Classic Conversation Thread

[SLAM!]

30 minutes ago, nature club said:

if you are in a biker gang or a 'hood', 

do you loose some of your first amendment rights?  

are you under some kind of Sharia Law?

 

I don't think an allegiance is something that takes away a right.

 

I think being guilty of an action takes away a right.

 

If someone's in a gang or a 'hood', as you say, then they're very simply 'in the gang', or 'in the hood'.

 

They have to actually do something wrong to be deserving of prison time.

 

Being sent to prison... that is the punishment that takes away the rights of the American, whether temporarily or permanently.

 

But Sharia Law is different, I think. Sharia Law can be crummy, but it's a system where a person can go to a marketplace, set up a tent, and sell goods for a living (most likely to be an acceptable practice for men -- see the movie The Breadwinner, which is on Netflix).

 

Once you commit a crime, in what should be any country, it doesn't matter which allegiances you've made. You go to jail, where you're under constant surveillance. And that's that.

 

So to answer your question, if a gang is applying themselves to unlawful practices, then they become deserving of jail-time, and thus lose their right to be undeserving of jail-time. There is a sense of freedom that is lost, not just by the law, but by the personal choices made by the individual, as once they've stolen or raped or murdered or this or that, they are now on the run, they now have something to avoid, which is that prison-time. Having to constantly try and avoid the prison-time is not freedom. It can never be freedom.

 

This is why I've committed myself to being a lawful American citizen, both locally and nationally.  If I am not causing any problems, I am free to do what I want. I am free to go to many places, like school, or a bookstore, or a job, or my parent's houses, or my church. And I am free to be a positive influence on a community.

 

I'm not sure if this was the answer you were looking for, but it's the answer I have.

Edited December 31, 2018 by Slambros

[dxmatrixdt]

.

Edited February 19, 2019 by Slave Animal Rights

[4815162342]

9 minutes ago, nature club said:

according to you

 

according to the law

[Barnack]

20 minutes ago, Slambros said:

If someone's in a gang or a 'hood', as you say, then they're very simply 'in the gang', or 'in the hood'.

 

They have to actually to something wrong to be deserving of prison time.

That was before the RICO act right ? Now belonging to a gangster or terrorist group tend to be illegal in many jurisdiction by itself,

 

Sec. 1962. Prohibited activities 

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person who has received any income derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt in which such person has participated as a principal within the meaning of section 2, title 18, United States Code, to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such income, or the proceeds of such income, in acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment or operation of, any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce. A purchase of securities on the open market for purposes of investment, and without the intention of controlling or participating in the control of the issuer, or of assisting another to do so, shall not be unlawful under this subsection if the securities of the issuer held by the purchaser, the members of his immediate family, and his or their accomplices in any pattern or racketerring activity or the collection of an unlawful debt after such purchase do not amount in the aggregate to one percent of the outstanding securities of any one class, and do not confer, either in law or in fact, the power to elect one or more directors of the issuer. 

(b) It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of any unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce. 

(c) It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt. 

(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act

 

Not sure if it is more than semantic-loophole closing as being actual member of such group would probably require doing something illegal to make you an actual member vs an hangaround., but being an proven member of Al-Quaida if such a thing exist like it does for ISIS is probable to put you in some legal trouble (at least remove your right to fly over the US).

Edited December 31, 2018 by Barnack

[dxmatrixdt]

.

Edited February 19, 2019 by Slave Animal Rights

[dxmatrixdt]

.

Edited February 19, 2019 by Slave Animal Rights

[4815162342]

6 minutes ago, nature club said:

Sharia's Law?

 

actual law.

[dxmatrixdt]

.

Edited February 19, 2019 by Slave Animal Rights

[elcaballero]

 

[4815162342]

2 minutes ago, nature club said:

 law written by man

 

Which is what the First Amendment is. As well as every domestic criminal statute. None of which remove rights of speech, assembly, press, or religion from someone purely on the basis of social association with criminals.

 

Perhaps you can stop the absent-minded act once in a while, or just acknowledge that you don't actually know what you are rambling about.

[dxmatrixdt]

.

Edited February 19, 2019 by Slave Animal Rights

[Plain Old Tele]

3 minutes ago, nature club said:

would that help make BOT a better place?

 

Since BOT is a private entity, the first amendment is meaningless here.

[dxmatrixdt]

.

Edited February 19, 2019 by Slave Animal Rights

[Alpha]

1 hour ago, nature club said:

if you are in a biker gang or a 'hood', 

do you loose some of your first amendment rights?  

are you under some kind of Sharia Law?

[dxmatrixdt]

1 minute ago, Alpha said:

mother's angry!

[Plain Old Tele]

Holy shit, LET THE CORPSES TAN

[terrestrial]

7 minutes ago, Telemachos said:

Holy shit, LET THE CORPSES TAN 

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5827212/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

you get to run to IMDb far too often

 

Seems not to be something I want to watch (storywise in connection how the original title gets translated to in different languages and ... makes it not appealing enough to even watch the tralier - for now)

= what might be the redeeming details why I would want to look into it?

Exceptional quality work of department....?

[dxmatrixdt]

.

Edited February 19, 2019 by Slave Animal Rights

[JB33]

1 minute ago, nature club said:

lol at Crazy Rich Asians when the rich couple goes casually shopping and says that they are "economic people".  Crazy Rich Asians starts off where you are immersed in this easy world, so when they go strolling out with common city people and say they are economic people, one can feel their step down to regular things like gas, electricity, and streets, and the audience  can feel their struggle to blend in with the regular world.

 

I tried to compare that with soul mates because the 'dreamer' could be seen as a stalker or part of someone's past or in their closet.  I think if you have high schools stuffed in those one-way destined relationships, being released or gaining adult freedom could be similar to Hereditary.  Like if you want to campaign for feminism rights and get cast in a movie, but your also getting voted in as a female sex figure to be an all time poster figure.

so being in Hollywood would be like Crazy Rich Asians with unlimited romance, and then soul mates are road blocks like that are too easy to write off. 

then in order to experiment and go "economical", they would be to reduce and imprison themselves to find out what contemporary dating is like and what soul mates are, and to explore the heart of a 'commoner'

 

the Hereditary P.O.V. shows objectivity from parents raising a kid, or generation differences.  Should kids graduate and be released to districts instead of mixing in with a public with a Conservative background?

What. The. Fuck.

[Plain Old Tele]

4 minutes ago, terrestrial said:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5827212/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

you get to run to IMDb far too often

 

Seems not to be something I want to watch (storywise in connection how the original title gets translated to in different languages and ... makes it not appealing enough to even watch the tralier - for now)

= what might be the redeeming details why I would want to look into it?

Exceptional quality work of department....?

 

It’s pure unadulterated flashy, show-off joy of filmmaking techniques: gonzo, in-your-face cinematography and sound design. The story is basic to the point of being generic, but the filmmakers use that as framework to play around with nonlinear time: looping, replaying moments from different perspectives, skipping back way or even jumping out of the main story to explore what could be moments of character back story or dreams. All that combined with a love and slavish recreation of spaghetti westerns and 1970s European exploitation flicks.

 

 

@The Stingray how the heck haven’t you seen this yet?