1,422 Forum Posts by "JerkClock"
Looks like catsofthebase just did a cut and run
Lancaster and oak cliff are such nice places to live though.
At 2/20/05 10:35 PM, Damien_FLAGG wrote:How about stalking?
No
How about people distilling liquor in their backyard?
Yes
How about people selling alcohol and cigaretes to fifteen year old children?
The same 15 year old children who just steal and consume them anyway?
How about speeding in a residential area?
Well the limit could be increased a little
And littering/illegal dumping?
Sure. as long as they don't do it on my property.
How about discrimination in the workplace?
The same descrimination that's already happening?
None of these things mentioned above are assault, or theft, or rape, or murder.
Stalking is related to it.
lol oh that's a GREAT plan. Just go ahead and encourag drug addicts because, hey, if we can monitor the source of their vice, it will help fight terrorism.
That's insanity.
Yet having a mindset were a few crackheads is worse than terrorism isn't?
The government has the right to restrict your rights. Get over it.
Nice excuse for being a fascist.
Oh, so you've made once exception, to your standard. Are there other exceptions, too?
No, if you read what I said you'd see that I said drunk driving really isn't an exception.
lol c'mon. This is just making you look bad.
Saying that doesn't make it so, you're making it up.
lol your openly and outright denying a fact after fact.
Saying that doesn't make it so, you're making it up.
City councils are open to the community.
And are not the people themselves.
Just accept the fact that your opinion is in the minority.
Just accept the fact that you're making stuff up. Again and again in fact.
And yes, that means posting more than just your opinion. Post the hard text.
Or you could go and read it, since it involves a lot of stuff about "freedom of this" and "freedom of that". Yet when say, freedom of speech is impeded upon, people say it's misinterpreted. That's what's happening here, accept that it's not speech.
So, you just said reform isn't neccessary, in a free country.
YES, reform=restriction=not free, how clear does it have to be?
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.
Speak for yourself.
I don't have to go to court to call the police. It's convinient, and costs me no immediate cash.
That's not an excuse for not proving your case. If you have no proof, then it follows you may be lying and shouldn't be allowed to call the cops either. If you call them, your neighbors sleep through the noise, and thus tell the cops this, it will follow that there was no real disturbance and you will get fined(yes immediate cash)
At 2/16/05 07:57 PM, Damien_FLAGG wrote:
So the only thing you think should be illegal is rape, murder, assault, theft (or vandilzation of property, going by your rationality).,..and everything else is just covered by civil suits?
Yes.
How about crimes that don't put someone in physical danger?How about tax evasion?
Okay no, since the government does need to collect it's money to exist, and I don't want anarchy.
How about forgery, and counterfeiting?
I'd put those with theft, though counterfeiting is different, but similar in that you print money that isn't yours and in the process make the dollar worth less.
How about people selling crack?
YES, we have a serious problem with black market murders and terrorists getting their money. Legalising drugs would allow us to moniter sales of it so terrorists wouldn't have drug money wired to them so easily, it would also shrink the black market significantly and reduce street murders as a result. Making it illegal just causes problems, and hey it doesn't hurt anyone anyway, anyone stupid enough to get addicted to crack should have the right to do so.
Law is law is law. The whole basis of your point is 'any law that restricts everyone in the country, for the so-called 'good of the country' is a facist law', correct?
No, only social laws. The key word is "individual", thus an "individual" right is a social liberty. A company's right is an economic liberty.
And things like Zero Tolerance drunk driving laws, and regulations on pollution output do just that: Restrict individuals from doing certain things, for the good of the community, and the country. I'm trying to show you that not EVERY law done for 'the good of the country' is a facist law...some are incontrovertibly neccessary.
Well technically they are, but I don't want drunk driving legal, no one does. Noise is nothing like drunk driving though.
Maus proved that individuals do, in fact, vote on noise ordiances...and pass them.
No, you're making that up.
