Sin is the cause of evil. It causes a derangement and moral depravity in the heart and mind. From this, wicked intentions and desires arise. Sin is also the cause of death. We are born predisposed towards sin because our nature is inherently corrupt.

Jeremiah 17:9

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?


>> ^Ryjkyj:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Sin is an immoral act which transgresses Gods law. It isn't an absence of God, it is disobedience against His laws.
>> ^Ryjkyj:
>> ^kir_mokum:
and according to your myth, who created evil and lucifer?

This is where you get the fascinating explanation that "evil" is the absence of god. But god didn't create evil and there was nothing in the universe before god. But god didn't create evil.
Get it? Simple right?


I didn't say sin did I? Quit changing the subject.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Sin is an immoral act which transgresses Gods law. It isn't an absence of God, it is disobedience against His laws.
>> ^Ryjkyj:
>> ^kir_mokum:
and according to your myth, who created evil and lucifer?

This is where you get the fascinating explanation that "evil" is the absence of god. But god didn't create evil and there was nothing in the universe before god. But god didn't create evil.
Get it? Simple right?



I didn't say sin did I? Quit changing the subject.

Sin is an immoral act which transgresses Gods law. It isn't an absence of God, it is disobedience against His laws.

>> ^Ryjkyj:
>> ^kir_mokum:
and according to your myth, who created evil and lucifer?

This is where you get the fascinating explanation that "evil" is the absence of god. But god didn't create evil and there was nothing in the universe before god. But god didn't create evil.
Get it? Simple right?

Not true. Do what thou wilt is directly from the Book of the Law which Crowley wrote and which he said he received from a spirit, ie a demon..perhaps even from Satan himself.

As far as "true hearted" rebellion goes, Satan is the original rebel and all of this so-called freedom of thought is systemic from his desire to usurp Gods position and authority. It isnt at all restrictive to follow the moral law of God, its in fact the only real fredom, and its provided to liberate us from slavery to sin and to the devil. It's the forbidden fruit redux, where humanity is yet again not trusting God but seeking after the knowledge himself, which the devil happily provides, leading the children as the pied piper into the pits of hell.

Yes, not everyone fears God, but not everyone has the common sense not to stick their finger in an electric socket either. There is a concise explanation for sin, and accepting Christ isn't a license to sin. Disobedience to God is never a moot point, saved or not. This video is speaking to the heart of the deception, which is the satanic lie of "do your own thing". It's relative versus absolute truth. It's at the roots of this wicked and perverse generation, which rejects Gods moral authority and seeks only to glorify itself.

I have had personal experience with demons and demon possession, and know they are working to deceive every person about the truth; to lead people away from God. What the bible says about this world being under dominion of Satan is not an exaggeration..it is the horrifying truth of this place, that there is deception working against you on every conceivable level. It really comes down to what kind of person you are..if you are content with the lie, if it suits your moral character, if you love the world instead of the one who made it, then you have already earned your reward and will seek nothing further. Unless this wickedness offends you and unless you want something better, the lie will be all you see. Mick and all the rest of these delusionals are working to spread the satanic lie, many willingly and knowingly. Selling your soul in rock and roll isn't just a popular expression but a literal truth.



>> ^enoch:
crowley was a reknowned occultist and mystic.
he created his own tarot deck based on the egyptian god THOTH but he did not write the satanic bible,that was anton zandor levy a particularly self involved douchebag.
"do what thou whilt,may it harm none" is a wiccan edict drawn from the amalgamation of druidic,celtic and nordic theosophy and was adopted by crowley but was not created by him.wicca was brought to the states in 1952 by brent gardner from england and the secretive coven,which had remained so from the eyes of the church for years,ex-communicated him for his revealing of their ways.
i would not call the artist and musicians who balked at the churchs authoritarian ways as demonic philosophy but rather a true hearted rebellion against the stranglehold the church represented on many who may see things different.
not everyone is god-fearing and the church has never truly established a concise and singular explanation concerning original sin and even if it DID succeed in doing that,chirst died for the forgiveness of those sins.so the point is moot if you have accepted jesus as savior.
again i find videos such as these highly manipulative using imagery and cherry picked material to promote a narrative and for the layman this video may be seen as informative but it is more akin to propaganda meant to frighten those who may not know the facts.
be scared of mick jagger..booga booga!


