It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Doing Bar Tricks = GO TO JAIL FOR 45 YEARS!

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


How about a fine? You know, you breathe fire in a bar, you get a fine?

Which is probably what would end up happening.

But common sense isn't the anarchists friend. Maybe the bartender should shoot the police in the face if they attempt to stop him from burning the place down?




posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


What about not using violence against innocent people that have harmed no one?

How about we let people do what they want as long as what they are doing isn't harming anyone else.

How's that for common sense?



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Your theory is that everything should be ok as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. Hmm, that's fine and all, but if you can prevent serious injury or a death, isn't that acceptable? To you it's not, someone needs to be hurt in order for society to do anything about it.

Your idea works out like this in the real world:

911: This is 911 what's the emergency?

Caller: This guy is about to kill me!

911: I am sorry, but because he hasn't killed you yet, there is nothing we can do, he hasn't done anything wrong yet so wait for him to kill you and call us back...*Click*

Caller: [snip] *BANG* *BANG*

[edit on 8/19/2010 by whatukno]



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 12:45 AM
link   
There is a massive difference with fire breathing and pyrotechnics. The Station Nightclub fire in Warwick, RI was set off by using fireworks, spark projectiles and fire inside a small building. They were literally launching fireworks inside. They set everything on fire in a matter of seconds. It was an incredible massive inferno. I don't even know how one could do something like this with fire breathing.

By the way, that is a horrible incident. The video is graphic, the screams of those burning to death can be heard, and some of it is visible in the front entrance. 100 people were literally trampled to death, burned to death and suffocated from inhalation in less than 6 minutes. Do not watch it if you are sensitive to such disturbing things. It is literally just a 10 minute video of about 400 people screaming in agony.

These do not compare. Fire breathing is not that hazardous, if done properly. I'll concede that it can be dangerous, but it does not warrant anything near a 45 year prison sentence. A fine at most, if they were refusing to obey codes or a law.

The most I could see happening is some woman's hair getting set on fire because of the flames coming in contact with her massive amounts of hairspray. I imagine there are permits for this sort of display. There are probably regulations with not doing in it front of flammables, like directly in front of the liquor shelf, and having a set distance from patrons.

Also, in the Station Nightclub fire, there were no fire sprinklers, the exits were not marked properly, and some of the exits were completely blocked with various objects. Like pool tables, vending machines and so on. Most of the windows were blocked and hard to get to as well. There was also a highly flammable material used for for sound purposes on the stage, the egg-carton looking material used in sound booths. It was of the lowest-grade quality, and wouldn't have passed inspection, but the inspectors never noticed it. They launched fireworks directly onto it.

The entire nightclub was a small ramshackle dry wood massive fire hazard.

[edit on 19-8-2010 by SyphonX]



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Your theory is that everything should be ok as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. Hmm, that's fine and all, but if you can prevent serious injury or a death, isn't that acceptable? To you it's not, someone needs to be hurt in order for society to do anything about it.





You can't prevent serious injury and death through regulation.

Just like you can't prevent drug abuse through regulation.

Just like you can't prevent fraud through regulation.

Just like you can't prevent drunk driving through regulation.

Just like you can't prevent ANYTHING through regulation.

NOTHING - NOTHING - NOTHING IS EVER PREVENTED THROUGH REGULATION - NOTHING

THE GOVERNMENT CAN ONLY PUNISH, NEVER PREVENT! IT CAN NOT PREVENT A RAPIST FROM BREAKING INTO YOUR HOME AND RAPING YOU - IT CAN ONLY PUNISH THOSE WHO DO SO AFTER THE FACT.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


But you don't want them to even have the power to do anything AFTER the fact.

The person is dead, obviously they can no longer complain that they are being harmed. So to you nothing is wrong.
Anarchy is survival of the fittest. So basically everyone has to be heavily armed in order to protect themselves from the people who are going to wish them harm.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


No, Anarchy is the lack of a State - not the lack of security or laws that protect our property. Night club owners do not have State police running around their clubs - in fact they don't want cops in there because cops scare off the customers. They hire PRIVATE security guards instead.

In a stateless society, the costs of prosecuting an individual necessarily must be born by the victim unless the victim can prove that he was indeed harmed.

In a private court, the loser must pay.

Since a private for-profit court system means that those who bring charges against another must in fact be a victim, this would negate all victimless crime.

