Fences
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
101 comments displayed.
#25 to #23
-
nightmarexnxnxnxnx (01/03/2016) [-]
Welcome to funnyjunk, where voicing your opinion that cops arriving at the scene of a 12 years old playing around with a plastic toy gun and gunning the kid down without any communication at all is not exactly how cops should behave will land you 1.5k red thumbs in one day.
It took me pretty long time to realize this site is filled to the brim with sociopathic edgelord *********** .
It took me pretty long time to realize this site is filled to the brim with sociopathic edgelord *********** .
#58 to #43
-
nightmarexnxnxnxnx (01/03/2016) [-]
And here you go again with your ******** biggotry. I couldn't give less **** about race here just FYI, but ****** up police apprehension is a completely different story.
I mean I cant believe you people. What exactly do you find so right about shooting a 12 years old with a plastic replica of a gun? Yeah he did stupid **** , but advocating murder because of that? Did he try to rob someone, or kill anyone?
But hurr durr America, praise the lord for our civilian-killing cops. You ******* disgust me.
And no, I didn't get ****** in the comments. Bunch of semi fanatical faggots down thumbing me is not something I find to be '' ******* me over'', I just find terribly sad that assholes like you blindly advocate something like this for whatever reason.
I mean I cant believe you people. What exactly do you find so right about shooting a 12 years old with a plastic replica of a gun? Yeah he did stupid **** , but advocating murder because of that? Did he try to rob someone, or kill anyone?
But hurr durr America, praise the lord for our civilian-killing cops. You ******* disgust me.
And no, I didn't get ****** in the comments. Bunch of semi fanatical faggots down thumbing me is not something I find to be '' ******* me over'', I just find terribly sad that assholes like you blindly advocate something like this for whatever reason.
#61 to #60
-
nightmarexnxnxnxnx (01/03/2016) [-]
I just want you to know I find you to be pathetic loser unworthy of my time.
Too bad I realized this only now. Enjoy your high while it lasts, in the end, you will return to being pitiful basement dwelling neckbeard, the difference from the rest of your kin being that you have lived to experience being able to hate on someone collectively, which is about as much of a social interaction you will ever engage in, in your entire life.
Also, I find it funny how you call me assblasted, yet you follow me like a shadow everywhere I go, butthurt that I blocked you over the crapflood you kept soiling the comment section with.
Too bad I realized this only now. Enjoy your high while it lasts, in the end, you will return to being pitiful basement dwelling neckbeard, the difference from the rest of your kin being that you have lived to experience being able to hate on someone collectively, which is about as much of a social interaction you will ever engage in, in your entire life.
Also, I find it funny how you call me assblasted, yet you follow me like a shadow everywhere I go, butthurt that I blocked you over the crapflood you kept soiling the comment section with.
#63 to #62
-
nightmarexnxnxnxnx (01/03/2016) [-]
Same question here actually. Or better yet, why are you stalking me?
#68 to #66
-
nightmarexnxnxnxnx (01/03/2016) [-]
Riight, while browsing as an anon, despite having an account, which you would normally use if you were just randomly browsing.
Cut the crap kiddo, the fact you are stalking me is absolutely obvious to anyone with half a brain.
Cut the crap kiddo, the fact you are stalking me is absolutely obvious to anyone with half a brain.
#26 to #25
-
starlordoriginal (01/03/2016) [-]
Wow, the wedging things into conversations here is vegan level.
#27 to #26
-
nightmarexnxnxnxnx (01/03/2016) [-]
Not really wedging things, just posting an example of what can one expect from this site.
#65 to #59
-
donfailed ONLINE (01/03/2016) [-] 
There you go again, you keep pressing it even though the whole thing's been done since yesterday. Now the issue isn't "Dindu' Nuffins'", it's you being a twat and trying to stir up **** over something that most of us stopped caring about when we woke up this morning. Yes, I stopped caring. I've got **** to do and don't always have time to devote to being autistic like you. Incase you try to say i'm trying to change the subject, me and about 15 other people tore your ass up about it and I distinctly remember something else: You kept deflecting and moving goalposts in your sperg out. When you actually got laid out, you just stopped replying. I've noticed you're at the point where you're blocking guys who don't agree with you. Fine by me, go ahead. But I guarantee you'll have better luck on tumblr than here.
#70 to #65
-
nightmarexnxnxnxnx (01/04/2016) [-]
Also, the whole thing is not ******* done. If you expect the issue to disappear just by booing down the ones criticizing the source of that issue, then you got another thing coming. I pity any society willing to accept something like that without persecuting the instigators of that act.
If you feel comfortable with having overreacting cops shooting civilians to death for something as minor as playing with a replica of a gun, then **** you, I do not.
If you feel comfortable with having overreacting cops shooting civilians to death for something as minor as playing with a replica of a gun, then **** you, I do not.
#69 to #65
-
nightmarexnxnxnxnx (01/03/2016) [-]
If you didnt care, you wouldnt bother to respond. The fact you did is obvious proof you did care.
I didn't got laid out you moron. Try to respond to 15 people at once all saying the same stupid **** . Collectively overwhelming someone with stupid and unbased crap is not taking the upper hand in a discussion, it is just what losers do when they have no valid argument to present.
Also, I blocked two people who were being the most obnoxious cunts I have ever lead a discussion (if it can be even called that way) with, which is why I blocked them, not because they presented any valid arguments.
Funny you mention tumblr really, for all the **** you people give that site, and considering what I have seen here past few days, I wonder if they are really so bad as you people make them out to be. Cunts like you have lost every last bit of credibility I felt towards them anyways.
I didn't got laid out you moron. Try to respond to 15 people at once all saying the same stupid **** . Collectively overwhelming someone with stupid and unbased crap is not taking the upper hand in a discussion, it is just what losers do when they have no valid argument to present.
Also, I blocked two people who were being the most obnoxious cunts I have ever lead a discussion (if it can be even called that way) with, which is why I blocked them, not because they presented any valid arguments.
Funny you mention tumblr really, for all the **** you people give that site, and considering what I have seen here past few days, I wonder if they are really so bad as you people make them out to be. Cunts like you have lost every last bit of credibility I felt towards them anyways.
#71 to #69
-
donfailed ONLINE (01/04/2016) [-]
You keep going assuming you're right, making an ass of yourself all the way, and respond to people who don't agree with you with hostility and whining on an autistic level. You can't even take a couple disagreements and red thumbs without sperging out about it. Right here you're grasping at straws trying to draw out an argument that could be dropped easily if you're so obviously superior to everyone here. If you haven't noticed, I wasn't banging on about the issue yesterday. It's about the issue now and how you're making a scene like a spoiled kid in a supermarket.
Know what? I'm done here. Congratulations, you're the winner of the FJ Special Olympics. Toss around your ego as much as you like, I wouldn't be surprised if that's all you've got.
Know what? I'm done here. Congratulations, you're the winner of the FJ Special Olympics. Toss around your ego as much as you like, I wouldn't be surprised if that's all you've got.
#72 to #71
-
nightmarexnxnxnxnx (01/04/2016) [-]
What do you expect me to agree with a dozen of the people that say the ''dindu'' deserved it?
Well no **** you. I called the officers retards in my original post because not only they went wrong about the procedure (an argument 8 or so were calling retarded, most likely because they think that driving up right next to an armed suspect and shooting them is oh so ******* smart), but they were also incapable to determine the fact it was a plastic gun from the way the kid moved and aimed it (argument I later dropped after I watched the footage of the act and seen there was not even any aiming or negotiating taking place.
Also, my sense of superiority? EXCUSE ME? Having to explain a dozen or so of people calling you retard from all sides, that their procedure was both wrong by morality and protocol is calling expressing my superiority? Maybe you could see reason if you looked past petty **** like that which you deem oh so important.
Well excuse me I didn't knelt before the masses and took the dick, and stood by my opinion ************ , you would have totally done that wouldn't you?
Well no **** you. I called the officers retards in my original post because not only they went wrong about the procedure (an argument 8 or so were calling retarded, most likely because they think that driving up right next to an armed suspect and shooting them is oh so ******* smart), but they were also incapable to determine the fact it was a plastic gun from the way the kid moved and aimed it (argument I later dropped after I watched the footage of the act and seen there was not even any aiming or negotiating taking place.
Also, my sense of superiority? EXCUSE ME? Having to explain a dozen or so of people calling you retard from all sides, that their procedure was both wrong by morality and protocol is calling expressing my superiority? Maybe you could see reason if you looked past petty **** like that which you deem oh so important.
