Civil Disobedience

And eloquent . . .

 

When I think of Civil Disobedience, I think back to the old term "Bleeding them white" or its close cousin "Drowning them in their own ink". The idea then was following their rules to the letter. When applied to most hierarchical entities, they become mired in bullshit fast. Eventually those in charge have to relent because the office/business/church/platoon/etc. only published the rules and procedures as a means of maintaining control with implied consequences.

This stuff we saw over the last few years, people blocking streets so that others couldn't get to work, blocking businesses and shoppers, and holding "protests" that led to destruction of public and private property, none of this is "civil disobedience", it's just plain crime.

Seems like the best sort of civil disobedience would be devoid of political preferences. Like anarchy, it should not pick sides.

 

Dice, Panic and Quark

So let me ask you again – do you think it responsible parenting for the guardian of an 11 year old to allow that child to smoke pot for fun, get drunk and carry a gun around with them?

 

Yeah, I bet you'd like that 11 year old girl to be all stoned and liquored up.

And I've listened to KISS before. I know you're talking about a "Love Gun".

 

Quark

I will try again - do you think it responsible parenting for the guardian of an 11 year old to allow that child to smoke pot for fun, get drunk and carry a gun around with them?

 

I'm only here to talk about myself and post pictures of China. I don't care about your fascination with 11 year olds.


Fuck, that's really weird. I'm actually not joking this time.

 

I'm not giving up my grenades for anybody. Saw some kids stealing some of my daffodils the other day----boy if they try that shit again----

 

I'll tell you why I don't address the shit that seems to "concern" you so. For one, I have never cared for any discourse with you and have made that plain many times over, for years. I find that you're not actually in this to discuss or debate in regular terms.

Instead you play verbal games and use psycho-social "tactics" to "win" the discussion by either pissing someone off, or burying them with inane questions and demands of "proof" (something I've never seen you provide).

But watching your shit on here just vanish, like it never happened? That's dirty pool. I find it more concerning than anything else on this site. If you can willfully alter the discussions here without a trace, you could become a serious problem for people trying to have a reasonable discussion. Have you been deleting other people's posts like this? Or just your own?

Not that it matters, you're abusing your site privileges. Again, don't waste time with me, I am SO not interested, in YOU.

 

Dirty pool!

I hate those ones!

 

Panic

I think you have the wrong person as I really don’t know what you are talking about – but I’d be happy to investigate can you tell me which post of yours you think have been edited and from which thread(s) things have vanished from.

LOL to which I have to ask the question where’s your proof of that?

 

The reason I asked the question about the 11 year old daughter is because I have a daughter and of course I wouldn’t be happy for her to smoke pot and get drunk at 11 years of age and if I heard peolple giving kids pot and alchohol at that age I’d be on to the social services if not the police.

It’s a simple question that the people here that were asked seemed unwilling to answer and so I hope they don’t have kids.

*

As a society we don’t think children are responsible in the same way as an adult and so we have rules in place to protect them from the possible irresponsible actions of others.

That is the thing there are responsible and irresponsible people and it’s usual for societies to have rules and regulations in place to protect others from the irresponsible and irresponsible behaviour.

The vast majority of people are on the whole responsible and so the rules and regulations are not in place for them.

But how does society know if someone is going to always act responsibly? Can we trust people to always act responsibly? Are there ways of lessening the harm that might come about from someone acting irresponsibly?

We try to limit access to cars by making people pass tests and removing licences for driving offence many countries do the same for gun ownership. We have police and courts to punish the irresponsible and so to discourage others from irresponsible actions.

I have long been an advocate of decriminalising drug use, which does not mean I would legalise all drugs (and allow children to smoking it) it means I’d want it regulated, monitored and taxed (with the monies raised going to healthcare and tackling addiction).

For example Marijuana could be regulated for quality and age limited just as alcohol is (but also with an emphasis in ingesting it in other ways than smoking) while other more addictive things like opioids would be handled by clinic on a healthcare basis.

It is about reducing harm in a responsible way.

Guns are lethal weapons many gun owners may be completely responsible people (who for example keep the gun locked away and out of the reach of their 11 year old child) but how can society know that everyone that buys a gun is a responsible person maybe they are the kind of idiot that allows there drunk 11 year old to play with a loaded weapon.

So shouldn’t society have regulations to protect itself against the irresponsible?

 

Well sure, nobody need grenades if they have roller blade action that fierce.