The fire breathing bar tenders are free to breathe fire - UNTIL THEY HARM SOMEONE - and then that person can sue them for damages.

This is a very simple concept - no victim, no crime.



[edit on 19-8-2010 by mnemeth1]



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


But once they are done breathing fire on the person, that person is no longer being harmed by the fire breathing bartender and so the bartender is not doing anything wrong. So your theory is that the person must sue the fire breathing bartender while the bartender is breathing fire on the person. It's insane and ridiculous.

Like I said, move to Detroit, it would be your anarchist paradise.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


If that's the best argument you got against my logic, I think I've won this debate.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


See how could the supposed victim prove their side, in your anarchist world, it would be perfectly legal for the defendant to bribe the judge, the witnesses and the jury to side with them, no victim there either. So that would be perfectly inside the law.

So, the bartender would get off on any civil case because no witness would come forward to claim the bartender did anything, the judge would be paid off to not allow any incriminating evidence into the trial, and the jury would be paid off to hand down an acquittal. None of these acts according to Anarchy would have a victim, no one was harmed and so the bartender could get off.

[edit on 8/19/2010 by whatukno]



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


But you don't want them to even have the power to do anything AFTER the fact.

The person is dead, obviously they can no longer complain that they are being harmed. So to you nothing is wrong.
Anarchy is survival of the fittest. So basically everyone has to be heavily armed in order to protect themselves from the people who are going to wish them harm.



This is entirely untrue, one can use stealth, or forms of force projection as a substitute in the world.

In truth, you live in the very state of existence you fear for the most part.

Ever heard this one? "Where is a cop when you really need one?"

In fact they can't be everywhere all the time. Most of your encounters out in the world are unsupervised and entirely dependent on others voluntarily being on good behavior usually based on what passes for common sense these days.

We must remember those immortal words of perhap's history's greatest litigator and advocate, Marcus Tulius Cicero "The more laws the less justice".

You yourself have accurately stated that not all officers choose to enforce all laws.

So no, the application of law, and the precense of it, is not uniform to the degree it truly protects people in the ways that they are sold on accepting them and abiding by them.

There comes a line where law must end and common sense prevails.

I have left plenty of places that I didn't feel secure because of behaviors or activities that were going on.

Rarely did anything untoward happen after my cautious exist, but exercise my own caution I did, even though those who stayed behind later decreed and a fun time was had by all.

The truth is that law doesn't prohibit bad things from happening but more often than not simply allows the state to profit off of things that could be construed as potentially dangerous to the fearful or cautious.

You take, I take, we all take our chances in this world, the temporal nature of life precludes any iron clad gaurantees when it comes to safety and security.

A person's own best common sense should be their guide.

Not the state regulating every aspect of our existence based on worst case, seldom if ever scenarios.

Life is an adventure, and those who would trade their liberty for security do in fact deserve neither nor will they have either.

Thanks.




[edit on 19/8/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


But the problem is, our friend mnemeth1 doesn't want cops anywhere. Fact of the matter is, he wants complete anarchy without any laws whatsoever and somehow thinks that there will still be a judicial system.

I simply showed him how flawed this system is by showing him that anyone could just bribe the judicial system to get the verdict they want. There would be no justice except what justice you can pay for.

As mnemeth1 puts it, if there is no victim, there is no crime, if you aren't physically harmed by someone, there is no crime. But he forgets that just leaves open the opportunity for someone to just buy their way out of any trouble.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 

Fact of the matter is, he wants complete anarchy without any laws whatsoever and somehow thinks that there will still be a judicial system.




You think that a judicial system cannot exist without the State?



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 02:34 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Well the truth is that at the founding of the nation there really weren't cops anywhere.

The citizen arrest was all that most communities required to deal with the simple unobtrusive laws of the day.

It was only when people began to be stacked and racked in tenaments, and lost a sense of community when places like New York City turned to Cops.

Cops is actually short for Coppers, which was derived from the copper badges New York City Police officers originally wore.

Even during western expansion, law officers were few and far in between, communities had to rely on citizens arrests or waiting for months for the State or Federal Government to send a marshall, with no one locally wanting the unpleasant and usually terminal task of taking the job.

Los Angeles was so lawless during the late and early 1900's, French citizens living there actually requested troops from France to protect them and got them.

