Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Curfews

2»

Comments

  • #52
    Thoie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,344 ✭✭✭Thoie


    EamonnKeane wrote: »
    So what you're saying is, we already have some arbitrary laws, so there's no harm in more arbitrary laws?

    That bit was in response to the question if being 18 magically made someone more mature than they were a day earlier - and was explaining that no it doesn't, but the law doesn't deal in grey areas.

    Moving on to your "marry at 16" comment, yes, you can marry at 16, but still not own a credit card until you're 18. You can drink legally drink at 18 here, but if you go to the States you're suddenly magically too young again.

    Interesting comment about the State not owning the outdoors - I thought the State owned any property not defined as private. So the State owns the footpath outside my house, but not my front garden. Anyone know if that's right or wrong?
    Your justifications boil down to "It is not very difficult to adhere to this rule, therefore it is a good rule."
    Is that how it's coming across to everyone else?
    People being told it is wrong to do something they know is not wrong? What's more unnatural than that?
    That can be applied to many laws (even though curfew is an idea, not a law). I "know" that killing a chicken in my kitchen then selling it on to a restaurant is not wrong, but the law says it is.


  • #53
    randylonghorn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,509 ✭✭✭✭randylonghorn


    Cow Moolester wrote: »
    I mean, adults cause more trouble late at night than children so why don't we just go for an all out curfew then? You don't see 12 year olds outside a club at 3 in the morning pissed off their faces starting fights.
    Actually, this young man makes a very valid point.

    Why not curfew everyone at 8 p.m, Thoie?

    There would be a huge decrease in drink driving, public disorder, assaults outside pubs and clubs, etc.


  • #54
    Thoie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,344 ✭✭✭Thoie


    randylonghorn wrote: »
    0_o

    Under 18 is a child now? So we have children in Ireland legally having sex from the age of 17?
    Weirdly, yes.

    The word child is defined by Section 3 of the Children Act 2001 to mean a person under the age of 18 years.
    randylonghorn wrote: »
    Cop-on will never be instilled in young people by the state. That's the parents job, and they are in the best position to do it.

    Is there any way to force parents to instil cop-on though? Ideally we wouldn't have to, parents would just do it automatically, but that quite obviously isn't happening, and the effects, as mentioned by Cow Moolester is that you have adults, who have grown up with no cop-on, hanging around after closing time, peeing on the street, causing trouble and generally being obnoxious. How many of those adults you see causing problems grew up with good examples from their parents, never put a foot wrong, and suddenly became obnoxious as they got older?


  • #55
    Thoie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,344 ✭✭✭Thoie


    randylonghorn wrote: »
    Actually, this young man makes a very valid point.

    Why not curfew everyone at 8 p.m, Thoie?

    There would be a huge decrease in drink driving, public disorder, assaults outside pubs and clubs, etc.

    I wouldn't particularly mind, the only main objection I can see to this is that some people have to work night shifts. Of course, if we're going down the road of national identity cards for everyone, then those with legitimate reasons (say, ambulance workers, power station engineers, etc.) would have special ID cards that allow them out at night.


  • #56
    theesicko
    Registered Users Posts: 10 ✭theesicko


    The idea is rediculous, did nobody have fun in their childhood playing games llike hide and seek etc. late in the evenings? Also Klaz you mention kids robbing pensioners, if kids are planning on robbing pensioners or committing other crimes then they are hardly going to pay any attention to a curfew, it would simply be broken no?? Also if they are plannin to do something like this they would just do it in the daytime instead? A curfew simply wouldnt work because it sould solve absolutely no problems. Also gaurds have better things to do. I cant believe some people are actually in favour of this, its such a bad idea. kids arent bad by nature ya know, we were all one some time ago.


  • #57
    jhegarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,441 ✭✭✭jhegarty


    randylonghorn wrote: »
    Actually, this young man makes a very valid point.

    Why not curfew everyone at 8 p.m, Thoie?

    There would be a huge decrease in drink driving, public disorder, assaults outside pubs and clubs, etc.

    Good point.

    How about going the whole way and have a 24 hour curfew for everyone.

    You are only allowed on the street going to and from work/school. You may make one supermarket trip a week at a time to be determined by your legal government overseer.


    We would be left with almost zero crime (except for curfew violators).