Well excuse me I didn't knelt before the masses and took the dick, and stood by my opinion ************ , you would have totally done that wouldn't you?
#37 to #32
-
anon (01/03/2016) [-]
hey faggot, notice the words "gunning the kid down without any communication at all". your point is valid but the cops still ignored all protocol and gunned him down immediately instead the proper thing to do is:
1. Pull up away from the suspect
2. Get behind the car as cover or find other cover
3. Pull out gun then order the suspect to surrender firearm and lie on the ground
4. Shoot if suspect refuses or opens fire
instead they:
1. Pull up so close the suspect could pistol whip them coming out of the car
2. Gets out right in front of the suspect as if asking “please kill me”
3. Opens fire before the door is even fully open
1. Pull up away from the suspect
2. Get behind the car as cover or find other cover
3. Pull out gun then order the suspect to surrender firearm and lie on the ground
4. Shoot if suspect refuses or opens fire
instead they:
1. Pull up so close the suspect could pistol whip them coming out of the car
2. Gets out right in front of the suspect as if asking “please kill me”
3. Opens fire before the door is even fully open
#67 to #39
-
nightmarexnxnxnxnx (01/03/2016) [-]
Right, because almost ramming into an armed suspect, opening a door in a manner, in which that very suspect, under the condition that they had a real gun and some practice with it, could empty a whole magazine and kill them both where they stopped, is totally ******* smarter than stopping several dozens of meters away, carefully getting out of car while staying in cover, and trying to convince the suspect to give in.
I mean, you gotta be a special kind of brain-dead to call that argument stupid.
I mean, you gotta be a special kind of brain-dead to call that argument stupid.
#64 to #37
-
nightmarexnxnxnxnx (01/03/2016) [-]
FINALLY SOMEONE WHO GETS IT.
My. ******* . God.
And out of all the people I communicated for the last two days, you are one of the few with your brain intact, who understands what I was trying to convey.
My. ******* . God.
And out of all the people I communicated for the last two days, you are one of the few with your brain intact, who understands what I was trying to convey.
#31 to #4
-
vegasstoner (01/03/2016) [-] i dunno. only 5 foot seems waay too short for a fence to me...everyone could see my buisness.
#19 to #4
-
derpthefifth (01/03/2016) [-] You sorely underestimate how much people will pay for being left the **** alone
#12 to #5
-
toxicwarning (01/03/2016) [-] >Sell your overpriced high-value kidney
>Acquire $$$
>Buy a new, cheaper kidney
>Kidney surgery
>Repeat.
>Acquire $$$
>Buy a new, cheaper kidney
>Kidney surgery
>Repeat.
#76 to #14
-
toxicwarning (01/04/2016) [-] Assuming you can get the cheaper kidney for low-enough price, you can cut the surgery expenses by getting in touch with a cheaper unlicensed underground surgeon and still make profit. He'll probably want royalties of the profits though.
My plan is flawless.
My plan is flawless.
#75 to #20
-
toxicwarning (01/04/2016) [-] Eh, you worry about all that stuff when the time comes, no use fretting over every little thing.
#7
-
anon (01/03/2016) [-]
This makes me think how ****** up the system we live in (most "western countries")is when it comes to certain laws. You really notice it only when you want to do seemingly small things like buildidng a type of fence, moving your driveway etc.
I don't know, maybe it's horrible just to me but the world where I need to do a ******* of paperwork, pay money, wait for a long time just to build a shed that is made from "something that can't be quickly taken apart" ON MY PROPERTY just to have it denied by some random stranger in an office somewhere is just one step from controlling literally everything in life. It's the same **** when I wan't do do anything out of the ordinary. Recently I learned that I can't use a electric skateboard for below 10 kilometers commute because legally I can't ride it ANYWHERE. Not in the sidewalk, not in the bike lane, not in the street. If you live like an everyman doing everyman **** you don't notice it, but just try to come up with something new in your life and you reveal how little actual freedom you have.
I don't know, maybe it's horrible just to me but the world where I need to do a ******* of paperwork, pay money, wait for a long time just to build a shed that is made from "something that can't be quickly taken apart" ON MY PROPERTY just to have it denied by some random stranger in an office somewhere is just one step from controlling literally everything in life. It's the same **** when I wan't do do anything out of the ordinary. Recently I learned that I can't use a electric skateboard for below 10 kilometers commute because legally I can't ride it ANYWHERE. Not in the sidewalk, not in the bike lane, not in the street. If you live like an everyman doing everyman **** you don't notice it, but just try to come up with something new in your life and you reveal how little actual freedom you have.
#46 to #7
-
lolollo (01/03/2016) [-] If there weren't so many dickheads who would abuse the living **** out of any system available just to come out on top, we wouldn't have this problem. It's like you can't go waving a firearm at people, despite being on your property. "Oohh but private property police state 2nd amendment!" No, **** off...
#49 to #46
-
durkadurka ONLINE (01/03/2016) [-] Building a shed on your own property is a far cry from threatening someone's life.
#52 to #50
-
durkadurka ONLINE (01/03/2016) [-] The concept of rights as we see them are that they go only so far as to not infringe upon the rights of others.
#55 to #52
-
lolollo (01/03/2016) [-] OK, then we'll apply that to the content, and your comment. Any fence bordering your property, by definition, will have to border someone else's property as well. It should be easy to see how rules and regulations should be made on building a fence as there is the propensity to cause issue with someone else's property.
For your example, while its simpler to build a shed on your property, there are still minute considerations for building any structure. Do you need to lay a foundation? Dig? How sturdy will it be? You can't build a 200 ft. tower on your property because there's half a dozen ways doing so can hinder someone else's day where you can say "if anything happens I'll deal with it" but people would rather avoid it to begin with.
For your example, while its simpler to build a shed on your property, there are still minute considerations for building any structure. Do you need to lay a foundation? Dig? How sturdy will it be? You can't build a 200 ft. tower on your property because there's half a dozen ways doing so can hinder someone else's day where you can say "if anything happens I'll deal with it" but people would rather avoid it to begin with.
#57 to #55
-
durkadurka ONLINE (01/03/2016) [-] >there is the propensity to cause issue with someone else's property.
Then that person can sue me or we can come to an agreement outside of court. The legal system is designed to mediate exactly these kinds of disputes.
>For your example, while its simpler to build a shed on your property, there are still minute considerations for building any structure. Do you need to lay a foundation? Dig? How sturdy will it be?
Why would you care? I'm building the shed. These things are for me to worry about.
>You can't build a 200 ft. tower on your property
Why the **** not? Again, if I'm infringing upon someone else's rights they can take me to court.
Really what these regulations boil down to is someone or a group of people have an preference of how things should be and so they enforce their vision with local law and statutes.
Then that person can sue me or we can come to an agreement outside of court. The legal system is designed to mediate exactly these kinds of disputes.
>For your example, while its simpler to build a shed on your property, there are still minute considerations for building any structure. Do you need to lay a foundation? Dig? How sturdy will it be?
Why would you care? I'm building the shed. These things are for me to worry about.
>You can't build a 200 ft. tower on your property
Why the **** not? Again, if I'm infringing upon someone else's rights they can take me to court.
Really what these regulations boil down to is someone or a group of people have an preference of how things should be and so they enforce their vision with local law and statutes.
#73 to #57
-
lolollo (01/04/2016) [-] "People have a vision on how things should be"
Congratulations...you have just described...law! it comes down the the fact that you presume your actions don't cause issue with others, yet I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that there's plenty your neighbors do which bug the **** out of you. If someone's concerns are petty, like truly petty, chances are otll come out in the legal system, vbut if a good majority of people are telling you that you're being an asshole...well...
Congratulations...you have just described...law! it comes down the the fact that you presume your actions don't cause issue with others, yet I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that there's plenty your neighbors do which bug the **** out of you. If someone's concerns are petty, like truly petty, chances are otll come out in the legal system, vbut if a good majority of people are telling you that you're being an asshole...well...
#74 to #73
-
durkadurka ONLINE (01/04/2016) [-] >Congratulations...you have just described...law!
Absolutely not. Law is not (supposed) to be about the whims of the public. It's about preserving the people's liberty so that they may be free to live the lives of their choosing. This is what the United States was founded on. People have literally fought and died to create and maintain this.
>you presume your actions don't cause issue with others
I don't. I stated that if they do I should be prosecuted/sued. What I'm doing is not assuming guilt or fault before any action is even taken.
Also, the issue is whether or not my actions violate the rights of others. It is of absolutely no importance if they "cause issues" with people in the same way I don't care if my opinions "cause issues" with people.
