(July 2, 2014 at 7:13 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(July 2, 2014 at 7:10 pm)Losty Wrote: It would make my day happier

And yet it is forbidden in most places.
That freedom has been withdrawn from us... why?
Rape prevention? it is a security measure, then...
Unsightly horrors prevention? puhlease!

I sadly must disagree with good ole Ben F this time. If we never gave up freedom for security, we would be living in anarchy. It's just finding the right balance that's important.

You don't have to disagree with Franklin. The context of that quote is grossly misinterpreted by modern readers who have no idea what the fuck Franklin was talking about in 1755.

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/07/what-...ally-said/

Quote:In short, Franklin was not describing some tension between government power and individual liberty. He was describing, rather, effective self-government in the service of security as the very liberty it would be contemptible to trade.

But it is necessary to read the whole article.

(July 2, 2014 at 7:01 pm)ManMachine Wrote: "Bonjoooouuurrr, ya cheese-eatin' surrender monkeys!" - Groundskeeper Willy.

Funny, but misplaced. The only reason the U.S. and U.K. didn't capitulate in the spring of 1940 is that neither shared a border with Germany.

(July 2, 2014 at 7:01 pm)ManMachine Wrote:

(July 1, 2014 at 11:13 pm)Minimalist Wrote: go back to your desert shithole and wear whatever the fuck you want.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28106900

“Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.” - Benjamin Franklin.

"Bonjoooouuurrr, ya cheese-eatin' surrender monkeys!" - Groundskeeper Willy.

The French are idiots for doing this, and so is anyone that supports it. Surrendering freedoms in the name of security is unbelievable crass-stupidity. A life lived in fear is a life not worth living, allowing governments to get away with this is the first step down a very bad road.

MM

So if the bible tells me I can sell my daughter to slavery I should be able to do it, since I am using my religious freedom. Or maybe I can invade a government building and claim to be using my right of free circulation.

(July 2, 2014 at 7:31 pm)Minimalist Wrote: You don't have to disagree with Franklin. The context of that quote is grossly misinterpreted by modern readers who have no idea what the fuck Franklin was talking about in 1755.

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/07/what-...ally-said/

Quote:In short, Franklin was not describing some tension between government power and individual liberty. He was describing, rather, effective self-government in the service of security as the very liberty it would be contemptible to trade.

But it is necessary to read the whole article.

I love this kind of stuff and the link actually works. Thanks for sharing!

I get the fear people have about locations that might be targets for terrorism or the common thief but is having your face covered on the sidewalk really so threatening that "free" modern societies need laws against it "in the name of security"? Isn't that always the reason?

Oh, for fuck's sake. Pat Condell was right about this five fucking years ago...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlkxlzTZc48

"Civilize this crackpot religion of peace."

Great line.

If a French woman can't wear a bikini in Mecca why should a muslim woman be allowed to wear a veil in France?

(July 2, 2014 at 8:40 pm)Cato Wrote: Oh, for fuck's sake. Pat Condell was right about this five fucking years ago...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlkxlzTZc48

Sometimes you have to be vocal when you're telling the truth, otherwise people won't get it. Completely agree.