sen. 'im not gay' w/matt lauer

[RandomAccess]

I notice you're accusing people of things they didn't do, when I was talking about what they did to increase oppression.

I'm not "accusing" anybody of anything! You're the one who outlined the timeframes("before Lincoln. . ." "before FDR. . ." "Nixon. . ."). I only outlined a few things that were really happening (freedom wise) "before Lincoln" etc.

You carp on and on about the good ol' days of endless personal freedoms. . . I only pointed out that those "freedoms" were extended only to the priveledged few. And, as I recall, you're a renter. You wouldn't have had many of those personal freedoms anyway!

As a whole, we are more free today (in spite of G-dub's fondest wishes) than ever before.

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm not "accusing" anybody of anything! You're the one who outlined the timeframes("before Lincoln. . ." "before FDR. . ." "Nixon. . ."). I only outlined a few things that were really happening (freedom wise) "before Lincoln" etc.

You carp on and on about the good ol' days of endless personal freedoms. . . I only pointed out that those "freedoms" were extended only to the priveledged few. And, as I recall, you're a renter. You wouldn't have had many of those personal freedoms anyway!

As a whole, we are more free today (in spite of G-dub's fondest wishes) than ever before.

Actually we have more people enjoying much less freedom.

In the "good old days" when people spoke of freedom, they meant freedom -- freedom to use their property as they wished, freedom to enjoy themselves as they wished, freedom to do good as they wished. Now private property isn't really private, enjoyment must be of an approved sort, and doing good is regulated to death.

We have more people enjoying what is called freedom, but what is called freedom is closer to being regimentation. As WW II veterans I know around here put it, this country is looking very much like what they went to Europe and the Pacific to fight against, and they fear for and pity their grandchildren.

 

[RandomAccess]

Actually we have more people enjoying much less freedom.

In the "good old days" when people spoke of freedom, they meant freedom -- freedom to use their property as they wished, freedom to enjoy themselves as they wished, freedom to do good as they wished. Now private property isn't really private, enjoyment must be of an approved sort, and doing good is regulated to death.

We have more people enjoying what is called freedom, but what is called freedom is closer to being regimentation. As WW II veterans I know around here put it, this country is looking very much like what they went to Europe and the Pacific to fight against, and they fear for and pity their grandchildren.

Hogwash.

Use your property. . . such as, dig a landfill that devalues your neighbor's property? Maybe, build your own private missile silo?

And as far as enjoying yourself. . . you want the right to rape and pillage? Or, do you simply prefer to shoot your firearms in the middle of a crowded city? What "enjoy(ment)" do you find "regualated?"

What regimentation are your talking about? My life is far from "regimented" (except by my own design).

 

[LiquidSky]

What got my panties in a twist is when he said that he "dosen't agree with the lifestyle." Hell of a way to end an interview when you've been caught in a gay sting.

Agreed. What an asshole.

 

[Kulindahr]

Hogwash.

Use your property. . . such as, dig a landfill that devalues your neighbor's property? Maybe, build your own private missile silo?

And as far as enjoying yourself. . . you want the right to rape and pillage? Or, do you simply prefer to shoot your firearms in the middle of a crowded city? What "enjoy(ment)" do you find "regualated?"

What regimentation are your talking about? My life is far from "regimented" (except by my own design).

For starters.... there's no such thing as a "right to rape and pillage"; using that phrase strongly suggests you don't know what rights are in the first place.

In my lists below, there are things I'm allowed to do, but have to have a "permit"; those I don't list.


Property -- things I can't do (just some):
*build a fence along the edge without a "variance"
*plant anything with thorns within ten feet of the edge (like, roses)
*let my grass grow a foot high
*tear down & rebuild the garage
*build a solid-barrier fence against the neighbor's intruding hedge
*store my trailer
*put in a fire pit
*extend the basement beyond the existing foundation
*work on my truck in the front yard
*build a tower for an observatory

Enjoyment -- as before:
*hold a dance on my lawn
*drink alcohol outside my house in view of the street
*drink alcohol in any park or recreation area
*smoke downtown on the street (not that I want to, but it's forbidden)
*smoke my substance of preference
*be naked in my own house, if someone breaks in (if a minor breaks in and finds me in the shower, I get labeled a "sex offender" and have to register for life)
*clean up trash in a wilderness area
*drive on roads on public lands (many are off-limits to the public)
*do repair work on a public trail, to make it safer

And, technically, these are against the law as well:
*skipping rocks
*building sandcastles
*hiking off an approved trail in any state or federal forest

And though not against the law, these can get a guy arrested around here:
*criticizing the sheriff
*yelling at a police officer
*refusing to consent to a warrantless search
... and other things that upset the PTBs


I couldn't even buy a piece of property, and live on it in a tent -- I have to have a "habitation permit", which requires water, sewer, electrical, "surfaced access"....

