NationStates Jolt Archive

Who else thinks it's stupid that you can get hassled, IDed, and possibly searched for sitting on a swingset after dark?

What, were you prowling the kindergarten again?

I don't. I'm quite happy the government is suspicious of adults sitting alone on public swingsets at a children's playground after dark...honestly, that raises so many red flags that it would be disturbing if they didn't do anything about it.

I've been on swingsets with some friends waiting to go to a strip club and nothing happened to us. We even went down the slide.

The court ruled the cops can ask for your ID for going to your mailbox if they wanted.

I've been on swingsets with some friends waiting to go to a strip club and nothing happened to us. We even went down the slide.
Don't you know? They don't tag you until you use the merry-go-round so you are all dizzy and unable to resist.

yes i find it disturbing that, in essence, being outside after dark is so suspicious that the cops need to harrass you for doing it.

I've been on swingsets with some friends waiting to go to a strip club and nothing happened to us. We even went down the slide.

It's probably because you were in a group...it sounds like this person was alone, and I'd be pretty worried if I saw someone alone.

Around here, the playgrounds are closed at night. If thats the case where you live, you were breaking a law.

I was once searched for carrying a box of chips on my way home, the reason being that the Tory party conference was being held not too for away and cops were everywhere. I suppose the fact that I was wearing a hooded top at the time didn't ender me to the patrolling police either.

If I saw someone on the swings alone after dark I'd go and aask if they wanted push.

yes i find it disturbing that, in essence, being outside after dark is so suspicious that the cops need to harrass you for doing it.

Exactly.


The park is where I go often to think. I enjoy the night time outdoors, and a park is a hell of a lot more peaceful then streets and sidewalks. I am doing nothing wrong, I shouldn't be hassled.

I've been chansed out both alone, and when relaxing with friends.

It's a waste of the cop's time, it's an annoyance to us, it's the government being too pushy, in my opinion, and it's just dumb all around.

i think they were just doing thier job. how long does it take to show an ID? 15 seconds?

"Papers, please."

Remember when that phrase was considered the single greatest defining thing between the US and the USSR? that in America, one did not have to carry their "papers" with them at all times?

That wasn't so long ago, kids. Not long at all, unless you've got the attention span of a chihuahua.

Again, is there a sign saying you can't use the park after sunset?

Who else thinks it's stupid that you can get hassled, IDed, and possibly searched for sitting on a swingset after dark?

1. How old are you?
2. Where was the swingset?

hahahahahaha

joke is on you, sucka

In NYC, sadly, an adult MAY NOT enter and sit on a bench in a public playground UNLESS s/he has accompanied a child.

Too much worry about pervs grabbing kids and raping/killing them.

yes i find it disturbing that, in essence, being outside after dark is so suspicious that the cops need to harrass you for doing it.
Uh ... how is being asked for your ID "harrassment?" :confused:

Uh ... how is being asked for your ID "harrassment?"
One can take it many ways. Some ladies like a firm slap on the booty. Others, well, don't. :p

One can take it many ways. Some ladies like a firm slap on the booty. Others, well, don't. :p
( smile ) I prefer those who can take it many ways. Oh ... you meant being asked for your ID. Heh! Sorry about that. :D

hey the cops showed up at my wedding, aparently it's illegal to be in the park we were in after midnight without a permit :confused: how was I supposed to know that there is a permit needed for being on public property?

we didn't get into too much trouble the cops were really nice they just said "next time you get married in the middle of the night please get a permit for the park"

like there would be a next time?!

Uh ... how is being asked for your ID "harrassment?" :confused:

i thought that in the united states we are STILL not required to carry ID with us wherever we go and that we at least SHOULD be free from police interference unless there is some reason for the police to find our behavior suspicious.

sitting quietly on a swing in a park (as long as its legal to be in the park after dark of course) should not require anything more than a cursory glance by an officer on patrol. to have your solitude interrupted by an officer has no motive but to harrass you. its none of the cops business who you are as long as you are behaving yourself.

i think they were just doing thier job. how long does it take to show an ID? 15 seconds?

It accully took a while to run the ID, for some reason. But in the meantime, the cops was very plesent. He kept questioning me after I came back clean untill he got a call about 10 cars full of underage kids with alcohol in a parking lot. Then he told me to go home. I just think it's a stupid rule.

Again, is there a sign saying you can't use the park after sunset?

Nope.

