namelesstavern.net

And I quipped in with Thoreau arguing that if you consider a law to be unjust, you are morally obligated to break that law as an act of civil disobedience, in an attempt to get that law repealed.

-Arlos

My question is; if you spill a bong in your car going 100+ mph as you pass a cop, and the bong water hits the cop in the face, can you get arrested for assault?

Assault and Bongery?

-Arlos

or ADW (Assault with Dirty Water)

Arlos wrote:And I quipped in with Thoreau arguing that if you consider a law to be unjust, you are morally obligated to break that law as an act of civil disobedience, in an attempt to get that law repealed.

-Arlos

that's just retarded

there are other avenues in which to attempt to have laws changed rather than just breaking laws you disagree with

Harrison wrote:Being friends with someone who smokes weed, out of all things, isn't going to hold you back or bring you down.

Now maybe a heroin addict, or cokehead, meth addict, etc....

But a 20 year old, uneducated, know-it-all, fat ass still being tucked in by his mommy every night will.

Tikker wrote:

Naethyn wrote:An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.

fucking bullshit

that's the biggest cop out I've ever heard in my life



by your rationale, if I don't agree with any law it's a-OK to just go ahead and do it my way

like, let's say that I decide rapists should be castrated, and feel it's unjust that they just get prison. am I really expressing respect for the law by going out and castrating the dude on my own? (granted, a lot of people would probably secretly applaud the action)


law = law

99% of the arbitrary (legal age for drinking/sex/etc for example) and just because you personally don't agree with the particular law does not mean you're somehow entitled to just ignore it

I should have put it in quotes but these are not my words. Martin Luther King Jr. said this. I think he is right.

I'm pretty sure MLK wasn't talking about smoking a doobie you douchebag

Evermore wrote:or ADW (Assault with Dirty Water)

Is the next big terrorist threat going to be a dirty bong going off?

Tikker wrote:I'm pretty sure MLK wasn't talking about smoking a doobie you douchebag

I thought the scope of our conversation went far beyond a doobie. My mistake.

Evermore wrote:My question is; if you spill a bong in your car going 100+ mph as you pass a cop, and the bong water hits the cop in the face, can you get arrested for assault?

You should never throw a bong, kid. Ever.

Diekan wrote:

Harrison wrote:Being friends with someone who smokes weed, out of all things, isn't going to hold you back or bring you down.

Now maybe a heroin addict, or cokehead, meth addict, etc....

But a 20 year old, uneducated, know-it-all, fat ass still being tucked in by his mommy every night will.

How cute, he's stalking my posts now because I hurt his widdle ego.

Check your horoscope on how to deal with Leos on internet forums, maybe it will help as much as it did for your ineptitude with women.

Trielelvan wrote:

ClakarEQ wrote:Tik.

Tacks wrote:You know it's illegal yet you do it anyways, pay the price.

all I said is that you should do the same.

You both attempt to turn this into a pot thing, this isn't about pot, so apparently you both are missing the boat.

This was about law. This was about breaking the law. This was you saying I break the law, and I do, I fully admited this in my second post. My point was to prove that you are breaking the law as well, but you're both too chicken shit to admit it. Funny thing is, you've actually proven my point in my second post. You're upset because I'm ok with breaking the law /chuckle

I'm out for now though, my day is done, I'll check back tomorrow to see where this went

I think what you're missing here Clak is that Taxx is not talking about the word of the law generally speaking in everyday life.
Amanda asked a question, and his answer pertains to that.
If she is going to run for political office later down the line, will her current associations affect her later in some way?
The answer he is giving is "yes" - not because he agrees with the letter of the law necessarily (that is neither here nor there), but because it is what it is at this present time, and there is nothing anyone can do to change that, so if she is doing something that = breaking the law, then it is, in fact, breaking the law, like it or not, and that will color her character with regards to her future.
He's not saying that the law is good or bad, has worth or doesn't - the law, once made, is there until it isn't, and if it's broken, there is a price to pay for breaking it. He is stating fact - not opinion.

This women gets it. Thank you Triel.

Ahhh, but Tikker, Civil Disobedience is bound up into the very fabric of American political discourse, going back to the beginning. What do you think everyone was doing in the 60s? What do you think Gandhi did in India? Hell, what do you think Rosa Parks was engaged in when she refused to move to the back of the bus?

If you get enough people openly flouting a law, eventually you hit a tipping point where it becomes impossible to lock everyone who's breaking it up. As the movement gathers mass, it can (and in the past HAS) forced changes in the law, since obviously that law was in violation of the will of the people.

The PEOPLE have a voice, not everything always has to be filtered through politicians first. Violence in defiance of a law is not condoned, but peaceful CIVIL disobedience is sometimes the ONLY recourse when politicians refuse to listen or are too weak or cowardly to initiate the change. If you're doing it for frivolous reasons, then you're unlikely to have much support, and you won't get anywhere.