  • #58
    Cow Moolester
    Closed Accounts Posts: 256 ✭✭Cow Moolester


    Thoie wrote: »

    Moving on to your "marry at 16" comment, yes, you can marry at 16, but still not own a credit card until you're 18. You can drink legally drink at 18 here, but if you go to the States you're suddenly magically too young again.

    Actually, both in Ireland and most states in the US (27 states with 19 other states half way there) the legal purchasing age is 18 and 21. However in private life, once again the decision is upto the parent to give consent for their child to drink. That is why during your confirmation when you are 12/13 you agree on an age with your parents for which is acceptable to drink. Most pick 16/17.
    Thoie wrote: »
    Interesting comment about the State not owning the outdoors - I thought the State owned any property not defined as private. So the State owns the footpath outside my house, but not my front garden. Anyone know if that's right or wrong?


    It is the public, us, that owns outdoors.
    A law like this would never pass in Ireland.


  • #59
    Thoie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,344 ✭✭✭Thoie


    jhegarty wrote: »
    You are only allowed on the street going to and from work/school. You may make one supermarket trip a week at a time to be determined by your legal government overseer.
    No need for a weekly supermarket trip - many grocery stores deliver these days.


  • #60
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Cow Moolester wrote: »
    You're missing the point.
    It's fair to need ID to get into a Pub/club. You are entering a privately owned establishment so therefore you abide by their rules (and the law). However, nobody owns outside.

    And yet I dont think I am missing the point. The point is about children/teenagers being outside late in the evenings or at night. This is not about restricting them during the daylight hours.
    I'm 16 but does that matter? In the grand scheme of things, you aren't worth anything more than me. We are all born free and equal, so why should you have more of a right to go outside than me?

    Worth more? I dont believe that I have ever suggested that I am. I am, however an adult whereas you are still a child. Until you reach the age of 18 you will remain a child. That is the law as it stands.

    When you become an adult you would have gained access to alcohol, cigarettes, bars, clubs, voting, driving etc all of which have the capacity to harm a childs development.
    Honestly, the stereotyping that goes on between nearly all adults is just ridiculous. Do you think we all just hang around in our trackies, smoking, doing drugs and vandalising?

    Honestly the amount of reading between the lines, and looking into the milky way for answers by a number of posters here is ridiculous. Where did I say you all hang around in such a manner?
    Is there some magical barrier between the age of 17 and 18 that makes an 18 year old more competent to go outside after 8pm than a 17 year old or a 16 year old?

    The difference between the age of 17 and the age of 18? Why yes, the law. When the law states that you will become an adult and gain access to everything that adults have. Prior to this you are a child, and to be protected.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    randylonghorn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,509 ✭✭✭✭randylonghorn


    Thoie wrote: »
    Weirdly, yes.

    The word child is defined by Section 3 of the Children Act 2001 to mean a person under the age of 18 years.
    A definition strongly influenced by concerns re: property and inheritance I suspect, certainly not by physiology or psychology.
    Thoie wrote: »
    Is there any way to force parents to instil cop-on though?
    Not easily, I will admit, as someone who has worked professionally with both young people and their parents.

    But I absolutely believe that the type of policy you suggest is a step, nay, a gargantuan leap in the wrong direction. There might be some argument for using such measures where say a youngster has a criminal conviction, or where the parents are shown to be deficient, but even then it generally just postpones the inevitable, and allows the real problems to fester unseen.

    For the average family, this type of measure is simply an encouragement to both parent and young person to completely forsake personal responsibility, as the state has abrogated their responsibility and undertaken to do their thinking for them.
    jhegarty wrote: »
    Good point.

    How about going the whole way and have a 24 hour curfew for everyone.

    You are only allowed on the street going to and from work/school. You may make one supermarket trip a week at a time to be determined by your legal government overseer.

    We would be left with almost zero crime (except for curfew violators).
    Hey, I've got it!

    Give Nero a ring and tell him we want the Matrix back! Perfect solution to all our problems! :D


  • #62
    Cow Moolester
    Closed Accounts Posts: 256 ✭✭Cow Moolester


    I'm not denying the fact that I am a child in the state's eyes but it doesn't change the fact that they have no right to say I can't go outside when I want, when I've given them no reason to believe I'll cause harm or trouble.