1. How old are you?
2. Where was the swingset?

1. 19

2. About 15 yards from the road, with nothing obstructing the view of passing cars or people in their houses across the street. So a very bad place to do drugs, or any other illegal activity.

I haven't even gotten pulled over by a cop. I mind my business and they mind theirs.

I haven't even gotten pulled over by a cop. I mind my business and they mind theirs.

Although it seems that "sitting peacefully in a park after dark" no longer counts as "minding my own business."

Although it seems that "sitting peacefully in a park after dark" no longer counts as "minding my own business."

Like others have said, a teenage boy hanging out in a playground at midnight is a little suspicious. It's like ignoring some guy with a bazooka in a shopping mall just because he hasn't blown something up yet.

I dont think sitting in a public space is in and of itself provacative or suspicious. What are public spaces for if not for 'being in'?

I dont think sitting in a public space is in and of itself provacative or suspicious. What are public spaces for if not for 'being in'?

Socializing and enjoying. Brooding in the shadows follows neither of these categories.

Socializing and enjoying. Brooding in the shadows follows neither of these categories.

'Brooding in the shadows' can be a subset of 'enjoying'. Need we get out the Venn diagrams again?

'Brooding in the shadows' can be a subset of 'enjoying'. Need we get out the Venn diagrams again?
It's not government-sanctioned enjoying, though. S&M isn't necessarily pleasuring to traditional couples. I do so love metaphores.

EDIT: Or is it metaphors?

The park across the street from the hospital where I work is 'closed' after sunset. I get off work at midnight. Before I moved my ride home was through the park, it was the easiest route, shaved a half mile off and kept me off busy streets in a bicycle unfreindly town.

Sheriffs Deputies used to sit in the parking lot on occasion. They'd always say "the Park's closed" or something similar over their loudspeaker when I'd ride in.

I'd always pretend not to hear them and ride through anyways. It was a mile around the park and I figured even if they decided to push the issue, they'd never get around to catch me on the other side before I was long gone (there is a creek and pedestrian bridge in the park that kept them from following me directly through the park). They never bothered trying.

Sometimes you can fight the system and win.

Sometimes it's best just to smile and show your ID.

Like others have said, a teenage boy hanging out in a playground at midnight is a little suspicious. It's like ignoring some guy with a bazooka in a shopping mall just because he hasn't blown something up yet.

.......not an apt comparasin at all.

Socializing and enjoying. Brooding in the shadows follows neither of these categories.

I was not "brooding," nor is brooding illigal, to my knowledge. I was enjoying the night air. And acully, the same thing has happened to me while in a group. Not that it should matter one lick.

.......not an apt comparasin at all.



I was not "brooding," nor is brooding illigal, to my knowledge. I was enjoying the night air. And acully, the same thing has happened to me while in a group. Not that it should matter one lick.

You can't just declare a comparISON to be ... non-apt. Inapt? Whatever. The point is, back up your claim. You could have "enjoyed the night air" in your back yard. And did you know that drugs are often done/sold in groups?

S&M isn't necessarily pleasuring to traditional couples.

Are you implying that S&M is a modern invention, and has not been part of the fabric of sexual relationships around the world for thousands of years?

Sometimes it's best just to smile and show your ID.

Which is exactly what I did. Makes it easyer for everyone involved. I'll comply up to the point that they want to search me.


You can't just declare a comparISON to be ... non-apt. Inapt? Whatever. The point is, back up your claim. You could have "enjoyed the night air" in your back yard. And did you know that drugs are often done/sold in groups?

I said it was not an apt comparison because it was not. Being in a park after dark is not the same as having a bazooka in a mall. That's just silly.

Yes, I could have done so in my back yard, but my back yard as a very confined fell to it, I like the open air. But that is pointless. Just because I could have "enjoyed the night air" in my back yard doesn't mean I shouldn't be allowed to in a park.

Are you implying that S&M is a modern invention, and has not been part of the fabric of sexual relationships around the world for thousands of years?

Modern compared to how cavemen did it.

@Katazutkzube - Being in a park after dark and having a bazooka in a mall are both potentially dangerous activities. POTENTIALLY. The screaming shoppers don't care if it's a loaded bazooka or not, they just know it's a bazooka.

Socializing and enjoying. Brooding in the shadows follows neither of these categories.
Untrue on at least 2 counts.
1) Many was the time when as a youngster myself and a friend or two socialised whilst enjoying ourselves in the shadows.

