h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Dear h2g2 Community!

First up, hello & how are you all. Good? Good.

This place looks like it's got the right ideas. Communication is ALWAYS good. Which is why I'm here. But just to make sure that I can remain here I'd like to ask the community for its advice (and opinions) on the issue of posting "controversial content".

The house rules state that "If anything you post [...] condones illegal activities [...] then it has to be removed." And although I am, in principal, all for this I do have some questions to which I would love to hear your views...

... what if, in certain instances, the law is wrong? Should we not be able to state our opinions freely, and thus enable each other to discuss these openly, in order to perhaps change that law (democratically)?

... what if I condone breaking the law myself, if in certain instances I feel that the law is doing more harm than good, but would never encourage or motivate anybody else to do so also? Should I still be allowed to state such a view on a forum such as this?

... what if I actually quite enjoy spitting?

I realise that I am being very vague here. But as I said, I'm still new and am thus still trying to find my way around. Also, I don't want to antagonise anyone. Nor do I want to be associated with trolls in any kind of way, little hairy b******s that they are.

Looking forward to hearing your views.

A discussion of various points of law is not condoning I don;t think.
But, since the BBC last year broke the law of the land by screening a great long programme discussing the Monarchy and what we should do with it, quite openly entertaining and discussing how to get rid of it, then I don;t see that they have a leg to stand on

You can think a law unjust, and indeed say that. Or that it is wrong, and discuss how you would go about rectifying that.
I think the line would be drawen if you said that law X is wrong and that everyone should ignore it and go out and do X.

oh, and welcome to H2G2

Yea, I think they are most concerned with stuff like, how to build a bomb or where you could buy drugs or fence stolen goods or steal from pensioners etc.

This place has gotten a bit more restrictive over the last couple of years, but open discussion, as long as it's not abusive or foul if promoted.

If you want to see what some of the best and worst of this place I suggest you read through the back log of the "What's Wrong With Americans" thread at: F19585?thread=84337

Of course if all you want to do is promote your point of view and are not looking for any real discussion, this may not be a good place for you.

Anyway, hang around for a while and see how you like the place... it is addictive.

yeah, listen to the countman he knows what hes talking bout, one time i was away from hootoo for 3 days...*phew* i lost like 3 stone and started seeing lil purple elephants chanting "hootoo hootoo hootoo"

goddamn withdrawell symptoms


seriously though ive said some pretty bad stuff over the months and it aint been reported so it aint that strict although they do not condone bad language without the stars even if you are quoting a line from a movie or whatever

to all and to all potato monkey blad....*edges away slowly*

hmm... I recently advocated reading the backlog of WWW Americans as a punishment for silliness on h2 so I'm not sure it's a good recommendation for a newbie

The Count's advice re discussing illegal activities seems pretty on track to me.

I'm fairly sure I've seen bbc staff/italics spitting here though (or at least encouraging it)

i think www americans is quite possibly one of the best threads there is

For examlpe I have in the past started a thread in which I said I thought that drugs should be decriminalised on the grounds that I thought the "law is an ass". That was not moderated.

Whilst in another thread where I posted info on the street price of certain drugs (as of a couple of years ago) it was moderated because of the alleged shopping list tone.

It all depends on how you say it.

indeed

>> Yea, I think they are most concerned with stuff like, how to build a bomb or where you could buy drugs or fence stolen goods or steal from pensioners etc. <<

How to build a bomb: A676352
Where to buy drugs: I usually go to a chemists, although supermarkets are good as well.
Fence stolen goods: Why, eBay, of course! *
Steal from pensioners: vote Labour.

RF

* No seriously, fellas! This is a *joke*!

Yeah, the WWW Americans thread is indeed fantastic. On the one hand it showed me that I'm not alone in my frustrations. On the other hand it introduced me to www.sorryeverybody.com and that one really helped me a lot so as not to hate the Yanks too much.

As for the Illegals in our world, sounds like you're all thinking pretty much along the same lines as I am/was when I first started this. And so it's good to hear your reactions, especially as it gives me hope that this community is indeed worth hanging out with. So maybe we should have this thread turn a bit more into the wind then?

