Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
I think he actually thinks that way.

It's astounding I know.

I can't decide if that would make it more appalling, or less.

 Mr Hyena wrote:

Is the concept of an unjust law really that hard to understand?

"injustice" is a word used by the guilty.

So the Birmingham 6 were guilty then? Despite being fitted up by a police unit so corrupt and notorious for fabricating evidence that they had to be disbanded.
How about Jane Cobden who was elected to a Council seat in 1891, and was charged with being an improper person to hold office as she was a woman? Despite the fact that as a woman she was not, at that time, legally a person so couldn't be charged as an improper person.

If we should be reporting all crimes should I report your post to the police, as it causes "alarm and distress" to me at the implications of what you believe? This makes you guilty of a crime, and by your logic that all crimes are equally abhorrent that must be pretty distressing for you, meaning I am also guilty of the same crime. See how silly things get when the law is involved. That's why it is best to have a sense of morality separate from whatever statutes are drafted into law.


On topic- Rather than the Third Amendment, would this not be covered under "illegal search and seizure"? I guess if 3rd Amendment cases are rare it gives it more publicity.

 dæl wrote:
So the Birmingham 6 were guilty then?

Yup, guilty of being Irish it seems

Ah yes, guilt by Irishness, my great-grandfather got chased from Ireland for such high crimes against the crown.

That's why internment was frequently referred to as "Being detained on suspicion of being Irish". Oh, and a riot is three or more people standing in a group in public

Well you know how it is, two Irishmen's a brawl, three Irishmen's a riot, any more then that is an IRA cell.

 Mr Hyena wrote:

Is the concept of an unjust law really that hard to understand?

"injustice" is a word used by the guilty.

Well. I know quite a few things.
I knew of a story of where a cop ordered a 10 year old boy to clean his car...
http://rt.com/usa/taser-boy-playground-webb-611/
Injustice my friend. The whole bloody world is reeking with injustice. There is only justice from the dead. Any system we create is corrupted by human kind. All systems are abused and used for unjust means.

Injustice is the word used by those that cry out against oppressiveness.

Now run along.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Well you know how it is, two Irishmen's a brawl, three Irishmen's a riot, any more then that is an IRA cell.

Hehehe

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Ah yes, guilt by Irishness, my great-grandfather got chased from Ireland for such high crimes against the crown.

Was his name Stephen?

Good one Ensis

Man, I thought the thing about not police in to your house for no good reason was weird, but now this.

See, I don't mind arguing a point here and there, but there's no reason to engage with obvious dumbassery.

There's like no rebuttal from LEO on this. Its like they're sticking their heads in the sand hoping it goes away. Mostly though I'm curious how far up it will go

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Ah yes, guilt by Irishness, my great-grandfather got chased from Ireland for such high crimes against the crown.

Was his name Stephen?

....yes actually. >.>;

 Monster Rain wrote:
See, I don't mind arguing a point here and there, but there's no reason to engage with obvious dumbassery.

Yeah, but it's a rabbit hole, man. You read an initial claim that's a bit extreme, but doesn't indicate the real depth of the crazy, so you comment on it just to apply what you think is a common sense, logical limit to that that everyone can agree on, and then they reject that limit, so you suggest another limit that surely everyone can agree on, and they reject that, and so on and so on until you're arguing with someone who's now saying Judge Dredd is what we need in this day and age.

Reading through the conversation everyone can see it is obvious dumbassery, but if you were there at the start you didn't know.

I'm going to um...stoop down.....why are you giving Judge Dread any credibility here? I pretty much ignore the comment when Judge Dred is in the reply....Same as owning nukes, landmines, flame throwers and other serious hardware in gun threads.

 Jihadin wrote:
I'm going to um...stoop down.....why are you giving Judge Dread any credibility here? I pretty much ignore the comment when Judge Dred is in the reply....Same as owning nukes, landmines, flame throwers and other serious hardware in gun threads.

Wait... I thought everyone needed flamethrowers to cleanse your house of Tribble infestations?

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

Is the concept of an unjust law really that hard to understand?

"injustice" is a word used by the guilty.

Sorry, but you're just coming off as some sort of extremely facist Judge Dredd cross right now.

Then again, considering what I recall of your previous arguments and political leanings, I can't say I'm entirely surprised.

I know Judge Dredd is intended as satire, but honestly, its actually a good political/social structure to adopt in context of a rising population.

 rubiksnoob wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

Is the concept of an unjust law really that hard to understand?

"injustice" is a word used by the guilty.

Sorry, but you're just coming off as some sort of extremely facist Judge Dredd cross right now.

Then again, considering what I recall of your previous arguments and political leanings, I can't say I'm entirely surprised.

I know Judge Dredd is intended as satire, but honestly, its actually a good political/social structure to adopt in context of a rising population.

Spoiler:

This one time I accidentally 30 million spiderman judge dredd

Flamethrowers are in fact legal in most U.S. States, so knock yourself out on that note.

 Jihadin wrote:
I'm going to um...stoop down.....why are you giving Judge Dread any credibility here? I pretty much ignore the comment when Judge Dred is in the reply....Same as owning nukes, landmines, flame throwers and other serious hardware in gun threads.

Sorry, were you asking me that question?

I'm not giving Judge Dredd any credibility. I was giving my sympathy to the people who got caught up arguing with him. Because I've been there, quite a few times just recently. Because you read their first comment and you think 'oh they aren't as extreme as that sounds, obviously they just didn't spend time fleshing out the logical limit to what they're claiming' and so you respond, looking to get that limit. But they reject that limit, and the next, and the next, and before you know you're trying to explain to someone why pot might be illegal, but you don't actually have to report your friends to the police for smoking it. It's a rabbit hole, you have no idea how deep it is goes when you start.

tldr - no credibility for Judge Dredd, and a lot of sympathy for the posters who got trapped in to trying to reason with him.

 purplefood wrote:
This one time I accidentally 30 million spiderman judge dredd

Was the power level over 9000, and was he a really cool guy and doesn't afraid of anything?