2) Public places are places that are open to the public; no law or tradition establishes that one must enjoy themselves or socialise or enjoy themselves whilst socialising in order to have access to public places.

Evidently the analogy with the bazooka could only be called 'not apt' by someone who was determined to be very generous about the issue. Most people would call it ridiculous hyperbole and still consider their description kinder than was deserved.

Untrue on at least 2 counts.
1) Many was the time when as a youngster myself and a friend or two socialised whilst enjoying ourselves shadows.

2) Public places are places that are open to the public; no law or tradition establishes that one must enjoy themselves or socialise or enjoy themselves whilst socialising in order to have access to public places.

1) I covered that in an earlier post.

2) The police seem to think otherwise.

The only thing that pisses me off these days is when I get carded for buying a video game. :headbang:

1) I covered that in an earlier post.
Nothing I have seen in this thread 'covers' the point you refer to.

2) The police seem to think otherwise.
Apparently so, which is exactly the problem.

Modern compared to how cavemen did it.

So you are now equating 'traditional couples' with those couples which existed two million years ago?

To say nothing of whether those couples did partake in S&M activities or not: I am aware of no evidence to settle that question. Although, having said that, the existence of the Hohle Fels phallus does suggest that at least some of the troglodytes were not particularly wary of somewhat bizarre sexuality.

The only thing that pisses me off these days is when I get carded for buying a video game. :headbang:

That happens because of bored hippies who need to change something "for the better" even though everything's peachy. You'll just have to wait til they all die out from drug overdose and your grandchildren can happily buy Murdonia VI: Let's Kill Everybody.

So you are now equating 'traditional couples' with those couples which existed two million years ago?

To say nothing of whether those couples did partake in S&M activities or not: I am aware of no evidence to settle that question. Although, having said that, the existence of the Hohle Fels phallus does suggest that at least some of the troglodytes were not particularly wary of somewhat bizarre sexuality.

Tradition is basically following the root of something. The root of sex would be cavemen having sex. Like you said, there's no evidence that cavemen weren't massochists themselves, but I doubt they were. You know, too busy killing caribou and freezing to death to be kinky.

EDIT: Sorry for the double post, I'm juggling like 3 replies at once right now.

The only thing that pisses me off these days is when I get carded for buying a video game. :headbang:Oh shut up.

The day will come too soon when you wonder why the bartender doesn't card you.

I haven't been carded in years :headbang:

I am not old...

am not, am not, am not!

You know, too busy killing caribou and freezing to death to be kinky.

Free time enough to produce 8 inch stone penises and the Venus of Willendorf though.

Tradition is basically following the root of something. The root of sex would be cavemen having sex. Like you said, there's no evidence that cavemen weren't massochists themselves, but I doubt they were. You know, too busy killing caribou and freezing to death to be kinky.

EDIT: Sorry for the double post, I'm juggling like 3 replies at once right now.
Sex predates hominoids which means that sex predates whatever the heck you mean by 'cavemen'.
Not that tradition proves anything with regards to merit.

Free time enough to produce 8 inch stone penises and the Venus of Willendorf though.

Vibrators have nothing to do with S&M (well, not MUCH). Stone penises are just primitive vibrators.

EDIT: re...whoever said that thing about "hominoids" - Yes, but no creature but human is intelligent enough to even practice tradition, which is where tradition vs. modern methods comes in.

Stone penises are just primitive vibrators.

Yes, which belies your claim that they were too busy to be kinky, or does ramming eight inches of sedimentary rock up yourself not count as 'kinky' in your book?

Yes, which belies your claim that they were too busy to be kinky, or does ramming eight inches of sedimentary rock up yourself not count as 'kinky' in your book?

Masturbation is not kinky. And remember that most cave women probably had severe arthritis from...whatever it is cave women do.

EDIT: re...whoever said that thing about "hominoids" - Yes, but no creature but human is intelligent enough to even practice tradition, which is where tradition vs. modern methods comes in.

The fact that many animals display behaviour that they have learned from their elders shows this to be false.

The fact that many animals display behaviour that they have learned from their elders shows this to be false.

Animal behavior = instinct in almost every case. Scratch that, every case.

EDIT: re...whoever said that thing about "hominoids" - Yes, but no creature but human is intelligent enough to even practice tradition, which is where tradition vs. modern methods comes in.
Wrong again.

Masturbation is not kinky.