Look, the whole point, of yours, that i'm refuting is 'the majority doesn't agree with noise laws'.
I'm saying it isn't proven that they do.
:: So you pretentiously demanded an example of the general public voting on noise ordinances (and it was quite obvious you were SURE Maus couldn't produce a link)...and then when that proof is given, you brush that piece of evidence off with 'people are just sheep.'
It didn't show anything people actually voted on.
You're losing this argument, and you're starting to make excuses.
No
Prove it. You're so big on proof, right? Show me something that would lead one to believe the founding fathers would be against noise ordiances.
The constitution, it's clear they didn't want bullshit laws, and noise laws fall into that category.
Reform isn't neccessary in a free country? Is that what you're saying?
YES, are you going to tell me it's possible to have liberty maximised and be forced to "behave" at the same time? It isn't.
.
lol it's more like 'if you don't like the restrictions, you can go somewhere else'.
<sarcasm>Oh yeah move from a free country to a non-free one cause I don't like restrictions</sarcasm>, dumbass.
Go on. No one is stopping you. I'm sure in Russia, you can make all the late-night noise you want.
Not really, but keep thinking that.
But, it HASN'T followed the way the wanted it.
Yeah, stupid, moronic, and tyrannical laws have spawned, they didn't want that.
:: Yes, I'm that cheap. Get over it. It costs nothing to call the cops...and they're going to take the tax dollars for the cops, regardless of if I call them or not.
You get your court costs back if you sue for it, and don't piss off the judge.
At 2/15/05 10:48 PM, Damien_FLAGG wrote:Individual rights NEED to be restricted, sometimes. If we let everyone run around, willy-nilly, doing any and everything they deemed a 'individual right', it'd be chaos. Do you disagree? Do you think each and every 'individual right' should be allowed to be fullfilled, to every extent? Do you not agree that the term 'individual right' is a blurry term, if there every was one?
Only harming others(except in self defence), Their property(this includes stealing it), and raping should be illegal, civil suits might be good to cover some other stuff.
How is it 'not the same'? By imposing pollution restrictions, we are limiting a companys 'right', as a business, to run the company as the owners see fit. And we do it all in the name of 'the good of the community'.
How is that any different?
I for the record disagree with it too, but it's an economic law and not a social one. If anything it's communistic. Although that only vaguely describes it.
But, wait. Don't I have an 'individual right' to get drunk in a public establishment (if i am of age), and then drive myself home? Are not Zero Tolerance drunk driving laws a restriction, imposed for the good of the community?
How is that any different?
I'm not argueing for complete anarchy, noise is not the same as putting lives in danger.
Couple the majority opinion in this thread, to the point Maus made, of individuals voting on noise ordinances...and add the fact that people regurlaly re-elect public officials who implement noise ordinances...those things speak for themselves.
None of it was proven.
Your bar for proof is obviously very low.Logical examples, like the public voting on noise ordinances, and the public re-electing officials who apply noise ordinances, and nine out of ten people in this thread...all lead to only one conclusion. I ask again, what are you basing your opinion off of?
Officials are mostly just reelected because people are comfortable with incumbant or blindly vote partylines, not because people particularly like what they do.
I don't see how in hell you drew that conclusion, but no. You said you don't care what the founding fathers wanted, that proves your opinion is bad for the country.Pft. That makes no sense. The founding fathers couldn't account for/ deal with things like airplanes, and global economies, and homeland security, and a country with two hundred and twenty-something million people. This is not the same country. No one is blaming the founding fathers for not accounting for these things...how could we? Certain things didn't exist, so of COURSE there wasn't legislation about it. Of COURSE it wasn't written into the constitution.
And if they could they damn sure wouldn't want these stupid ass laws.
But reform is neccessary,
Not in a free country, if you want restrictions go move where there are already plenty and don't drag aeveryone down with you.
Stop acting like the founding fathers 'ideal country' is the end-all point. It means nothing.