>there's plenty your neighbors do which bug the **** out of you
So you think it's okay to make things illegal because you don't like them? Don't you see how that's really ****** up? (I don't mind what my neighbors do, and if I did I wouldn't be demanding that there be some law to stop them. They have every right to live their lives just as I do mine).
Making 10 ft fences illegal because you or you city council think things should be that way is the very antithesis of a free society. It amounts to a group of people inflicting their worldview upon others. Again, the antithesis of a free society. It can be as petty as a homeowners association dictating what kinds of grass your lawn must be or as serious as a government requiring you to purchase a health insurance plan or other product/service.
These kinds of controls have no place in our society if we truly want to consider ourselves "free".
Absolutely not. Law is not (supposed) to be about the whims of the public. It's about preserving the people's liberty so that they may be free to live the lives of their choosing. This is what the United States was founded on. People have literally fought and died to create and maintain this.
>you presume your actions don't cause issue with others
I don't. I stated that if they do I should be prosecuted/sued. What I'm doing is not assuming guilt or fault before any action is even taken.
Also, the issue is whether or not my actions violate the rights of others. It is of absolutely no importance if they "cause issues" with people in the same way I don't care if my opinions "cause issues" with people.
>there's plenty your neighbors do which bug the **** out of you
So you think it's okay to make things illegal because you don't like them? Don't you see how that's really ****** up? (I don't mind what my neighbors do, and if I did I wouldn't be demanding that there be some law to stop them. They have every right to live their lives just as I do mine).
Making 10 ft fences illegal because you or you city council think things should be that way is the very antithesis of a free society. It amounts to a group of people inflicting their worldview upon others. Again, the antithesis of a free society. It can be as petty as a homeowners association dictating what kinds of grass your lawn must be or as serious as a government requiring you to purchase a health insurance plan or other product/service.
These kinds of controls have no place in our society if we truly want to consider ourselves "free".
#77 to #74
-
lolollo (01/04/2016) [-] Do you even know what the hell you're saying? Where do you think laws come from, and why do you think they're designed to come from that source.
**************** DO THEY COME FROM THE PUBLIC!
It's illegal to build a 10 foot fence because, one day, someone built a 10 foot fence, and it annoyed the **** out of someone. Further than that, enough people agreed that such a thing would be an obnoxious occurance that it was passed through as a law.
Now stop pretending that all of this is coming from some sort of "big brother" organization, and cut it with this attitude that just because you wouldn't be bothered by it, NO ONE should be bothered by it, you ******* psychopath that's not even meant to be a petty insult, that's, legit, a sign and symptom of psychopathy .
You say "I know I cause issues!" and "I understand other people have concerns!" but then you're still arguing this point arent you? That people shouldn't have those concerns. It's like a smokers who continues to blow smoke in someone's face as they're legitimately having an asthma attack, because "I have my freedoms you ******* pussy.".
There's no violation of rights, there's no abuse of power, there's just you......being an asshole.
**************** DO THEY COME FROM THE PUBLIC!
It's illegal to build a 10 foot fence because, one day, someone built a 10 foot fence, and it annoyed the **** out of someone. Further than that, enough people agreed that such a thing would be an obnoxious occurance that it was passed through as a law.
Now stop pretending that all of this is coming from some sort of "big brother" organization, and cut it with this attitude that just because you wouldn't be bothered by it, NO ONE should be bothered by it, you ******* psychopath that's not even meant to be a petty insult, that's, legit, a sign and symptom of psychopathy .
You say "I know I cause issues!" and "I understand other people have concerns!" but then you're still arguing this point arent you? That people shouldn't have those concerns. It's like a smokers who continues to blow smoke in someone's face as they're legitimately having an asthma attack, because "I have my freedoms you ******* pussy.".
There's no violation of rights, there's no abuse of power, there's just you......being an asshole.
#78 to #77
-
durkadurka ONLINE (01/04/2016) [-] > Where do you think laws come from, and why do you think they're designed to come from that source.
Can you read? Whims was a very important part of that sentence. Y'know, I'm not just putting those words in there as filler.
The rule of law is of course made by people. This is so evident it really should go without saying. But the whole point is that the rule of law is not about you getting to tell people whether you want their fences to be under 10 ft or blue or whatever. The rule of law which we've established was about preserving our liberties, ie letting me build green fences higher than 10 ft
>It's illegal to build a 10 foot fence because, one day, someone built a 10 foot fence, and it annoyed the **** out of someone. Further than that, enough people agreed that such a thing would be an obnoxious occurance that it was passed through as a law.
Again, how is the fence being merely annoying just grounds to use the force of the law to compel me to tear it down? If we are free people, what right do you have to do this?
I get that you're talking about the mechanisms of a democracy but I get the sense that you don't get the issues with it. In a democratic system, it is entirely possible for 51% of a population to subjugate and oppress the other 49%. What you describe is very benign and relatively harmless, but the exact mechanisms are the same.
To put it another way:
A majority of people wanting something does not make that thing right. A majority of Americans supported the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII. Hitler was elected this way in a totally legal process. Most of what he did was technically "legal"
The famous quote goes "democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner".
"Majority rules" is not a basis for law in a free society. This is why our country was founded to be a republic. And if you read about it, you'll learn that the founders were not too fond of democracy and knew of its dangers. Our system of government was actually designed to protect the rights of the minority. It quite deliberately was somewhat disconnected from the "passions of the people."
>but then you're still arguing this point arent you? That people shouldn't have those concerns
Nope! I'm not! People can be concerned all they like. But what matters from a legal perspective is whether their rights have been violated. When I say "I don't care" about their concerns what I'm saying is that in the eyes of the law this is irrelevant.
Do you really think " because I don't like it" is really a basis for inflicting your opinion on other people? If you want to throw around "psychotic" this is far closer to it.
You are literally saying that it's okay for you to use the force of government to me from doing something simply because you're bothered by it. I ask you to take a moment and consider exactly what you're advocating.
>It's like a smokers who continues to blow smoke in someone's face as they're legitimately having an asthma attack, because "I have my freedoms you ******* pussy."
Not at all. The smoker caused the other person harm and should be taken to court and even possibly jailed. You're misrepresenting my argument. My argument is NOT that people should be able to cause harm to each other. My argument IS that not thinking my fences look ugly or thinking my speech is offensive does not constitute harm.
>Now stop pretending that all of this is coming from some sort of "big brother" organization
Now you're just making stuff up. I even said that this can be as innocuous as an annoying homeowners association or as widespread as on the federal level.
How am I supposed to argue my point if you can't even properly represent it? You're arguing against things I haven't been arguing for.
TL;DR: "What the majority says goes" is not a basis for the rule of law in a free society. What's important is our natural rights and their preservation.
Can you read? Whims was a very important part of that sentence. Y'know, I'm not just putting those words in there as filler.
The rule of law is of course made by people. This is so evident it really should go without saying. But the whole point is that the rule of law is not about you getting to tell people whether you want their fences to be under 10 ft or blue or whatever. The rule of law which we've established was about preserving our liberties, ie letting me build green fences higher than 10 ft
>It's illegal to build a 10 foot fence because, one day, someone built a 10 foot fence, and it annoyed the **** out of someone. Further than that, enough people agreed that such a thing would be an obnoxious occurance that it was passed through as a law.
Again, how is the fence being merely annoying just grounds to use the force of the law to compel me to tear it down? If we are free people, what right do you have to do this?
I get that you're talking about the mechanisms of a democracy but I get the sense that you don't get the issues with it. In a democratic system, it is entirely possible for 51% of a population to subjugate and oppress the other 49%. What you describe is very benign and relatively harmless, but the exact mechanisms are the same.
To put it another way:
A majority of people wanting something does not make that thing right. A majority of Americans supported the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII. Hitler was elected this way in a totally legal process. Most of what he did was technically "legal"
The famous quote goes "democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner".
"Majority rules" is not a basis for law in a free society. This is why our country was founded to be a republic. And if you read about it, you'll learn that the founders were not too fond of democracy and knew of its dangers. Our system of government was actually designed to protect the rights of the minority. It quite deliberately was somewhat disconnected from the "passions of the people."
>but then you're still arguing this point arent you? That people shouldn't have those concerns
Nope! I'm not! People can be concerned all they like. But what matters from a legal perspective is whether their rights have been violated. When I say "I don't care" about their concerns what I'm saying is that in the eyes of the law this is irrelevant.
Do you really think " because I don't like it" is really a basis for inflicting your opinion on other people? If you want to throw around "psychotic" this is far closer to it.