Masturbation qua masturbation is not kinky, but the methods used can be.

Wrong again.

Your compelling and involved argument has given me a lot to think about.

EDIT: Re Bodies - If there is no alternative, then can it really be called kinky? Kinkiness is going out of your way to experience sexual pleasure in bizarre means. If your fingers are too sore to "use" and the only tools you have are made of stone, what else are you supposed to do? The men are all out hunting.

If your fingers are too sore to "use" and the only tools you have are made of stone, what else are you supposed to do? The men are all out hunting.

So you fingers are too sore for a touch of flesh on flesh stimulation, but not too sore to knock off this by smashing stones together...?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/05/sci_nat_enl_1122302809/img/laun.jpg

Hardly something you would knock off in a spare few minutes in order to spare your fingertips.

So you fingers are too sore for a touch of flesh on flesh stimulation, but not too sore to knock off this by smashing stones together...?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/05/sci_nat_enl_1122302809/img/laun.jpg

Hardly something you would knock off in a spare few minutes in order to spare your fingertips.

Have you ever tried giving a girl a hand job? It cramps the HELL out of even the most healthy hands. Of course I might have been doing it wrong or something, but I cannot imagine trying to do that after a day of preparing tough boar meat with disease-ridden fingers.

On another note, this thread is getting not only very off-topic but also quite gross.

Your compelling and involved argument has given me a lot to think about.

That doesnt surprise me, after all it's exactly as substantive as your own.
You made an assertion, until you've provided some kind of argument that gives the assertion substance, what is there for people with an opposing view point to counter. An assertion 'it is so' devoid of any argument demonstrating as much is adequately countered by any contrary assertion since the onus is on the person proposing a point of fact to prove that point of fact before any onus can devolve to nay-sayers to disprove the point. Until you've made a point, there's actually nothing to be disproven.

Modern compared to how cavemen did it.

@Katazutkzube - Being in a park after dark and having a bazooka in a mall are both potentially dangerous activities. POTENTIALLY. The screaming shoppers don't care if it's a loaded bazooka or not, they just know it's a bazooka.

If you can't be bothered to spell my name right, at least have the respect to copy and paste it.

You still are not showing a valid comparison. Walking down the street is a potentially dangerous activity. Playing sports is WAY more potentially dangerous then sitting in a park after dark. EVERYTHING is a potentially dangerous actity, it's just too broad of a catigory.


Animal behavior = instinct in almost every case. Scratch that, every case.

Wrong. Many species have the ability to learn.

That doesnt surprise me, after all it's exactly as substantive as your own.
You made an assertion, until you've provided some kind of argument that gives the assertion substance, what is there for people with an opposing view point to counter. An assertion 'it is so' devoid of any argument demonstrating as much is adequately countered by any contrary assertion since the onus is on the person proposing a point of fact to prove that point of fact before any onus can devolve to nay-sayers to disprove the point. Until you've made a point, there's actually nothing to be disproven.

If my statement was as empty and worthless as you say, would it have completely derailed this thread? Would opposition against it have any TRUE purpose? I'm not claiming that my argument was 100% infallible, but an empty comment certainly wouldn't have sparked this.

EDIT: Re whoever - Dangerous to the public, not dangerous to you. It's not like the cops thought "OH MY GOD THAT GUY MIGHT FALL AND BREAK HIS LEG!"

Also, adaptation =/= tradition.

Have you ever tried giving a girl a hand job? It cramps the HELL out of even the most healthy hands. Of course I might have been doing it wrong or something, but I cannot imagine trying to do that after a day of preparing tough boar meat with disease-ridden fingers.

Whereas creating finely crafted and polished stone artifacts by smashing one rock off another repeatedly is like running your hands over silken sheets?

Whereas creating finely crafted and polished stone artifacts by smashing one rock off another repeatedly is like running your hands over silken sheets?

For all we know, the polishing and finishing touches could be the result of erosion. An 8 inch long rock isn't the rarest thing in the entire world.

If my statement was as empty and worthless as you say, would it have completely derailed this thread?
Strawman; it didnt completely derail the thread.
The comment in question is this one
no creature but human is intelligent enough to even practice tradition, which is where tradition vs. modern methods comes in.
At the time I am writing this it had illicited exactly two responses including my own 'wrong'....

Would opposition against it have any TRUE purpose? I'm not claiming that my argument was 100% infallible, but an empty comment certainly wouldn't have sparked this.
Except the empty comment only 'sparked' two responses at the time of my writing this.