Where we have erred is when laws started to legislate morallity mainly for the sake of Christian tea totalers, who saw all vice as a sin, even though vice is a huge part of human nature.

We have so many laws and codes on the books now even the most conciencous and law abiding citizen is apt to break some of them, often without even knowing it, often regarding very innocent things that resulted in no harm to anyone, but a handsome fine for the state, and or a handsome fee for an attorney.

The fact is that police are typically poor at solving crimes that don't involve them recieving some type of information from a concerned citizen.

90% of all crimes are solved or close to solved by citizen's tips, jealous lovers, double dealing partners, etc.

So in reality 90% of crime can in fact be handled by the citizen, and there would be far fewer offenders if the government stopped trying to regulate vice, and human behavior, for profit, and for the profit of criminal syndicates that often are in partnership with various law enforcement agents and officers and politicians and enjoy the obscene profits that can be made by making vice illegal and as a result more dangerous.

As the government grows larger, the number of laws grow larger, it is an ever expanding system, that requires expansion to actually sustain itself and justify itself.

It becomes parasitical at a point, many feel that point has already been reached and passed, and eventually most parasites will destroy or consume the host body.

So that is a very real risk.

Ultimately the government justifies most of its actions on selling people the notion that it can protect them from their fears, usually after instilling those very same fears into people, to sell them on the notion that the government can protect them from them. For a fee in dollars, for an exchange of 'some' liberties.

Liberties are what governments allow you to have, freedom is something you exercise on your own accord regardless.

There is a difference.

Yet in the end of the day, fears are almost always imagined, and those focused on their fears, are more apt to create self fulfilling prophecies that make those fears come true.

In many ways we have become a fearful nation of pessimmists and cynics always anticipating and seeing the worst in every things potential, and then as a result approaching those things in the most self defeating way.

I don't need a nanny, and ultimately that is what government is becomming as more and more people sucumb to nothing but their fears, which they consider reasoned but often aren't, and are just a product of a typically dull and uneventful life creating imaginary drama because heavens knows they truly aren't doing anything eventful, fun or exciting.

I don't need a nanny, but I do promise not to kill anyone, violently hurt anyone, destroy anything through deliberate design, or take anything from anyone that does not belong to me.

Most people are the same way, and it takes citizens and not police officers to typically expose the people who aren't the same way.

The more laws the less justice, the less the most important laws go unenforced.

Jack of all trades master of none.

Thanks.





[edit on 19/8/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


The judicial system in America cannot exist without the Constitution. Something that our Anarchist buddy here wants to destroy.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 04:02 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


I've read his posts and he doesn't advocate lawlessness, but he does point out that the State is unnecessary and uses violent coercion to further its ends.

And you have already been caught lying about what other posters say; so you aren't very credible when it come to that.



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 04:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


If he does not advocate lawlessness, he is not an anarchist, if he is an anarchist then he is deliberately lying about not wanting lawlessness. In theory Anarchy works the way that our Anarchist friend here thinks it works, in reality it works like Somalia. I don't really care if you believe me or not, it's not my problem, if you have some personal beef with me, just put me on ignore and stop pestering me.

Anarchy on paper is nice, but anarchy in reality works like this, You can eat anyone you can catch and kill. Somalia is a perfect example of our OP's utopia of Anarchy. Frankly so is Detroit.

[edit on 8/19/2010 by whatukno]



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 04:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


Anarchy on paper is nice, but anarchy in reality works like this, You can eat anyone you can catch and kill. Somalia is a perfect example of our OP's utopia of Anarchy. Frankly so is Detroit.



Are you sure about that Detroit thing?



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 04:29 AM
link   
He, I don't know whether to laugh or cry, especially about your extreme comments. Anyways, 45 years of prison is obviously a bit .. streched?
First, you could have told them to find another thing to do because bad stuff has already happened like that and you can put whiskey in a diesel.
If they proceeded, totally depends on the barkeepers of course, you could have stuck them in prison for a week or a tad more and they would think twice.
But 45 years in prison gives them so much time to think about their life, and after that, everything lies in ruins...?
I cannot accept the law if this happens ... >_>



posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by incarnating

I cannot accept the law if this happens ... >_>



Oh but you will....

.....They always do.



*Besides what are you gonna do about it? make a sign and walk around with it?


That always works. Saved Iraq from invasion it did.




top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join