maybe now, in the recent past people knew how to act without ever considering bringing laws or police into the problem.the closest thing we have in this country to "societal ethics" is in fact the law.
surf etiquette is a good example.
REMINDER: THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to monitor the Forums. However, THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to review any materials submitted to or posted on the Forums, and remove, delete, redact or otherwise modify such materials, in its sole discretion and for any reason whatsoever, at any time and from time to time, without notice or further obligation to you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to display or post any materials provided by you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to disclose, at any time and from time to time, any information or materials that we deem necessary or appropriate to satisfy any applicable law, regulation, contract obligation, legal or dispute process or government request. Click on the following hyperlinks to further read the applicable Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
maybe now, in the recent past people knew how to act without ever considering bringing laws or police into the problem.the closest thing we have in this country to "societal ethics" is in fact the law.
Actually a lot of people did. Maybe not here, but I saw lots of people I know post on social media that KR got away with it because he was white.Again, nobody argued against the legality of the trial.
The law tends to be a bit more fluid for those with wealth and power vs poor folk.The law isn't variable or fluid from one person to the next as are ethics/morality.
the flight or fight or immatureThe brain predicts the worst case scenario
Yeah. Kind of. There were always outliers. We used to have almost weekly fights around my hometown re different interpretations of surf etiquette. Behavior was better then, on the whole, because there were instant consequences in the form of violence. And there were some people who just took what they wanted because they were bigger/faster/stronger. Violence is much much rarer now. Were we more moral then or now?maybe now, in the recent past people knew how to act without ever considering bringing laws or police into the problem.
surf etiquette is a good example.
Like you’re above itthe flight or fight or immaturebrainmind this explains a lot
2nd sentence was sarcasmNo, really what were you trying to say? I assumed it was sarcasm
Did you even read what I wrote?Agreed. The brain predicts the worst case scenario in times of distress and for that crucial 1-3ish seconds that may be what you see (as in think you see). I’ve seen cars and Trucks gets super squirrely on the freeway and on a few occasions, for a split second I saw an accident that never happened. This is a survival mechanism hard wired into us after hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of years worth of warfare and evading danger. Given the conditions that night, that could easily happen with a plastic bag or whatever.
why bring my whiteness into this?Like you’re above it
tribalism has its problems as well.Yeah. Kind of. There were always outliers. We used to have almost weekly fights around my hometown re different interpretations of surf etiquette. Behavior was better then, on the whole, because there were instant consequences in the form of violence. And there were some people who just took what they wanted because they were bigger/faster/stronger. Violence is much much rarer now. Were we more moral then or now?
Well, if you stationed the two Previously Living individuals on the front porch, the stink would likely deter any Minor Attracted Persons from using the doorbell, and they'd make half decent sandbags in a gunfight during a Mostly Peaceful BLM.....uhh....Colt .45 fueled riot/loot Awareness Training.Who would you rather baby sit your kids, Kyle Rittenhouse or the people he shot?
Wow. "Laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of human kind." - Thomas Jefferson2nd sentence was sarcasm
limiting or changing any part of the bill of rights is tyranny
TJ was a slaveholder so Ifall immediately negates anything he said or did. He's an Arizonian that way.Wow. "Laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of human kind." - Thomas Jefferson
So you do not agree with TJ, that as we progress as a society, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution cannot ever be touched?
The second amendment guarantees the rest of themWow. "Laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of human kind." - Thomas Jefferson
So you do not agree with TJ, that as we progress as a society, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution cannot ever be touched?
The Bill of Rights has notthe bill of rights has been modified repeatedly over time
the constitution lays out the process for making these amendments
therefore, based on your logic, the constitution is tyrannical...
View attachment 147616
So if someone feels their "right to bear arms" is owning an Apache Helicopter, you'd be okay with that? It's IN THE CONSTITUTION!The second amendment guarantees the rest of them
it is risky and dangerous but tyranny is worse
de-arming the populace stops progress in society
AbsolutelySo if someone feels their "right to bear arms" is owning an Apache Helicopter, you'd be okay with that? It's IN THE CONSTITUTION!
the bill of rights can be amended by a 2/3rds majority, no....isn't this precisely what Article V lays out?The Bill of Rights has not
the Constitution and other amendments post-bill of right have
my wording was carefully chosen
you are wrong
so I take it you are fine with limiting your speech because computers are different than printing presses?