Well first, UA and I each posted here long before we became a couple. We disagree on some subjects. We agree on others. But on this message board, … I don’t care if everyone knows we’re dating, but please don’t add the board’s tendency to hyperbolic nonsense to that. Discuss UA’s arguments with him and my arguments with me. Second, no.
A whole lot of FYGM in the air right now. Someone who can't safely drive a car is dangerous, even if not put behind a wheel? What?
I don't care why you did it, I care what you did, and I do not offer second chances where harming or threatening the lives of others is concerned. The only variation is the institution appropriate to your specific malfunction.
If they can't do that, there would necessarily be a broad array of things they should also not be trusted to do. Cars are a good litmus test, as are firearms, power tools, and kitchen appliances.
So if someone can't figure out how to cut 2x4s or bake a cake, they are dangerous enough that they should be removed from society?
Will I be made to answer for deaf people and amputees next? All to avoid acknowledging that some people obviously cannot be trusted to act with regard for the safety of others and that a fair, pragmatic approach focuses on limiting their ability to endanger others while leaving everyone else the fuck alone? High-functioning, but diminished mental capacity? Asked and answered. Proven threat through conviction of a violent crime? Asked and answered. There is no meticulously-crafted scenario where I would accept as the preferred solution tailoring the whole of society towards those least willing or able to function safely within it. If that is anyone's goal, you might as well abandon it.
What on gods green Earth are you talking about? The initial thing that started this recent chain of conversation was you saying that if someone couldn't be trusted with a gun (and later behind the wheel of a vehicle) then they clearly can't be trusted to be out and about in society. That's an absurd and abhorrent view, and I'm not quite sure what you're trying to turn it into by suggesting the alternative is to re-tailor the whole of society.
Like there are plenty of people I have met who are not physically or mentally capable of controlling a vehicle, so society already deals with that by not letting them be in that position. Seems like the minimum amount of freedom curtailed.
He also extended it to people who don't know how to use power tools or kitchen appliances. God forbid anyone should ever bake him a shitty birthday cake, or he might call the police on them.
So what about a lawnmower, or a bicycle? If you're content with the risk such people represent, knock yourself out. But do NOT come at me with "You can't be allowed this because they can't," or "You must deal with extra costs and hoop jumping to protect society from THEIR special needs."
This part I have no problem with. People in wheelchairs aren't a danger to society, but adding ramps to buildings next to stairs and adding that cost into ... whatever (ticket prices?) is a small price to pay to ensure everyone can experience ... movies, museums, whatever. Not sure if that is to what you were referring or not.
No spin or bias in that narrative. 1) Lets see footage of random women attacked in the neighborhood. 2) If you are told to disperse or be hit with a beanbag, and you instead stick around to argue, you were not shot for asking them to put down their guns or "confronting" them about anything. You were told to disperse and you didn't. Whether or not it was a lawful order is a matter to bring before the judge. You failed to comply and got dealt with. Stop trying to hold court in the streets. Cue petulant children with their mindless broken record refrains of bootlicking. Because no adult should ever have any standards of behavior imposed on them. Fuck off.
Not 100%, so by all means, use that as an excuse to start a fistfight with some cops. Let me know how that works out for you.
Not even 10%, until people protested and the publicity forced their hand. Seriously, Derek Chauvin was not conpletely wrong in thinking he could act with impunity, he just happened to be the final straw.
If a cop can shoot you for peacefully exercising your constitutional rights, then those rights don't actually exist in any meaningful way. If a cop can use violence to deprive you of the exercise of your constitutional rights and your only recourse is to get to hear a judge say "that shouldn't have happened" six months or a year later, then those rights don't actually exist in any meaningful way. If "standards of behaviour" are sufficient to overrule the peaceful exercise of your constitutional rights, then those rights don't actually exist in any meaningful way. Also, the fact that you're happy to give the fucking Proud Boys the benefit of the doubt? The mask is slipping a little more every day.
This. The authority of a police officer starts and stops with the law. They emphatically do not get to arbitrarily overstep that then use violence to back it up.
This quote seems a tad antithetical to your stated philosophy. Who's imposing these standards? I can see you having a real problem if it's @Diacanu. Seems like they who have the power set the standards...and as long as you agree with the outcomes, that's okay with you? It's unclear.