>> ^enoch:
crowley was a reknowned occultist and mystic.
he created his own tarot deck based on the egyptian god THOTH but he did not write the satanic bible,that was anton zandor levy a particularly self involved douchebag.
"do what thou whilt,may it harm none" is a wiccan edict drawn from the amalgamation of druidic,celtic and nordic theosophy and was adopted by crowley but was not created by him.wicca was brought to the states in 1952 by brent gardner from england and the secretive coven,which had remained so from the eyes of the church for years,ex-communicated him for his revealing of their ways.
i would not call the artist and musicians who balked at the churchs authoritarian ways as demonic philosophy but rather a true hearted rebellion against the stranglehold the church represented on many who may see things different.
not everyone is god-fearing and the church has never truly established a concise and singular explanation concerning original sin and even if it DID succeed in doing that,chirst died for the forgiveness of those sins.so the point is moot if you have accepted jesus as savior.
again i find videos such as these highly manipulative using imagery and cherry picked material to promote a narrative and for the layman this video may be seen as informative but it is more akin to propaganda meant to frighten those who may not know the facts.
be scared of mick jagger..booga booga!

This is only a problem of definition. You're defining evil to be a universal attribute that applies to both God and man, but it doesn't. That is because evil itself is defined simply as disobedience towards God, and thus something only a man can do. God cannot disobey Himself. Nothing God does could ever be defined as evil because God isn't under His own authority. God is the source of the authority which defines for us what evil actually is. Gods omniscience is not violated because it not applicable to Him.

>> ^Ryjkyj:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'm sorry for making light of your nickname. You were however being pedantic by ignoring my entire response and centering on your rote understanding of the word omniscience. Why don't you read this and flesh out your understanding:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscience
Titus 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began
In regards to the capacity to do evil, evil is just the absence of the perfect and therefore imperfect. God could not be perfect if He acted imperfectly. Since evil is imperfect, God is incapable of evil. Does this limit Gods omnipotence? No..the question of whether God can do anything is tied into what is actually possible. For instance, is it possible for an evil God to create and maintain a Universe? I would say no because only an all-loving God could or would do the things which create and sustain it. An evil God would be selfish and unwilling to do those things, as well as limited in the knowledge it would take to create it in the first place.
>> ^Ryjkyj:
Making fun of my name, the first and last strategy of a person with no argument.
It's pretty amusing to me that you would pull out "pedantic" when your entire presence on this site seams to be based around making a show out of your knowledge. I'd say the one concerned with minutiae is the one trying to redefine the dictionary definition of "omniscient". A strategy which by the way, was conceived of by none other than the Catholic church when illiterate, medieval peasants started pointing out the fallacy of the "free will" argument.
Another interesting question you bring up. Are you saying that God doesn't have the capacity to do evil? Because then he wouldn't be omnipotent would he? Or are you saying that he chooses not to do evil? Because in that case, he'd have the capacity, which would make him both good and evil, wouldn't it?


Wikipedia is not used as a source by intelligent people as intelligent people know that it can be edited by anyone, including those with a personal interest. You are an intelligent person, so it surprises me that you would use it. Try looking at a dictionary.
And you make it very hard to respond to your entire posts as you spend the whole time avoiding the crux of the argument. If there is something evil that God cannot do, he is not omnipotent. If God can do evil but chooses not to, then he still has the capacity for evil. As such, if God is "incapable of evil", then he is not omnipotent.

Well, that's a bit brutal. Innocent doesn't apply to law enforcement? I guess the badge takes that innocence away? Who are these innocent people supposed to be then, since you specificall exclude all law enforcement?

