>> ^maestro156:

So maths ...
according to this website: http://www.csgnetwork.com/stopdistinfo.html, a vehicle slows at roughly 15 feet per second per second, which means in the 0.2 seconds that it takes the bike rider to discover that the truck is braking, the speed of the 90km/h truck would have reduced to about 86-87km/h
which means while the bike will travel 5m in those 0.2 seconds, the truck will travel about 4.8m, putting him 20cm closer to the truck.
Once again, too close for my comfort, but I don't think I'd call it stupid. Just risky, like base jumping and wingsuits.


Adding to the maths frivolities there are some factors that need to be considered....

1) It is a 5 axle truck (they usually have 18 wheels)
2) We don't know if the truck is loaded or not
3) The friction coefficient of bicycle tyres is about 0.75
4) The friction coefficient of truck tyres is about 0.8

If the truck is fully loaded the stopping distance is going to be very far - probably well farther than the bicycle.
If the truck is empty the stopping distance will be a lot less than the bicycle (18 wheels at a higher friction coefficient = stopping on a figurative dime).
So unless we know more information, the calculations are guess work with a very wide margin of error.

I think it's that socialism works in other countries, and works quite well. While in the US capitalism has become very predatory, everyone is out to tie you up in confusing deals and contracts or hit you with hidden fees. There's almost no straight forward business being done when it comes to things that are considered "necessities" by most citizens.

Healthcare, every one says they are doing what they do to keep costs down...overwhelmingly your experience at the doctors office gets shorter and shorter, they order more tests that show nothing and you pay more and more. Most doctors, if you have even the slightest cause for a test, they are off the hook for frivolous tests....you should be able to trust the doctor to have your best interest in mind and not withhold information to earn themselves referral fees and what not.

Banking, just look at all the fees fiascos we've been having recently. Then look at the mortgage situation, they were filling out completely false paperwork in people's names and submitting it. Now they are coming to take your house, whether they have a right to do legally or not. They aren't so helpful with loans anymore either, you'll find it more difficult to get a reasonable loan (than say 7 years ago), despite all the federal aid and such they took in.

Phone, you have so many fees on cell phones and landlines. They used to toy with area codes and have "local long distance" areas that would change randomly over periods of time. I remember a friend of mine could walk across the street and make a no extra fees local call while at his house it was local long distance rates. It's equivalent to roaming on cell phones.

Internet, not only are they trying to pass laws to censor everything they rape you on most plans. You pay the same or more for less every year as they over burden their networks and never expand. Then complain about all the congestion like they weren't adding more people the whole time and it's YOUR fault.

Air travel, you get felt up, treated like a criminal, and you better have a smile on your face while this is all going down. Plus pay extra for your bags, use special containers, etc etc.

The idea of capitalism is great, but only when the companies can't leverage their monopolies or size to quit being competitive and become predatory. And we have predatory capitalism, where instead of offering the best possible services for the lowest possible prices, you get less and less as time goes on for the same money. Or they offer a "standard service" but it becomes more costly as times goes on for unexplainable reasons in many cases that usually end up being "Rising costs" but no one knows where or why they are rising.

Plus there's more and more barriers to entry for small businesses who only make enough to support their employees. New required licensing for a job they've never required licenses for previously, minimum insurance coverage for their work, minority ratio requirements if you are working on something that is receiving public funding.

And then we have outrageous requirements for jobs, such as 4 year degrees for jobs that even 10 years ago probably didn't have those requirements.

Rising education costs which pair up with the above point, making it even costlier to simply function in our capitalist society. Less apprenticeships and similar training programs to receive hands on experience under a working professional.

30 years, it's just become more and more complicated to do anything at all many times with no good reason for it being that way beyond allowing a small group of people to exploit everyone else.

I really find it hard to agree with someone who argues that because it was made available you should not be upset when someone takes from it and wastes it.

I mean we're talking a lot of money here, and they turned around and paid out bonuses and went on vacations with that money. Never mind they pay it back without interest, they used the profits gained from that money to benefit themselves. And now turn around and say they need more cash to "create jobs".......what's stopping them from using bonuses and corporate vacation costs to create those jobs? A million dollar bonus would certainly cover hiring extra employees for a number of years.