You are literally saying that it's okay for you to use the force of government to me from doing something simply because you're bothered by it. I ask you to take a moment and consider exactly what you're advocating.
>It's like a smokers who continues to blow smoke in someone's face as they're legitimately having an asthma attack, because "I have my freedoms you ******* pussy."
Not at all. The smoker caused the other person harm and should be taken to court and even possibly jailed. You're misrepresenting my argument. My argument is NOT that people should be able to cause harm to each other. My argument IS that not thinking my fences look ugly or thinking my speech is offensive does not constitute harm.
>Now stop pretending that all of this is coming from some sort of "big brother" organization
Now you're just making stuff up. I even said that this can be as innocuous as an annoying homeowners association or as widespread as on the federal level.
How am I supposed to argue my point if you can't even properly represent it? You're arguing against things I haven't been arguing for.
TL;DR: "What the majority says goes" is not a basis for the rule of law in a free society. What's important is our natural rights and their preservation.
#79 to #78
-
lolollo (01/04/2016) [-] It's the same reason there's still a law that you can't walk down the street with ice cream in your back pocket. Ages ago, people did that to steal horses. People don't do it now because its never a concern which pops up. You want the freedom to build a 10 foot tall green fence on your neighbors property line. Then, when he spouts his right not to have such a thing occur along his property line, you bitch and moan because "muh freedoms!" like some kind of bad stereotype. No one cares what color your fence is guy, the concern is the height. You think that just because you can't think of a reason for the law (which is gonna be impossible at this point, because you're so invested in the ideal that any "reason" will just be an "excuse") that it must not exist. Chances are its because a wall must be built a certain way in order to be that high. There's probably some kind of constructions risk where a wall that high is a wind issue, where it has that riat to fall.
You ignore this, because you'd rather ruin someones property under the guise "it'll never happen!" thinking they can just file a lawsuit...all for your perceived right to build needlessly high fences. Again...psychopath.
You ignore this, because you'd rather ruin someones property under the guise "it'll never happen!" thinking they can just file a lawsuit...all for your perceived right to build needlessly high fences. Again...psychopath.
#80 to #79
-
durkadurka ONLINE (01/05/2016) [-] >It's the same reason there's still a law that you can't walk down the street with ice cream in your back pocket. Ages ago, people did that to steal horses
Most of these laws aren't simply out of date, though I'd imagine some are.
>Then, when he spouts his right not to have such a thing occur along his property line
His right to not have me do something on my property? Don't be so silly.
>bitch and moan
You can call it that if you like. Honestly I'm just trying to explain my point of view to you.
> No one cares what color your fence is guy, the concern is the height
Do you not understand how examples work or are you just being pedantic here?
>You think that just because you can't think of a reason for the law (which is gonna be impossible at this point, because you're so invested in the ideal that any "reason" will just be an "excuse") that it must not exist
Did I say this? I'm sure there is often a "good reason". Hell, I'm sure that almost everyone who makes these kinds of laws/statues/restricts at least thinks they have a good reason. I seriously doubt that they have bad intentions.
My argument is simply that those "good reasons" are often not sufficient cause to use force (government) to compel me to act (or not to).
You also have to realize that the definition of a "good reason" varies from person to person. What I might consider a "good reason" you might not.
A "good reason" means nothing legally speaking.
>Chances are its because a wall must be built a certain way in order to be that high
I'm not to keen on debating every single hypothetical, but if this were the case then I'm sure I'd find this out in planning the construction. And again if there's a wind issue and my fence falls on your property or hurts someone I can be sued or imprisoned.
>You ignore this, because you'd rather ruin someones property under the guise "it'll never happen!"
I don't ignore it, but then again I'm not actually building a fence in real life so I haven't done any research into how I'd go about building one.
But in such a theoretical case I certainly wouldn't WANT to harm anyone else's property. I'd be trying my best not to for a few reasons. The first being that I know I'd be held liable for such damages and the second being that I want to get along with my neighbors and don't wish them ill will. Does this really need explaining?
What you're saying is that something might happen and for this reason you must wield the force of government to prevent me from doing something that could potentially cause someone else harm. You're assuming my guilt and trying to stop a theoretical crime before it happens. Do you see what's wrong with this?
You cannot base the rule of law around attempts to penalize or restrict people before a crime is even committed. It's silly honestly.
Using this same argument I could argue that your free speech should be restricted because what you might say could cause a riot and get people hurt. You don't want people to get hurt do you? Are you some sort of psychopath?
>thinking they can just file a lawsuit
They can and do though usually these kind of things get settled outside of court because it's easier and cheaper for everyone.
>all for your perceived right
Building on my own property is not my right? I own my property.
> needlessly high fences
Who are you to say it's needless? Maybe I have my own "good reason".
>Again...psychopath.
I want to build something on my own land. You think you have the right to stop me because you might not like it, but this makes me the psycho. Got it.
Most of these laws aren't simply out of date, though I'd imagine some are.
>Then, when he spouts his right not to have such a thing occur along his property line
His right to not have me do something on my property? Don't be so silly.
>bitch and moan
You can call it that if you like. Honestly I'm just trying to explain my point of view to you.
> No one cares what color your fence is guy, the concern is the height
Do you not understand how examples work or are you just being pedantic here?
>You think that just because you can't think of a reason for the law (which is gonna be impossible at this point, because you're so invested in the ideal that any "reason" will just be an "excuse") that it must not exist
Did I say this? I'm sure there is often a "good reason". Hell, I'm sure that almost everyone who makes these kinds of laws/statues/restricts at least thinks they have a good reason. I seriously doubt that they have bad intentions.
My argument is simply that those "good reasons" are often not sufficient cause to use force (government) to compel me to act (or not to).
You also have to realize that the definition of a "good reason" varies from person to person. What I might consider a "good reason" you might not.
A "good reason" means nothing legally speaking.
>Chances are its because a wall must be built a certain way in order to be that high
I'm not to keen on debating every single hypothetical, but if this were the case then I'm sure I'd find this out in planning the construction. And again if there's a wind issue and my fence falls on your property or hurts someone I can be sued or imprisoned.
>You ignore this, because you'd rather ruin someones property under the guise "it'll never happen!"
I don't ignore it, but then again I'm not actually building a fence in real life so I haven't done any research into how I'd go about building one.
But in such a theoretical case I certainly wouldn't WANT to harm anyone else's property. I'd be trying my best not to for a few reasons. The first being that I know I'd be held liable for such damages and the second being that I want to get along with my neighbors and don't wish them ill will. Does this really need explaining?
What you're saying is that something might happen and for this reason you must wield the force of government to prevent me from doing something that could potentially cause someone else harm. You're assuming my guilt and trying to stop a theoretical crime before it happens. Do you see what's wrong with this?
You cannot base the rule of law around attempts to penalize or restrict people before a crime is even committed. It's silly honestly.
Using this same argument I could argue that your free speech should be restricted because what you might say could cause a riot and get people hurt. You don't want people to get hurt do you? Are you some sort of psychopath?
>thinking they can just file a lawsuit
They can and do though usually these kind of things get settled outside of court because it's easier and cheaper for everyone.
>all for your perceived right
Building on my own property is not my right? I own my property.
> needlessly high fences
Who are you to say it's needless? Maybe I have my own "good reason".
>Again...psychopath.
I want to build something on my own land. You think you have the right to stop me because you might not like it, but this makes me the psycho. Got it.
#81 to #80
-
lolollo (01/05/2016) [-] It's becoming fairly obvious you're just trying to draw the length of each comment out, but it comes to this.
You think that these "good reasons" aren't sufficient enough to regulate what you do, because you have this inflated sense that whatever you do on your property can't possibly interfere with other people. You see obvious example, like flailing a weapon around, but then you assume that just because you're not convinced a potentially hindering action can interfere with other people, EVERYONE should see it that way. A fence is an obvious example, because its not just your property. A shed is purely on your property, but I garuntee if you look for it, you'll note that it's also significantly easier to legally build a shed than a fence. They're trying to regulate what you do on your private property because its more than possible for people to take advantage of such a thing. It doesn't matter how much you refuse to see it, but your actions on your property have this tendency to effect others. You can't flail a weapon on your front yard. You cant creepily smile at the neighborhood children while naked from your front window. You can't build a 10 foot tall fence. You can't build a contraption which "just so happens to tip on the direction of your neighbors house when the wind blows." It falls under the principle that your actions have unforseen consequences. It's why they send the warning letters.