It damn well does too, if you don't think so then you don't belong here. This is the country they made, it follows that the way they wanted it was there for a reason. They didn't want tyranny of any kind, they wanted to live free. They based their ideals on this. It thus follows that their ideal are what's neccessary to be free, so if you like being free it means everything. If you don't(which you've proven) you don't belong in a free country trying to drag down everyone else's rights with your own.
It costs court fees to have a trail. Calling the cops is free.
Are you that cheap that you can't pay the $50 dollars the court asks of you and would rather pay in tax dollars for the police to come over?
At 2/14/05 09:43 PM, Damien_FLAGG wrote:
So, you want proof your opinion is in the majority...and I give you that proof. Instead of accepting it, you just blow off a huge group of people as 'ignorant stupid kids'. Good job on proving credibility.
Well it's true, but there's been what? Maybe 20 people in this thread, that's hardly proof of a majority in a country of over 200 million, especially when it is full of ignorant stupid kids(though not all newgroundites are)
Again, you wanted a majority, and I gave it to you. Not much more needs to be said on that particular subject.
As said above it doesn't really prove a majority though.
I already have. This thread alone is all the proof I need.
Your bar for proof is obviously very low.
:: So it's your point that this country is not the same country Thomas Jefferson lived in? Hey, that's my point too. Looks like we finally agreed on something.
I don't see how in hell you drew that conclusion, but no. You said you don't care what the founding fathers wanted, that proves your opinion is bad for the country.
I never ever ever ever said that once a month was a problem. I said when it is a persistent problem. Noise laws are there to prevent people from being persistent asses. Nowhere did I ever claim that it was a criminal issue. I don't get where you make all these assumptions.
My point is if they're being malacious you can sue even without the noise laws(As you should be allowed to). I just don't think people who create once in a month problems should have to face the law, only those who are malacious about. Since we both agree at least that far what's wrong with sueing? Your neighbors can be witness for your proof, as can your boss or anyone who sees you suffer from lack of sleep.
Then do what I suggested earlier, conduct your own survey and present that as evidence. And not to us, if you really want to have these laws overturned, take it to court.
That does sound good.
No-one has said, or implied, that the law is always right, no matter what. Of course that mentality is wrong, that's why no-one here thinks it.
You'd be surprized actually........
Neither did you, Imho
But only because you disagree.
At 2/14/05 04:42 PM, Damien_FLAGG wrote:Yet, the majority...as in everyone but you and balsac...have agreed with the laws, in this thread. I have a constant to go by. You have one opinion, that being your own.
Yet, as I sad earlier, newgrounds is mostly Ignorant stupid kids who live with their parents and is not an appropriat gauge of the population
And, to prove my point further...almost everyone in this thread agrees with noise ordinances. Good job, on putting your foot in your mouth.
see above
The law says I have a right to be protected from unneccessary noise, at all hours of the night. The law stands against you, and behind people that like sleep.
So you believe the law is always right no matter what then. You just proved it with what you said. That mentality is moronic.
Your opinion is in the minority
PROVE IT
If you're too weak and wimpy to face the recourse of your inconsiderate actions, then keep your noise level down :)
How many times have I said I'm only argueing on principle, you really are stupid.
At 2/11/05 03:15 AM, JerkClock wrote: I haven't misinterpreted shit, the founding fathers didn't want bullshit like this, plain and simple.I don't really care what the founding fathers wanted.
Case and point.
Wow, so we should let the problem become SO bad that it needs to be taken to the courts, wasting even MORE time, money, and 'freedom' than allowing a simple visit from the cops.
It's not a serious problem if you're only being woken up once a month, if it's constant then the problem is he's being an ass, not the noise, that's my point. Plus at least then the crime is civil and not criminal.
Man I'm glad I quit restating myself over and over to deaf ears.
You never really made a good point in the first place.
