire to see it decriminalized.
|
Of course, no one is under any obligation to take my discourse seriously. I'm pretty sure most people here don't.
I am rather surprised, not to mention amused, that it took Citizen Blackmer's discovery that I am a pothead to place him in this camp. I hold many much more controversial views than a taste for marijuana and a desire to see it decriminalized.
Dude, according to Federal law, pot dealers are worse than child molesters and kiddie porn manufacturers.
Heck, a guy with a few hundred pounds of weed that retails for maybe $50k is apparently a bigger threat to the fabric of society than a dude that costs millions of people billions of dollars in 401k money.
They give THAT jackass a bailout he can use to pay bonuses to himself and his cohorts...
From reddit
Anyone else find it distressing that:
1) The first move the police did was remove the press from the area
2) The airspace was locked down to prevent news helicopters from reporting
3) The only news we get is from 3 different live streams, two of which are down (as of 3:00 AM CST)
4) Legal monitors were prohibited from witnessing the serving of any papers
Hey, I guess they took the hint from more experienced countries in matter of repression, like Syria.
For most people, if something isn't on TV, it doesn't exist. So, FIRST exclude all cameras, THEN crack heads. Simple, no?
|
|
Saying that you can reject, dismiss, or ignore arguments because of the source is the definition of ad hominem fallacy. Or am I missing some nuance?
I'm sorry, I thought you meant an ad hominem attack.
Hey, I guess they took the hint from more experienced countries in matter of repression, like Syria.
For most people, if something isn't on TV, it doesn't exist. So, FIRST exclude all cameras, THEN crackheads. Simple, no?
... My whole life is unreal. You might say . . . I have no life.
Really though this is complete b*~#+%%$. Guess we'll "see" by omission the violence inherent in the system.
Of course, no one is under any obligation to take my discourse seriously. I'm pretty sure most people here don't.
I am rather surprised, not to mention amused, that it took Citizen Blackmer's discovery that I am a pothead to place him in this camp. I hold many much more controversial views than a taste for marijuana and a desire to see it decriminalized.
Alright forum ate a long post in response, so here goes....
Individuals don't have the right to decide if a law is "worth following". They can decide to break a law, but in doing so they not only deserve the punishment for breaking that law, they shouldn't complain about it when or if it happens. Doesn't make you a "bad person".
When you speed, you speed. You're accepting that you're braking a law and you deserve the punishment if you get caught. I don't think that line of thought is productive if it goes any further then that, and I think we can all agree that the morality of it would only muddy the waters.
Personally, drugs bother me. If they were brought under federal control and regulated, I'd have no problem with them whatsoever. As someone with a lot of personal, first-hand experience with the drug community in new england (my mother was a drug dealer and I spent a lot of my childhood with her drug dealer friends) the current situation to be abhorrent. I'm no expert, I do have a small history of law enforcement experience, but I'm not saying any of this from a position of authority, merely personal experience... the current state of affairs involving the drug trade hurts people.
If what you're doing just hurts you, by all means, go right ahead. When it hurts others it becomes a bigger issue. Your pot is NOT home grown (like everyone elses) your dealer isn't pocketing all the money to keep himself going (like everyone elses). At some point, somewhere down the line, it's blood money. It funds bad people doing bad things.
In essence, compliance implies consent.
You're not a bad guy, this isn't a personal attack. Just thought I'd clarify my stance on the issue a little bit. I was a little shocked to see someone advocating an illegal activity on the boards though, it just caught me flat-footed.
Stuff like this is why I think that OWS is concentrating on only half of the problem. The need to turn their gaze towards occupying East Capitol Street and L Street as well.
The question is why does the capitol behave the way it does?
Because wallstreet tells it to.
Hit the ventriloquist, not the dummy.
At some point, somewhere down the line, it's blood money. It funds bad people doing bad things.
I could just as easily make that argument for my tax dollars.
So your solution to the problems with the marijuana trade is "buy American" ? :)
If what you're doing just hurts you, by all means, go right ahead. When it hurts others it becomes a bigger issue. Your pot is NOT home grown (like everyone elses) your dealer isn't pocketing all the money to keep himself going (like everyone elses). At some point, somewhere down the line, it's blood money. It funds bad people doing bad things.
Your opinion on the Iraq war?
Do you buy exclusively fair-trade products?
|
|
If what you're doing just hurts you, by all means, go right ahead. When it hurts others it becomes a bigger issue. Your pot is NOT home grown (like everyone elses) your dealer isn't pocketing all the money to keep himself going (like everyone elses). At some point, somewhere down the line, it's blood money. It funds bad people doing bad things.Your opinion on the Iraq war?
Do you buy exclusively fair-trade products?
Evil Lincoln, You owe me a keyboard.
And to respond to Nathan: if he's doing the right thing and only smoking tasty hydro nugs, the chances someone was hurt to get him his weed are pretty slim.
And, to add to Lincoln's point: do you ever put gas in your car? Have you ever given a loved one a diamond? Do you have plastic in your home? Are you on a computer? Are you on the grid? Are you wearing any clothing you didn't make yourself? And on and on...