And no, wanting to make sure someone will act in a safe manner while on their property iant paychopathy. Refusing to note that your actions can prpve a detriment to others under the guise of " **** you i can do what i want" is literal, textbool psychopathy as defined by the science of psychology. I know you think im trying to spite you with names, but you need to ******* know that.
You think that these "good reasons" aren't sufficient enough to regulate what you do, because you have this inflated sense that whatever you do on your property can't possibly interfere with other people. You see obvious example, like flailing a weapon around, but then you assume that just because you're not convinced a potentially hindering action can interfere with other people, EVERYONE should see it that way. A fence is an obvious example, because its not just your property. A shed is purely on your property, but I garuntee if you look for it, you'll note that it's also significantly easier to legally build a shed than a fence. They're trying to regulate what you do on your private property because its more than possible for people to take advantage of such a thing. It doesn't matter how much you refuse to see it, but your actions on your property have this tendency to effect others. You can't flail a weapon on your front yard. You cant creepily smile at the neighborhood children while naked from your front window. You can't build a 10 foot tall fence. You can't build a contraption which "just so happens to tip on the direction of your neighbors house when the wind blows." It falls under the principle that your actions have unforseen consequences. It's why they send the warning letters.
And no, wanting to make sure someone will act in a safe manner while on their property iant paychopathy. Refusing to note that your actions can prpve a detriment to others under the guise of " **** you i can do what i want" is literal, textbool psychopathy as defined by the science of psychology. I know you think im trying to spite you with names, but you need to ******* know that.
#82 to #81
-
durkadurka ONLINE (01/05/2016) [-] >It's becoming fairly obvious you're just trying to draw the length of each comment out
Nope, I genuinely wanted to explain my position to detail. Also, I like putting space between different ideas because it's a bit easier to read. Why do you assume bad faith?
>And no, wanting to make sure someone will act in a safe manner while on their property iant paychopathy. Refusing to note that your actions can prpve a detriment to others under the guise of " **** you i can do what i want" is literal, textbool psychopathy as defined by the science of psychology
I'm wondering when you'll stop mis-characterizing my argument.
I get the sense that you think I'm saying that owning property is like having your own little kingdom. It's not. There's plenty you can do on it that will cause legal harm to others and would thus be illegal.
What I'm saying is you have no right to direct my choices if they are not infringing upon your rights. A maybe in this case is simply not sufficient.
Someone could wander into my yard and drown in my swimming pool. That doesn't mean you can ban me from having a pool, it just means that IF that DOES happen, I will be held accountable for my actions (or lack thereof).
I could use my speech to shout fire in a crowded movie theater and maybe cause a panic that harms others. We don't try and stop this from MAYBE happening by preventing people from having freedom of speech, we punish with the rule of law after the abuse of rights has already happen.
Is this point understandable? I can try to explain this a different way if you'd like clarification.
You cannot operate a legal system with "maybes". Either something happened or it didn't.
Another important tenant of our legal system is "innocent until proven guilty." In essence, I cannot be assumed to be in the wrong. In fact, the opposite has to be assumed. This is what you're mistaking as me "Refusing to note that your actions can prpve a detriment to others" though I've stated to the contrary in several instances.
So for an easy to understand example: It can't be assumed that my fence will cause damages before I even build it, it has to be proven that it does once an action is actually taken. until that point I'm assumed to be innocent of wrongdoing.
What's important is not what might happen, but what does happen.
If you're concerned about the potential unforseen consequences , why not give the government authority over every action? Why do you only care about some? Isn't that inconsistent?
>It falls under the principle that your actions have unforseen consequences
As builder of my fence it is my responsibility to determine the potential consequences of building the fence. If I fail to do this and one of those consequences occurs and causes legal damages to someone else, I will then be found liable in a court of law. It's obviously in my every interest to make sure that the actions I take on my property do not cause damages to others.
To sum up:
1. The law should only prevent damages to the rights of others and should otherwise leave me free to run my life as I see fit.
2. The law should not presume guilt.
3. Punitive measures must not be preemptive as people are innocent until proven guilty.
I was able to keep this one a bit shorter, but I can explain anything else in further detail if you'd like.
Nope, I genuinely wanted to explain my position to detail. Also, I like putting space between different ideas because it's a bit easier to read. Why do you assume bad faith?
>And no, wanting to make sure someone will act in a safe manner while on their property iant paychopathy. Refusing to note that your actions can prpve a detriment to others under the guise of " **** you i can do what i want" is literal, textbool psychopathy as defined by the science of psychology
I'm wondering when you'll stop mis-characterizing my argument.
I get the sense that you think I'm saying that owning property is like having your own little kingdom. It's not. There's plenty you can do on it that will cause legal harm to others and would thus be illegal.
What I'm saying is you have no right to direct my choices if they are not infringing upon your rights. A maybe in this case is simply not sufficient.
Someone could wander into my yard and drown in my swimming pool. That doesn't mean you can ban me from having a pool, it just means that IF that DOES happen, I will be held accountable for my actions (or lack thereof).
I could use my speech to shout fire in a crowded movie theater and maybe cause a panic that harms others. We don't try and stop this from MAYBE happening by preventing people from having freedom of speech, we punish with the rule of law after the abuse of rights has already happen.
Is this point understandable? I can try to explain this a different way if you'd like clarification.
You cannot operate a legal system with "maybes". Either something happened or it didn't.
Another important tenant of our legal system is "innocent until proven guilty." In essence, I cannot be assumed to be in the wrong. In fact, the opposite has to be assumed. This is what you're mistaking as me "Refusing to note that your actions can prpve a detriment to others" though I've stated to the contrary in several instances.
So for an easy to understand example: It can't be assumed that my fence will cause damages before I even build it, it has to be proven that it does once an action is actually taken. until that point I'm assumed to be innocent of wrongdoing.
What's important is not what might happen, but what does happen.
If you're concerned about the potential unforseen consequences , why not give the government authority over every action? Why do you only care about some? Isn't that inconsistent?
>It falls under the principle that your actions have unforseen consequences
As builder of my fence it is my responsibility to determine the potential consequences of building the fence. If I fail to do this and one of those consequences occurs and causes legal damages to someone else, I will then be found liable in a court of law. It's obviously in my every interest to make sure that the actions I take on my property do not cause damages to others.
To sum up:
1. The law should only prevent damages to the rights of others and should otherwise leave me free to run my life as I see fit.
2. The law should not presume guilt.
3. Punitive measures must not be preemptive as people are innocent until proven guilty.
I was able to keep this one a bit shorter, but I can explain anything else in further detail if you'd like.
#83 to #82
-
lolollo (01/05/2016) [-] Then the concern here is that you're not considering the actions which can infringe on others, like how high a fence can be built, because you're not "convinced by them". You don't have to be convinced by them, you just have to follow them. Luckily, we live in a society where if you still don't like it, you can motion to have it changed. Then the issue you might run into is that you have to respect it if the majority still tells you to **** off. You have rights, but they don't extend past the rights of others, and your actions don't magically do nothing for the rights of others just because you feel they shouldn't.
Anyone flailing a gun in their yard can easily say " I have control over the weapon, there's no danger to you, and thus no infringement on your safety!". Anything you would have to say about that statement can easily be said about other specific cases. "What if X happens?" "What I'd you DONT have control over it?" "What if some unforseen **** occurs?" "I still don't feel safe." I'm not convinced by any of that...what about my right to bear arms in my front yard?
Anyone flailing a gun in their yard can easily say " I have control over the weapon, there's no danger to you, and thus no infringement on your safety!". Anything you would have to say about that statement can easily be said about other specific cases. "What if X happens?" "What I'd you DONT have control over it?" "What if some unforseen **** occurs?" "I still don't feel safe." I'm not convinced by any of that...what about my right to bear arms in my front yard?
#84 to #83
-
durkadurka ONLINE (01/05/2016) [-] >Then the concern here is that you're not considering the actions which can infringe on others, like how high a fence can be built, because you're not "convinced by them". You don't have to be convinced by them, you just have to follow them.
Not at all. What I'm saying is that the fence has to be proven to be in infringement in the court of law (or the dispute is settled privately). No one has to convince me, they convince a judge or possibly a jury. I've been saying that there are consequences when your actions are shown to infringe upon rights quite consistently.
>Then the issue you might run into is that you have to respect it if the majority still tells you to **** off
Not quite. This is majority rule, which we don't have. I've explained why this is a bad thing and why our system was designed very deliberately to guard against this. I can re-explain if you'd like.
>you have rights, but they don't extend past the rights of others
But there rights extend past mine? I can't tell them what to do, but they can tell me? How does that work? And how is that equitable?