At 2/11/05 11:19 PM, Gunter45 wrote:
And yet, both Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu,.... how about I make this quick and just say everyone who influenced the Constitution, all agree that in order for any government to work, rights must be given up.
The right to kill should be given up, the right to steal should be given up, the right to rape should be given up, yeah, you're being stupid.
What the heck does this mean? Liberty and society's well being are, for the most part, inversely proportional. If you have more liberty, there is a greater chance that people will use that as a license to look after themselves rather than society, in turn, harming it. If you look after keeping the society unharmed, you have to take away a great deal of liberty to avoid the fact that people can abuse liberty.
There are flaws with having liberty, but at least those flaws aren't being killed by a tyranical dictator.
How much violence in defense of what? As it stands, you can use as much violence as you want to defend your life, or someone else's life. You can only use incapacitating force when defending your property.
Yeah but you have to sit in jail for a while before explaining yourself in court, sadly.
At 2/13/05 06:30 PM, BeFell wrote: I don't think any money or space issues warrant ending a human life. You have point about this case being something that could be significant because as far as I knew neuarl pathways do not reginerate. At least not usually they are suppose to be able to last 70 years. If we can ever figure out a way to induce this phenomonem the possiblities would be mind boggling.
Well It has more to do with who else they can be saving instead with the money and space, it's too bad you can't save everybody though.
At 2/13/05 04:09 PM, Oyster_Clock wrote: OMG, shut the fuck up. This story had NOTHING to do with left-wing politics and you know it, fucking nazi.
Seriously you're a moron. I disagree with him myself, but you're not helping those of us who do, you're making us look dumb so when you say:
OMG, shut the fuck up
listen to you're own advice.
BeFell - I think the concern is while they may recover a lot of money and hospital space is being used keeping them alive when they're unlikely to recover. I can understand that, although this recover may spark a revolution in brain surgery(I hope).
At 2/11/05 04:19 PM, Professor_Burgees wrote: what gives you a right to sit there and say "people who vote for noise laws belong in fascist countries"? Cause thats basically what you're saying...
The fact that it IS fascist, I have proven it.
Did I ever say ALL? No, I said many. It would be fascist if the people had 0 say in the matter, and that is patently false. In a fascist country, you do not elect your leaders, and you do not vote.
That doesn't mean a non-fascist country can't have fascist laws. Hitler didn't exactly start out by implenmenting full blown fascism and at the start he was generally supported by the people.
demand to see proof of this 60% you claim. :P
The exact percentage isn't known, but most say it's about 30% for each party.
Seriously, though. First, you blamed the government for being fascist and doing what they want, regardless of the people's will, and now you blame partisan voters with a statistic that you heard somewhere. Well....those partisan voters can vote however they want. That is a right they have. I don't like it, but that is how some people operate. Majority rules.
But that's not really voting for what you want, it's blindly going with a crowd due to ignorance.
So, Jerkclock, to summarise. You started with five main arguements:
1. If people don't like the noise, they can buy earplugs
2. There is no right to "have a good night's rest"
3. If people don't like the noise, they can move
4. I put up with it so others can as well
5. There's no proof that the majority want noise laws to be in place, therefore the laws are facist
You seem to have abandoned all but the last, as all the others were quashed by someone or other.
1. I have still been standing by this one, still do.
2. There isn't your "right not to be disturbed" isn't a right. A "right" is a lack of restriction, allowing someone to play loud music is NOT a right restriction and disallowing it is NOT a lack thereof, no one has proven otherwise, you're full of shit if you think so.
3. Yes, why not? Don't want to be free, move where you're already not free, makes perffect sense to me.
4. It's really not that hard
5. Dumbass that is NOT the reason I said it's fascist, no wonder you've been acting like a moron, you are one. I said it's fascist because it's based on "the rights of everyone as a whole versus individual rights", and that IS fascist. I proved this with a link and everything.
