House of Reps. member Giffords shot in Arizona today

@BillRM,

So, when this couple passes on some food - accidentally - that leads to the deaths of some homeless folks, and the city KNEW they were handing this food out without a license, who do you think the lawyers and family members of the deceased are going to go after, Bill?

C'mon, you guys need to put a little thought into these laws before just blithely dismissing them.

If these people feel that they have a moral duty to feed the poor, the right thing for them to do is get the health permits to do so. Not to break the law.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

Wrong, because the speaker of word is never responsible for the actions of others,

That is not true.

The one who falsely yells, "Fire!" in a crowded place, and causes a stampede that injures others, most definitely is responsible for his words.

And you cannot legally incite others to overthrow the government by force or violence. I posted the law that prohibits that. Try reading it.

4 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

If these people feel that they have a moral duty to feed the poor, the right thing for them to do is get the health permits to do so. Not to break the law

The Government making the feeding of the poor unduly difficult and/or expensive is unjust, and as MLK said "One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." The government has no right to continually add regulation to daily life, at some point the regulation turn into injustice, the government becomes morally wrong, and at that point it is OUR DUTY to disobey these laws.

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Lord give me a break you are going to die if you do not get enough food to maintain life period end of subject and as the city know that not enough food is being given out under their rules to meet the needs they are willing to cheerfully condemn people to death or at best ill health in order to made them safe from a possible case of food Poisoning by shutting down other supplies.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

And you cannot legally incite others to overthrow the government by force or violence. I posted the law that prohibits that. Try reading it.

Who give a **** if you are in a state of revolt against that government?

Our founding fathers would had been legally hung if they lost the war for example.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
If these people feel that they have a moral duty to feed the poor, the right thing for them to do is get the health permits to do so. Not to break the law
The Government making the feeding of the poor unduly difficult and/or expensive is unjust, and as MLK said "One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."

Laws requiring people who handle food to follow safety guidelines and be subject to inspection of their ability to do so are not unjust in any way. Nor are they unduly difficult to comply with. These are just assertions you are throwing up to try and save a crappy argument.

Quote:

The government has no right to continually add regulation to daily life

Of course they do. You are perfectly incorrect here.

Quote:

at some point the regulation turn into injustice, the government becomes morally wrong, and at that point it is OUR DUTY to disobey these laws.

Yeah, lots of stupid people say stupid things. Why is this comment any different?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

The one who falsely yells, "Fire!" in a crowded place, and causes a stampede that injures others, most definitely is responsible for his words

Only if there was no fire and it can be proven that he knew that there was no fire.

Quote:

And you cannot legally incite others to overthrow the government by force or violence. I posted the law that prohibits that. Try reading it

As you know from the rape thread there is a lot of bad law on the books, which I often follow at least for now, but I feel no obligation to do so.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Lord give me a break you are going to die if you do not get enough food to maintain life period end of subject and as the city know that not enough food is being given out under their rules to meet the needs they are willing to cheerfully condemn people to death or at best ill health in order to made them safe from a possible case of food Poisoning by shutting down other supplies.

I can't take this run-on sentence seriously. It's like a child typing.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Sorry dear heart I am living in an area where such laws had been used as a mean of driving homeless people out of areas where the power to be do not wish them to be.

Those laws as apply to feeding the homeless have little or nothing to do with food safety for the most part in my opinion.

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

The one who falsely yells, "Fire!" in a crowded place, and causes a stampede that injures others, most definitely is responsible for his words

What of the person who falsely yells, "no fire" in a crowded place and causes some idiots to try to return to their seats and are trampled to death by those fleeing the fire? Or those who successfully get back to their seats and are subsequently overcome by smoke or burn to death?

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

I can't take this run-on sentence seriously. It's like a child typing.

Cycloptichorn

For you I will try again.

The homeless are not getting enough food by approve means to maintain health and perhaps even life as demonstrated by the large demands for the food that does not meet the city standards.

The first concern is getting enough food to maintain health and life and addressing the very low risk of food poisoning should not interfere with getting the needed food to the homeless.