>your actions don't magically do nothing for the rights of others just because you feel they shouldn't.
Like I said, we have a process and law that determines whether or not actions have violated my rights. It has nothing to do with my feelings.
We already have these mechanisms. We don't need a redundant layer of law/statues/etc that will only serve to unnecessarily restrict how I wish to live my life.
>Anyone flailing a gun in their yard can easily say " I have control over the weapon, there's no danger to you, and thus no infringement on your safety!". Anything you would have to say about that statement can easily be said about other specific cases. "What if X happens?" "What I'd you DONT have control over it?" "What if some unforseen **** occurs?" "I still don't feel safe." I'm not convinced by any of that...what about my right to bear arms in my front yard?
This is actually pretty nuanced. 2nd amendment rights are more of a factor here than property rights. Again, owning property doesn't make it my kingdom or whatever.
The biggest thing here would be that pointing your weapon at someone is generally considered a threat, which is obviously illegal. This is more or less what you're doing when you're waving a gun around. We'd also have to consider what carry laws exist in your state of residence and what constitutes "carry".
Depending on the property there's also the issue of whether or not you are "in public" which is possible even if you're on your own property. A small yard adjacent to a street is one thing, while a having a yard of say several acres would be different. I'm not too informed on it, but I do recall that areas like a small front yard tend to be considered to be in public while inside the house itself is not. There is no right to wave weapons around in public.
I know a few people who own enough land to where they can shoot firearms without bothering anyone. But I, on the other hand, can throw further than my yard is long and so things would not work that way for me.
Sidenote: There is no such thing as a right to feel safe.
Not at all. What I'm saying is that the fence has to be proven to be in infringement in the court of law (or the dispute is settled privately). No one has to convince me, they convince a judge or possibly a jury. I've been saying that there are consequences when your actions are shown to infringe upon rights quite consistently.
>Then the issue you might run into is that you have to respect it if the majority still tells you to **** off
Not quite. This is majority rule, which we don't have. I've explained why this is a bad thing and why our system was designed very deliberately to guard against this. I can re-explain if you'd like.
>you have rights, but they don't extend past the rights of others
But there rights extend past mine? I can't tell them what to do, but they can tell me? How does that work? And how is that equitable?
>your actions don't magically do nothing for the rights of others just because you feel they shouldn't.
Like I said, we have a process and law that determines whether or not actions have violated my rights. It has nothing to do with my feelings.
We already have these mechanisms. We don't need a redundant layer of law/statues/etc that will only serve to unnecessarily restrict how I wish to live my life.
>Anyone flailing a gun in their yard can easily say " I have control over the weapon, there's no danger to you, and thus no infringement on your safety!". Anything you would have to say about that statement can easily be said about other specific cases. "What if X happens?" "What I'd you DONT have control over it?" "What if some unforseen **** occurs?" "I still don't feel safe." I'm not convinced by any of that...what about my right to bear arms in my front yard?
This is actually pretty nuanced. 2nd amendment rights are more of a factor here than property rights. Again, owning property doesn't make it my kingdom or whatever.
The biggest thing here would be that pointing your weapon at someone is generally considered a threat, which is obviously illegal. This is more or less what you're doing when you're waving a gun around. We'd also have to consider what carry laws exist in your state of residence and what constitutes "carry".
Depending on the property there's also the issue of whether or not you are "in public" which is possible even if you're on your own property. A small yard adjacent to a street is one thing, while a having a yard of say several acres would be different. I'm not too informed on it, but I do recall that areas like a small front yard tend to be considered to be in public while inside the house itself is not. There is no right to wave weapons around in public.
I know a few people who own enough land to where they can shoot firearms without bothering anyone. But I, on the other hand, can throw further than my yard is long and so things would not work that way for me.
Sidenote: There is no such thing as a right to feel safe.
#85 to #84
-
lolollo (01/05/2016) [-] Someone already did convince a judge and jury, its why its a goddamn law. You're still arguing this, trying to look agreeable, but all of your stipulations for how people can convince you of how **** should work has already happened. It's why I'm still thinking that you don't really want to be convinced, you want to keep moving these goalposts of what people "have to do" to convince you that the **** you're doing is wrong...goalposts which have already been reached...years ago. If someones coming to your door who ISNT just your neighbor with a pissed off attitude, its not just coming from thin air. When you sit there and talk about how the court of law still needs to prove that your plans for an obscenely high fence is illegal, you sound like that guy from the cop video who got his window busted in.
The one who was like "Can you prove speeding is against the law?!"
The one who was like "Can you prove speeding is against the law?!"
#87 to #85
-
durkadurka ONLINE (01/06/2016) [-] >Someone already did convince a judge and jury, its why its a goddamn law
That's not how laws are created.
>trying to look agreeable
Again, why do you assume bad faith? Like I'm trying to trick you or something? At this point "I'm still thinking that you don't want to be convinced" is sounding like a whole lot of projection.
>moving these goalposts
I've been avoiding hitting you on this point, but every single comment you move the goal posts. First it was about things annoying people, then it was about rights, the majority saying so, gun rights, now speeding, etc,etc and all the while you're misrepresenting my argument.
I can only come up with so many ways to explain the same thing. I think you're just missing too many of the fundamentals to understand it. Or maybe I'm just doing a bad job of explaining.
>"have to do" to convince you that the **** you're doing is wrong
Wrong by whose definition? This isn't even right on face value. I haven't argued this. Convincing someone they're wrong is nothing close to a court convicting someone of a crime.
I think you still miss the point of my argument. I'm not attempting to describe things as they are, but rather how I think our government should operate if we really want to consider ourselves a truly free people.
So far you've demonstrated that you don't understand how the legal system works, how laws are created and enforced, or even core principles behind the founding of this country. Forgive me if this has made you less than convincing. You are American, right?
As far as I can tell, what your argument boils down it is that someone decided to make a law, they must have had a good reason for it which in and of itself makes it a good and valid law. No concern for individual liberties or the desire of people to live their lives as they see fit.
>When you sit there and talk about how the court of law still needs to prove that your plans for an obscenely high fence is illegal
Again, this is a position in regards to how I think things should be. It's an opinion.
Also, apparently 10 feet is obscenely high. You've heard it here folks.
And yes, when you are arrested for breaking the law, you must be proven guilty in court. You are assumed innocent unless it can be proven otherwise. This is how the justice system works.
>public roadways
This is actually a point I wanted to bring up earlier which I had forgotten about. The roads are public. It make sense to me that the public should have authority to decide what regulations apply to roads and other public spaces since they all use and pay for them. What the public shouldn't decide for me is what color my house should be, or what kind of grass must be in my yard, or how tall my fence is, etc, etc.
We should be free to live our lives as long as we are not violating the rights of others. The court of law should support this rather than the enforcement of frivolous statutes.
That's not how laws are created.
>trying to look agreeable
Again, why do you assume bad faith? Like I'm trying to trick you or something? At this point "I'm still thinking that you don't want to be convinced" is sounding like a whole lot of projection.
>moving these goalposts
I've been avoiding hitting you on this point, but every single comment you move the goal posts. First it was about things annoying people, then it was about rights, the majority saying so, gun rights, now speeding, etc,etc and all the while you're misrepresenting my argument.
I can only come up with so many ways to explain the same thing. I think you're just missing too many of the fundamentals to understand it. Or maybe I'm just doing a bad job of explaining.
>"have to do" to convince you that the **** you're doing is wrong
Wrong by whose definition? This isn't even right on face value. I haven't argued this. Convincing someone they're wrong is nothing close to a court convicting someone of a crime.
I think you still miss the point of my argument. I'm not attempting to describe things as they are, but rather how I think our government should operate if we really want to consider ourselves a truly free people.
So far you've demonstrated that you don't understand how the legal system works, how laws are created and enforced, or even core principles behind the founding of this country. Forgive me if this has made you less than convincing. You are American, right?
As far as I can tell, what your argument boils down it is that someone decided to make a law, they must have had a good reason for it which in and of itself makes it a good and valid law. No concern for individual liberties or the desire of people to live their lives as they see fit.
>When you sit there and talk about how the court of law still needs to prove that your plans for an obscenely high fence is illegal
Again, this is a position in regards to how I think things should be. It's an opinion.
Also, apparently 10 feet is obscenely high. You've heard it here folks.
And yes, when you are arrested for breaking the law, you must be proven guilty in court. You are assumed innocent unless it can be proven otherwise. This is how the justice system works.