  • #63
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,535 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Thoie wrote: »

    Identify problem     (and remember, just because I view this as a problem doesn't mean that everyone does):
    Many children these days believe they have a right to do what they want, when they want (for a few minor examples, see some posts on this thread where people say children have a right to be out whenever they want). This seems to translate in many cases (note, not all), to children who have no respect for other people in society.
    So in my mind the problem is a lack of respect for other people. I'm not saying lack of respect for adults specifically, just lack of respect for anyone else at all.

    If you accept that this is something that you see as a problem but not everyone does (and I think a lot of other people wouldn't think that), then it is simply not appropriate to legislate for it. At best, you should argue for a system which raises awareness about parental responsibility.

    Also, if lack of respect is the problem, you don't cure it by having even less respect for the teenagers.
    Thoie wrote: »
    Find causes:
    We have a few generations of parents who cannot/will not set boundaries, or levels of acceptable behaviour for their children. Some of the reason for this can be put down to parents having less time to spend with their kids, parents not caring, parents honestly believing they're helping their children achieve independence. As an example, witnessing a 6 year old shouting racial slurs is a reflection on the parents rather than on the child. There are many other causes - some of it may indeed just be changing times as suggested.

    Not just a problem with the parents, a lot is also to do with lack of facilities for young people, poor social education in schools and a number of other factors. Kids will be kids, unfortunately, and will always have a tendency to rebel.
    Thoie wrote: »
    Look for a remedy:
    The (unpopular) suggestion I have made is that parents should be responsible for knowing where their children are. There would be legal and financial implications for a parent not knowing where their child is, as that could be seen as not providing enough protection for the child. As I've stated a number of times already, I'm interested in hearing other opinions on the idea (opinions on my personality don't have any particular place in this discussion).

    Again, not something that you can rightly legislate for. Some parents will be good parents, others will be bad. Imposing a blanket obligation like this is unfair, and enforcing it impractical. Apart from anything else, the amount of garda time required to maintain a curfew would be immense, and after all they are not really doing any harm. It's different if the young people are committing offences, but if they are just out and about I see nothing wrong with that.

    Realistically, if someone doesn't want to raise their kids to have respect for other people, imposing a fine on them won't improve the situation, nor will branding them as criminals.
    Thoie wrote: »
    I feel that a lot of people are talking about children's rights, without taking note of the areas where parents/adults are supposed to protect and guide, and in the areas where children are not supposed to cause harm or offence to other people.

    You can't force parents to be model parents, at best all you can do is make sure that they do nothing too bad.
    Thoie wrote: »
    Many people find the notion of curfews abhorrent, I accept that. People think that my leap of logic from "people have no respect" to "let's have a curfew" is wild and uncalled for.

    It's a disproportionate response that has no respect for people's rights, and to be honest is not fully thought through. Hence you will get that response, and rightly so.
    Thoie wrote: »
    So if we start from first principles, and accept (for the sake of this discussion) that there is a problem of lack of respect, what alternative causes and solutions can you come up with?

    Well even if I accept that there is a lack of respect (which I don't), it wouldn't be a lack of respect from all kids, it would only be some. You could campaign to raise awareness of the issue, and/or you could get the gardai to deal with the more troublesome youths while leaving the others alone.


  • #64
    Thoie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,344 ✭✭✭Thoie


    Cow Moolester wrote: »
    I'm not denying the fact that I am a child in the state's eyes but it doesn't change the fact that they have no right to say I can't go outside when I want, when I've given them no reason to believe I'll cause harm or trouble.

    If the State decided to bring in legislation like this (and I think we're all agreed that it will never happen), as we live in a democracy then unfortunately they would have that right.

    If legislation was suddenly passed on Monday that all people called Thoie should be hung, drawn and quartered on O'Connell Bridge, they can do that, because we elected them. While I suspect many people here would endorse such a ruling ;), you'd probably find that the government wouldn't last very long after that, as people would start getting a bit worried about what they were up to.

    There are things on the statute books that I disagree with. I personally didn't vote the current government into power, but if I decide to remain living in Ireland, then I have to obey the laws that exist, whether I agree with them or not.