 

[Kulindahr]

^ Since I live far out of city limits, I find a lot of those restrictions sad, a couple I understand (like drinking on public property, including parks and recreation areas). I, however, got a laugh at the "work on my truck in the front yard"... like out in the grass? Why would you want to do that? Or does this include the driveway too?

Heh, you own a truck... redneck.

I don't even understand the not drinking on public property. It's a law meant to prevent someone from the possibility of becoming a danger to others, which is stupid. Laws are for punishing people who actually do harm, not for preventing them from doing something that might potentially be harmful.

Such laws only breed disrespect for law.

The driveway doesn't count here, but it did in the last town I lived in. And I might want to work on my truck in the yard because the driveway is shared with another vehicle. I can wash my car in the yard, but I can't change the oil there, or tune it up....

A large portion of the population owns trucks because they're considered "cool"; there are many trucks on the roads in cities, even, that are 4WD, driven by people who wouldn't even know what 4WD is for. I have a truck because it hauls things that a car won't -- like plywood or bags of concrete mix.

Actually, the funniest comment I've ever gotten about driving a truck was a puzzled, "I never thought a gay dude would have a truck", from a straight guy I gave a ride to once when I was headed for my fave gay bar.

 

[RandomAccess]

Kuli,
If you fail to see how ridiculously whiny that all sounds, there's really no point in anyone trying to explain it to you. If you insist on devaluing your neighbors' property, being a drunken spectacle on public land, posing a danger to yourself and others. . . well, by all means, be my guest. Far be it from me to ruin your fun (just don't do it in my neighborhood).

There are real issues with which to concern ourselves.

 

[CuriousMonkey]

... Laws are for punishing people who actually do harm, not for preventing them from doing something that might potentially be harmful. ...

I don't buy that premise. "Punishing people" may be a potential outcome - but its not the ONLY potential outcome and certainly is not the PURPOSE of law. Does anyone think legislators enact new laws so that government can punish people? Laws are enacted mostly to establish and maintain a social order - hopefully with equal respect for every individual's rights.

Your liberties ought not be enjoyed at the expense of mine?

 

[NickCole]

Laws are for punishing people who actually do harm, not for preventing them from doing something that might potentially be harmful. ...

You have a victim mentality.

Laws are not for punishing people.

Laws are for maintaining a well ordered society.

 

[kallipolis]

The laws of the land establish the parameters within which the human being becomes aware of its responsibilities in respect of those laws, towards serving a society that respects the common good.

 

[andysayshi]

I don't even understand the not drinking on public property. It's a law meant to prevent someone from the possibility of becoming a danger to others, which is stupid.

No, such laws exist to improve the life and safety of the general populace, most of whom don't want drunks in their parks and shopping malls. It's a law meant to prevent someone from the possibility of being obnoxious, obscene, inappropriate, menacing or dangerous in situations that may be wholly inappropriate, like in front of children. Such laws only exist because they have been demanded by the general populace.

Laws are for punishing people who actually do harm, not for preventing them from doing something that might potentially be harmful.

So law should punish drunk drivers and speeding drivers after motor vehicle accidents, but should not seek to apprehend them BEFORE they cause accidents, killing and injuring innocent bystanders?

 

[kallipolis]

IC07

Ridiculous might well typify the replies of those who presume to act in a ridiculous fashion, when presuming to possess an monopoly on all that is correct.

A bad law is so often the presumption of those who presume to judge those laws as bad, when those laws do not serve their own very personal political agenda.

Perfection is never discovered within human behaviour, despite the will of the people to reflect its needs through the laws that its legislature enacts, to reveal the will of the people.