>public roadways
This is actually a point I wanted to bring up earlier which I had forgotten about. The roads are public. It make sense to me that the public should have authority to decide what regulations apply to roads and other public spaces since they all use and pay for them. What the public shouldn't decide for me is what color my house should be, or what kind of grass must be in my yard, or how tall my fence is, etc, etc.
We should be free to live our lives as long as we are not violating the rights of others. The court of law should support this rather than the enforcement of frivolous statutes.
#96 to #87
-
lolollo (01/06/2016) [-] That's the thing, though, they're not. You're just presuming they are because you don't 100% know where the enforcement is coming from. That and you keep using the fact that it "comes from the people" to propose that you just get to make whatever rules you want. The government isn't the one deciding you can't build 10 foot tall fences, they're responding to the concerns of individuals, like you, with rights, who don't want 10 foot fences bordering their property.
Bitch and moan all you want about how you're "not infringing on others rights" but when your argument is that "it's not the government's job to pander to the whims of the people read: people who happen to disagree with you " thats PRECISELY what youre advocating for, because for you to get what you want, that has to happen. If youre going to hold the stance that you "support, and celebrate disagreement" you can't be getting so butthurt over people not agreeing that their concerns over what you do on ypur private property is irrelevant. If you want to truly "do whatever you want", go buy a private island and live there. THEN you can make the argument that no organization should be praying into your business.
Bitch and moan all you want about how you're "not infringing on others rights" but when your argument is that "it's not the government's job to pander to the whims of the people read: people who happen to disagree with you " thats PRECISELY what youre advocating for, because for you to get what you want, that has to happen. If youre going to hold the stance that you "support, and celebrate disagreement" you can't be getting so butthurt over people not agreeing that their concerns over what you do on ypur private property is irrelevant. If you want to truly "do whatever you want", go buy a private island and live there. THEN you can make the argument that no organization should be praying into your business.
#94 to #87
-
lolollo (01/06/2016) [-] Here's the thing, though, the comparison is between the government, and your landlord. You can swear against it all you want, but you don't really "own" the land any more than a rentor "owns" the apartment they pay rent on. It is your apartment, just like its your land, but the government "runs it" in a similar fashion. You don't magically become your own state, or country. You are still a part of the nation, with all of the rules and agreements associated with it. You're so OK with how an apartment complex runs itself, but to then say that the government is "overreaching" by ensuring someone acts properly on a peice of property they run.
You sign an agreement with an apartment complex where they need permission just to enter your premises, but they have the right to enter whenever there's a concern of legality. The same with the police needing consent to enter your home, unless there's probable cause for a crime. You can't hook anything up to your apartment without forewarning your landlord. You don't hear issues with that "infraction on freedom" for the same reason you shouldn't care as much about the fact that you need to clear construction on your property with the state. There's no "naw I own it!" because otherwise you'd have to become your own complete country. You own the land, but you own the land that's apart of the nation, the state. You still need to follow the rules. If they're asinine, challenge it...or complain on the internet.
You sign an agreement with an apartment complex where they need permission just to enter your premises, but they have the right to enter whenever there's a concern of legality. The same with the police needing consent to enter your home, unless there's probable cause for a crime. You can't hook anything up to your apartment without forewarning your landlord. You don't hear issues with that "infraction on freedom" for the same reason you shouldn't care as much about the fact that you need to clear construction on your property with the state. There's no "naw I own it!" because otherwise you'd have to become your own complete country. You own the land, but you own the land that's apart of the nation, the state. You still need to follow the rules. If they're asinine, challenge it...or complain on the internet.
#95 to #94
-
durkadurka ONLINE (01/06/2016) [-] The difference is that it's the government's job to protect rights at least moreso on a federal level , not administer behavior. Those two can overlap but not always.
The problem with creating standards around terminology such as "proper" or "fair' or what have you, is that those words have no intrinsic meaning: They mean different things to different people. So what ends up happening is that the group of people who happen to be in charge determine how the rest of us should conduct ourselves.
The government should not be determining what kinds of conduct are proper. This is like the government determining what is moral and immoral.
If we use rights to determine the limits of legal behavior, we have a baseline which should not change too much. This is because we derive our concept of rights from the natural state of Man.
I'm more comfortable with a private party such as a landlord setting these conditions because my participation is voluntary. Everything the landlord can do that would ordinarily be a breech of my rights I agreed to allow through contract.
The problem with creating standards around terminology such as "proper" or "fair' or what have you, is that those words have no intrinsic meaning: They mean different things to different people. So what ends up happening is that the group of people who happen to be in charge determine how the rest of us should conduct ourselves.
The government should not be determining what kinds of conduct are proper. This is like the government determining what is moral and immoral.
If we use rights to determine the limits of legal behavior, we have a baseline which should not change too much. This is because we derive our concept of rights from the natural state of Man.
I'm more comfortable with a private party such as a landlord setting these conditions because my participation is voluntary. Everything the landlord can do that would ordinarily be a breech of my rights I agreed to allow through contract.
#92 to #87
-
lolollo (01/06/2016) [-] The thing about apartment complexes is that they're a great sense of having to give up rights for comfort. You can be loud between certain hours. You can't have half a dozen friends come in and party. You can't have someone come in and live there for a month. You can't park wherever you want. Where's the "guh, muh freedoms!" in that? You're not doing that because "complex is run by dicks!" its for everyone else. Your neighbors. These are all things to can't do because you don't want other committing them either.
And at the end of it, you don't get to sign a little paper that says "i don't care if my neighbors make noise, so I'll make noise whenever I want!" Its because that's how the rulings works, to accommodate the most people. They're not removing your right to what you do at home, they're preserving someone else's right to peace. And if your argument is " **** that", THAT is when I call you a psychopath who has an opinion I don't value listening to. I'm not saying that's what you are, but if you (in general) have that argument, that's what it portrays.
And at the end of it, you don't get to sign a little paper that says "i don't care if my neighbors make noise, so I'll make noise whenever I want!" Its because that's how the rulings works, to accommodate the most people. They're not removing your right to what you do at home, they're preserving someone else's right to peace. And if your argument is " **** that", THAT is when I call you a psychopath who has an opinion I don't value listening to. I'm not saying that's what you are, but if you (in general) have that argument, that's what it portrays.
#93 to #92
-
durkadurka ONLINE (01/06/2016) [-] Well yeah. You have to sign papers to that effect. The owner has every right to set the rules that are the conditions of residency. If you want to live their you have to abide by the owner's terms.
This is, of course, a bit different from actually owning the land yourself.
And though I think one has every right to be a dick to their neighbors doesn't mean I think that they should.
I want to get along with my neighbors and cooperate with them. In fact there are things that I've done for years, not because there was a law, but because I wanted to extend some common decency to those who lived around me.
I just don't think it's necessary for us to use the force of government to force people to behave and be nice. I believe that given the choice people will do this anyways. Freedom of choice and all that jazz.
This is, of course, a bit different from actually owning the land yourself.
And though I think one has every right to be a dick to their neighbors doesn't mean I think that they should.
I want to get along with my neighbors and cooperate with them. In fact there are things that I've done for years, not because there was a law, but because I wanted to extend some common decency to those who lived around me.
I just don't think it's necessary for us to use the force of government to force people to behave and be nice. I believe that given the choice people will do this anyways. Freedom of choice and all that jazz.
#90 to #87
-
lolollo (01/06/2016) [-] You're right about that, about freedoms and government, but if you're really looking for maximized freedom, you're looking at anarchy, where even then it goes to the social contract for rulings. Then you find you suddenly want that government because it a bit of a pain in the ass to constantly have to defend your own rights, manually. The government exists to preserve as many rights for as many people, but the concern comes from people perceiving their right to do some misc. action where it takes over someone else's right. They don't always see it, for a number of reasons, but it still happens, and it becomes these rulings on how high you can build your fence. You have the right to your property, but your neighbor has a right to his preferences on how your actions influence his life/property. You don't give a **** about how high a neighbor builds his fence, but your neighbor has a right to give a **** about how high you build yours. You don't just get to give in to the fallacy that just because you feel a certain way about rights, everyone has to. If you want that attribute that to the decline to America, fine, move. As you're complaining about how your neighbors are getting in the way of your rights, all you're really changing about the situation is you're adding the fact that there's now two people complaining about infringed rights, where no matter which option you take, there will be at least one person complaining about rights.
What do we do in those instances? "Clearly we listen to you"? That's what the other guy is thinking. I don't care enough about the size of my fence to throw a fit about other people being miffed by it seriously, if you want perspective, go live in an apartment complex , but I'm also not the sort to get so paranoid as to presume the decline of America because the government wants to give in to someones right to comfort.