Okay, so scenario. Female soldier goes overseas, and is raped by extremists. Now, in your opinion, paraphrased "boo fucking boo. He signed up for it. What did you expect?" That's sick. And no, that's not putting words in you mouth. That's applying your belief to a equal scenario, because "That's what they sign up for."

Does this mean *it does mean* any American citizen, who pays taxes and therefore directly contributes to the wars deserves to be blown up by planes? Because that's what we signed up for as American citizens who contribute willingly. Wow, Genji, that's vivid. So because one signs up for something it's nothing to be sad about?

You can try to manipulate what you said, but either A-it's full of hypocrisy, or B-it's completely insane. And my application fits. "That's what you signed up for." Wow. (Thoreau had some nice comments about taxes and civil disobedience. That's what I mean about willfully paying taxes.)

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since May 3rd, 2010" href="http://videosift.com/member/Lawdeedaw">Lawdeedaw & @<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since August 30th, 2008" href="http://videosift.com/member/Psychologic">Psychologic
"You're comparing self defense with law enforcement. One is defensive. One is offensive. Apples and oranges." - Blankfist of the North Star
~~~
At lawdeedaw, the daily threat of death is what you sign up for when being a cop or soldier.
Boo fuckin' boo if you get killed. You signed up for it. What did you expect?
If seven good police officers have to die for every one innocent person saved from a wrongful death, so be it. IT'S WHAT THEY SIGNED UP FOR.
It's not a noble profession if you can murder an old man whittling a piece of wood because you're too afraid to put yourself at risk for even a moment.
Risking your life daily is what gives those profession prestige.

See MaxWilder's question to me and my answer above.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

@bareboards2
Fer fuck's sake lady. Everytime you choose to whine about semantics instead of address the issue, I'll respond with "santorum stains". How 'bout that?
Why's it so hard to understand that I can't stop to get a statement before every question I ask you? [even if i did. you never give a straight answer anyway]
It's called making an inference from your past implications.
~~~
Anywho..
Like I said, the issue today is:
Why do you praise this video footage as public empowerment.. but view activists exercising civil disobedience as "dumb" or whatever exact set of words you used?
[I'd hate to infer put words in your mouth again]
I'm asking cause it's mind-boggling that you'd advocate "transparency" aka "waiting til some bad shit happens" first, over actively seeking a society in which something as simple as dancing would never be met with imprisonment or violence.

@bareboards2

Fer fuck's sake lady. Everytime you choose to whine about semantics instead of address the issue, I'll respond with "santorum stains". How 'bout that?

Why's it so hard to understand that I can't stop to get a statement before every question I ask you? [even if i did. you never give a straight answer anyway]