How a government or governmental authority interprets those laws, is a matter that remains contentious among many on this board and throughout society.

 

[kallipolis]

IC07

Touche, mon ami. Just expect an appropriate reply every time you choose to play at being a silly bugger.

 

[Kulindahr]

Kuli,
If you fail to see how ridiculously whiny that all sounds, there's really no point in anyone trying to explain it to you. If you insist on devaluing your neighbors' property, being a drunken spectacle on public land, posing a danger to yourself and others. . . well, by all means, be my guest. Far be it from me to ruin your fun (just don't do it in my neighborhood).

There are real issues with which to concern ourselves.

If you can't tell how snide and arrogant you sound...

No one is talking about devaluing neighbors' property, being drunk, posing a danger, etc.
I'm talking about freedom, the right to be different, the right of private property to be PRIVATE property....

You're talking like a snob who really doesn't approve of people enjoying themselves in ways you don't approve of.

 

[Kulindahr]

I don't buy that premise. "Punishing people" may be a potential outcome - but its not the ONLY potential outcome and certainly is not the PURPOSE of law. Does anyone think legislators enact new laws so that government can punish people? Laws are enacted mostly to establish and maintain a social order - hopefully with equal respect for every individual's rights.

Your liberties ought not be enjoyed at the expense of mine?

Laws are established for control; in motive, laws are established to make other people do what we want, or -- from a legislator's standpoint -- to "be doing something" and keep the voters happy.

All the laws I mentioned as examples have no respect for individual rights at all; what they do have is a condescending attitude that people can't behave responsibly, so things that might cause a problem from a few people have to be forbidden to everyone.

As an example: would you say the "USA PATRIOT Act" was passed with respect for every individual's rights?

Maybe that's an extreme. But the law against alcohol in a public park doesn't respect individual rights; it doesn't even respect individuals; what it does is say that rather than allow and encourage people to behave like adults and confront others who are behaving inappropriately, we'll just not allow even the possibility. That's treating people like children -- so is it any wonder we have so many people who resent law altogether?

 

[sparky95]

For starters.... there's no such thing as a "right to rape and pillage"; using that phrase strongly suggests you don't know what rights are in the first place.

In my lists below, there are things I'm allowed to do, but have to have a "permit"; those I don't list.


Property -- things I can't do (just some):
*build a fence along the edge without a "variance"
*plant anything with thorns within ten feet of the edge (like, roses)
*let my grass grow a foot high
*tear down & rebuild the garage
*build a solid-barrier fence against the neighbor's intruding hedge
*store my trailer
*put in a fire pit
*extend the basement beyond the existing foundation
*work on my truck in the front yard
*build a tower for an observatory

Enjoyment -- as before:
*hold a dance on my lawn
*drink alcohol outside my house in view of the street
*drink alcohol in any park or recreation area
*smoke downtown on the street (not that I want to, but it's forbidden)
*smoke my substance of preference
*be naked in my own house, if someone breaks in (if a minor breaks in and finds me in the shower, I get labeled a "sex offender" and have to register for life)
*clean up trash in a wilderness area
*drive on roads on public lands (many are off-limits to the public)
*do repair work on a public trail, to make it safer

And, technically, these are against the law as well:
*skipping rocks
*building sandcastles
*hiking off an approved trail in any state or federal forest

And though not against the law, these can get a guy arrested around here:
*criticizing the sheriff
*yelling at a police officer
*refusing to consent to a warrantless search
... and other things that upset the PTBs


I couldn't even buy a piece of property, and live on it in a tent -- I have to have a "habitation permit", which requires water, sewer, electrical, "surfaced access"....

I'm a bit confused here. These mostly silly laws are supposed to be more of a threat to freedom than the enslavement of the black people of America was in the period you are nostalgic for?

 

[Kulindahr]

You have a victim mentality.

Laws are not for punishing people.

Laws are for maintaining a well ordered society.

"Victim mentality"?!

When it's virtually impossible to go out and enjoy yourself without having to do it in some officially-approved locale in an officially approved manner, no "victim mentality" is needed -- the cops are just waiting to pounce on people who inevitably break one of those laws or regulations... or even who don't.