What would you say are instances where the law...

...is (a) being broken for all the wrong reasons,

...or (b) should be changed as it in itself exists for all the wrong reasons?

Here's two I prepared earlier...

(a) vigilantism - e.g. in the UK where houses of suspected (!!!) paedophiles were fire bombed by members of the public or where many wanted to hurt (if not worse) the two Bulger killers who were but children (!!!) themselves.

(b) drugs - e.g. cannabis being illegal whereas drugs such as alcohol and nicotine are accepted and taxed (!!!) in our western civilisation as they conform more with the way our society is supposed to function.

So what's your As and Bs? S**t, maybe you even got a few Cs*?
So let's hear 'em!



*maybe a "C" could be a law you totally agree with?

A worthy topic shift.

(a) Murders done in the name of preventing abortion. My wife just heard a recent case where a teen became pregnant and decided to abort it. The father decided he couldn't condone it. After failing to make his case rationally, he found her in the abortion clinic waiting room and shot her, killing her and the fetus he was illogically trying to save.

These people do not get to call their position "pro-life." They are "anti-abortion." They have very little regard for life.

(b) I'm right there with you on the drugs thing. I think we've had enough of drugs prohibition, which has been worse for our world than alcohol prohibition ever was.

Oh, but it's been very good for the drug producers and for those fighting the "war" against drugs. Neither would have the profits or budgets they have without the other.

I'm getting this feeling that all these issues really just rely on whether or not you have true principles in your life. I mean people seem to want the law (or the state for that matter) to work in a certain way, and by the book, but as soon as a situation arises where they feel that this doesn't work in their favour anymore they then proceed to "change" their principles.

But wait a minute??? I thought a "principle" is something that should last through the test of time? I mean you can change them of course, but then you can't go back to them.

Here's some "principles" that I cooked up:

- A child is a child is a child is a child. Until, that is, it grows up to become an adult. So you can't change the law depending on what that child did. As hard as it might be. It is still a child.

--- You either change the law and start declaring 10 year olds as adults, i.e. you let them drink, smoke, have sex and VOTE!!!, or you treat them the way they should be treated. Like children. But that also means that you can't punish them the same way as you would an adult. So make up your mind.

- If we create laws that serve to protect justice and the equality of all people (within our own borders), and if we judge other countries' behaviour on our own values and norms, then these laws, values & norms, by definition, must be universally applicable - even when they might work against our own, subjective interests.

--- The United States gives all its own citizens the (theoretical) right of legal protection and support and continues with its refusal to accept the authority of an International Criminals Court as it would never surrender a U.S. citizen to a foreign court. Yet, at the same time, it claims the right to arrest non-U.S. citizens outside of its own national boundaries, and to incarcarate them in Guantanamo Bay, i.e. outside of U.S. jurisdiction where they can't claim the right to an attourney. Shouldn't U.S. laws, if their so civilised, be universally applicable? So what makes non-U.S. citizens worth so much less than their U.S. counterparts?

That'll be enuff for the day, thank you.
f.



p.s.
anyone seen www.werenotsorry.com yet? It's quite appauling really, but fascinating none the less. The site seems to be down quite a lot at the moment though. Pitty really... NOT!

"- A child is a child is a child is a child. Until, that is, it grows up to become an adult. So you can't change the law depending on what that child did. As hard as it might be. It is still a child.

--- You either change the law and start declaring 10 year olds as adults, i.e. you let them drink, smoke, have sex and VOTE!!!, or you treat them the way they should be treated. Like children. But that also means that you can't punish them the same way as you would an adult. So make up your mind."

That's pretty much the problem with law. The law has to be written in absolute terms, but very little in reality is absolute. There are relativities and shades of grey involved. And this is why we ignore or lobby to change the law at times... it makes sense to do so.