It's called making an inference from your past implications.
~~~
Anywho..

Like I said, the issue today is:

Why do you praise this video footage as public empowerment.. but view activists exercising civil disobedience as "dumb" or whatever exact set of words you used?
[I'd hate to infer put words in your mouth again]

I'm asking cause it's mind-boggling that you'd advocate "transparency" aka "waiting til some bad shit happens" first, over actively seeking a society in which something as simple as dancing would never be met with imprisonment or violence.

@acidSpine

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.

He is able..He could program everyone to never do evil, but then they would be robots.

Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent

He is willing to perfect you so that you don't do evil anymore, but that's entirely your choice.

Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?

From mans disobedience

I wasn't indoctrinated either. I am the only Christian in my family. I became a Christian at a late age after being an agnostic my entire life. I used to think Bill Hicks was wise too..but it turns out everything he said about God was just ignorant, perhaps even deliberately so. He just didn't understand the bible very well.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Thanks for that. I think I understand your position now too. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

In reply to this comment by Opus_Moderandi:
lol, immediately after I sent that mssg, I thought I probably should have said "Not that your position makes you a non-level headed guy." Sorry bout that. I always seem to think after I hit send.

And thanks for that out pouring, I think I understand your position a little better now.

I guess our difference is there are no laws or ordinances restricting what I want out of life for myself. In my country, of course. This includes dancing in a memorial, which I still am sure not a lot of people (outside of protesters) care to do.

You see this (if I may) as the long arm of the law reaching out and bitch slapping these protesters. I see it as the protesters stomping on the arm of the law and then pretending nothing happened. And I disagree as far as the use of excessive force. The one instance where it might seem excessive (that I saw) was due to resisting arrest, imo.

As far as peaceful disobedience threatening the cops authority, in this case, I think it was forced. The cop warned them not to dance. They went ahead and danced. He has to back up his warning or look like a moron. In front of a crowd of people, no less. So, I'm sure his/their testosterone level was peaking out. And who wants cops that are timid about following through? "Stop or I'll shoot! Maybe...."

Not all cops are good. Not all cops make the best decision regarding situational outcomes. And I will agree that a lot of them are looking to fill a quota. But in this instance, I sincerely believe their actions were warranted.

Not problem. I'm actually happy with your thoughts as well. I might not agree with some of them but, it's a good discussion, imo.


In reply to this comment by dag:
Wow, I always thought you were a critical thinker.
I'm so perplexed that you would take this position. <- Condescension is never a good way to argue a point. I'm probably as "level-headed" as the next guy, but much like yourself I have opinions.

My opinions are shaped by my life experiences. I currently live in a bureaucratic nanny-state. It's functional, and in many ways serves the public better than the United States - but I do now have a keener appreciation for the wilder, unvarnished idea of American liberty. Here in Australia we're mainly well-off. (by world standards) We have public healthcare, well-stocked libraries, good schools - and incidentally one of the highest tax rates in the world.

Because we're so fat and happy and lacking an underclass, not many care that we need a permit to have a protest anywhere, that there is no enshrined bill of rights guaranteeing things like free speech or freedom of the press - or that we owe allegiance to a monarch thousands of miles across the pond.

But one thing that really, really chafes my balls - so to speak - is that I feel constantly governed. There are laws and ordinances covering everything - and the government wants to know everything about you. It's all for my own good of course, but I fear stepping out of line, standing out and becoming subject to the scrutiny of the all-seeing-eye of the State.

To answer your question directly, I don't think that those cops were looking for an excuse to arrest them - I do think they were using excessive force. I do think that sometimes the best option is to issue citations and wait for the troll fest to finish. Cops rarely err on the side of non-aggression though, because they see any peaceful disobedience as a threat to their authority.

But speaking in general terms, yes, I do think that police often look for excuses to cite, arrest or otherwise assert their authority / meet their citation quota - and laws like this give them one more way to do it.

PS. Sorry for going from private to public, but I'm kind of happy with my thoughts on this, as I've never really examined them this way. Thanks!

In reply to this comment by Opus_Moderandi:
Yeah, I was debating with myself when (if at all) would be a good point to carry this conversation "underground". I'll try now.