EDIT: Re whoever - Dangerous to the public, not dangerous to you. It's not like the cops thought "OH MY GOD THAT GUY MIGHT FALL AND BREAK HIS LEG!"
Most people who have 4 limbs and normal use of those 4 limbs can be dangerous to other people. Your analogy with the bazooka was empty and ridiculous at best.

Also, adaptation =/= tradition.
No kidding.

Strawman; it didnt completely derail the thread.
The comment in question is this one

At the time I am writing this it had illicited exactly two responses including my own 'wrong'....


Except the empty comment only 'sparked' two responses at the time of my writing this.


Most people who have 4 limbs and normal use of those 4 limbs can be dangerous to other people. Your analogy with the bazooka was empty and ridiculous at best.


No kidding.

My reply might sound kind of weird because of how many quotes you had in that post, but I'll try to make due...

A) Not only did it spark two responses, it killed off all the rest.

B) Ah, but that's like saying a man in a field with a bazooka is exactly as dangerous as a man in a mall with a bazooka. Being deadly means nothing if there's nobody around to experience it. And I'm guessing there are far more people to ambush in a public place at night than there are inside your house.

C) Indeed.

EDIT: Re whoever - Dangerous to the public, not dangerous to you. It's not like the cops thought "OH MY GOD THAT GUY MIGHT FALL AND BREAK HIS LEG!"

Just say "kat" or copy and paste.

Walking down the street is dangerous to others. I could go apeshit and beat the crap out of the next guy I see. I can hurt others while playing sports. I could hurt others while trimming my bushes. I could go after some with whatever object I happen to have in my hands at any number of situations.

The level of threat posed by being in a park (minimal to non-existant) is nowhere near the level of threat posed by me having a bazooka in a shopping mall. I don't see why you can't wrap your head around that.

Ah, but that's like saying a man in a field with a bazooka is exactly as dangerous as a man in a mall with a bazooka. Being deadly means nothing if there's nobody around to experience it. And I'm guessing there are far more people to ambush in a public place at night than there are inside your house

In which case, me being in a deserted park at night is less of a threat then me being in a mall in the daytime, or walking down the street at night, as I encounter more people I can to harm to in both of those situations.

Just say "kat" or copy and paste.

Walking down the street is dangerous to others. I could go apeshit and beat the crap out of the next guy I see. I can hurt others while playing sports. I could hurt others while trimming my bushes. I could go after some with whatever object I happen to have in my hands at any number of situations.

The level of threat posed by being in a park (minimal to non-existant) is nowhere near the level of threat posed by me having a bazooka in a shopping mall. I don't see why you can't wrap your head around that.

I'm not saying it is. But the comparison is that vs being in your house/backyard. You have to think of it the way the cops do. Their SOLE PURPOSE is to protect innocents and uphold the law. So obviously they're going to blow things out of proportion. If you were to deal drugs or something because they just let you stay where you were, they'd be out a job.

EDIT: Re post 2 - None of those things imply waiting in ambush or waiting for a "client", though.

I'm not saying it is. But the comparison is that vs being in your house/backyard. You have to think of it the way the cops do. Their SOLE PURPOSE is to protect innocents and uphold the law. So obviously they're going to blow things out of proportion. If you were to deal drugs or something because they just let you stay where you were, they'd be out a job.

EDIT: Re post 2 - None of those things imply waiting in ambush or waiting for a "client", though.

Accully, for several pages you were arguing that your bazooka comparison is apt.

The only way they'd be out of a job would be if everyone stopped dealing drugs and committing crimes.

You have given me no justfication why the cops have a right to tell me where I can and cannot go and be on public property when I am not a threat to anyone.

Accully, for several pages you were arguing that your bazooka comparison is apt.

The only way they'd be out of a job would be if everyone stopped dealing drugs and committing crimes.

You have given me no justfication why the cops have a right to tell me where I can and cannot go and be on public property when I am not a threat to anyone.
If a cop sees you being suspicious, ignores you, then you do a crime, the cop is going to get fired for negligence.

And my bazooka comparison IS apt if you blow things out of proportion...like a cop would. It's a matter of perspective.

EDIT: Re post 2 - None of those things imply waiting in ambush or waiting for a "client", though.

Neither does sitting in a park, any more so then standing on a street corner.