6. No one "quashed" anything they just lost the arguement and quit, this a quit on any fronts that they did.
You had to deal with loud noises when you wanted to sleep and instead of doing something about it, you just got used to it. Now when you are being loud late at night, you get in trouble and it pisses you off.
No I haven't been in trouble myself.
Tell me, how much of this is really about civil liberties, peoples rights, etc.
All of it
Well you know what? I think if you woke up George Washington in the middle of the night because you were partying... he'd be just as pissed as anyone else.
That doesn't mean he'd want noise laws. Especially in a free country.
It IS an intense problem when people fall asleep at the driver's wheel.
It takes A LOT of lost sleep to get that tired. If they're being that obnoxious and being loud all the time to make you lose sleep you can sue for mental anguish. One night a month won't make you fall asleep at the wheel.
I'm all for raves out in the woods, and all night jam sessions. But not at the expense of others' well-being.
There are options like that which people should take out of consideration for others, but we don't need fascist laws just because some don't.
At 2/11/05 03:52 PM, Maus wrote:Many, many, many noise ordinance links. For some strange reason, this BBS won't recognise the html of the smaller links as valid. :\ I had two lined up to show both for and against the ordinances. Oh well.
Many(not all) do involve complaints, but not a majority vote from the people themselves but at any rate it's still fascist and even if anyone did vote it in, they belong in fascist countries, not america.
To be fair, many of these are passed by city councils. Citizens have the right to speak either for or against anything that is on the table. If you can't/won't find the time to show up and speak, don't bitch about what happens.
You have to rally support for it to count but you're right.
If a city council goes against people's wishes enough, they can be voted out of office. That's the beauty of election. I don't think you could do that in fascist Germany.
True but about 60% of people just blindly vote along party lines anyway, I've seen this happen, but it usually involves a scandal and not laws that people generally disagree with, even when there have been many.
Link.....to.....proposition.....noise law. I'm waiting............
At 2/11/05 03:18 PM, Maus wrote:
And those ELECTED officials were voted for, as well.
Doesn't mean that every single thing they do is wanted
I've voted on several noise ordiances over the years on levies, so your 'point' miserably fails.
Sure you have , you've failed to prove it. Show me a noise law that's a proposition(law that the people vote in) and I'll believe it.
They elected officials who passed the laws wether they liked it or not, that doesn't mean they voted on it themselves.
At 2/11/05 12:44 PM, Maus wrote:
So much for being done arguing with me.
When it comes to 'rights' in America, needs of many come before wants of a few.
AGAIN, NO:
http://www.bartleby.com/65/fa/fascism.html
Fascism, especially in its early stages, is obliged to be antitheoretical and frankly opportunistic in order to appeal to many diverse groups. Nevertheless, a few key concepts are basic to it. First and most important is the glorification of the state and the total subordination of the individual to it. The state is defined as an organic whole into which individuals must be absorbed for their own and the state’s benefit. This “total state” is absolute in its methods and unlimited by law in its control and direction of its citizens.
We are not a fascist country, so no.
The noise laws are not unreasonable, like you suggest. They are in effect after a time when the vast majority are in bed. It's not like they're in effect 24/7.
Yes they are(read above) and hey what about night shifters?
It doesn't mean they don't want noise laws, either. Now how about this: as the noise laws have already been passed, we'll assume they're considered just by the majority of people. If you still stand by your claim that the majority don't necessarily support noise laws, go and conduct a statistical study. And don't present it to us, take it to your local governmental representitive. We'll likely hear about it on the news...
The FCC is generally hated but yet it's still around, so that's actually not a reason to assume the majority supports it.
At 2/11/05 05:26 AM, breachgnome wrote:
I would love to pick it up in your stead, but I fear my time at work has come and gone. I'd like to note that there is a hidden nugget for JerkClock somewhere in these threads that justifies the law in question. I've said it. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.
You're just saying that so you can be right, the 2 justifications are:
1. Because it's the law and law is always right(which is just fuckwitted)
2.No one likes noise(but they failed to prove this means they actually want noise laws).