What do we do in those instances? "Clearly we listen to you"? That's what the other guy is thinking. I don't care enough about the size of my fence to throw a fit about other people being miffed by it seriously, if you want perspective, go live in an apartment complex , but I'm also not the sort to get so paranoid as to presume the decline of America because the government wants to give in to someones right to comfort.
#91 to #90
-
durkadurka ONLINE (01/06/2016) [-] Yup, there's absolutely a balance. We give up some of our freedom to secure the rest. I don't think proponents of anarchy have their ideas based in reality. A government plays a necessary role in establishing and defending a society.
Personally I'd rather err on the side of too little government than too much. It's much more easily expanded and is rarely ever shrunk to any significant degree. And it can get a bit trivial but I do think people are a bit too willing to give up their freedoms not just for things like comfort and security, but even just for the perception of those things.
I think about it now and probably should have made it clear that I'm really just talking about my political opinions. People will and do disagree with me and that's a good thing. We're always going to be complaining about these things one way or another and that's a good thing too.
Another thing is that I do recognize that states and local governments generally have the authority to make these kinds of laws. I just tend to disagree with them. But I do have the right to move somewhere that will generally let me be. It's for this reason that there are a number of states I plan never to reside in, and also why I'll avoid homeowners associations.
>go live in an apartment complex
I move within two weeks
And yeah this place has its issues but it's still an awesome place.
Personally I'd rather err on the side of too little government than too much. It's much more easily expanded and is rarely ever shrunk to any significant degree. And it can get a bit trivial but I do think people are a bit too willing to give up their freedoms not just for things like comfort and security, but even just for the perception of those things.
I think about it now and probably should have made it clear that I'm really just talking about my political opinions. People will and do disagree with me and that's a good thing. We're always going to be complaining about these things one way or another and that's a good thing too.
Another thing is that I do recognize that states and local governments generally have the authority to make these kinds of laws. I just tend to disagree with them. But I do have the right to move somewhere that will generally let me be. It's for this reason that there are a number of states I plan never to reside in, and also why I'll avoid homeowners associations.
>go live in an apartment complex
I move within two weeks
And yeah this place has its issues but it's still an awesome place.
#88 to #87
-
lolollo (01/06/2016) [-] And at this point, your argument comes down to the lawakong process not being "convincing enough." I'm not sure youre getting what I'm saying. I get that none of this convinced you. The thing you're not getting is that in a free society...it doesn't have to. If we had to cater to everyone, the contrarians would never allow anything to be done. The law was made, and judged, and it was passed.
If you have an issue with that, luckily, and again, we live in a society where you can work to change it. Have at it.
If you have an issue with that, luckily, and again, we live in a society where you can work to change it. Have at it.
#89 to #88
-
durkadurka ONLINE (01/06/2016) [-] I'm not saying they have to convince me that their law is a good idea. In fact I do think that some of them area good ideas. But at the same time I recognize they tend to unnecessarily restrict us in favor of the preferences of one group or another.
To put it another way, I might not like your 10 ft pink fence, but I'll support your right to construct and maintain it. I won't push for a law out of convenience.
If we want to maximize our freedoms, if we want to truly live our own lives, our goal should be to minimize the amount of government and law.
IE, what is desirable is people choosing to act rather than being forced to.
This wouldn't be catering to everyone, it would be catering to no one. Not my interests over yours or yours over mine.
One last note: For a law to be reviewed by the judiciary, it must first be challenged and brought to that court. The supreme court, for example, can only rule on what is brought before them. They cannot seek cases out.
Anyway, I do appreciate this discussion even if it doesn't seem that way.
To put it another way, I might not like your 10 ft pink fence, but I'll support your right to construct and maintain it. I won't push for a law out of convenience.
If we want to maximize our freedoms, if we want to truly live our own lives, our goal should be to minimize the amount of government and law.
IE, what is desirable is people choosing to act rather than being forced to.
This wouldn't be catering to everyone, it would be catering to no one. Not my interests over yours or yours over mine.
One last note: For a law to be reviewed by the judiciary, it must first be challenged and brought to that court. The supreme court, for example, can only rule on what is brought before them. They cannot seek cases out.
Anyway, I do appreciate this discussion even if it doesn't seem that way.
#11 to #7
-
lovot (01/03/2016) [-] I notice the same sort of things, for example peddle bikes with a gas motor on them are outlawed where I live. That sort of BS is one of the reasons i don't want to live inside a city, or too close to a major one because some of the things I plan to do on my own property would be highly illegal in such places.
#24 to #7
-
anon (01/03/2016) [-]
You can do whatever you want on private property as long as it has no effect on other people. Riding something on the public street that has a motor and isn't a bicycle can have unforseen consequences. Building a ****** shed in your backyard that is located in a suburb can cause problems in times of emergency. This would be a different situation if you were living on a farm lot with plenty of space to build a few sheds.
#29 to #24
-
needsauceadmisblan (01/03/2016) [-] you dont ven need a pemit for a small shed out in the country i wouldn't think.
#44 to #29
-
anon (01/03/2016) [-]
Technically you do, depending on what's inside it and what it's connected to, whether it has power or water or whatever.
If you don't bother, the chances of it being reported are slim to none, but the benefit of reporting it is that the area would have been geologically surveyed at some point in the past and the person in the office will be able to tell you if the area is likely to be washed away in a flood, if something could seep into the water pipes, all that **** .
If you don't bother, the chances of it being reported are slim to none, but the benefit of reporting it is that the area would have been geologically surveyed at some point in the past and the person in the office will be able to tell you if the area is likely to be washed away in a flood, if something could seep into the water pipes, all that **** .
#1
-
grimfuck (01/03/2016) [-] They cant just include the cement as part of the fence? Thats stupid, that judge is stupid
#6 to #1
-
herecomesjohnny (01/03/2016) [-] >judge is stupid
he won't bother because odds are an appeal judge would correct it anyway
he won't bother because odds are an appeal judge would correct it anyway
#2 to #1
-
thegreenrecon (01/03/2016) [-] legally he cant, its considered the ground level as it spans the whole yard, though he had to give up on grass to do it most likely so its a win loss sorta deal
#97
-
deathcapjungle (01/07/2016) [-]
"LOL mah teacher is so weird an quirkee, he so clever look how he did dis such abherrrrent act LOL definitlee actualee hapen real legit 100%"
Sounds legit. Not newsworthy though, interesting stuff only appears on tumblr post it seems.
Sounds legit. Not newsworthy though, interesting stuff only appears on tumblr post it seems.
#51
-
anon (01/03/2016) [-] >thinking you can defeat THE LAW
Subversive propaganda like that means twenty years in the iso-cubes, creep
Subversive propaganda like that means twenty years in the iso-cubes, creep
#53 to #48
-
ninesundev ONLINE (01/03/2016) [-] wtf?
Dig half an meter into the ground and put wooden plates into it to get a flat surface.
Now you put scrap iron into it to stabilize the structure.
Too make the cement you need the bag, water, a large bin/can and a shovel.
Yes it is going to be hard and very difficult, but you can build it.
Dig half an meter into the ground and put wooden plates into it to get a flat surface.
Now you put scrap iron into it to stabilize the structure.
Too make the cement you need the bag, water, a large bin/can and a shovel.
Yes it is going to be hard and very difficult, but you can build it.
#98 to #54
-
thelastpaco (01/09/2016) [-] I'm going to have to call ******** on it falling down. I did a bunch of relief work down in the Dominican republic and that is even nicer than we made our concrete. We used dirt, some cement mic and a tarp. Dumped some water on the pile and just started mixing. We built a bunch of houses and a community center. 4 years later they are still there, perfectly fine, after a lot of heavy use.
#100 to #99
-
thelastpaco (01/09/2016) [-] That is entirely not true. If the wall is anything other than thin as **** (it shouldn't be if you are building a ******* cement wall) it will not just break. Also, most cement walls are build with a sort of reinforcement inside, typically rebar, sometimes wood. I have worked quite a lot with concrete, and it is solid **** . You are grossly under estimating its strength, and over estimating the work it takes to use, and amount of money it costs. I mean, look at that wall. Tell me you could kick it down, It is a poured concrete wall.
#101 to #100
-
dazartimm (01/09/2016) [-] Poured concrete and bag mix cement are entirely different. The original discussion was that a well constructed concrete wall spanning the length of this guy's yard would be very expensive. Bag cement is very different and much more brittle. I have seen people try to do similar things several times in my line of work and I have never seen a 5 foot+ wall made of bag cement that lasted any long amount of time.
