3 year old child pee's in his yard, police fine mother $2500

[Bitware]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fN6bVw8w_m4

[myrkul]

He's lucky he's not on the sex offender list.

[fornit]

your liberterian propaganda gets really old.
you can post a brazillion fails from your fail state, that doesnt prove anything. except that the usa is pretty fucked up, but that isnt news at all.

[m3ta]

your liberterian propaganda gets really old.
you can post a brazillion fails from your fail state, that doesnt prove anything. except that the usa is pretty fucked up, but that isnt news at all.

Are you talking about the fine, or about uneducated kids?

[myrkul]

your liberterian propaganda gets really old.
you can post a brazillion fails from your fail state, that doesnt prove anything. except that the usa is pretty fucked up, but that isnt news at all.

When you say this, all I hear is

Nananananananananananana I don't want to hear it nanananananananananana

and it makes me giggle. So thanks for the laugh.

[dotcom]

your liberterian propaganda gets really old.
you can post a brazillion fails from your fail state, that doesnt prove anything. except that the usa is pretty fucked up, but that isnt news at all.

>Libertarian propaganda
>propaganda
>wat

[SysRun]

It's funny cause it's not true. 

[Bitware]

Here is the local news report: http://www.news9.com/story/20010769/three-year-old-piemont-boy-gets-2500-ticket-for-peeing-in-his-front-yard

[Explodicle]

I'm assuming everyone here sees these public "indecency" laws as the problem, right? The scary consensus on news9 is "Oh YOUR dick is still SO disturbing that I'm entitled to force it into hiding. But a cute little kid when he's being potty trained is special, so I blame the cop for not making arbitrary exceptions on his own." wtf

[Bitware]

I'm assuming everyone here sees these public "indecency" laws as the problem, right? The scary consensus on news9 is "Oh YOUR dick is still SO disturbing that I'm entitled to force it into hiding. But a cute little kid when he's being potty trained is special, so I blame the cop for not making arbitrary exceptions on his own." wtf

while slutwalk participants are cheered for showing some titty.

[Rudd-O]

your liberterian propaganda gets really old.
you can post a brazillion fails from your fail state, that doesnt prove anything. except that the usa is pretty fucked up, but that isnt news at all.

When you say this, all I hear is

Nananananananananananana I don't want to hear it nanananananananananana

and it makes me giggle. So thanks for the laugh.

Seconding this.  fornit's just trying to plug his ears and go "lalalalalalala I can't hear you" because he knows that statism is the root cause of such malevolences as posted by OP, and he'd rather not be made aware of reality, because it's too painful to continue believing in statism and acknowledge reality at the same time.

Statism, together with its essential belief "magical pieces of paper with orders allow us to decide who is good or bad", is the root cause of these malevolent and exploitative absurdities.

[fornit]

and that from a bunch of guys who need to reinforce their beliefs with a constant stream of biased news reports and videos...

[myrkul]

and that from a bunch of guys who need to reinforce their beliefs with a constant stream of biased news reports and videos...

We're not trying to "reinforce our beliefs," we're trying to wake you up.

[Rudd-O]

and that from a bunch of guys who need to reinforce their beliefs with a constant stream of biased news reports and videos...

We're not trying to "reinforce our beliefs," we're trying to wake you up.

Exactly.  It is not a "belief" to conclude that "it's clearly wrong to fine a mother for her toddler urinating in her own house" -- it's just a statement of painfully obvious fact.

It is, however, a belief (an irrational, supernatural, religious belief) to think that it's good to do such a horrible thing, so long as one is wearing a costume, or one is obeying pieces of paper.

And the fact that fornit is classifying the denunciation of such a horrible act as "reinforcement of beliefs" is only evidence that his irrational belief in the magical papers and costumes got questioned by the denunciation.  As usual, religious believers will lie by accusing atheists of having "beliefs" (insofar as calling something a "belief" is a propaganda tactic to disqualify and discredit correct conclusions).  Nothing more than just another instance of the pot calling the wedding dress black.

