FWIW I would also expect to go to jail for a long time if I deliberately lit fires outside my own property in order to cover up my other illegal activity, had those fires get out of control and endanger people, and then threatened a child not to tell anyone about it.
Militia takes over Malheur National Wildlife Refuge headquarters
- Thread starter Cheetah
- Start date
- Status
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
I'm not actually kidding. I would absolutely lock up people who talk on their phone while driving. That action has a significant body count attached to it. But then again, I understand that's a risk people have decided they're comfortable with. So while I absolutely hate the exchange of dead kids for driving while chatting, whatever. But it does probably play into my sense of bitterness that the mainstream is so willing to absolutely hammer away at minorities who create lesser risks for what are, to them, more core gains. But again, whatever. I obviously don't know how to communicate this correctly, or perhaps there is no way to communicate it correctly, which is why I can really only hope to shame rather than build mutual understanding.
No more than shoplifters are.
useless
Social Justice Rogue
But you're not even shaming people Farm boy, you're just making inexplicable references to rural (white) people being treated similarly to native american indians, which is frankly absurd, whilst claiming people who do not mourn the loss of any of these militia are terrible people.
Also anyone who kills someone through phone related driver distraction gets a manslaughter conviction just like if they drink or speed, and if they do any of those three things ordinarily they will end up losing their license. So um. Yeah?
Is the suggestion here that just as people who drive in a risky way lose their license, these firebugs should lose their right to use the land?
Is the suggestion here that just as people who drive in a risky way lose their license, these firebugs should lose their right to use the land?
useless
Social Justice Rogue
Clearly we elite city slicking folks just don't understand rural people or something, i don't know.
I mean, i live in the countryside next to a farm but hey what would i know
I mean, i live in the countryside next to a farm but hey what would i know
Yeah man I grew up on the bushland edge of a rural town of 20000 people what a horrid urban elite I am.
Even now, I'm in the capital, but we're the bush capital - a city where most of us are sort of at fire risk (see image below).
We lost 500 homes and 4 people died in the bushfires about a decade ago.
Even now, I'm in the capital, but we're the bush capital - a city where most of us are sort of at fire risk (see image below).
We lost 500 homes and 4 people died in the bushfires about a decade ago.
useless
Social Justice Rogue
Nah man bush fires are small things which is why only a few people died-
"Bushfires have accounted for over 800 deaths in Australia since 1851 and the total accumulated cost is estimated at $1.6 billion."
Oh
"Bushfires have accounted for over 800 deaths in Australia since 1851 and the total accumulated cost is estimated at $1.6 billion."
Oh
BvBPL
Pour Decision Maker
It isn't your inability to communicate as much as the emotional aspect of the issues here. One the one hand, we have people ostensibly supporting the Hammonds with the Hammonds' struggle with the BLM seizing land that has nothing to do with the BLM or the Hammonds' case and making demands that have relatively little to do with the Hammonds. On the other hand, you have people who would nominally support reform of federal mandatory minimum sentencing rules, the core of the re-sentencing of the Hammonds, shying away from that issue because the self-declared supporters of the Hammonds have a different stance as to land management. The latter group isn't missing the chance to make absurd claims about how the treatment of the occupiers is demonstrative of institutional racism either.
So basically both sides are so emotionally charged about issues ancillary to sentencing and punishment concerns that any rational discussion of those concerns related to this event is doomed by circumstance.
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
Arent there like better examples you can rally behind over this issue ? And more people deserving of your sympathy and deserve media coverage then this bunch ?
BvBPL
Pour Decision Maker
Sure there are better examples, but politics is frequently driven, especially at the initial stages, by close-knit, particularly interested parties.
Zkribbler
Deity
I agree with tetley that acting intelligently is immoral and maybe even unconstitutional. 
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
I'd imagine if your a non-white you can be arrested else its is a $10 - $125 fine which you are ticketed for.
I agree with tetley that acting intelligently is immoral and maybe even unconstitutional.
See what I mean? Whenever the government does something, then there "must be some good reason for it." This was a single mom, had to keep the kids in the car in order. They arrested her for not wearing her seat belt. Separated her from her kids, these same cops took them into custody. Supreme Court ruled that is okay.
I agree with tetley that acting intelligently is immoral and maybe even unconstitutional.
It's probably a fair point that 'it's the law' doesn't have much bearing on whether something is right or wrong, even if the law is, surprisingly, usually pretty sensible.
- Status
