Couple handcuffed, jailed for dancing on subway platform: lawsuit
44 replies, posted
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;36714604]No. It really isn't. Yours is. Yours, from what I can tell enforces a nanny state view where they feel the need to interfere with my life more than I, a lawful citizen, feel the need to be interfered with.
Go learn something about the idea of "agency" and person responsibility and stop acting like we need a nanny state.[/QUOTE]
When did I ever say that I wanted anything like that? If my friend wants to jump off a building I'm not gonna let them. Simple as that.
[QUOTE=Ardosos;36714692]People have proven time and time again that they can't be trusted with that kind of responsibility.[/QUOTE]
So someone else can be? They're human, and they can be trusted? This is the dumbest argument I've ever fucking heard.
No, we can't take care of ourselves but we'll NEVER learn to if we don't fail a few times trying to get there.
[QUOTE=Sharker;36714761]When did I ever say that I wanted anything like that? If my friend wants to jump off a building I'm not gonna let them. Simple as that.[/QUOTE]
Why not? It's his decision to make
[QUOTE=Sharker;36714761]When did I ever say that I wanted anything like that? If my friend wants to jump off a building I'm not gonna let them. Simple as that.[/QUOTE]
That's not the argument. As a friend, sure, that's one thing. But as a society? Or as a government? Fuck no.
We need to have respect for peoples own decisions. Trying to intervene when they make one you deem as "wrong" is just your forcing your views on another person.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;36714765]So someone else can be? They're human, and they can be trusted? This is the dumbest argument I've ever fucking heard.
No, we can't take care of ourselves but we'll NEVER learn to if we don't fail a few times trying to get there.[/QUOTE]
Except, you know, failing tends to have consequences. And not for the person who is doing the failing.
[QUOTE=Ardosos;36714792]Except, you know, failing tends to have consequences. And not for the person who is doing the failing.[/QUOTE]
Yes, and you'll stop this how by having someone else make my decisions for me? Putting more limits on people will NEVER get your anywhere. Telling people how to live is just going to backfire on you.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;36714814]Yes, and you'll stop this how by having someone else make my decisions for me? Putting more limits on people will NEVER get your anywhere. Telling people how to live is just going to backfire on you.[/QUOTE]
Well, drunk driving is a problem, and there is a law regarding how old one must be before they can legally drink. Can you honestly say with a straight face that if there were no legal drinking age the number of drunk drivers would be the same as it is now or somehow better?
That's fucking life. I don't get why we need to "nerf the world". Seriously.
[editline]10th July 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ardosos;36714875]Well, drunk driving is a problem, and there is a law regarding how old one must be before they can legally drink. Can you honestly say with a straight face that if there were no legal drinking age the number of drunk drivers would be the same as it is now or somehow better?[/QUOTE]
No i can't and that's a different issue all together. We've SEEN the impact of drunk driving. That's a different issue than "don't dance on the subway platform". You literally could not be drawing a worse comparison. Harming yourself and harming others are a different thing and you need to recognize this.
Drunk driving has been stopped by laws, fines, and most importantly...
INFORMATION. Not by fucking nanny laws. In my city, drunk driving had become a huge problem. And all the laws they passed to stop it did nothing. It was the information about the situation that helped the most.
[QUOTE=Ardosos;36714875]Well, drunk driving is a problem, and there is a law regarding how old one must be before they can legally drink. Can you honestly say with a straight face that if there were no legal drinking age the number of drunk drivers would be the same as it is now or somehow better?[/QUOTE]
If drunk drivers only killed themselves, I wouldn't give a fuck, but they kill other people too
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;36714877]
No i can't and that's a different issue all together. We've SEEN the impact of drunk driving. That's a different issue than "don't dance on the subway platform". You literally could not be drawing a worse comparison. Harming yourself and harming others are a different thing and you need to recognize this.
Drunk driving has been stopped by laws, fines, and most importantly...
INFORMATION. Not by fucking nanny laws. In my city, drunk driving had become a huge problem. And all the laws they passed to stop it did nothing. It was the information about the situation that helped the most.[/QUOTE]
Erratically dancing in public in a crowded, well traveled area? You don't see how that might be harmful to others, just a little? At the very least, it would add time to other people's commute.
Information's all fine and dandy but it will only ever go so far without anything to back it up.
[QUOTE=Ardosos;36714948]Erratically dancing in public in a crowded, well traveled area? You don't see how that might be harmful to others, just a little? At the very least, it would add time to other people's commute.
Information's all fine and dandy but it will only ever go so far without anything to back it up.[/QUOTE]
3. People. That's a crowded area to you? Read the fucking article.
I can see how it would be harmful to be in an area going nuts and dancing from one end of the platform to the other with no regard for anything around you, but that's YOUR decision to make. You harm someone else, that's on you, and you have to respond to that. Do we really need to be stepping in and making sure everyone plays nice with each other? Does that in the end teach a lesson that we need to learn to respect others or does that teach the lesson of "do what you're fucking told"?
So we need what to back things up? Laws? Punishments? Fines? Who decides what these things are? Who decides what we have to go through because we did something that was "disapproved" of? Where did I, as a citizen get a say? Oh, I didn't?
No one should be telling you at any point in your life WHY a nanny state is wrong, you should know this by now.
You want to tell me we can't be responsible for our own decisions because we're too fucking stupid to, then tell me who will and what's going to make that system work better
[QUOTE=Sharker;36714382]That is a bad mentality to have.[/QUOTE]
I know cause fuck freedoms.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;36715008]3. People. That's a crowded area to you? Read the fucking article.
I can see how it would be harmful to be in an area going nuts and dancing from one end of the platform to the other with no regard for anything around you, but that's YOUR decision to make. You harm someone else, that's on you, and you have to respond to that. Do we really need to be stepping in and making sure everyone plays nice with each other? Does that in the end teach a lesson that we need to learn to respect others or does that teach the lesson of "do what you're fucking told"? [/quote]
Why should we change the law because of the number of people that happen to be there at the time? Who decides how many people is "safe" and how many are dangerous?
[quote]
So we need what to back things up? Laws? Punishments? Fines? Who decides what these things are? Who decides what we have to go through because we did something that was "disapproved" of? Where did I, as a citizen get a say? Oh, I didn't? [/quote]
If you are legally eligible, you can vote on government representatives who decide these things in accordance with public opinion, majority rule. It's not like there is some mean old shadow government of five old men sitting around a table in some smokey room evilly rubbing their hands together trying to decide how to best infringe on your rights for no good reason.
[quote]No one should be telling you at any point in your life WHY a nanny state is wrong, you should know this by now.[/quote]
If you want to play ideals here, people should be smart enough to not need one. Alas, here we are.
[quote]You want to tell me we can't be responsible for our own decisions because we're too fucking stupid to, then tell me who will and what's going to make that system work better[/QUOTE]
Majority rules. Individually we are weak, but as a collective we can make a difference.
[QUOTE=Ardosos;36715109]Why should we change the law because of the number of people that happen to be there at the time? Who decides how many people is "safe" and how many are dangerous?
If you are legally eligible, you can vote on government representatives who decide these things in accordance with public opinion, majority rule. It's not like there is some mean old shadow government of five old men sitting around a table in some smokey room evilly rubbing their hands together trying to decide how to best infringe on your rights for no good reason.
If you want to play ideals here, people should be smart enough to not need one. Alas, here we are.
Majority rules. Individually we are weak, but as a collective we can make a difference.[/QUOTE]
I said nothing about how many people were there, you did. You said crowded. So If I wanted to do a slow dance in a crowded spot, more or less on the spot, this should be illegal because it's dangerous? What dances are dangerous and what aren't? You do know there's already laws for public endagerment right? Or no?
Are you actually consulted as a citizen about the laws that go into place? Yes, you can vote, but with the way things are right now, voting either way is voting the same way in a lot of ways, you seem to be missing the point though.
I'm not even sure you mean anything by this. I'm not playing ideals, I'm telling you that historically, and just naturally, a nanny state doesn't work or succeed. go ahead and disagree.
Yes, and the majority has proven to be idiotic at a widespread level, hell, that's even part of your argument. And you've got it backwards. As a group, people are stupid. We succumb to mob menatlities and lose our individuality in groups. What decididely makes us, us, becomes a meaningless effort in a mob, and the most pointed of decisions are now relegated to the loudest of voices, this is not a way to fix things. The individual who takes the time to actually reason things is a million times better than the mob that's shouting what to fix in one semi collected disorganized voice.
I'm not sure what world you live on to think a nanny state run by the majority works in any fucking small way.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.