What they are saying is, it's OK to borrow money, intentionally wasting it on non-recovery related expenses because it was offered. This is like going up to any take a penny leave a penny, free candy at the doctor's office, sample tray at the supermarket.....taking it all and being surprised when people are pissed off at you because hey it said have some. And this is maybe 5 bucks worth of cost at most in any circumstance. These people took billions, frivolously spent millions that has been noticed and who knows what they did with the rest of it. Then turn around and complain about tax rates and how they need more money...and try to use job creation as the excuse.

There's just no defense for that. Especially when you realize many of their lower tier employees are lucky if they are ALLOWED to take their vacation days, use their sick days, or generally use benefits allotted to them as part of their employment package. Perhaps discouraged to use their vacation days except for certain windows or threatened with job loss if they use bereavement days. It's OK if they take your tax dollars to go on vacation and get paid, but it's bad if you try to use the benefits you should have every right to use that the companies provide as part of the employment agreement. You shouldn't use what you are entitled to, but they can use what they are offered...to excess and then blame you for it.

They shouldn't just let these organizations fail, they should dismantle them whether by breaking them up or dissolving their corporate charter. Teach the rest of the pack a lesson in humility, you exist at the will and sufferance of the citizenship not to exploit them.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

If God indeed is God then would it not be justified? (I should qualify this with I am an agnostic atheist) But there is very little that separates a Abrahamic faith than a scientific one, or even logical one. Rational systems have undeniably "Chinese walls", as does science. Bedrocks on which are facts that have to be accepted that can't be proved. All people, every single one, lives their day hinged on "facts" they have no idea are "True" with a capital T. Everyone is living with some form of dogma. It is a new found arrogance, and perhaps in rebellion of the arrogance that "religion" has had for some time, that people who don't "have faith" are somehow being smarter or less dictated too. Many of the worlds brilliant mathematicians and my personal favorites were rejected by the world of "free thinkers" to the point where they killed themsevles. All their opposition died, in time, and their ideas only came into popularity after they were dead and in the ground. People are brutally unfair, not fully considering things most of the time...even those tasked with the responsibility to do great thinking. Seldom to people embrace the ignorance we all share, and instead bask in the differences.
One of my favorite quotes on the matter is this:
So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts.
-James Madison
We are all not so different, in the end...how could we be?
>> ^A10anis:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^A10anis:
I am an Anti-theist, in that the very thought of an eternity of cowing, grovelling, and being a slave to some celestial being is not one I would choose. It would be, as Hitchens says, like an eternity in North Korea. Be a slave to your god if you wish, but leave the rest of us, most importantly our children, to think for ourselves.

A lot of self indulgence and confirmation bias there, as much as some faiths religions (for clarity ) I would suppose.

No bias, just fact. Name one Abrahamic faith that does NOT dictate to it's followers. I choose freedom of thought, over controlled thought, every time. Religion, if is not stopped, will happily take us back to the dark ages. A time when they had absolute power over every aspect of peoples lives. Who, in their right mind, would prefer that to freedom?


What are you talking about? How can you rationally claim that "very little separates Abrahamic faith from science?" or that science has "facts that can't be proved?" BTW, you cannot be an Agnostic Atheist, you are either not sure there is a god, or you believe there is no god. Or are you saying you are not sure if you are an atheist..lol. I leave it to others to see the nonsense of your non-sequiturs.

If God indeed is God then would it not be justified? (I should qualify this with I am an agnostic atheist) But there is very little that separates a Abrahamic faith than a scientific one, or even logical one. Rational systems have undeniably "Chinese walls", as does science. Bedrocks on which are facts that have to be accepted that can't be proved. All people, every single one, lives their day hinged on "facts" they have no idea are "True" with a capital T. Everyone is living with some form of dogma. It is a new found arrogance, and perhaps in rebellion of the arrogance that "religion" has had for some time, that people who don't "have faith" are somehow being smarter or less dictated too. Many of the worlds brilliant mathematicians and my personal favorites were rejected by the world of "free thinkers" to the point where they killed themsevles. All their opposition died, in time, and their ideas only came into popularity after they were dead and in the ground. People are brutally unfair, not fully considering things most of the time...even those tasked with the responsibility to do great thinking. Seldom to people embrace the ignorance we all share, and instead bask in the differences.