I haven't misinterpreted shit, the founding fathers didn't want bullshit like this, plain and simple.
At 2/10/05 03:43 PM, Maus wrote: I can't very well haul off and punch a person. I'm 120 lbs maximum, and 5'4". So I guess in your world, might makes right. In that case, I call in the cops to be my might. Does that make sense to you, machoman?
My point is it's just as wrong as punching them in the face,
You brush them off, you don't address them. if you don't want repititions, quit repeating your points as well.
Likewise, prove the law is just you have not.
At 2/10/05 12:02 PM, Maus wrote: Calling the cops to ask someone that is belligerent to turn their music down is not 'wrong.' Being an inconsiderate ass is.
Well then neither is punching that inconsiderate ass in the face wrong
:Another thing that is starting to piss me off, JerkClock, is that you attack on one part of an argument, and completely ignore the parts that expand on it.
They are just repititions, there is no need when they were already addressed.
At 2/9/05 05:56 PM, Damien_FLAGG wrote:
The point stands, then, since you could't refute it.
Not really since you saying that just proved you think the law is absolutely right no matter what.
The majority wants peace and quiet, in their home.
I said this time and time again, but your feeble mind has missed, pay attention:
THAT, stay with me, DOESN'T, keep up, MEAN, don't lose me now, THEY, keep with it, WANT, hang on, NOISE, almost there, LAWS
The closest thing we have to a constant, in this thread, is the fact that most people want to not be disturbed in their home, with unneccessarily loud music, or parties.
see above
And that's still my point. There came a time when these factors DID need to be considered.
No you idiot I'm saying they probably would have banned them with the constitution had they factored them.
And you can't, or won't, refute it. Because no matter what you say that fact stands. Unless the laws are changed, you're bound by them.
That has nothing to do with wether or not they're just laws, so there's no need.
I shouldn't have to do any of these things, simply because my neighbors don't have the common couth and decency to respect their neighbors. Instead of people, who are trying to not only get a good nights...but to get up and work to pay the bills, being forced to 'take matters into their own hands'...a single noise ordinance, enforced by police, takes care of everyone.
Then you're a weak wimpy person, the rest of us shouldn't be bound by stupid laws just because you're too scared to get your hands dirty. Sometimes you have to in life, otherwise you get fucked, and not in a good way. If you're too weak and wimpy to handle shit yourself it's unfair to the rest of us to have to put up with the law telling us every little thing we do is wrong just because of that.
At 2/9/05 05:36 PM, Maus wrote:
How do two wrongs make a right?
By that logic you shouldn't even call the cops but rather just sit there and take it. No matter what solution you try, if it doesn't involve him/her not being hurt in anyway it's a wrong. Now he would only get a sitation, but it still hurts him financially. The solution of forming a gang of neighbors and knocking on his door BTW shouldn't result in violence, as he'll likely get scared and just turn it down. At any rate, calling the cops on him is also a wrong.
At 2/9/05 04:43 PM, Damien_FLAGG wrote:
Yes, you should. Thankfully, every city COUNCIL(the law)in all of America agrees with me :-D
fixed
Democracy does not connotate the ability for all citizens to pass or veto legislation.
Well actually true democracy does, but even republics are supposed to reflect what the majority wants(supposed to)
How do you know 'frivolous' laws were meant to be avoided, by our founding fathers? And 'frivolous' is an opinion. What one person calls 'frivolous', another person calls 'Neccessary'.
You obviously didn't notice, but this whole thread is about opinions.
Exactly. That's why we had to reform the laws, as the times changed. Just now, you did nothing but back up my point in the neccessity for noise ordinances.
Not really since my point was that they couldn't ban noise laws in the constitution without being able to really factor them in at the time.
I JUST said, in the sentance you responded to, that it doesn't matter if it's 'right' or 'wrong'. The law is not affected by that. Even if the law is wrong, you have to follow and respect it, or face recourse. You have a right to not respect a law...but be prepared to face the consequences of what that decision brings.
