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.

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

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.

>> ^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)

Semantics has absolutely nothing to do with it. How could you even get that from what I wrote? I'm talking about laws and ordinances that cover a thousand silly things, trying to strap down all of the vagaries of human behavior. >> ^longde:

So you agree with the spirit of the law, just not the semantics?>> ^dag:
Yes frivolous, like this:
-- no eating peanut butter sandwiches at national monuments (to prevent peanut butter sandwich sit-ins)
-- All hats worn at national monuments must must be less than 12" higher than the crown of the head. (to prevent big hat protests)
The strategy of legislating the vagaries of human behaviour in minute detail is dumb, and yes bad for democracy and liberty. If people are causing a disturbance- stick with disturbing the peace.
>> ^smooman:
>> ^dag:
A greater reluctance of the state to pass frivolous laws the restrict the liberty of the people. That's all.
i just really really really wanna know in what ways is the law frivolous to you?
whats frivolous to me is the insistence that we be able to dance where ever the fuck we want. If you just have to dance to express yourself, thats cool, and im down with that, you can do that on the steps, then come inside, check out the memorial. but the rest of us that rather like our quiet reflections done without some jackass doin a jig.
btw, i have this unique way of expressing myself through defecation, so next week im getting a flash mob together to go to the memorial to leave piling steamers to stick it to the man for telling me where i can and cant expressionistically shit. We'll even clean up afterward so there's no mess. we're not hurting anyone

So you agree with the spirit of the law, just not the semantics?>> ^dag:
Yes frivolous, like this:
-- no eating peanut butter sandwiches at national monuments (to prevent peanut butter sandwich sit-ins)
-- All hats worn at national monuments must must be less than 12" higher than the crown of the head. (to prevent big hat protests)
The strategy of legislating the vagaries of human behaviour in minute detail is dumb, and yes bad for democracy and liberty. If people are causing a disturbance- stick with disturbing the peace.
>> ^smooman:
>> ^dag:
A greater reluctance of the state to pass frivolous laws the restrict the liberty of the people. That's all.
i just really really really wanna know in what ways is the law frivolous to you?
whats frivolous to me is the insistence that we be able to dance where ever the fuck we want. If you just have to dance to express yourself, thats cool, and im down with that, you can do that on the steps, then come inside, check out the memorial. but the rest of us that rather like our quiet reflections done without some jackass doin a jig.
btw, i have this unique way of expressing myself through defecation, so next week im getting a flash mob together to go to the memorial to leave piling steamers to stick it to the man for telling me where i can and cant expressionistically shit. We'll even clean up afterward so there's no mess. we're not hurting anyone

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

Yes frivolous, like this:

-- no eating peanut butter sandwiches at national monuments (to prevent peanut butter sandwich sit-ins)
-- All hats worn at national monuments must must be less than 12" higher than the crown of the head. (to prevent big hat protests)

The strategy of legislating the vagaries of human behaviour in minute detail is dumb, and yes bad for democracy and liberty. If people are causing a disturbance- stick with disturbing the peace.
>> ^smooman:

>> ^dag:
A greater reluctance of the state to pass frivolous laws the restrict the liberty of the people. That's all.
i just really really really wanna know in what ways is the law frivolous to you?
whats frivolous to me is the insistence that we be able to dance where ever the fuck we want. If you just have to dance to express yourself, thats cool, and im down with that, you can do that on the steps, then come inside, check out the memorial. but the rest of us that rather like our quiet reflections done without some jackass doin a jig.
btw, i have this unique way of expressing myself through defecation, so next week im getting a flash mob together to go to the memorial to leave piling steamers to stick it to the man for telling me where i can and cant expressionistically shit. We'll even clean up afterward so there's no mess. we're not hurting anyone

>> ^dag:

A greater reluctance of the state to pass frivolous laws the restrict the liberty of the people. That's all.

i just really really really wanna know in what ways is the law frivolous to you?

whats frivolous to me is the insistence that we be able to dance where ever the fuck we want. If you just have to dance to express yourself, thats cool, and im down with that, you can do that on the steps, then come inside, check out the memorial. but the rest of us that rather like our quiet reflections done without some jackass doin a jig.

btw, i have this unique way of expressing myself through defecation, so next week im getting a flash mob together to go to the memorial to leave piling steamers to stick it to the man for telling me where i can and cant expressionistically shit. We'll even clean up afterward so there's no mess. we're not hurting anyone

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

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.

>> ^raverman:
Of course you're welcome to like what ever you like. Liking something doesn't make it quality.
You can like Kesha but it doesn't make it in tune, or masterful music.
You can like Jackass because it makes you laugh but it doesnt make it cinematic excellence.
There are people who have dedicated their lives to mastering the techincal skills or creating quality music. And you don't have to like it... but it doesnt make their life and experience any less valuable.
You look like an idiot for boasting about a basic tertiary education and getting personal and pissy because people are criticizing music you like and is widely popular... but requires computer software to even make it sound in tune.


I am not "boasting" about my life. You are completely missing my point. I actually think my life is fairly mediocre. But the point is that I am a real person, and just because you don't like something doesn't make it any less valid to another human being.

I'm not saying that everybody should like it. I'm saying you are not the arbiter of what is art. It does not require talent, it does not require dedication. Of course these things help the artist express what they want to express, but any idiot off the street can weld two tin cans together and call it art, and you would have no right to say "This isn't art because he isn't talented and dedicated." Art requires only an idea and an effort to make it manifest.

You can say you don't like it. You can say you think it is frivolous. You can say that you don't relate to it on a personal level. You can say you think it is out of tune. But don't say "This isn't art." How arrogant. She could be strumming random chords and chanting nonsense syllables in atonal screeching and it would still be art if that was how she chose to express herself.