One of my favorite quotes on the matter is this:

So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts.

-James Madison

We are all not so different, in the end...how could we be?

>> ^A10anis:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^A10anis:
I am an Anti-theist, in that the very thought of an eternity of cowing, grovelling, and being a slave to some celestial being is not one I would choose. It would be, as Hitchens says, like an eternity in North Korea. Be a slave to your god if you wish, but leave the rest of us, most importantly our children, to think for ourselves.

A lot of self indulgence and confirmation bias there, as much as some faiths religions (for clarity ) I would suppose.

No bias, just fact. Name one Abrahamic faith that does NOT dictate to it's followers. I choose freedom of thought, over controlled thought, every time. Religion, if is not stopped, will happily take us back to the dark ages. A time when they had absolute power over every aspect of peoples lives. Who, in their right mind, would prefer that to freedom?

@residue

I have several reasons as to why banning mobile phones at UNIVERSITY would be a bad idea and should never happen. However let me fully recover from being speechless - the alcoholics anonymous thing coupled with the phones in exams thing caught me by surprise. Exams are an individual test of the skill of a person using only their brain and whatever limited resources you provide, it has no place in this discussion and if you're an educator, you should know that. Let's not waste time with nonsense like that or frivolous analogies.

So, mobile phones are RIGHTLY removed from exams and they ask people not to use them in lectures because if you're making noise, or shining a bright light sometimes, it is distracting to your peers and the lecturer (which impacts on other students); one's own careless mobile phone usage hinders the learning of other students. Careful use of the internet on my mobile phone in physics lectures really helps me understand things at times - not to mention reminders and schedules for assessed work or reading.

At a university you are an adult, you've volunteered to attend, it isn't a school any more. Lecturers are not teachers and teachers are not lecturers; there is a world of difference. The lecturers at my university would certainly agree that it is not their job to make you learn, whilst school teachers have the harder job in that they in a way DO. Uni students are already interested by dint of asking to be there, school students are forced there by law and attend all subjects, not their favoured one.

Not to mention that university policies are DICTATED by students. The universities know that student satisfaction is what can make or break a university's reputation - especially for newer universities (ie. not historic establishments). I'm a student liaison for my course, meaning i go to question and feedback sessions from the students to the lecturers. One thing that gets lecturers listening is when you imply that a lot of students have a bad opinion about something. We've had many policies changed in the first year which has improved our ability to learn and solved many problems. Why do they care? Because if student reviews are bad, they slip in rankings, their uni appears less desirable. Almost all students would hate a policy of mobile phone bans, so you can see how it would go down.

"I know best how to teach students" is an old fashioned and i would even say negligent line to tow. I do not intend that to be an insult, i've tried to be quite polite here and have a civil discussion but i believe this is true based on my experiences. One of the key focuses of our lecturers is that lectures can and should be tailored to best deliver the course content to those present, that is why our lecturers offer us key choices and respond to our feedback, and i believe that is why our university's physics department is growing and becoming world renowned. I think that in all walks of life, it is wise to always be open to adjustments or improvements, and to never ever think that you have finished learning.

This is not important but i feel i should offer this information - i have a teaching family (30+ years in teaching, all of them), school teachers but no uni lecturers. My opinions on schools comes from my life with them and my uni opinions comes from my involvement with my uni. I hope it is at least an "educated" opinion, no pun intended.

/walloftext, sorry, but i did try to present my ideas and opinions well for you.

Haha, that's pretty funny. The people on the balconies have no idea. They probably grew up extremely sheltered, went to good schools (believed in their lifestyle & education) & believe success is based on where one works & the amount of money you have.