For example, speed limits. There is one absolute speed limit for every vehicle travelling down a particular stretch of road. But does that make sense? The semi-truck and trailer needs much more stopping distance as the small economy car. The economy car can thus safely drive a higher speed because the shorter stopping distance means more reaction time. So why not let the economy car go a little faster, and get it off the road sooner to make room for other traffic?

Laws are an attempt to impose order on a disorderly world. And as such, they can never be relied upon completely. They provide us with a useful reference point, but the human side of the equation must be considered. The grey areas are the province of law enforcement and the courts, who are responsible for the application of the laws. They decide whether to apply a law to a certain incident on a daily basis.

For instance, going back to those speed limits, the legal speed limit on California freeways is 65mph. You'll usually see passenger cars travelling 70-80mph in good conditions, and the CHP doesn't bother them. But a semi-truck at those speeds will be cited.

"Laws are an attempt to impose order on a disorderly world."

- That makes The Law sound far more sinister than it really should be. I see laws more as a means to "organise" our disorderly world. And although I disagree with quite a few laws - and would like nothing more but for them to be changed asap - all in all I appreciate having The Law in place. So, I guess I don't (always) mind being told what to do. To me it's more of a means of protecting myself from all those idiots out there who need the fear of reprisal to stop them from abusing society (see below).

"The grey areas are the province of law enforcement and the courts, who are responsible for the application of the laws." - That's a typical English/British attitude and I quite appreciate it. Sometimes.

- You see, I'm from Germany where the law is the law is the law. That means that, if you break it, the law will be enforced by the police and/or the courts*. No matter how "nice" you or the copper may be. But you will also find that coppers hardly give you any "personal" crap as that's not doing it by the book, either.

- In Britain it all depends on who you get stopped by. If the copper is nice and you don't give him/her any crap, you will get away with quite a lot. But, like I said, it all depends on such "subjective" things as "being nice" etc. which don't always have to work in your favour.

As for driving around the UK, I don't mind your speed limits one way or the other. As my car has foreign number plates, and your country still seems to think that it's not really part of Europe (in terms of road enforcement anyway), my speeding fines and parking tickets don't get sent abroad. So all I must do is not get stopped or clamped. And even then, hey it's Britain, I'll just play dumb foreigner and get away with it.



* (or even regular people: try doing something wrong in Germany without having someone shout at you. Go on! I dare you!)

I noticed the strict adherence to rules when I was in Germany back in about 90/91 it really was one of the major differences. Things like everyone queueing up at the pedestrian crossing and waiting for the green signal before crossing even though you could see there was nothing coming for the entire length of the high street.
Like all the car headlamps turning on at the stroke of 7 (or whatever it was). I got a few words from people mainly due to my clothes I think (black leather jacket, black jeans, black combat boots and long hair means something different in Germany then the UK I feel!). Although as soon as I replied in English they suddenly became friendly and accepting.

.

Wondering how I became British...

"That makes The Law sound far more sinister than it really should be. I see laws more as a means to "organise" our disorderly world." - I wasn't trying to communicate a sinister feeling, but I was exposing my bias as to how futile I think the exercise is. Every law has unintended consequences, and they can create stupid scenarios.

For instance, California has some fascinating laws regarding self-defense. They've decided to end excessive use of force by making the defender use weaponry less lethal or equal to the weaponry used by an intruder. So if you hear shattered glass in the middle of the night, you want to bring an array of weapons down the stairs. Once you get there you'll have to interview the intruder, discussing the choice of weaponry like a pair of 17th-century duelists.

"Box cutter? Damn! I don't have one. Hmmm... I've got a screwdriver in the toolbox upstairs. Hold on a second, I'll be right back."

"Phillips or standard?"

"Standard, of course."

"How long is it from tip to handle?"

"About four inches, I'd say."

"Too long. If you have a shorter one, that's fine. Otherwise, you'd better use the phillips head."

"Right. Don't run off with any of my stuff now. I'll be back to legally defend my property in a moment."

But of course it is always a difficult dividing line with regards to the defence of you property. I mean I doubt that many people would advocate you should have no contraints about what you do to someone illegally in your property, but at the same time when it comes to defence of you stuff and family....