The only person whose beliefs got fornitcated here is fornit.

A small precision, though: I'm not trying to wake fornit up.  A person who has been informed of obvious reality and ethics, but persists on denying it and dissociating from reality, cannot be called "ignorant" anymore -- he's just evil.

[Grinder]

Statism, together with its essential belief "magical pieces of paper with orders allow us to decide who is good or bad", is the root cause of these malevolent and exploitative absurdities.

Without "statism" the owner of the property could have killed the child just for intruding on his property, and if you're consistent about the policy you're arguing for, nobody could have done anything about it. How is that less absurd?

[Rudd-O]

Statism, together with its essential belief "magical pieces of paper with orders allow us to decide who is good or bad", is the root cause of these malevolent and exploitative absurdities.

Without "statism" the owner of the property could have killed the child just for intruding on his property

That's strictly true whether people believe in statism or not.

Statism contains, in fact, the very belief you bring to bear here, that magical pieces of paper protect you and others from such things happening.  You'll note how this is no different from the faith of Abrahamic religions in their pieces of paper.

, and if you're consistent about the policy you're arguing for, nobody could have done anything about it. How is that less absurd?

I'm not sure what policy you think I'm arguing for... namely because I haven't actually set forth any policy to deal with toddlers peeing on people's property, so I'm not sure what you're criticizing here.

[myrkul]

Statism, together with its essential belief "magical pieces of paper with orders allow us to decide who is good or bad", is the root cause of these malevolent and exploitative absurdities.

Without "statism" the owner of the property could have killed the child just for intruding on his property, and if you're consistent about the policy you're arguing for, nobody could have done anything about it. How is that less absurd?

1. You'll note that it was the child's (or rather, the family's) own front yard. Even if AnCaps suggested that shooting 3-year old trespassers was justified, nobody was trespassing in this case.
2. Summarily shooting trespassers can (and occasionally, does) happen even today. Most AnCaps, however, would agree that it's rather excessive. A justifiable response uses proportional force, in this case, just enough to remove them from your land - which in the case of a three year old child would be very little indeed.
3. Finally, far from "nobody" could have done anything about it... just because there's no monopoly court does not mean there's no justice. Quite the opposite, in fact.

[fornit]

Exactly.  It is not a "belief" to conclude that "it's clearly wrong to fine a mother for her toddler urinating in her own house" -- it's just a statement of painfully obvious fact.

It is, however, a belief (an irrational, supernatural, religious belief) to think that it's good to do such a horrible thing, so long as one is wearing a costume, or one is obeying pieces of paper.

sigh...
actually both are beliefs. the opposite of a correct statement is a false statement, the opposite of an belief is another belief.
besides, i never stated that i disagree with the first opinion. something can be correct and its presentation can still be progaganda.

And the fact that fornit is classifying the denunciation of such a horrible act as "reinforcement of beliefs" is only evidence that his irrational belief in the magical papers and costumes got questioned by the denunciation.  As usual, religious believers will lie by accusing atheists of having "beliefs" (insofar as calling something a "belief" is a propaganda tactic to disqualify and discredit correct conclusions).  Nothing more than just another instance of the pot calling the wedding dress black.

The only person whose beliefs got fornitcated here is fornit.

A small precision, though: I'm not trying to wake fornit up.  A person who has been informed of obvious reality and ethics, but persists on denying it and dissociating from reality, cannot be called "ignorant" anymore -- he's just evil.

for someone deeming himself an atheist you sure got the self-righteous raging and dwelling in moral superiority right. most fanatics would be proud....

[myrkul]

actually both are beliefs. the opposite of a correct statement is a false statement, the opposite of an belief is another belief.

Nope.

A belief is:

something believed;  an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.

or:

confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.

or:

a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

The opposite of a belief is a fact:

something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.

or:

something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.

or:

a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.

Sorry to ruin your belief with facts.

[Vladimir]

prisoners of the cave