They see no problem, the only problem they see are the protestors, "Look at these uncultured, middle class monkey's... they dislike me because I am rich & successful, har har har, cheers guys!" Instead of "Oh shit, I'm pillaging unprecedented amounts of money from the people who do all of the actual work, I'M A A PIECE OF SHIT!! I need to change my fake, frivolous, meaningless lifestyle right now and figure out what is really going on in the world!"

>> ^Skeeve:

I can see both sides of the argument pretty clearly and they both have a point (though I don't know what the Fox guy means by "richness of spirit").
I spent 2 years making less than $20,000 CDN annually and I did fine. I never missed a mortgage/utilities payment, kept a (shitty) car on the road, had a smartphone, high-speed internet and cable tv and ate fairly well. I was even able to go out for supper or out for a few drinks now and then.
It sucked and, obviously, I would have liked it if I had made more money, but I was never facing starvation or homelessness, etc. If I faced serious hardship there were any number of things I could do (eg. cancel cable), and things I could sell (XBox, TV), to make my money go further.
While the system may be flawed, there are bigger flaws in the obsession with possessions and the brains of people who have no money but spend frivolously.


Now imagine if one of your family desperately needed medical attention.

Canada= you're okay.
USA= you're fucked.

>> ^Skeeve:

I can see both sides of the argument pretty clearly and they both have a point (though I don't know what the Fox guy means by "richness of spirit").
I spent 2 years making less than $20,000 CDN annually and I did fine. I never missed a mortgage/utilities payment, kept a (shitty) car on the road, had a smartphone, high-speed internet and cable tv and ate fairly well. I was even able to go out for supper or out for a few drinks now and then.
It sucked and, obviously, I would have liked it if I had made more money, but I was never facing starvation or homelessness, etc. If I faced serious hardship there were any number of things I could do (eg. cancel cable), and things I could sell (XBox, TV), to make my money go further.
While the system may be flawed, there are bigger flaws in the obsession with possessions and the brains of people who have no money but spend frivolously.


Low-income Canadians = a family earnings less than $20,000 with two children. -wiki

Oopsie doopsie, looks like you were actually middle class that whole time...

>> ^robbersdog49:

This guy, however much you may hate fox pundits, is making a simple point that's uncomfortable but actually true. There are two different definitions of poor, the one that applies to first world countries, and the one that applies to third world countries, and they are about as different as different can be.
I think he's wrong about the spirit thing, there are plenty of reasons some people have more money than others and it rarely has much to do with the person's 'spirit'. However, it's undeniably true that the 'poor' of America and the UK and so on are very, very much better off than the 'poor' of India or Africa.
JiggaJonson, while your life may be harder than that of others around you it's a whole world apart from the poor of Africa. How far do you and your kids have to walk each day to collect enough contaminated water to survive? What? You get clean water piped right to your house? Yeah. Poor. I see.
I'm not saying we shouldn't be helping those less fortunate than ourselves in our own societies, but I also think those people should appreciate quite how lucky they were to be born where they were born...


Shame of shames! You people and your hyper relativistic moral compass. What a load of shit, I mean seriously!

You do realize that one can treat any matter of justice and equity with the extreme relativism that you just have? For instance, I could kill your family and respond to your concerns, "Hey, lets be reasonable, I could have bombed a nursery, It's not so bad in comparison...You've actually got it pretty good."

Do you understand why you do a disservice to the norms of justice and equity by way of your extreme moral relativism? (I qualify it with extreme because of course our physical reality and method of interpreting it demands that we compare or engage in relativism to a basic degree.)


You probably don't, anyhow, I urge to seek the truth regarding how our current economic and political structures are simply, unarguably, morally perverse.

"...the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped. "
~ Last Speech of Hubert H. Humphrey

"A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members."
~ Mahatma Ghandi

[As a last point, I must add that I do not support in any way, the hyper-consumptive society, or the society stricken with affluenza, but such a phenomena is in no way an argument against a more just and equal society, but is in and of itself another issue all together.]

While I agree with you entirely, I doubt that's the point this pundit is making, especially when fitted in the larger picture, i.e. "lets tax the poor more, they aren't really poor, but don't touch the top 1%'s tax cuts".

As for "richness of spirit", it seems it's this pundit's go-to for disregarding people's claims (either that or he thinks the poor need more religion?):

http://videosift.com/video/Faux-News-versus-Dave-Silverman-Preparing-For-A-Crisis

>> ^Skeeve:

I can see both sides of the argument pretty clearly and they both have a point (though I don't know what the Fox guy means by "richness of spirit").
I spent 2 years making less than $20,000 CDN annually and I did fine. I never missed a mortgage/utilities payment, kept a (shitty) car on the road, had a smartphone, high-speed internet and cable tv and ate fairly well. I was even able to go out for supper or out for a few drinks now and then.
It sucked and, obviously, I would have liked it if I had made more money, but I was never facing starvation or homelessness, etc. If I faced serious hardship there were any number of things I could do (eg. cancel cable), and things I could sell (XBox, TV), to make my money go further.
While the system may be flawed, there are bigger flaws in the obsession with possessions and the brains of people who have no money but spend frivolously.

I can see both sides of the argument pretty clearly and they both have a point (though I don't know what the Fox guy means by "richness of spirit").

I spent 2 years making less than $20,000 CDN annually and I did fine. I never missed a mortgage/utilities payment, kept a (shitty) car on the road, had a smartphone, high-speed internet and cable tv and ate fairly well. I was even able to go out for supper or out for a few drinks now and then.

It sucked and, obviously, I would have liked it if I had made more money, but I was never facing starvation or homelessness, etc. If I faced serious hardship there were any number of things I could do (eg. cancel cable), and things I could sell (XBox, TV), to make my money go further.

While the system may be flawed, there are bigger flaws in the obsession with possessions and the brains of people who have no money but spend frivolously.

Profit means you are utilizing resources effectively. The opposite is net destruction. If everyone consumed more than they produced, we would eventually have nothing. Henry Ford accumulated a lot of personal wealth for his innovations, but everyone he traded with got a car and his employees were better paid than unions. You can pay a guy with a bulldozer a lot more than a guy with a shovel and savings and investment is what makes that upgrade possible. No business can force you to trade your production for theirs, only the government with taxes can do that. If the government didn't have the power to dole out special favors to business, would business bother bribing them? Lobbying is the symptom, the problem is in excess government power.

The thing that socialists don't understand is that the wealth creation is what's important, not concentration. In capitalism, 1 guy could have 7 yachts and a moon base, but if the average person has two cars, two kids, a home, and countless amenities, who cares? Without the profit motive, who would go through the trouble of inventing and selling anything en masse if your greatest reward is no better than someone on the assembly line who took no risk? If everyone equally has very little as the soviets did, how is that better?

But you know, socialists act like all megarich people do is spend their money on frivolous things. In reality, they have too much to do that. It gets invested in upstart companies who need the capital to express their ideas and by the end, most is usually given to charity. In other words, it gets recycled back into wealth creation whereas the government would just waste it on bombs and embassies.

Oh, and to the guy who said the FDA is there to help you from business, look up stevia and aspartame. Your naive belief that giving others the power to choose for you is a complete backfire that accomplishes the opposite. The FDA is bribed shitless into using their "protective ban" powers to ban, harass, or steal from perfectly safe competitors on behalf of their corporate cronies. Also look up all the instances where a company was sued for supplying dangerous or defective products. That's not the FDA, that's libertarian-approved courts and recourse dissuading fraud and abuse in the marketplace. It's not more profitable to take shortcuts, it's less profitable because you'll be sued into oblivion. Do some businesses die because their owners are too stupid to see that? Yes. But business mortality is good, we don't want destructive businesses surviving like a horrid government program can.

I can't imagine how difficult it was for the neighbor to deal with allegations of child-porn. That's the kind of thing that would leave a stigma on your career, regardless of later being exonerated. People are easy to convince of scandalous things. It's like frivolous sexual harassment or unfounded rape allegations. The accused is often judged before any proof is provided, and that judgement remains.

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.