If what you're doing just hurts you, by all means, go right ahead. When it hurts others it becomes a bigger issue. Your pot is NOT home grown (like everyone elses) your dealer isn't pocketing all the money to keep himself going (like everyone elses). At some point, somewhere down the line, it's blood money. It funds bad people doing bad things.Your opinion on the Iraq war?
Do you buy exclusively fair-trade products?
I'll take the bait.
I'm personally anti-war, but that's not important. Military says jump, I jump, it's part of the deal. It's my responsibility as an Airman to recognize and follow legitimate authority.
Not cognizant enough of fair-trade products to answer this accurately.
More importantly - those are seperate issues, and direct comparison between them and what I was commenting on is not likely to be accurate.
I try to follow the rule of law, which is the responsibility of all americans. If I don't like something I try to change it, if I feel strongly about it I try to do it legally, and responsibly. If I choose to break a law, I accept that what I'm doing is wrong and I deserve whatever punishment I get for braking it.
The fact that laws are broken regularly in no way discredits a law, or makes it any less of an offense if you're caught. That's like saying that if I rape someone and get away with it it's fine. It's not, you just didn't get caught. (I'm NOT equating rape with drug use in terms of severity, just pointing out that breaking a law is breaking a law). There's not a lot of rationality to that argument.
Evil Lincoln, You owe me a keyboard.
Diamonds, nice! I knew I was leaving some good ones out.
The fact that laws are broken regularly in no way discredits a law, or makes it any less of an offense if you're caught. That's like saying that if I rape someone and get away with it it's fine. It's not, you just didn't get caught. (I'm NOT equating rape with drug use in terms of severity, just pointing out that breaking a law is breaking a law). There's not a lot of rationality to that argument.
Its not fine, because you hurt someone.
However if breaking a law doesn't hurt anyone, AND you don't get caught, then you're fine again.
Your argument about the indirect effects of the drug trade pales in comparison to the indirect effects of military industrial complex of the US.(a cliche phrase i know, but it really does apply)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, there's a law against growing pot, which Nathan offered as the moral alternative to paying a drug dealer. So is that law amoral? Who's getting hurt exactly?
Everyone's entitled to their opinion, and here's mine: laws are made by humans, and therefore are imperfect. Give me the most well-intentioned law in the universe, and I can imagine a situation where your mother would tell you it's okay to break it.
Comrade Anklebiter makes his choices, and his use or abstinence of pot doesn't affect my opinion of him beyond the possibility that he may be intoxicated when he writes.
And he doesn't need to break the law to be intoxicated when he writes.
Hell, I figure all of you are drunk all the time. I know I try to be.
If what you're doing just hurts you, by all means, go right ahead. When it hurts others it becomes a bigger issue. Your pot is NOT home grown (like everyone elses) your dealer isn't pocketing all the money to keep himself going (like everyone elses). At some point, somewhere down the line, it's blood money. It funds bad people doing bad things.Your opinion on the Iraq war?
Do you buy exclusively fair-trade products?
Evil Lincoln, You owe me a keyboard.
And to respond to Nathan: if he's doing the right thing and only smoking tasty hydro nugs, the chances someone was hurt to get him his weed are pretty slim.
And, to add to Lincoln's point: do you ever put gas in your car? Have you ever given a loved one a diamond? Do you have plastic in your home? Are you on a computer? Are you on the grid? Are you wearing any clothing you didn't make yourself? And on and on...
Sure, I see where you guys are going. I was trying to avoid an unwinnable moral argument - which is where this is going. However, the fact of the matter is that we are American citizens, and the protections and rights we have are given in exchange for abiding by the laws we live under.
Is the system perfect? Obviously not. Does it protect us? For the most part. Can it use improvement? Sure.
There are processes for changing the law. Deciding to break it is not one of those processes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Citizen Blackmer, I wasn't offended in the least, so no worries.
I try to avoid advocating illegal drug use on these boards (although I think I did once in a thread about battling depression); I just talk openly about the fact that, yeah, I like drugs. Pot mostly, but I'm not picky. It's a thin line (the advocating thing), but Paizo's moderators haven't told me to cease and desist, so I figure it's okay. (I expect that may change right quick, though.)
Mostly, however, what I objected to was your claim that my engaging in illegal activities somehow invalidates my discussing Constitutional rights because I'm pretty sure I rarely frame my opinions in regards to that document. My rather low opinion of the Constitution and the American legal/political system is rather infamous in the OTD (or else, I'm just a solipsist). They don't call me Comrade for no reason!
Politics? Sure, I can ramble on about that all night and day and into the night following. Usually while I am high.
There are processes for changing the law. Deciding to break it is not one of those processes.
Wow! Look at all you guys jumping to my defense.
[Sniffle]
I think I'm going to cry.
|
|
There are processes for changing the law. Deciding to break it is not one of those processes.No?
Oh, but that's different. That was a bad law that she had every right to break.
[/sarcasm]
I'll also add, Citizen Blackmer, that I am sorry to hear about your bad experiences.