Excellence is an opinion. Good or bad is an opinion. Skilled or not is an opinion. Art is whatever the artist says is art. That's not up to you.

By the way, this is also 'Musical art': http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tS-VvIcfSuw

i HAVE WRITEN THIS FOUR TIMES !~

I dont know how to say it other than, No, you are wrong, nothing needs to change, other than people not calling frivolous dupes.

A dupe is a dupe based on criteria set forth, this feelings getting hurt shit over some votes.

People, we post videos here, your #1 or star point doesnt matter a shit in the real world and your feelings should not be pressed upon because someone " stole " something that was theirs in the first place.

annnnnnd

*scene*

Sounds like the illness in general goes along with what I've seen my brother do. I guess mono-polar means they are in a constant manic state or vice versa and never come off that. My brother is most prominent when he's manic....because frankly he's just annoying as can be. He can do everything better than you, but he never finishes anything. You can't talk him out of things, blah blah... He got locked up for a bit due to the drug possession and being on house arrest because of his outbursts in court. No one could stand to leave him in the house due to his constant yammering and then he started spending all his money on frivolous crap....canceled his health insurance that he wasn't even paying. My parents had me kill the internet connection to his room, the phone line, and started me on terminating his cell phone so he couldn't fuck up anything else. And before they got the cell phone away from him, he called the police on my parents. He was ordered by the judge to take medication, he eventually refused to comply and when my parents finally admitted he was not taking his meds...they took two days to come get him. During which he didn't believe it, thought my parents were screwing with him. He was shocked to see the police at the door and refused to leave the house for them because he was on house arrest. I mean it's like a comedy skit if you didn't realize that he was so totally twisted in his thinking that everything he did was perfectly correct. And it wasn't but maybe 2-3 days in jail after being removed from the house and held until trial, 5-6 guys kicked his ass. They broke his shoulder badly enough that they had to get a surgical consult and multiple scans to determine if it needed operated on. His arm was essentially useless for almost 2 months...he couldn't lift it much beyond his waist. And they knocked him out, split his head open on the floor..... he's still trying to get his case heard....that he should haven't been put in the public population since they had never had him in there before when he was acting in the same irrational manner.

Even now with treatment, none of what he did above is wrong in his eyes. He was in jail because the police decided to put him in jail without provocation. He had the right to spend all his money because he earned it, never mind he had a lot of bills due to all of this plus a tow and storage bill he still owed for getting caught with drugs in a vehicle that was my parents. He had the right to cancel his insurance, because it wasn't doing anything for him anyway. And keep in mind the insurance is what covered the majority of his therapies to deal with his arm...the jail would not repay anything but the initial visit/consult. He still won't admit that it was stupid as hell to cancel his insurance with everything going on and them wanting him to get medical treatment on his mental disorder by court order. Calling the cops on my parents for cutting off his net access, cell phone and telephone in his room......that was my parents fault because they violated his "civil rights". Never mind the fact that they didn't have to consent to house arrest to get him out of jail or that he was a TOTAL asshole during that whole period and for months prior. It was never his fault......and still to this day isn't his fault. Even for a lot of the dumb shit he does now, but at least you can convince him to stop doing it.

It's literally like trying to deal with a child or delusional elderly person, but he has all the rights of an adult and the physical strength to really hurt someone if it came to that. The police won't/can't act unless you have guardianship over a person in this circumstance or they pose an immediate threat to others or themselves. I saw the cops trying to help, they would try to insult him and push him toward action instead of words. To the outside observer it would seem like they were picking the fight because they are bullies, but the choice was "get him help" or "remove him from the house with no where to go in a really fucked up mental state". It was clear he would be dead within a month if he was left to his own devices, and the jail beating was just an example of that. People wouldn't tolerate his bullshit, and he couldn't comprehend any of it.

>> ^Sagemind:

Also to note: There is no cure for this this.
You don't wake up one day and think clearly - this is something that will follow him around for the rest of his life.
Yes, there are prescriptions that can be taken to help balance out the brain chemistry. And only if you can get him to take them. Even once he is accepting treatment, it can go sideways at any time. And when it does, it's an awful chore to get back to square one. He may never "Look Back" on this and see what we see.
Sad but true....

Just because it shows kids does not mean its meant for kids. This is the frivolous shit I am talking about. You people who just go throwing channel designation just because it coincides with a key word.


FUCK SAKE.

>> ^BoneRemake:

>> ^ant:
>> ^BoneRemake:
@ant do you really think its proper to place Faux News under the news channel? this is parody purely, in my opinion.
opinions?

Onion NEWS Network.

ol chap, I think the point went right over your head. Frivolous channeling. There I said it. It is not news, its fiction. Fik^tion Ul stories.


Even news parody?

>> ^ant:

>> ^BoneRemake:
@ant do you really think its proper to place Faux News under the news channel? this is parody purely, in my opinion.
opinions?

Onion NEWS Network.


ol chap, I think the point went right over your head. Frivolous channeling. There I said it. It is not news, its fiction. Fik^tion*Ul stories.

I often find myself thinking about words and phrases like this. It is rather weird how the meanings of some words get twisted around.

"Awesome" is another one that is interesting - it should mean "causing awe or terror" but it is rarely used that way now.

This may make me sound like an anal retentive English teacher, but it bothers me when I see/hear people use the word "excruciating" in a frivolous way. Excruciating comes from Latin "excrusio" or "out of the cross". The Romans considered crucifixion to be so horrendous that they needed a whole new word for it. So unless someone truly feels like they are going to die, they aren't in excruciating pain.