The ultimate goal here is to avoid negative feelings about racial minorities. There's a real risk of this with people snapping and getting fed up with the whole bullshit thing. And then the wheel will turn the other way and the vile bastards who have stirred this up to divide people will have succeeded.
Für eure Sicherheit
Back on topic, more black people in the US die of constipation than are shot by police.
I'm sure there is some racist reason behind this, maybe US diets are based on white people's needs and this is some form of systematic racism that needs to be eradicated. I'm sure our mental gymnasts will let me know the reasoning.
This is a good example of what I’m talking about above
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53494556
Stupid bint. I personally don’t think “well, no one got hurt” is a good defence.
No shit?!Originally Posted by The Wengerbabies
It's a crucial defence provided it is true. Because if she'd hit and killed somebody, things would be very different?
As it is, slavery and robbery seems to be the answer once again.
Für eure Sicherheit
Right. So. I can put a blindfold on every morning, go to my porch with my gun and spray bullets around.
So long as I don't hit anyone or damage anything we're all good till one day - and it probably won't be many days - I kill someone.
Then I should be arrested.
Till then, nothing to see here, right?
Silly.
I've picked a deliberately extreme example, but we are talking about a principle here.
Is that something you are likely to do? Don't you think there would be a fairly high risk of killing somebody?
But it would depend, wouldn't it? If you live alone on a thousand acre ranch, sure, I can't see the problem with raking the lawn every morning. Should you get arrested for it? Firing a gun, on your own deserted land?
Or should there be a law that says you can't fire guns when other people are around? That's still restrictive and unwarranted, but at least it doesn't go as far as the unfortunate reality.
What we have here is law that decrees you can't fire guns at all, regardless of the circumstances. Indeed, you can't even possess one. Either "crime" being subject to state sanctioned robbery, kidnapping and/or incarceration?
My "silly" approach is libertarian and applies the law equally. It doesn't punish people who haven't caused harm. Yours blanket bans every eventuality and punishes those who have caused no harm, even those on their own deserted property where nobody can see them, nobody can hear them and nobody at all is at risk.
Anyway, I assume even if you didn't kill anyone by spraying bullets from a balcony, you'd chew up plenty of public or private property, thereby causing harm. My "silly" law covers that, in the same way your authoritarian blanket ban does. But my silliness only goes as far as necessary whereas yours tramples all over liberty in every instance.
My "silliness" removes tyranny. Yours extends what is already a mountain of rules and regulations covering all aspects of living.
In two days another stupid rule will be activated. Despite decades of established science and millennia of biological evolution, we'll all be forced to impede our breathing and mask our faces, thereby impeding our social interaction, under the threat of robbery should we fail to obey. Something so profoundly stupid, anti-scientific and generally nonsensical could never have come to pass were it not for the endless chipping away of liberty through thousands of prior decrees. How "silly" does it have to get before people begin to ask where the limit should be imposed?
Für eure Sicherheit
Yes I do. But the way your argument is coming across is that if I did do such a thing and happened not to hit anyone or anything (I specifically said that before to cover damage to property) then there would be no consequence. My suggestion is that's a bit silly
Yes, exactly. It would depend. If you do that then you're not likely to harm anyone and if you do damage anything it will be your own stuff.But it would depend, wouldn't it? If you live alone on a thousand acre ranch, sure, I can't see the problem with raking the lawn every morning. Should you get arrested for it? Firing a gun, on your own deserted land?
So yes, arguably in that scenario what you did is fine. Or at least more fine than the scenario I outlined.
So hopefully we agree there should be some line. You think where the line is drawn is wrong. Fair enough. But often blanket rules are easier to make and enforce than more woolly "Just try not to be a dick, m'kay?" ones.
I'm not saying all the rules of the society we live in are good rules. I'm just saying there should be some.
https://nypost.com/2020/07/25/black-...-in-milwaukee/
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
As a great man once said, if you've voting for Trump, you ain't black.
NOTE: The location of this post has been moved and the thread title (which was previously Wenger is Leaving) has been manipulated by a notorious pro-Wenger moderator. What was previously a message that contained no profanity and made a comment on a real life event has now been manipulated by a deliberately provocative title. An old and crude propaganda and censorship technique.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote