EPTHonestly, if you're trying to stand up for freedom and something good, there are better things to put your energy and focus on rather fighting the law of not "dancing in the Jefferson Memorial"
RL Trolls indeed.
Is it illegal to dance ? - Page 8
| Forum Index > Closed |
One more "fuck the police" from page 8 and onward is going to have an all expense paid weekend to E-Disneyland. It adds nothing to the discussion and as such please refrain from making such posts in this topic and the boards in general. | ||
|
kethers
United States719 Posts
Honestly, if you're trying to stand up for freedom and something good, there are better things to put your energy and focus on rather fighting the law of not "dancing in the Jefferson Memorial" RL Trolls indeed. | ||
|
SpeaKEaSY
United States1070 Posts
On May 29 2011 22:14 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: There is one reason and one reason only why they are dancing. This reason is to provoke the cops that are there. Cops who by the way had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of any law. They are not there because they feel like dancing they are there to troll the police that show up. To see if they can get themselves some footage of being arrested for dancing, or to see whether they can get away with breaking the law while the police watches them do it. Yeah, and the Chinese soldiers shooting at Falun Gong practitioners are just following orders, they had nothing to do with the creation of the law so how dare we question them. | ||
|
Arkless
Canada1547 Posts
On May 29 2011 22:14 7mk wrote: Yep, thats also the 100% logical conclusion I came to after reading that post - either Nazgul is sad and hates happy people or he is retarded. Makes sense. Oh and apparently everyone who disagrees with you needs to "get a life" Yep pretty much, now read why instead of just quoting a seperate comment. Arresting people for dancing............. If that doesn't sound stupid then I worry for the human race. | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4781 Posts
On May 29 2011 22:04 DisneylandSC wrote: I implicitely state you are not responsible for other people their actions. So why are you so mad? Also you still haven't adressed my point. Oh and btw, I find it offensive if people other than myself use the letter "e". So please be responsible with your freedom and refrain from using it in your answer. P3rhaps if I typ3 r3ally r3ally r3ally slowly you'll understand what I'm saying: Why did you bring up my nationalty? What was th3 point? Why did it matter that I'm from D3nmark? And why do3s the fact that I'm from D3nmark mak3 my post sad? Wh3n you can provid3 a good answ3r to that I'll b3 happy to argu3 about fr33dom und3r r3sponsibility with you... | ||
|
Navillus
United States1188 Posts
On May 29 2011 22:11 bOne7 wrote: yo Navillus I would appreciate if you'd give me a book or a refference for your college psychology textbook so I can you know , expand my superficial knowledge on stuff . I guess I eventually have to start hardcore research on basic stuff . Psychology Eighth Edition in Modules by David G. Meyers here's the website http://bcs.worthpublishers.com/myers8einmodules/default.asp?=&n=&i=&v=&o=&ns=0&uid=0&rau=0 It makes for some nice light reading when you want to, you know, actually know how the whole right brain left brain thing works. | ||
Manifesto7
Osaka27089 Posts
On May 29 2011 22:16 SpeaKEaSY wrote: Yeah, and the Chinese soldiers shooting at Falun Gong practitioners are just following orders, they had nothing to do with the creation of the law so how dare we question them. Dude, you totally should have posted about the Nazis too. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43410 Posts
On May 29 2011 22:09 DisneylandSC wrote: It's not an analogy (at least not for me). Im using it as an argument to show that there exists a continuum of situations were civil disobediance can be the right thing to do. You might argue that in this case the situation wasn't urgent enough to allow for such actions. Others might disagree. These Rosa Parks comments were simply a reaction to people saying it was wrong to dance there because it was illegal without adressing this issue of urgency and civil disobedience. Then by that standard, breaking any law that you disagree with is civil disobedience (since c.d. doesn't have to be peaceful and a law being "right" or "wrong" is purely subjective). I don't think you want to deal with that slippery slope. Rosa Parks sitting in the back of the bus was a situation during a time where she didn't have the freedom to appeal to the judicial process, which we now can do. Adam and his gang of followers could have made a case appealing the ruling or some other formal action. He didn't have to stage an immature protest. Or he could have, as he did... but we shouldn't be surprised that he got handcuffed for doing something illegal (because factually, it is illegal), and we could have a discussion on why the no-dance ruling exists on the first place, rather than have half of this thread flame cops for doing their jobs and automatically hate on America for killing freedom without actually knowing the justification for the courts' decisions. But no one really cares to do that. They see handcuffs and immediately think "government imba!"  People here really have trouble having an honest discussion. | ||
|
SpeaKEaSY
United States1070 Posts
On May 29 2011 20:54 dcemuser wrote: I doubt they had a permit. /trollface No, seriously, you are again comparing absurd situations to reasonable ones to try to argue how the future will be. That line of reasoning doesn't work. A few people dancing at a statue to protest a park law and a federal law that have been in place for centuries is completely different than people about to start a war over democracy. If they allow people to honor Jefferson, they have to allow people to dishonor Jefferson and that starts an unhappy chain of events. Plenty of people dishonor Jefferson in the building down the road, it's called the United States Congress. Both people are defending their right to free expression. Sorry if one jerks at your heart strings more than the other, but at the core of the issue is standing up for your right to express yourself in a manner that doesn't harm others. On May 29 2011 20:55 Navillus wrote: The fact that you equate the government of Bahrain trying to stop pro democracy protests and how much African-Americans were oppressed with a court deciding that you can't DANCE in the Jefferson Memorial is actually horrifying, I think this is more showing your problem with understanding true difficulties and real issues than it shows any problem with the US. If you really think that not being able to dance in one spot is this bad then you've been living way too sheltered a life. The fact that you don't understand the first amendment is actual horrifying. The fact that you support obeying a police giving unconstitutional orders without question is actually horrifying. If you really think that not being able to dance in one spot is bad then you've been living way too sheltered of a life. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43410 Posts
On May 29 2011 22:13 Arkless wrote: You have got to be kidding me, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression are LEGAL everywhere in the united states. Including memorial monuments. This is a simple case of cops who were picked on in high school, and have nothing else to do. I wonder how many people were raped/beat/killed during the time they took to have 8 cops stop people from dancing. Sure glad they have their priorities straight. To all who think the cops were in the right, get a life. In certain institutions, freedoms are restricted to certain extents. For example, in public schools, they're restricted greatly. I'm not sure what the justification for the TJ memorial was, but freedoms get restricted based on where you are (within reason). | ||
|
valedictory
United States37 Posts
On May 29 2011 22:14 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: There is one reason and one reason only why they are dancing. This reason is to provoke the cops that are there. Cops who by the way had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of any law. They are not there because they feel like dancing they are there to troll the police that show up. To see if they can get themselves some footage of being arrested for dancing, or to see whether they can get away with breaking the law while the police watches them do it. These cops work for a minimum wage, probably had to study hard to pass the cop exam and ended up knowing only 50% of basic law and probably <1% of total law. If you want geniuses in blue who can drill up the lawbook and do everything perfectly then go ahead and pay your cops $300k/year. They were sent there to do their job, which is a) not to allow dancing and b) not to allow provocation. What you need to be complaining about is who you vote for that makes laws you disagree with. I would agree with you almost entirely in terms of the police. They can't just not enforce the law. As well, they seemed to have done so to a reasonably sufficient standard. That doesn't mean we should cut the protesters short. I don't believe them to be the best thing since Gandhi, likewise I would not go so far as to call them irl trolls. | ||
|
7mk
Germany10156 Posts
On May 29 2011 22:16 Arkless wrote: Yep pretty much, now read why instead of just quoting a seperate comment. Arresting people for dancing............. If that doesn't sound stupid then I worry for the human race. Yeah because me quoting just one part of your post means I couldnt possibly have read the rest of it | ||
|
DisneylandSC
Netherlands435 Posts
On May 29 2011 22:14 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: There is one reason and one reason only why they are dancing. This reason is to provoke the cops that are there. Cops who by the way had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of any law. They are not there because they feel like dancing they are there to troll the police that show up. To see if they can get themselves some footage of being arrested for dancing, or to see whether they can get away with breaking the law while the police watches them do it. These cops work for a minimum wage, probably had to study hard to pass the cop exam and ended up knowing only 50% of basic law and probably <1% of total law. If you want geniuses in blue who can drill up the lawbook and do everything perfectly then go ahead and pay your cops $300k/year. They were sent there to do their job, which is a) not to allow dancing and b) not to allow provocation. What you need to be complaining about is who you vote for that makes laws you disagree with. Noone is claiming that cops were in the wrong per sé, however bodyslamming someone for such a minor offence as well as putting a chokehold on him is obviously unnecessary. It doesn't take a genious to understand that that might be over the line a little bit. Furthermore the law was a result of a court ruling. Not elected politicians. Furthermore it is an illusion that you can vote in such a manner that all laws to be made are a 100% transparent up front at the moment of the vote. Finaly, warning someone for disagreeing with you is obviously power abuse. No matter how wrong he or she is. | ||
|
Angra
United States2652 Posts
On May 29 2011 22:14 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: There is one reason and one reason only why they are dancing. This reason is to provoke the cops that are there. Cops who by the way had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of any law. They are not there because they feel like dancing they are there to troll the police that show up. To see if they can get themselves some footage of being arrested for dancing, or to see whether they can get away with breaking the law while the police watches them do it. These cops work for a minimum wage, probably had to study hard to pass the cop exam and ended up knowing only 50% of basic law and probably <1% of total law. If you want geniuses in blue who can drill up the lawbook and do everything perfectly then go ahead and pay your cops $300k/year. They were sent there to do their job, which is a) not to allow dancing and b) not to allow provocation. What you need to be complaining about is who you vote for that makes laws you disagree with. Exactly. It's a win-win for these "protestors" (if you can even call them that, they were only doing it for attention.. if they really wanted to protest this law they wouldn't go break it as the first thing on their list). Either they prove a point by being able to break the law, or they prove a point by not being allowed to break the law. It's a ridiculous situation that can ONLY make them look good and the police look bad. It's really sad to see how zealously people are trying to defend the protesters in this thread when literally the only thing they did was try to provoke cops that were just trying to do their jobs. The sad thing is, there's no winning the arguments against them either because they have the whole generic "what you don't believe in freedom!?!?!? you don't think people should have gone against the nazis either!?!?!" thing going for them. On May 29 2011 22:16 SpeaKEaSY wrote: Yeah, and the Chinese soldiers shooting at Falun Gong practitioners are just following orders, they had nothing to do with the creation of the law so how dare we question them. This is exactly the shit that I'm talking about. You are comparing a splinter to a tree. There's such an amazingly huge difference between what this thread is about and the example you gave, but you just flat out ignore it because "yeah freedom, man!! what, do you hate freedom!?!?" If a sales employee denies service to a customer because he's being disorderly in the store, is that the same as him getting into a fistfight with the guy and sending him to the hospital? Absolutely not. But that's the kind of comparison you're trying to make here. And it's just flat out ridiculous and arguing for the sake of arguing just to try to make yourself right. | ||
|
mmp
United States2130 Posts
On May 29 2011 22:14 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: There is one reason and one reason only why they are dancing. This reason is to provoke the cops that are there. Cops who by the way had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of any law. They are not there because they feel like dancing they are there to troll the police that show up. To see if they can get themselves some footage of being arrested for dancing, or to see whether they can get away with breaking the law while the police watches them do it. These cops work for a minimum wage, probably had to study hard to pass the cop exam and ended up knowing only 50% of basic law and probably <1% of total law. If you want geniuses in blue who can drill up the lawbook and do everything perfectly then go ahead and pay your cops $300k/year. They were sent there to do their job, which is a) not to allow dancing and b) not to allow provocation. What you need to be complaining about is who you vote for that makes laws you disagree with. The force is excessive. People are simply accustomed to violence. | ||
|
SpeaKEaSY
United States1070 Posts
On May 29 2011 22:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Then by that standard, breaking any law that you disagree with is civil disobedience (since c.d. doesn't have to be peaceful and a law being "right" or "wrong" is purely subjective). I don't think you want to deal with that slippery slope. Rosa Parks sitting in the back of the bus was a situation during a time where she didn't have the freedom to appeal to the judicial process, which we now can do. Adam and his gang of followers could have made a case appealing the ruling or some other formal action. He didn't have to stage an immature protest. Or he could have, as he did... but we shouldn't be surprised that he got handcuffed for doing something illegal (because factually, it is illegal), and we could have a discussion on why the no-dance ruling exists on the first place, rather than have half of this thread flame cops for doing their jobs and automatically hate on America for killing freedom without actually knowing the justification for the courts' decisions. But no one really cares to do that. They see handcuffs and immediately think "government imba!" People here really have trouble having an honest discussion. What are you talking about? Are you saying black people didn't have the right to judicial appeal back then? So Brown v. Board of Education didn't happen? Grrr, that Rosa Parks was such a rabble rouser! She should have gone through the legal process, what an immature woman! | ||
|
Probe1
United States17920 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43410 Posts
On May 29 2011 22:22 mmp wrote: The force is excessive. People are simply accustomed to violence. The force was excessive? The big guy (Adam? The guy with sunglasses) was resisting arrest. They weren't able to handcuff him because he wasn't putting his hands behind his back. The force was necessary. They had to put him on the ground. The last thing we need is for rioting to start because cops start to look like wusses. | ||
|
Medrea
10003 Posts
No problem! Dancing in a sensitive area related to solemn respect? Problem! Those guys deserve a little nightsticking to the head from the gestappo. Only a little though. Or we could do the eye for an eye thing that is popular nowadays and go dance on the dancers dads graves. Freedom argument here is the worst idea imaginable. It is a place of respect and mourning and celebration of an icon. | ||
|
Navillus
United States1188 Posts
On May 29 2011 22:22 mmp wrote: The force is excessive. People are simply accustomed to violence. Where was it excessive? The guy being thrown to the ground? Because how should he have gotten him in handcuffs, asking nicely obviously wasn't working, should he have just grabbed his arms and forced them behind the guys back, because that's about as likely to break the guys arms as do anything productive. Frankly I thought he put him down lighter than he had to. Or are you angry about the 2 guys on the ground, because I seem to recall the one the cops were on top of was the one who physically interfered with an arrest by trying to pull his cooperating friend away from a cop, and that certainly warrants force. So please, where were they excessive? | ||
|
Ocedic
United States1808 Posts
On May 29 2011 22:16 SpeaKEaSY wrote: Yeah, and the Chinese soldiers shooting at Falun Gong practitioners are just following orders, they had nothing to do with the creation of the law so how dare we question them. Once again, you're making some insulting comparison. Not everyone who breaks the law is Rosa Parks, Ghandi or Malcolm X, hate to break it to you. Even if they knowingly break a law they disagree with. Though in your analogy, yeah I would actually question the Chinese GOVERNMENT, not the soldiers. It's easy to be a revolutionary from your computer chair, but I actually doubt you'd sacrifice yourself as a martyr if you were a Chinese soldier given an order you didn't agree with. | ||
| ||