Also, I hope it doesn't seem like I'm trying to badger you. If you don't feel it's necessary to move forward with this discussion, I understand. From what I know of you on the site, I believe you're a level headed guy and I'm puzzled that you see this demonstration as you do.

So, you're saying that those cops were just looking for a reason to arrest them? Then why warn them? Just to make it look good? I don't buy that. And, again, I have to say that if you put this up to a vote, a real democratic vote, the majority would agree with the law (or ordinance, what have you) against dancing.

And aren't most protests about things that have been going on for awhile? I mean, dancing at this memorial wasn't really an issue until these "activists" made it one. I'm guessing you'll say it was the cops that made it an issue but, I'm gonna stick with "They were given a warning."

In reply to this comment by dag:
I don't think that at all. At the risk of blowing away the new crusty layer of love and peace that has recently been established here - I'm against silly freedom-restricting laws and ordinances that police can use as an excuse to arrest people at any time or place.

If people are really disturbing the peace, use that. We don't need laws against dancing and we don't need laws against people sitting on park benches sans children (see my above link).

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:

>> ^dag:
A greater reluctance of the state to pass frivolous laws the restrict the liberty of the people. That's all.>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
>> ^NordlichReiter:
>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
>> ^dag:
Small little creeping, insiduous changes. Little prohibitions against little things. No dancing at national monuments, no burning old glory, apple pie must always be served with an American flag toothpick, and then slowly, slowly it becomes much safer to just stay home, watch Fox News on your jumbo Sony-tron and eat microwave burritos.

This is what paranoia looks like.

It doesn't matter how little the law is changed here and there.
If it's a bullshit law it should be challenged. This is the way Jefferson would have wanted it.
It's not paranoia. If anything it's democracy wearing a ball gag in the name of Justice and Tourism.

Tell me, what is the next step for the dancing activists? What will this great victory lead to? I'll tell you what, nothing. And a nothing that doesn't even deserve all caps.


I think you and blankfist (and the others crying freedom) believe that most people that go to the Jefferson Memorial go there to dance. They don't. It's just this bunch of "activists" that are concerned with it. The majority of people that go there do not go there to dance. If you were to take a vote, a public vote, passing out ballots at the entrance to the Jefferson Memorial that ask "Should dancing be allowed here?" I will bet you my firstborn that you will get a resounding NO.

lol, immediately after I sent that mssg, I thought I probably should have said "Not that your position makes you a non-level headed guy." Sorry bout that. I always seem to think after I hit send.

And thanks for that out pouring, I think I understand your position a little better now.

I guess our difference is there are no laws or ordinances restricting what I want out of life for myself. In my country, of course. This includes dancing in a memorial, which I still am sure not a lot of people (outside of protesters) care to do.

You see this (if I may) as the long arm of the law reaching out and bitch slapping these protesters. I see it as the protesters stomping on the arm of the law and then pretending nothing happened. And I disagree as far as the use of excessive force. The one instance where it might seem excessive (that I saw) was due to resisting arrest, imo.

As far as peaceful disobedience threatening the cops authority, in this case, I think it was forced. The cop warned them not to dance. They went ahead and danced. He has to back up his warning or look like a moron. In front of a crowd of people, no less. So, I'm sure his/their testosterone level was peaking out. And who wants cops that are timid about following through? "Stop or I'll shoot! Maybe...."

Not all cops are good. Not all cops make the best decision regarding situational outcomes. And I will agree that a lot of them are looking to fill a quota. But in this instance, I sincerely believe their actions were warranted.

Not problem. I'm actually happy with your thoughts as well. I might not agree with some of them but, it's a good discussion, imo.


In reply to this comment by dag:
Wow, I always thought you were a critical thinker.
I'm so perplexed that you would take this position. <- Condescension is never a good way to argue a point. I'm probably as "level-headed" as the next guy, but much like yourself I have opinions.

My opinions are shaped by my life experiences. I currently live in a bureaucratic nanny-state. It's functional, and in many ways serves the public better than the United States - but I do now have a keener appreciation for the wilder, unvarnished idea of American liberty. Here in Australia we're mainly well-off. (by world standards) We have public healthcare, well-stocked libraries, good schools - and incidentally one of the highest tax rates in the world.

Because we're so fat and happy and lacking an underclass, not many care that we need a permit to have a protest anywhere, that there is no enshrined bill of rights guaranteeing things like free speech or freedom of the press - or that we owe allegiance to a monarch thousands of miles across the pond.

