Get off my lawn

You're joking. Right?

Go on with you. You must be.

Right?

No?

My experience with dogs would lead me to suppose they'd add to it. But my experience isn't so great that I'd ever consider peeing on my own carpet.
 
It keeps you from being so mad at the dog when it does it anyways. I've taken to crapping on the comforter so I don't skin the cats. My wife's counselor is getting expensive.
 
You're joking. Right?

Go on with you. You must be.

Right?

No?

My experience with dogs would lead me to suppose they'd add to it. But my experience isn't so great that I'd ever consider peeing on my own carpet.

I was kidding.

It also only works with male dogs, female dogs will add to it. Not that I would know from experience. Because I was kidding.

Right?
 
There was some conflict in Norway recently when a farmer, upset that dogs were chasing his sheep, took a shotgun and shot a dog who apparently had not chased sheep, and had brought his child to watch.
 
Alternatively, chase the sheep at night or in a heavy fog, impairing the farmers' aim.
 
I got all the sheep I ever needed in New Zealand. ;)

As for this entire thread, would anything like this ever happen in Norway (or another country where free to roam laws exist) ?

Seems like private property laws in the U.S. aren't as free as the OP would have us believe..

I would rather live in a place that's sparsely inhabited and has freedom to roam laws, rather than a place where the government can take your house away because your son sold $20 worth of pot to his friends nearby. or for whatever reason. And that's on top of eminent domain laws.

So which country is more free when it comes to property rights, Norway or America? And is "freedom" even a quantifier that's useful at all in this discussion, or just a buzzword that's thrown out by people when they've ran out of good points to back up their arguments?
 
All rights take a backseat to war, remember? And this one is war on both drugz and the terrorists.
 
IMakes sense to me. So quit your whining, America! You're good at some things (guns, sports, the moon) but bad at others (healthcare, politics, democracy, boobs, the opposite of violence).

That was quite rude! We're good at boobs!
 
That was quite rude! We're good at boobs!

Americans are more up tight about boobs than any other group of people I've ever encountered except devout Muslims. Flop out a boob to feed a baby in a room full of Americans you create more tension than if you pulled out a grenade.
 
Americans are more up tight about boobs than any other group of people I've ever encountered except devout Muslims. Flop out a boob to feed a baby in a room full of Americans you create more tension than if you pulled out a grenade.

By tension do you mean the kind that happens with briefs?
 
Americans are more up tight about boobs than any other group of people I've ever encountered except devout Muslims. Flop out a boob to feed a baby in a room full of Americans you create more tension than if you pulled out a grenade.

I thought me meant, like, the quality of boobs that come from here. I stand by my firm belief in the exceptionalism of American women's breasts!
 
By tension do you mean the kind that happens with briefs?

That's part of it. And the tension that that tension creates with your wife when she isn't the owner of the boob in question. And the tension when that tension is no doubt noticed by the all seeing and ever judgmental God so many Americans visit on Sundays. And the tension that tension causes when it runs into 'I am a more advanced modern human and I am not ruled by hormones' and what if someone notices that I am ruled by hormones.

And about ten thousand other gigantic volumes of incredibly lame stories we have built up around a boob...when, as Freud would possibly say, 'sometimes a boob is just a boob.'
 
I thought me meant, like, the quality of boobs that come from here. I stand by my firm belief in the exceptionalism of American women's breasts!

Without a much wider field of experience than I can claim I am unsure of this, but I continue to examine the situation as thoroughly as possible as opportunity presents.
 
That's part of it. And the tension that that tension creates with your wife when she isn't the owner of the boob in question. And the tension when that tension is no doubt noticed by the all seeing and ever judgmental God so many Americans visit on Sundays. And the tension that tension causes when it runs into 'I am a more advanced modern human and I am not ruled by hormones' and what if someone notices that I am ruled by hormones.

And about ten thousand other gigantic volumes of incredibly lame stories we have built up around a boob...when, as Freud would possibly say, 'sometimes a boob is just a boob.'

And a stiffy is just a stiffy.
 
Imo the right to roam can only work well in lands with few residents/km (or ones where the population is very concentrated); a lack of tourists is probably also a good thing. Ever since I took up metal detecting, I've grown more and more amazed at how much junk people throw on public beaches etc. And this is in *Finland*, which has a very low population density and hardly any tourists outside of Helsinki. Not to mention that our summers aren't exactly known for their 'beachy' weather (this summer being a pleasant exception). I can only imagine the mess if somewhere like Germany had extensive roaming rights... In the USA though it'd make perfect sense outside of the major cities. All that empty prairie and you'll get shot for 'trespassing' it? Give me a break! :rolleyes:

Tbh I just don't understand people who throw junk anywhere other than dumpsters. I've never done it once in my life; I'm on the fence about spitting my gum in the gutter. I sometimes do it but feel a guilty twinge afterwards. It adds generous amounts of hate and bitterness to my character to realize that if everyone were like me in this regard, communism'd work perfectly. Well -- not to say I work too hard for the common good, but at least I don't actively ruin it. -.- Can't we ditch these idiots and start a new colony somewhere... Maybe Alpha Centauri? :mischief:
 
In America, land ownership evolved in a much different way. The Crown sold charters to private companies to do as they wanted with their land. The Crown did not have much of a say until it seized those charters from the Connors and turned the colonies into Crown property. To further complicate matters, many tenants in colonial America were squatters, meaning they had no legal right to the land, yet because there weren't enough actual property owners to work all of that land, they were allowed to claim it.

There was no the tenants were given land from the Crown in exchange for obeying certain conditions- they were given land as long as they could come to America on their own pocket and claim it.

That doesn't sound very different to me. Just a different manner in which the Crown exercised its same radical title, granting charters over land to which it had acquired sovereignty, and deciding to not place many conditions on it for the purposes of those charters.

I should clarify, though, that I don't mean to say that each grant of land included an explicit condition that there might be a right to roam (it didn't in Australia either). Just that, given the basis of the land title was government ownership, such a condition certainly could've been imposed without tearing at the fabric of that private property ownership. And to deny that would seem to deny the very basis on which the Crown was able to distribute land to those who came.
 
Back
Top Bottom