Besides, just because someone else might do something bad is not an excsuse to ban a perfectly legitimate activity.

Neither does sitting in a park, any more so then standing on a street corner.

Besides, just because someone else might do something bad is not an excsuse to ban a perfectly legitimate activity.

I'd say sitting in a dark park implies both of those things quite well. I mean, what else IS ambush besides waiting in a dark deserted place for somebody?

If a cop sees you being suspicious, ignores you, then you do a crime, the cop is going to get fired for negligence.

Not really. Besides, the deifinition of suspicious you are using is entirly too broad.

Not really. Besides, the deifinition of suspicious you are using is entirly too broad.

It's obviously the same definition they use.

I'd say sitting in a dark park implies both of those things quite well. I mean, what else IS ambush besides waiting in a dark deserted place for somebody?

I could ambush someone anywhere. And I direct you to my next statement:

"Besides, just because someone else might do something bad is not an excsuse to ban a perfectly legitimate activity."


In addition to that, if I was going to ambush someone, I would not have been out in the open like that. I would have been on the dark trail that you can't see clearly from the street and houses across the street.


I don't apreciate being treated like a criminal when I am doing nothing overly suspicious.

My reply might sound kind of weird because of how many quotes you had in that post, but I'll try to make due...

A) Not only did it spark two responses, it killed off all the rest.
Utterly untrue.
The comment being referred to is this one (made by you in post # 47)
no creature but human is intelligent enough to even practice tradition, which is where tradition vs. modern methods comes in.
At the time I commented (in post 62) that it had illicited only a couple of posts, it had illicited exactly 3 inlucing my own wrong (I missed one the first time I checked and earlier claimed it had illicited only 2 responces, in fact it had illicited 3), namely in posts 50, 52 and 58. Although other comments of yours were also under discussion the particular comment that I stated was without substance had illicited only 3 responses. You think otherwise, specify the post #'s or quote the posts.

B) Ah, but that's like saying a man in a field with a bazooka is exactly as dangerous as a man in a mall with a bazooka. Being deadly means nothing if there's nobody around to experience it. And I'm guessing there are far more people to ambush in a public place at night than there are inside your house.
No actually it's more like stating that a person with a bazooka in a mall is like a person sitting on a swing set at midnight, which is to say pretty darn silly really....perhaps now the point begins to dawn on you?
[quote[indeed.[/QUOTE]
Which is why those of us who actually know what we are talking know why it has been (very convincingly) argued by primatologists that humans are not the only animals to demonstrate tradition.

I could ambush someone anywhere. And I direct you to my next statement:

"Besides, just because someone else might do something bad is not an excsuse to ban a perfectly legitimate activity."


In addition to that, if I was going to ambush someone, I would not have been out in the open like that. I would have been on the dark trail that you can't see clearly from the street and houses across the street.


I don't apreciate being treated like a criminal when I am doing nothing overly suspicious.

Women and children rarely hike through haunted forests. People don't ambush lumberjacks, they ambush helpless people.

It's obviously the same definition they use.

And the point of this whole thread is that that definition (the one they use) is flawed because it is too broad.

Utterly untrue.
The comment being referred to is this one (made by you in post # 47)
no creature but human is intelligent enough to even practice tradition, which is where tradition vs. modern methods comes in.
At the time I commented (in post 62) that it had illicited only a couple of posts, it had illicited exactly 3 inlucing my own wrong (I missed one the first time I checked and earlier claimed it had illicited only 2 responces, in fact it had illicited 3), namely in posts 50, 52 and 58. Although other comments of yours were also under discussion the particular comment that I stated was without substance had illicited only 3 responses. You think otherwise, specify the post #'s or quote the posts.


No actually it's more like stating that a person with a bazooka in a mall is like a person sitting on a swing set at midnight, which is to say pretty darn silly really....perhaps now the point begins to dawn on you?

Which is why those of us who actually know what we are talking know why it has been (very convincingly) argued by primatologists that humans are not the only animals to demonstrate tradition.

I see what you're trying to do. You're trying to make my eyes strain to the point of blindness. Fine, have your win. You refuse to see that I am exaggerating to make a point of how police exaggerate, and I frankly don't care any more.

And the point of this whole thread is that that definition (the one they use) is flawed because it is too broad.

Who are you to say? Less oppression means more crime. We have plenty of crime and plenty of freedom. You have to trade freedom for safety, as I said.