But one thing that really, really chafes my balls - so to speak - is that I feel constantly governed. There are laws and ordinances covering everything - and the government wants to know everything about you. It's all for my own good of course, but I fear stepping out of line, standing out and becoming subject to the scrutiny of the all-seeing-eye of the State.

To answer your question directly, I don't think that those cops were looking for an excuse to arrest them - I do think they were using excessive force. I do think that sometimes the best option is to issue citations and wait for the troll fest to finish. Cops rarely err on the side of non-aggression though, because they see any peaceful disobedience as a threat to their authority.

But speaking in general terms, yes, I do think that police often look for excuses to cite, arrest or otherwise assert their authority / meet their citation quota - and laws like this give them one more way to do it.

PS. Sorry for going from private to public, but I'm kind of happy with my thoughts on this, as I've never really examined them this way. Thanks!

In reply to this comment by Opus_Moderandi:
Yeah, I was debating with myself when (if at all) would be a good point to carry this conversation "underground". I'll try now.

Also, I hope it doesn't seem like I'm trying to badger you. If you don't feel it's necessary to move forward with this discussion, I understand. From what I know of you on the site, I believe you're a level headed guy and I'm puzzled that you see this demonstration as you do.

So, you're saying that those cops were just looking for a reason to arrest them? Then why warn them? Just to make it look good? I don't buy that. And, again, I have to say that if you put this up to a vote, a real democratic vote, the majority would agree with the law (or ordinance, what have you) against dancing.

And aren't most protests about things that have been going on for awhile? I mean, dancing at this memorial wasn't really an issue until these "activists" made it one. I'm guessing you'll say it was the cops that made it an issue but, I'm gonna stick with "They were given a warning."

In reply to this comment by dag:
I don't think that at all. At the risk of blowing away the new crusty layer of love and peace that has recently been established here - I'm against silly freedom-restricting laws and ordinances that police can use as an excuse to arrest people at any time or place.

If people are really disturbing the peace, use that. We don't need laws against dancing and we don't need laws against people sitting on park benches sans children (see my above link).

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:

>> ^dag:
A greater reluctance of the state to pass frivolous laws the restrict the liberty of the people. That's all.>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
>> ^NordlichReiter:
>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
>> ^dag:
Small little creeping, insiduous changes. Little prohibitions against little things. No dancing at national monuments, no burning old glory, apple pie must always be served with an American flag toothpick, and then slowly, slowly it becomes much safer to just stay home, watch Fox News on your jumbo Sony-tron and eat microwave burritos.

This is what paranoia looks like.

It doesn't matter how little the law is changed here and there.
If it's a bullshit law it should be challenged. This is the way Jefferson would have wanted it.
It's not paranoia. If anything it's democracy wearing a ball gag in the name of Justice and Tourism.

Tell me, what is the next step for the dancing activists? What will this great victory lead to? I'll tell you what, nothing. And a nothing that doesn't even deserve all caps.


I think you and blankfist (and the others crying freedom) believe that most people that go to the Jefferson Memorial go there to dance. They don't. It's just this bunch of "activists" that are concerned with it. The majority of people that go there do not go there to dance. If you were to take a vote, a public vote, passing out ballots at the entrance to the Jefferson Memorial that ask "Should dancing be allowed here?" I will bet you my firstborn that you will get a resounding NO.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Wow, I always thought you were a critical thinker.
I'm so perplexed that you would take this position. <- Condescension is never a good way to argue a point. I'm probably as "level-headed" as the next guy, but much like yourself I have opinions.

My opinions are shaped by my life experiences. I currently live in a bureaucratic nanny-state. It's functional, and in many ways serves the public better than the United States - but I do now have a keener appreciation for the wilder, unvarnished idea of American liberty. Here in Australia we're mainly well-off. (by world standards) We have public healthcare, well-stocked libraries, good schools - and incidentally one of the highest tax rates in the world.

Because we're so fat and happy and lacking an underclass, not many care that we need a permit to have a protest anywhere, that there is no enshrined bill of rights guaranteeing things like free speech or freedom of the press - or that we owe allegiance to a monarch thousands of miles across the pond.

But one thing that really, really chafes my balls - so to speak - is that I feel constantly governed. There are laws and ordinances covering everything - and the government wants to know everything about you. It's all for my own good of course, but I fear stepping out of line, standing out and becoming subject to the scrutiny of the all-seeing-eye of the State.

To answer your question directly, I don't think that those cops were looking for an excuse to arrest them - I do think they were using excessive force. I do think that sometimes the best option is to issue citations and wait for the troll fest to finish. Cops rarely err on the side of non-aggression though, because they see any peaceful disobedience as a threat to their authority.

But speaking in general terms, yes, I do think that police often look for excuses to cite, arrest or otherwise assert their authority / meet their citation quota - and laws like this give them one more way to do it.

PS. Sorry for going from private to public, but I'm kind of happy with my thoughts on this, as I've never really examined them this way. Thanks!

In reply to this comment by Opus_Moderandi:
Yeah, I was debating with myself when (if at all) would be a good point to carry this conversation "underground". I'll try now.

Also, I hope it doesn't seem like I'm trying to badger you. If you don't feel it's necessary to move forward with this discussion, I understand. From what I know of you on the site, I believe you're a level headed guy and I'm puzzled that you see this demonstration as you do.

So, you're saying that those cops were just looking for a reason to arrest them? Then why warn them? Just to make it look good? I don't buy that. And, again, I have to say that if you put this up to a vote, a real democratic vote, the majority would agree with the law (or ordinance, what have you) against dancing.

And aren't most protests about things that have been going on for awhile? I mean, dancing at this memorial wasn't really an issue until these "activists" made it one. I'm guessing you'll say it was the cops that made it an issue but, I'm gonna stick with "They were given a warning."

In reply to this comment by dag:
I don't think that at all. At the risk of blowing away the new crusty layer of love and peace that has recently been established here - I'm against silly freedom-restricting laws and ordinances that police can use as an excuse to arrest people at any time or place.

If people are really disturbing the peace, use that. We don't need laws against dancing and we don't need laws against people sitting on park benches sans children (see my above link).

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:

>> ^dag:
A greater reluctance of the state to pass frivolous laws the restrict the liberty of the people. That's all.>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
>> ^NordlichReiter:
>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
>> ^dag:
Small little creeping, insiduous changes. Little prohibitions against little things. No dancing at national monuments, no burning old glory, apple pie must always be served with an American flag toothpick, and then slowly, slowly it becomes much safer to just stay home, watch Fox News on your jumbo Sony-tron and eat microwave burritos.

This is what paranoia looks like.

It doesn't matter how little the law is changed here and there.
If it's a bullshit law it should be challenged. This is the way Jefferson would have wanted it.
It's not paranoia. If anything it's democracy wearing a ball gag in the name of Justice and Tourism.

Tell me, what is the next step for the dancing activists? What will this great victory lead to? I'll tell you what, nothing. And a nothing that doesn't even deserve all caps.


I think you and blankfist (and the others crying freedom) believe that most people that go to the Jefferson Memorial go there to dance. They don't. It's just this bunch of "activists" that are concerned with it. The majority of people that go there do not go there to dance. If you were to take a vote, a public vote, passing out ballots at the entrance to the Jefferson Memorial that ask "Should dancing be allowed here?" I will bet you my firstborn that you will get a resounding NO.

>> ^quantumushroom:
War protects freedom from enemies whose only solution is violence, and who recognize no one's rights but their own. Thanks to wars promoting and defending Western Civ, this matter at the JM was partially settled by civil disobedience, with the rest settled by trying a stupid, micromanaging law in the court of public opinion. It was not settled by gunfights between roving gangs or SS thugs.


Violence begets violence right? Ever heard of blow-back? If war is our solution, then how are we any different than the enemies you're talking about.

as someone stated earlier, the point of civil disobedience is to NOT resist arrest. In the video that spurred this one (the one with the snap-suplexes and DDT's) the "protesters" are spoiled children, not freedom fighters. unfortunately what gets media attention, or at least, internet attention, are these asinine breed of dissidents that intentionally goad the police into arresting them, then spasmodically resist, all the while crying tyranny.

there's a certain dignity in civil disobedience, but these numbnuts (the ones in the previous video anyway) have none

i can concede to the merit of civil disobedience towards a law that may seem trivial, however, one would really be showing their ass to compare this particular incident to the civil rights struggle of the 60's. I think that could sum up my frustration with the discussion