You're repeating yuorself again
Apparently you can't read, because what you quoted was a re-iteration of a point you completely ignored earlier:
In all fairness re-iterations are about 90% of this thread(or more). I do owe you an apology for the insult though.
Remember reading that? I even made a comment about how you didn't bother to respond to that part of my post.
I didn't reply because I already said that wasn't a right.
:'Too weak?' What, now you're advocating that they should go beat up inconsiderate people, instead of call the cops?
Well maybe, but not neccessarily. Talking it out, turning it back on them(turn YOUR radio up at 6:00 when they finally go to sleep), Gang your neighbors up with you and go knock on his door, earplugs, personally annoy him till he stops(like say parelell(sp?) park close to his bumper and have someone else do it close to the other bumper[only works if he parelell(sp?) parks of course]), dump rotten garbage in your back yard and blow the smell over to his with big fans, or other stuff.
At 2/9/05 11:05 AM, Maus wrote:
I do, because in my eyes, their noise is invading my privacy. Their noise is disrupting my home.
Certainly, when you leave the house, you open yourself to exposure to anything. Home should be a sanctuary. That should be a right more than the right to be an inconsiderate jagoff.
Apparently you're not very smart because you posted all day yesterday without responding to this, and just now today you finished thinking up a responce.
People shouldn't be inconsiderate, but we don't need an overflow of laws because some are to weak to handle stuff without help of the government.
At 2/9/05 10:54 AM, Damien_FLAGG wrote:So, you agree then? You answered yes to the question of 'Do I, myself, have a right to not be disrupted by a youth group'. And you answered yes to the question of 'Do you, jerk, have a responsibility to keep it down.I'm glad we're in agreement, on this topic.
Not really I was answering the 3rd question, my bad.
Doesn't matter if it's pathetic.
Oh it doesn't, just because you're a pathetic wretch who can't handle a little noise we should have to change our lifestyles to please you?
A vast majority of the people on this thread agree with noise laws. I'll use this thread as my sample example.
A vast majority of newgrounders are also whiney little kids with no life, live with their parents, and go, "oh no he has "clock" in his name, he's bad". I wouldn't consider that a reasonable scale versus the rest of the country.
And, again...it doesn't matter if people 'want' legislation, or not.
So you're against democracy then?
The people don't usually get a choice, when it comes to legislature.
See above
You've presented nothing but your own 'I really like to be loud, guys' opinion. That does not refute the laws.
The fact that you say that is a clear indication you don't know what you're talking about, I've said many things, one of which being that I don't do it myself. I'm against the principle of the matter.
The constitution never gave you the right to disturb the peace. Not ever.
Just like the FCC would surely say we're not entitle to free speech. It doesn't say you have the right to be an annoyance, but such frivilous laws were intented to be avoided by the constituotion. Such as our current censorship laws. I don't think they factored in disturbing the peace because it was not possible to make that much noise back then, and there wasn't enough crowds in public places for yelling to seriously disturb a whole crowd. Plus people usually lived out in the country back then.
No, see, that's my point. It doesn't matter if it's 'right' or 'wrong'. Law transcends such petty, subjective opinions.
You're just repeating your "the law is always right" bullshit.
My point is that no matter if you agree, or not...you are subject to them. Our government has given you the choice of compliance, or bust.
And that choice is yours. Either way, I'll be secretely filled with joy. Either you will willingly keep your noise level down, or you'll be fined and punished for being too loud.
At 2/8/05 03:02 AM, Maus wrote:
Um. I'm fine with the laws the way they are. i don't want some snotty asshole keeping me up all night because he has the new Eminem album.