Maybe you live in some paradise where all the law enforcement folks are saints, but in just about every place within ninety minutes' drive of where I live, any time a cop is behind on [STRIKE]quota[/STRIKE] arrest credits, he just goes cruising recreation areas and picks people up for laws they never knew existed. They hand out warnings for "excavation without a permit" for merely digging a hole on the beach to watch it fill with water, for "diverting public water resources without a permit" for putting a line of rocks across a stream; they arrest people for "assault" when there has been no physical contact, only waving arms -- and they'll write up one charge of the same for each arm wave, so that getting into a yelling match with someone can get you hauled off to jail for a half=dozen counts of assault. And as I said before, if they stop you and you don't kneel down and kiss their asses, they'll cuff you, then make up a crime to charge you with, invent probable cause, and write a report describing things that never happened... and when you truthfully deny doing it, the D.A. points out that of course a criminal is going to deny doing it, so obviously you're guilty.

King George III probably considered that his laws were for "maintaining a well-ordered society", as did Hitler and the Kaiser before him.

But even that foundation is wrong: the only legitimate function of law is to protect an individual's rights. Telling me I can't drink in a county park doesn't protect anyone's rights, rather it infringes on mine; telling people they can't enjoy the mental stimulant or mood-altering substance of their choice doesn't protect anyone's rights, either, it only treads on them.

Mature people don't need all these laws -- they behave with courtesy and respect. But when you saddle people with such laws, they give up being mature, and act like the delinquents they're being treated as.

 

[Kulindahr]

The laws of the land establish the parameters within which the human being becomes aware of its responsibilities in respect of those laws, towards serving a society that respects the common good.

"Serving a society"?

So you maintain that at root we are slaves to whoever the current elite are.

That explains a lot.




Dude, I don't exist for "society", I exist for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". I have no obligation to "society" -- rather, society has an obligation to me, namely, to keep its bloody hands off unless I'm hurting someone.

BTW, your nice little statement could have come right out of one of the fascist treatises that preceded Mussolini's rise to power in Italy. That should tell you something.

 

[sparky95]

"Victim mentality"?!

When it's virtually impossible to go out and enjoy yourself without having to do it in some officially-approved locale in an officially approved manner, no "victim mentality" is needed -- the cops are just waiting to pounce on people who inevitably break one of those laws or regulations... or even who don't.

Maybe you live in some paradise where all the law enforcement folks are saints, but in just about every place within ninety minutes' drive of where I live, any time a cop is behind on [STRIKE]quota[/STRIKE] arrest credits, he just goes cruising recreation areas and picks people up for laws they never knew existed. They hand out warnings for "excavation without a permit" for merely digging a hole on the beach to watch it fill with water, for "diverting public water resources without a permit" for putting a line of rocks across a stream; they arrest people for "assault" when there has been no physical contact, only waving arms -- and they'll write up one charge of the same for each arm wave, so that getting into a yelling match with someone can get you hauled off to jail for a half=dozen counts of assault. And as I said before, if they stop you and you don't kneel down and kiss their asses, they'll cuff you, then make up a crime to charge you with, invent probable cause, and write a report describing things that never happened... and when you truthfully deny doing it, the D.A. points out that of course a criminal is going to deny doing it, so obviously you're guilty.

King George III probably considered that his laws were for "maintaining a well-ordered society", as did Hitler and the Kaiser before him.

But even that foundation is wrong: the only legitimate function of law is to protect an individual's rights. Telling me I can't drink in a county park doesn't protect anyone's rights, rather it infringes on mine; telling people they can't enjoy the mental stimulant or mood-altering substance of their choice doesn't protect anyone's rights, either, it only treads on them.

Mature people don't need all these laws -- they behave with courtesy and respect. But when you saddle people with such laws, they give up being mature, and act like the delinquents they're being treated as.

Um, hate to be the one to tell you this, but most places in the western world are not that aggresive in law enforcement. Perhaps you should move to somewhere away from your home town? I'm getting the impression you have never actually been much further than 90 minutes from home?

 

[Kulindahr]

I just occurred to me that the statist, authoritarian philosophy held by most of those posting in this thread should lead to the content acceptance of "Don't ask, don't tell", and only monogamous heterosexual marriage being allowed -- after all, if those are the laws, then they're there for maintaining a well-ordered society... right?