Post #5,140
8/14/01 3:58:38 PM
|
yawn
Doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, intentional homonym confusion doen't get you anywhere
But just for grins, you say you can stop it. I'm curious how you think you can currently, technically. Otherwise you're just living in a fantasy where what you want to happen has already happened
Jay O'Connor
"Going places unmapped
to do things unplanned
to people unsuspecting"
|
Post #5,142
8/14/01 4:01:58 PM
|
Re: yawn
Otherwise you're just living in a fantasy where what you want to happen has already happened
That seems to sum up his counters quite concisely.
Addison
|
Post #5,155
8/14/01 4:31:43 PM
|
It's called "reading with comprehension".
"But just for grins, you say you can stop it. I'm curious how you think you can currently, technically. Otherwise you're just living in a fantasy where what you want to happen has already happened"
Hmmmm, did you miss the part where I said that this wasn't a CURRENT law?
Did you?
Is it even REMOTELY possible that you missed ALL of my posts where I said that this was not a CURRENT law?
Well, if you didn't miss those posts, why is it that you STILL don't understand that I realize it is NOT a CURRENT law?
I've SPECIFICALLY stated MULTIPLE times that I REALIZE IT IS NOT A CURRENT LAW.
There, I've even done it again. Specifically directed at YOU.
Now, for some reason, I have the feeling that you're NOT going to be able to grasp that rather simple statement.
I don't believe in Santa Clause.
I don't believe in the Easter Bunny.
I don't believe this is a current law.
So. If it is not a CURRENT law, but it is a RIGHT that is inherent in every person, what do we do?
Hmmmmmmmmm.
What do we do?
It seems an impossible situation.
How do you handle a current right that is not recognized by the current authority?
Well. You've got me stumped there.
I really have no idea how to handle that.
I guess my position is fatally flawed.
I guess I was wrong all along.
You two are right.
|
Post #5,159
8/14/01 4:35:41 PM
|
Whoa! Here's a radical thought!
I was thinking over it and I thought back to the other examples I had posted and I thought....
Well, you know how I was talking about people freeing slaves when it was illegal?
And how the US revolution was illegal?
Well, I was thinking, why no do something like they did?
Why not continue doing what I believe is right AND get the law changed?
Is that fucking radical or what?
Now, I'd still be a "criminal", but the rights I have inherent would be recognized by the authorities.
Gee, I don't know WHY I didn't think of that sooner.
|
Post #5,164
8/14/01 4:55:05 PM
8/14/01 4:56:03 PM
|
Been waiting for that one
I was curious when you would put all the pieces together.
If...rights are only expressable through the whim of those in power to grant or deny your expression of them.
and if there is a difference between moral righteousness and legal rights
and if you think a morally righteous thing should be a legal right
Then the only two morally right courses of action are a) legal change and b) civil disobedience. (and I mentioned a) a long time ago and b) not too long ago also )
Jay O'Connor
"Going places unmapped
to do things unplanned
to people unsuspecting"
|
Post #5,177
8/14/01 5:54:34 PM
|
I was much older then, I'm younger than that now.
"I was curious when you would put all the pieces together."
I was hoping for better, but it was just a silly hope.
"If...rights are only expressable through the whim of those in power to grant or deny your expression of them."
No. All that the government can do is to facilitate their expression or punish their expression.
"and if there is a difference between moral righteousness and legal rights"
Yes, there is.
"and if you think a morally righteous thing should be a legal right"
That would be ideal.
"Then the only two morally right courses of action are a) legal change and b) civil disobedience. (and I mentioned a) a long time ago and b) not too long ago also )"
Hmmmmmm, why don't you try doing a search on my postings about painting cameras?
Then check the dates on those posts.
Today, you arrived at "civil disobedience" as a means to achieve my goals.
Which was my original posting, many many many moons ago.
|
Post #5,181
8/14/01 6:09:28 PM
|
because
Which was my original posting, many many many moons ago.
If you look at my first post to you you said
"You cannot photograph me.
You cannot film me."
and I merely pointed out that I could indeed photgraph and film you currently, technically, legally. I didn't care if you would use civil disobedience or try to change the law. My only point is that you say "cannot" to what is currently very much a "can". and it's your use of a verb tense to insist that *right now* it cannot be done when what you really seem to mean is that yuo wish it couldn't be done or you'd like it not to be done or wouldn't it be nice if it wasn't done or whatever you really mean, your statement is wrong. That was it
Jay O'Connor
"Going places unmapped
to do things unplanned
to people unsuspecting"
|
Post #5,189
8/14/01 6:39:38 PM
|
You cannot shoot me.
You cannot stab me.
You cannot kick me.
You cannot beat me with a stick.
Ah, you think. But I can. I can't do it legally, but I can still do it.
And, under the correct circumstances, I can even do it legally.
Context, Jay. Context.
|
Post #5,161
8/14/01 4:41:09 PM
|
Too bad the posting lacks said same.
Hmmmm, did you miss the part where I said that this wasn't a CURRENT law?
Did you?
Nope.
Nor did I miss how you've stated it as the current case for weeks now.
Are you retracting all of those? (including all of those implied sighs and "will we have to do this all over again"?)
Cause.. either its one, or its the other.
Well, if you didn't miss those posts, why is it that you STILL don't understand that I realize it is NOT a CURRENT law?
Because until your posts about an hour ago - you've spoken as that it IS.
Of course, our reading comprehension is exceeded only by our memory.
Addison
|
Post #5,162
8/14/01 4:44:01 PM
|
No kidding
Hmmmm, did you miss the part where I said that this wasn't a CURRENT law?Nope, and that was my point. I said you couldn't currently legally or technically do what you claimed to be able to do (and yes, your use of language, especially present tense verb sense, was a direct claim that you could stop it *now*) Since you disagreed with me saying that you couldn't do it, I assumed that meant you think you can do it, so I asked how. Since you come back and say you can't do it legally currently, you've just agreed with my original point that you couldn't do it legally currently. Thank you Here's the process...a bit slower
Brandioch:All I can do is to stop them from recording my image.
Jay: Currently, legally and technically, you can do neither.
Brandioch: "legal" == "right"
Jay: I'm curious how you think you can currently, technically.
Brandioch: Hmmmm, did you miss the part where I said that this wasn't a CURRENT law?
Notice that your last line says the the same as my first? Incidentally, I asked how you could do it *technically* because I figured you might willing to break the law in a exercise of civil disobediance to claim your right. Now you have no technical answer and throw your hands up about the legal issue so your first statement, "All I can do..." is wrong, because you can't technically, yuo can't legally, and you are unwilling, at least based on this post, to cross the legal line. If you change the law in the future, maybe you can say uit, but as of now, *you* can't. And if you are unable to cross the line of legality to exercies you're right....do you really believe it?
Jay O'Connor
"Going places unmapped
to do things unplanned
to people unsuspecting"
|