However, as Thoreau said, if you see a law as injustice, and obeying it would cause you to violate your personal code of morality, sometimes the ONLY moral recourse you have is to disobey the law. Of course, you must understand that should you do so, you will likely be forced to pay the penalty for it, but that changes not one iota your moral obligation. It just means that your choice caries a price. Gandhi paid a price, so did Mandela, so did Parks. Didn't change their moral choice...

-Arlos

Harrison wrote:

Diekan wrote:

Harrison wrote:Being friends with someone who smokes weed, out of all things, isn't going to hold you back or bring you down.

Now maybe a heroin addict, or cokehead, meth addict, etc....

But a 20 year old, uneducated, know-it-all, fat ass still being tucked in by his mommy every night will.

How cute, he's stalking my posts now because I hurt his widdle ego.

Check your horoscope on how to deal with Leos on internet forums, maybe it will help as much as it did for your ineptitude with women.

Nice try, fat boy. If you think for a single second that YOUR opinion of me matters - then you're an even bigger loser than I thought. Despite what your mommy tells you while she tucks you in at night... no one likes you.

Still going, little man...

Diekan wrote:

Harrison wrote:

Diekan wrote:

Harrison wrote:Being friends with someone who smokes weed, out of all things, isn't going to hold you back or bring you down.

Now maybe a heroin addict, or cokehead, meth addict, etc....

But a 20 year old, uneducated, know-it-all, fat ass still being tucked in by his mommy every night will.

How cute, he's stalking my posts now because I hurt his widdle ego.

Check your horoscope on how to deal with Leos on internet forums, maybe it will help as much as it did for your ineptitude with women.

Nice try, fat boy. If you think for a single second that YOUR opinion of me matters -

Yet here you are.

My magic 8-ball tells me you're a douchebag IT MUST BE TRUE!

Tikker wrote:I'm pretty sure MLK wasn't talking about smoking a doobie you douchebag

lolzer. This argument fairly well sums up my thoughts on this entire thread.

Overt civil disobedience is needed and desired for things that have a moral foundation. Ones desire to get stoned in no way gives one any higher moral ground here.

I do think the laws BS, but again it's not one that bothers me and in most places having some weed isn't a big deal. However, comparing it to civil rights or areas of society that really need reform is a tad whacked.

Arlos wrote:
The PEOPLE have a voice, not everything always has to be filtered through politicians first. Violence in defiance of a law is not condoned, but peaceful CIVIL disobedience is sometimes the ONLY recourse when politicians refuse to listen or are too weak or cowardly to initiate the change. If you're doing it for frivolous reasons, then you're unlikely to have much support, and you won't get anywhere.

You're mostly missing my point

I think it's hilarious that you want to compare smoking weed to legitimate social movements for law/government reform

that's just assinine

Tikker wrote:

Arlos wrote:
The PEOPLE have a voice, not everything always has to be filtered through politicians first. Violence in defiance of a law is not condoned, but peaceful CIVIL disobedience is sometimes the ONLY recourse when politicians refuse to listen or are too weak or cowardly to initiate the change. If you're doing it for frivolous reasons, then you're unlikely to have much support, and you won't get anywhere.

You're mostly missing my point

I think it's hilarious that you want to compare smoking weed to legitimate social movements for law/government reform

that's just assinine

That really depends if you think the government should have the power to dictate what a person puts in his/her body.

so you're in favour of a free for all on all drugs?

Naethyn wrote:

Tikker wrote:I'm pretty sure MLK wasn't talking about smoking a doobie you douchebag

I thought the scope of our conversation went far beyond a doobie. My mistake.

nope, we're specifically talking about smoking pot, and how some are trying to compare it to segregation

The government sticks its fucking nose in too much shit as it is.

The government shouldn't be told by a bunch of pharmaceutical companies what should be legal and what shouldn't for instance.

Same as the RIAA and MPAA etc.

Civil Disobedience!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree with Arlos.

Someone write it down.

Tikker wrote:so you're in favour of a free for all on all drugs?

The federal government spends 4 billion a year upholding a law that arrests more than 700,000 a year, and more than 5 million Americans in the past decade for a non violent crime.

Jimmy Carter wrote:"Penalties against drug use should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself. Nowhere is this more clear than in the laws against the possession of marijuana in private for personal use."

Should Americans protest a law that was drafted on:
Racism
Fear
Protection of Corporate Profits
Yellow Journalism
Ignorant, Incompetent, and/or Corrupt Legislators
Personal Career Advancement and Greed

I think so.

so yes, you're in favour of legalizing cocaine, heroine, hash, etc etc etc?