"Women and children rarely hike through haunted forests. People don't ambush lumberjacks, they ambush helpless people."

Did I say haunted forrest? No, I said path through the park which is dark at night and can't be seen from the street.

People also don't ambush in clear view of passers by, which is where the swing set was.

Women and children also stay out of the park after dark.

Who are you to say? Less oppression means more crime. We have plenty of crime and plenty of freedom. You have to trade freedom for safety, as I said.

But this, in my opinion, and according to logic, is to much freedom given up for not alot of safty gained.

Who are you to say? Less oppression means more crime. We have plenty of crime and plenty of freedom. You have to trade freedom for safety, as I said.
Of course, because you're really safe in Oceania.
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/057.gif Look at all those smiling proles of Oceania! :rolleyes:

"Women and children rarely hike through haunted forests. People don't ambush lumberjacks, they ambush helpless people."

Did I say haunted forrest? No, I said path through the park which is dark at night and can't be seen from the street.

People also don't ambush in clear view of passers by, which is where the swing set was.

Women and children also stay out of the park after dark.

I can guarantee you that more women and children go to parks than secluded trails when it's dark out. And there ARE no passers by at zero o'clock, which is the point of waiting in ambush.

Everything is a haunted forest when you're a little kid. Women, not so much, but still.

EDIT: Re achtung - I have no idea what that means

EDIT: Re achtung - I have no idea what that means
It's from 1984. You know, the uber totalitarian world where no freedoms exist. Apparently there wouldn't be any crime either.

It's from 1984. You know, the uber totalitarian world where no freedoms exist. Apparently there wouldn't be any crime either.

I've never read/seen/whatever'd 1984. Duh, a land with no freedom means a land with no crime, but the point is to strike a balance. As little crime as possible with as much freedom as possible.

I can guarantee you that more women and children go to parks than secluded trails when it's dark out. And there ARE no passers by at zero o'clock, which is the point of waiting in ambush.

Everything is a haunted forest when you're a little kid. Women, not so much, but still.

EDIT: Re achtung - I have no idea what that means

It's a path through the park, not a secluded trail.

There, in fact, were passers by at zero o'clock.

It's a path through the park, not a secluded trail.

There, in fact, were passers by at zero o'clock.

How many? One every 10-15 minutes? If there were a constant stream of witnesses it would be different, but I'm guessing it was fairly easy to spot a lone person taking a stroll and carrying a spaghetti-strap purse.

I've never read/seen/whatever'd 1984. Duh, a land with no freedom means a land with no crime, but the point is to strike a balance. As little crime as possible with as much freedom as possible.
Then move to a place with less freedoms, like, say Iraq. Oh wait, there's crime there too, DAMMIT!

How many? One every 10-15 minutes? If there were a constant stream of witnesses it would be different, but I'm guessing it was fairly easy to spot a lone person taking a stroll and carrying a spaghetti-strap purse.

Exactly the same situation if I were to stand on a street corner, or just walk down the street.


Also, this is immaterial, because:

"Besides, just because someone else might do something bad is not an excsuse to ban a perfectly legitimate activity."

Then move to a place with less freedoms, like, say Iraq. Oh wait, there's crime there too, DAMMIT!

Iraq doesn't have a traditional justice system though. In fact, it barely has a justice system at all. There's really no point in opressing people if you're just doing it for fun. Being arrested for suspicious activity is hardly the same as being blown up for drinking coffee.

Exactly the same situation if I were to stand on a street corner, or just walk down the street.


Also, this is immaterial, because:

"Besides, just because someone else might do something bad is not an excsuse to ban a perfectly legitimate activity."

Street corners not only have lights but are also crossroads, e.g. heavily traveled.

And yes it is when the circumstances are right. Must we go back to our bazooka-toting friend?

Iraq doesn't have a traditional justice system though. In fact, it barely has a justice system at all. There's really no point in opressing people if you're just doing it for fun. Being arrested for suspicious activity is hardly the same as being blown up for drinking coffee.

When was the last time someone was blown up for drinking coffee?

When was the last time someone was blown up for drinking coffee?

The last time somebody detonated themselves in a coffee shop. From the sound of things, not that rare.

The last time somebody detonated themselves in a coffee shop. From the sound of things, not that rare.

And you believe they were doing this act expressly to stop people drinking coffee?

And you believe they were doing this act expressly to stop people drinking coffee?

Putting a spin on what I said isn't getting us anywhere. You know what I meant.