  • #65
    Thoie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,344 ✭✭✭Thoie


    Some interesting reading, thanks all. Sadly it's past my self-imposed curfew, and I'm heading to bed. Would like to continue this tomorrow if people haven't grown bored by then. In particular a few points of randylonghorn and johnnyskeleton's I'd like to pick up on. Sleep well! Don't get attacked by marauding 5 year olds!


  • #66
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,535 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Thoie wrote: »
    If legislation was suddenly passed on Monday that all people called Thoie should be hung, drawn and quartered on O'Connell Bridge, they can do that, because we elected them. While I suspect many people here would endorse such a ruling ;), you'd probably find that the government wouldn't last very long after that, as people would start getting a bit worried about what they were up to.

    No they can't, because we have a constitution which contains a number of rights which cannot be legislated around, one of which prevents the death penalty. People sometimes forget that democracy is not just about elections, but it is also about having a balance of power between government and individual rights (there are also other facets of democracy, but these are among the most important).


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    breadmond
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 203 ✭✭breadmond


    this idea completely goes against everything that a western democratic country like Ireland stands for. Profiling citizens of the country by age is just plain wrong, why should the majority of a certain section of society have unjust regulations imposed on then just because a few members of that group commit crimes. the OP seems to have the idea that youth crime is the single biggest problem facing society today, but in reality gangland crime and antisocial behaviour by drunken adults is a far bigger issue.

    Imagine if this logic, where sanctions were imposed on a whole section of society due to the actions of a few was applied to say travellers or immigrants, there would be uproar, the youth are a soft target as they cannot vote, and for the most part do not make there voices heard as much as the rest of society.

    I am 18 now but when I was younger, my friends and I would regularly hang around after dark, just talking and causing no bother to anyone. the whole point of living in a free country is that we can don't need "A good reason to be outside after 9". If that logic is applied, then why does anyone need a good reason to be out after dark, going down the road of imposing sanctions like a curfew can only lead to a more opressive and controlling state and don't think any of us want that.


  • #68
    randylonghorn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,509 ✭✭✭✭randylonghorn


    Thoie wrote: »
    If the State decided to bring in legislation like this (and I think we're all agreed that it will never happen), as we live in a democracy then unfortunately they would have that right.

    If legislation was suddenly passed on Monday that all people called Thoie should be hung, drawn and quartered on O'Connell Bridge, they can do that, because we elected them. .
    No, they can't. They don't have that right Thoie, because this is a constitutional democracy and they are elected to govern subject to that constitution.

    They might I suppose in extremis attempt to push it through by force of arms, but if so we as citizens not only have the right but the moral and ethical obligation to resist up and including the use of arms (as both life and liberty would be at risk).

    I would hope that resistance to a curfew would be civil and political rather than armed resistance, but for you, Thoie, we might have to pull out the guns!! :)
    Thoie wrote: »
    While I suspect many people here would endorse such a ruling ;), you'd probably find that the government wouldn't last very long after that, as people would start getting a bit worried about what they were up to.
    Indeed, I venture to think you might be right.
    Thoie wrote: »
    There are things on the statute books that I disagree with. I personally didn't vote the current government into power, but if I decide to remain living in Ireland, then I have to obey the laws that exist, whether I agree with them or not.
    Or choose to campaign to have them changed, as is your right in a democracy; or oppose them by other means up to and including civil unrest, if you feel they are sufficiently unjust; or indeed to oppose them beyond that point, where life and / or liberty are at risk.

    These are the basic ethical principles on which democracies are built, though as I am neither a philosopher or a political scientist, I may not have elucidated them very well.


  • #69
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    EamonnKeane, if you're going to quote me and respond to me, at least put all my quotes together, rather than mixing them up with someone else's...
    EamonnKeane wrote: »
    It hardly chimes with other laws either. You can marry at 16, drive at 17, but leave the house after Coronation Street? No way!

    You can marry with the permission of your legal guardian. Again, you can drive with the permission of your legal guardian, and legally you're not to be alone while driving. And per the OP's idea, you would also be able to leave the house after Coronation Street if accompanied by your guardian or another adult.

    [/quote] Because he wants to? Because he had homework? Because TV was on? The State does not own the outdoors.[/quote]

    See above. Answered already.
    I don't need a form of ID. If I am not suspected of a crime, why does a guard need to know who I am? And they're not exactly hard for criminals to fake.

