Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Step 1 for Reforming the Governments of the USA! The law of natural consequences.

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by LostNemesis
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 


Sounds like people who choose to drive on the freeway should watch where they're going.

Add to that, if someone comes flying out in front of them on a bicycle.... I don't think such an incident is the drivers' fault. Their insurance should cover all repairs.


So long as its not you, your car, your head being ripped off your neck by penetration of bodies and metal into the passenger compartment, or one of yours that's affected by someone else's stupidity, I suppose you'll be all cavalier about unrestrained anarchy, then you'll grow up a bit once you come to reality, but only after you've paid the price.




posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Here's a story which shows how much good those warning signs do;




Woman bitten by bear at Wis. zoo, fingers severed

MANITOWOC, Wis. — Police say a bear bit off a woman's fingers at a Wisconsin zoo after she ignored barriers and warning signs to try to feed the animal.

The Lincoln Park Zoo in Manitowoc closed after the incident Friday morning. Police say the 47-year-old woman lost a thumb and a forefinger, and two other fingers were partially severed.

The woman's boyfriend was bitten as he tried to pry the bear's mouth off her hand, but he didn't lose any fingers. Her 3-year-old granddaughter wasn't injured.

A mayor's office statement says alcohol played a factor.

Read more: Huff Post



To bad she didn't stick her head in there.

At least the hungry bear got a little snack. Good for him.



Yummy, ladyfingers!!!


[edit on 7/3/10 by FortAnthem]



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Zanti Misfit
 


Exactimundo. You get a cookie.

Why does it always seem to come back to the lawyers?

There is a good conspiracy.

The lawyer conspiracy, who wants to tackle it.

The premise is, all of the problems of the world have been created by lawyers to legitimize their existence.

Need to start a business, get a lawyer. Someone hurt you, get a lawyer. Need to do your taxes, get a lawyer. You broke some statute, get a lawyer. Voting for a politician, better be a lawyer. Want to leave your wife, get a lawyer.

Oooh that could be a good one.

The self perpetuating profession. They have created laws to be so obtuse, they have created the reason for their existence.

If anyone writes it, I will help. As of now I have way to many threads still active.



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 09:25 PM
link   
I don't think that the government should have any say in what I do in personal life. Alot of laws that have to do with "safety" are for revenue services only. If I want to go flying out of my windshield at 70 MPH then that's my business, the gov't should not have anything to say about it.



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


WHY oh WHY does my state always get in the news this way!

Wisconsin, the land of cow# and beer farts.

I might just have to write a conspiracy on the stupidity of my fellow Wisconsonites.

They (TPTB) must be behind the beer and the downfall of the Wisconsin intelligence.


edit to add-I went to the source of the info and at least the victim agreed not to have the bears killed to test for rabies.

Well, I will have to say they helped a LITTLE with that knowledge.



[edit on 3/6/2010 by endisnighe]



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Back when civilization didn't exist, we roamed around as tribes in the wilderness. Threats lurked everywhere: dangerous animals, swamps, famines, diseases, enemy tribes etc. Today, compared to back then, we live extremely safe in our civilized societies, free from most of these problems - but our survival instincts are still there. Although we've come to distrust our intuitions, we still feel danger lurking behind us now and then. The Nanny State knows this and takes advantage of it to increase its power.

What happens when we put in place more regulations and laws, while our lifestyle becomes easier and safer? That's right: our ancient risk evaluation skills are being disrupted. Why? We no longer trust ourselves and our judgement, because we assume the Nanny will do the thinking for us. Why look up facts about alcohol and smoking when you can listen to the weekly health recommendations from the government? I like to think for myself and therefore I also like to check facts instead of blindly trusting the government.

The path to happiness is through accepting everything - and that means we must accept that nature will take its course. But in this world where humanitarians scamper around in packs, the truth is that all they are doing is trying to play god against nature...
Something which many ancient wise men have warned against....



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by concernedcitizan
 


Excellent breakdown cc.

Ow, I just put a paperclip in an outlet, where was the warning label?



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 


Next thing you know we are going to have wear warning shirts because our farts smell and may offend others.



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr Sunchine
 


Oh my God, I just came up with the best t-shirt idea since the smiley face in regards to what we are discussing here.

If anyone sees it created after today, give me a ring I want my cut.

Here goes, on the shirt you put-

Warning, do not kick here, it hurts. With an arrow pointing at the crotch.

Ow, my balls!




posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by concernedcitizan
But in this world where humanitarians scamper around in packs, the truth is that all they are doing is trying to play god against nature...
Something which many ancient wise men have warned against....


Which ties into the fact, because progress has been too rapid, that we have not evolved natural fears against every potentially dangerous thing we have created, discovered and utilized (who has an innate fear of electrical outlets rather than, say, spiders?) and as a result, those that live on existing instict rather than an evolved sense of placing life first-and-foremost are prone to not consider consequences before acting and sometimes, speaking.

In other words, feelings about specific things related to all survival consequences are not yet encoded in the DNA strands by natural selection. What does seem well-encoded is a deep-seated fear of the unknown and personification of that into demon-like entities. These entities can range anywhere from fear of Satan to fear of Climate Change but really they amount to the Puritanical fear of witchcraft.

Unfortunately, this paranoia not a rational fear takes the reality of a situation into account but is instead overgeneralized. It seems, paradoxically, to lead to, as stated above, an extreme personal lack of vigilance about real dangers and an extreme desire to eradicate imagined evils on a societal level. The latter comes about more often when it is another other than one's self that may be comingling with these "evil things".



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 10:25 PM
link   
The purpose of these kinds of laws is NOT, NEVER, IN NO WAY, to protect. Protection is common sense, liability of the manufacturer for defective products or products that open a person to an "unreasonable risk" (determined by the jury, not the government, not the Judge). The "Government" can easily send along a recommendation. The government can easily publish a "Cautions Pamphlet". The government does this to: 1) feel in control, 2) justify licensing and contracting, 3) steal money, 4) obey their superiors (the Pope), 5) provide the superiors (Pope) with proof of obedience, 6) condition the public and business to the existence of a superior over them, 7...

Yes, most "Criminals" (in jail or taxed) are not criminals in any way. Even a murderer may (or may not) have any real business in prison. If the person doesn't pose a risk to others as sometimes they don't (for example a truly battered wife who tried to stop it). Karma will take care of things. No one gets away with anything. Now the real criminals are the sociopath/psychopaths in the NWO, Justice system, corporations, government, etc.. They belong in prison because they are a genuine danger to society. But what is put before us as "Criminal" more often than not is a ruse to make it appear that justice is being done and people are being protected and the superior (pope) is being obeyed, etc..



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Sunchine
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 


Next thing you know we are going to have wear warning shirts because our farts smell and may offend others.


Believe it or not, I use discernment. I can see more-or-less where awareness of a danger ought to be brought to light, things permitted and not permitted and where it goes into being ludicrous.



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


LMAO! I swear to God that just before I read this my daughter kicked my son square in the nut sack and I said to him looks like you just been in a new episode of Ow, My Balls. We both thought it was funny.

Thing is a law regarding kicking people in the nuts is probably coming because the kids now play some game where they kick each other in the nads. They know they shouldn't and its nothing that couldn't be fixed by a few well timed ass whoopings, but the government will have to stick their nose in our balls and regulate them.

[edit on 6-3-2010 by Mr Sunchine]



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 




Believe it or not, I use discernment. I can see more-or-less where awareness of a danger ought to be brought to light, things permitted and not permitted and where it goes into being ludicrous.


The thing you seem to miss is that we all have discernment and can see more or less where danger is. The difference is we don't need the government to tell us what is dangerous because we are not idiots nor do we need another mother.

Plus if I want to buy a grill BECAUSE it has fifteen foot flames then why shouldn't I be able to buy one. If I burn my eyebrows off then I just learned to stay a little bit further away next time.

[edit on 6-3-2010 by Mr Sunchine]



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Sunchine
The thing you seem to miss is that we all have discernment and can see more or less where danger is. The difference is we don't need the government to tell us what is dangerous because we are not idiots nor do we need another mother.


No, you cannot always see where the danger is. Should a canister of uranium or a vial of virus be labelled with a warning or not? Nothing in that do we have any natural ability to discern. Extreme examples of course, but they illustrate a counterargument to your point that we can always know and discern. It's simply not the case.

Some people can't tell a scarlet corn snake from an eastern coral snake and so will kill both just as readily.

We have no ability to discern by looking if the electric fuel pump in our car causes gas tank explosions because of lousy design until lives possibly have already been taken or ruined. Sure, liability in part is fine and all as a remedy. Still, it doesn't undo the damage already done and it still doesn't dissuade the companies from placing life on par with profits by weighing expected lawsuits costs against retooling and redesign costs.


Plus if I want to buy a grill BECAUSE it has fifteen foot flames then why shouldn't I be able to buy one. If I burn my eyebrows off then I just learned to stay a little bit further away next time.


I'm not sure what practical reason there is to make a grill with 15-foot flames. If I want that, I'll just build or modify one as needed. The grill company should be off the hook for any mods you performed of course.

[edit on 3/6/2010 by EnlightenUp]



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 




No, you cannot always see where the danger is. Should a canister of uranium or a vial of virus be labelled with a warning or not? Nothing in that do we have any natural ability to discern. Extreme examples of course, but they illustrate a counterargument to your point that we can always know and discern. It's simply not the case.

Beyond that, don't you think companies have the good sense, without regulation, to label their canisters if they have something potentially deadly in them. I mean I label my files without any prodding from the government so I can find stuff when I need it. Companies can label deadly products, because it is good for business to keep their employees alive. Common Friggin' Sense!

Some people can't tell a scarlet corn snake from an eastern coral snake and so will kill both just as readily.


Do you see a lot of canisters of uranium or vials of virus just rolling down the street? Even if you do all they need to be labeled is "Uranium" or "Virus". Only a complete moron would open something like that.

So what is your reccomendation for the snake problem? Should we start labeling snakes now? The way I see it is if a snake gets too close to me then its dead. I don't care what it is or what its label is or whether or not it is a protected species. Snake too close + Me = Dead snake.




[edit on 6-3-2010 by Mr Sunchine]



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


Let's see , are you dare proposing someone here at ATS should create a thread about a Conspiracy by the Law Profession to justify it's own existance ? Hmm. where to Begin ? ............



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Sunchine
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 


Do you see a lot of canisters of uranium or vials of virus just rolling down the street? Even if you do all they need to be labeled is "Uranium" or "Virus". Only a complete moron would open something like that.


Of course I don't. Now I think you're trolling. I said it was "extreme" and much like my example with electricity, not within your personal sensory capability to discern without manifesting the ill effects first.


So what is your reccomendation for the snake problem? Should we start labeling snakes now? The way I see it is if a snake gets too close to me then its dead. I don't care what it is or what its label is or whether or not it is a protected species. Snake too close + Me = Dead snake.


They do come labelled, in color bars, not English.


Ok, so you'd kill a harmless garter snake because it got to close? That's pretty fearful and ignorant of nature. Why not learn to read the labels placed upon creation instead of reacting fearfully? You seem to manifest what I posted about a couple of messages up.



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Zanti Misfit
 


I know, it is pretty much not a conspiracy, it is a fact.

But the way they did it is the conspiracy. We start out with a simple and common sense document that is to be used to govern ourselves.

The next thing you know, you need a frelling lawyer to wipe your arse.

I mean, when the US began, a man accused of something could argue his case. Now, there is no possibility. The judge at the end will instruct the jury to find the person guilty, which of course is un Constitutional, I believe. Someone can correct me if I am wrong.

But than you have the IRS. Where you do not even have the right to a jury of your peers.

I can prove that myself.

This could be a great thread. I may have to lay out an outline and see if it could be written without it becoming a book.



posted on Mar, 6 2010 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 


Honestly, I wouldn't kill a garter snake, because I used to catch them as a boy. However if I saw a snake that I wasn't sure if it were safe or not and I were in a position where I felt threatened like I was cornered or something then I would kill first and research later. Hopefully, it would be a situation where me and the snake are free to go our own directions and nobody has to get hurt.

So are you proposing the goverment force us to learn our snakes just in case the one time every 5 years we come accross one we can assess the threat?

You mentioned me confirming your beliefs, but you have also confirmed my belief. I believe Liberals think everyone is stupid and unable to make decisions without the government holding their hand through life. Of course, we need to those Liberals to protect us. I am not even sure how man evolved without Liberal monkey ancestors.

[edit on 6-3-2010 by Mr Sunchine]





new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join