If the city wish to shut those people down then they had a moral duty to provide replacement food not forcing the homeless into more of a state of malnutrition then otherwise.

Malnutrition is one hundred percent sure condition to result in health issues unlike the government claimed concerns about possible food poisoning.

More then likely this is just an excuse to drive the homeless to some other area by means of hunger.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Quote:

What of the person who falsely yells, "no fire" in a crowded place and causes some idiots to try to return to their seats and are trampled to death by those fleeing the fire? Or those who successfully get back to their seats and are subsequently overcome by smoke or burn to death?

A very rare excellent point from JTT

0 Replies

@BillRM,

[img]Lord try looking up the term Tories just to start with.[/img]

right wing conservatists

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

MLK said "One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."

And he was referring to acts of civil disobedience as a means of protesting unjust laws--he never advocated acts of violence. And he said one had to be prepared to go to jail for those acts of civil disobedience. And he protested laws which were unfair to entire groups of people--not just laws he personally disagreed with. Don't compare yourself to MLK--there is no comparison to be made.

The government is not morally wrong to add regulation to daily life--it has every right to do so. That is one way of protecting the general welfare.

You just don't believe in the concept of an organized democracy.

And you're off on another rant about how the government limits your freedom. Jared Loughner probably felt the same way. Does every topic have to be about you?

2 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

And he was referring to acts of civil disobedience as a means of protesting unjust laws--he never advocated acts of violence. And he said one had to be prepared to go to jail for those acts of civil disobedience

True however Washington did not take that stand nor did Jefferson or Franklin or Hamilton or....................

They had no problem using force to oppose an unjust government.

Depending on the situation using force to oppose unjust laws can be morally justify.

Hell it can in fact be a moral duty.

0 Replies

@BillW,

Quote:

right wing conservatists

Or people like Firefly who think that using force to oppose an unjust government can not be justify.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

The biggest thing Firefly and Cycloptichorn are doing wrong is debate justice with rapitst who think is okay - now that just don't make sense!

1 Reply

@BillW,

Quote:

The biggest thing Firefly and Cycloptichorn are doing wrong is debate justice with rapitst who think is okay - now that just don't make sense!

Hello BillW the problem is defining terms such as rape............

Second problem is claiming that either I or Hawkeye is even under the worst of the current state sexual laws could be judged rapists.

Maybe under some future sets of laws that would turn consensus BDSM acts into rape you could nail Hawkeye and if you could somehow get having consensus sex with your wife after drinking with her to be view as rape you could nail me.

Neither changes in the laws are however likely.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
I can't take this run-on sentence seriously. It's like a child typing.

Cycloptichorn

For you I will try again.

The homeless are not getting enough food by approve means to maintain health and perhaps even life as demonstrated by the large demands for the food that does not meet the city standards.

The first concern is getting enough food to maintain health and life and addressing the very low risk of food poisoning should not interfere with getting the needed food to the homeless.

If the city wish to shut those people down then they had a moral duty to provide replacement food not forcing the homeless into more of a state of malnutrition then otherwise.

Malnutrition is one hundred percent sure condition to result in health issues unlike the government claimed concerns about possible food poisoning.

More then likely this is just an excuse to drive the homeless to some other area by means of hunger.

Thanks.

I don't disagree with your assessment, but it's important for the city to protect everyone - not just people who own houses.

I think the city would argue that there is food available through city resources and food banks for those who need it. You'd have to be able to show that this was somehow inadequate - not just inconvenient - to be able to prove that the city was somehow neglecting its' duty.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

And you cannot legally incite others to overthrow the government by force or violence. I posted the law that prohibits that. Try reading it.

But you have qualified that with the word "legally". Who said revolution has to be legal? "There are stronger things than parliamentary majorities" a famous Fenian once said.

If a revolution succeeds the illegality of calling for it is not only set aside but is praised and rewarded and made legal retrospectively. The other lot are then illegal.

0 Replies

House of Reps. member Giffords shot in Arizona today

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know