I never liked it either, but I never wanted it outlawed. Of course nowadays I can sleep through anything, but even before that I didn't want it outlawed, it's an annoyance, not a murderspree(*hint**hint* poster below maus)
We aren't 'scaling our freedom back.' If anything, it's gotten a tad more relaxed as far as that goes. In some towns, you couldn't mow your lawn on Sundays. Yeah.
Yeah because of the "noise" disturbing the "church service" or those "sleeping in" I believe.
At 2/7/05 06:10 PM, Maus wrote:
Also, I said moving is a stupid option, especially if you've lived there longer than the offenders. So where, pray tell, are all these wonderful options? All I have seen is 'earplugs' and 'move.' I don't have to move. I can just call the cops, then the landlord, and have them thrown out. I can guarantee you would do the same in the situation.
The reason I suggest a move is because if you're for such laws, that's fine. There's nothing wrong with just wanting more government control in your life, but it doesn't belong here in america. What's the point scaling our freedom back when there are plenty of countries out there where you get the government control you want? And you don't make the rest of us unfree with you.
At 2/7/05 08:56 PM, Damien_FLAGG wrote:
What do you mean? Don't I have a right to not be disrupted by your Christian Youth group? You don't have a responsibility to respect your neighbors, by keeping your noise level down? How are your rights being infringed on, by a cop telling you to keep it down?
Yes
Or, if people refuse to keep their noise level down, they'll be subject to judicial recourse.
Which is wrong, can't stand a little noise so you go to the legislature? That's pathetic.
Kids have no right to 'party'.
Yeah, snobby pricks have laws written against it.
.
Most people like sleeping, without loud parties waking them up. Ask a random person on the street "Do you like being robbed of a good night's sleep, by loud rap music? Would you enjoy that?"
I bet most people will say no.
But again and again I've had to say this, that doesn't mean they wantt the laws written that way.
They don't have to be proven just, for them to be enforced. You are bound by them, weather you like them or not. You have no choice. If you resist, you'll face legislative and judicial recourse.
They shouldn't be there in the first place, whether or not they're enforced is far from the point.
That's how our country works. Don't like the noise laws? Aww...move to Moscow, or deal with it. Those are your options.
Why not, rather than scale back our freedoms by having such asinine laws written just move to where you're already not free.
It needs no justification, to exist. You're subject to it, whether you find it 'fair', or not.
<sarcasm>Oh yes, why we all know if it's illegal it's automatically wrong and if it's legal it's automatically right, why the law is never wrong</sarcasm>
At 2/7/05 04:59 PM, Maus wrote: A pounding stereo, or partying neighbors makes vibrations that get through earplugs. Try sleeping through the night with your bed slightly shaking to a quarter note beat. earplugs are not the end all-be all that you seem to think they are. What are some other suggestions you have? Moving isn't always an option, nor should it be, especially if you were there first.
Either deal with it or don't live in a "free" country. Shit hate speech is legal, and I find it certainly more harmful than loud noise. You're supposed to put up with annoyances if you want to live free, not outlaw them. If you can't you shouldn't live in a "free" country.
At 2/7/05 04:22 PM, Maus wrote: I'd also like to point out that most of us in the real world work jobs where we can only 'call in sick' so many days with pay.
Agreed
After that, you are not making any money. Hmm. My right to pursue happiness is infringed upon. Not just mine, but anyone disturbed by a noisy neighbor.
The point is there are solutions other than your local legislature.
As much as you may not want to think so, those of us that don't want noisy neighbors are in the MAJORITY. Majority rules. It's not a 'nuisance to a few' if MOST people feel that way, now is it?
No one does, but that doesn't mean they all want a law passed on the matter. I know many who though they get annoyed by it, never call the cops on people for it(though I know many also who do).
What is frivolous to you, is earth shattering to another. And vice-versa.
Yeah, but noise is somehow earth shattering? If someone is that bothered by noise they probably need a psychiatrist. There are people out there who think someone saying "fuck" is earth shattering, or that an unedited boob pop out is earth shattering too. But does that mean the FCC should limit our freedom of speech?