    And if you are suspected of a crime, or some old lady is wondering why you are hanging suspiciously by her front gate?
    There was less crime back then because there were no drugs and many young men emigrated.

    Huh? What decade do you think we're talking about? The famine?
    No drugs? hahahahaha.... *deep breath* hahahahahaha.....

    As for emigration, people have been emigrating for decades and they still are. Why isn't crime lower now? So its only the drugs that are causing the problems in your eyes?
    China and Russia! Land of the free!

    Have you been to either? Russia was dodgy beyond belief, however China was remarkably peaceful. I didn't see or hear of random beatings. Nor any muggings. Hell, there wasn't even any fighting outside of clubs, and their clubs are open from 8pm to 4am... I'm not saying China doesn't have its problems, but Ireland has its own fair share.
    Because unskilled drivers kill people. Because sovereign states restrict entry of foreigners. Cash n carries don't have clubcards.

    Missed my point completely. And some cash n carries require ID to show you are a member and can purchase from their stores.
    I can't see it reducing crime. Skanger kids do not fear the law, or fines, or jail, or gardaí, or their parents. This'll just annoy those who obey the law.

    Wow, big change there. They've been doing that forever. What do you propose that would change it?
    Corporal punishment does not work, because the one who has been hit feels they have been wronged, not that they have done wrong.

    Again you're missing the point. I made these references because someone highlighted restricting peoples choice simply because one segment disagrees with their decision. It was also raised that nobody should be able to tell parents how to raise their children. And yet they have been told. repeatedly.

    I got hit in school for being a twat. So too did my friends. And most of us turned out fine. We learnt what was wrong and what was right, through the punishments & rewards we received. It was a tough system but it worked. I've spoken about said punishments with people my own age and older, and most of us agree that it was a good thing to have. We didn't enjoy it, and we wouldn't want to go through it again, but it did provide a solid form of guidance which is sadly lacking these days.
    And the euthanasia thing is because the govt. see supplying the tools of suicide as equivalent to murder, not because they don't want people to commit suicide.

    See above regarding removal of choice.
    They do it in London and Paris; therefore, it is correct, is that what you're saying? The French police use ID checks to harass blacks and Arabs; they get stopped 5/6 times a day. It's passive-aggressive intimidation.

    Aww jesus. Stop being so... grrr. I used them as examples. I pointed out that other western (because non-western countries weren't good enough) countries employ the need to have ID's.
    No, sometimes they poison them illicitly, or give them three years in a reeducation camp without trial. It's good that you "don't particularly agree" with massive electoral fraud, single-party dictatorship, persecution of religious minorities, destruction of workers' rights. Shows the strong moral backbone your upbringing gave you.

    I've had enough of this.

    Nice of you to make assumptions about what I do or do not believe or agree with. In fact, its nice of you to completely make up your own crap for me to believe in. Because this is what you have just done.

    I didn't say what I believed what was right in the Chinese governments handling of their people. Nor did I say what I believed what was wrong with the country. I made a comment in reference to this thread on one point.

    And this is a reflection of your posting style. I dont think you really read what people post. You scan what is written and then go crazy writing an amazingly righteous reply. Unfortunately, you misquote people, and then reply in a haphazard manner.

    And lastly, do you really want me to start insulting you? If not, stop with the jabs directly at me, and argue the subject.
    People being told it is wrong to do something they know is not wrong? What's more unnatural than that?

    Wow. What a simplistic answer. Hmm... Try this; Genocide - In the case of genocide, those who commited the crime believed themselves to be right for doing what they did. By your reasoning they were correct in doing so.

    I'd still like a clarification, since your answer is too childish, and vague.


  • #70
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    theesicko wrote: »
    Also Klaz you mention kids robbing pensioners,

    Quote me.

    I'm really getting sick of people making up crap about what I've said. Stick to what I've actually posted. Its a bulletin board. Just hit quote. Its easy.


  • #71
    challengemaster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,930 ✭✭✭✭challengemaster


    For the sake of everyone, I really hope you never ever get into any position with power.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,535 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    challengemaster wrote: »
    For the sake of everyone, I really hope you never ever get into any position with power.

    Let's not go down that road - I think it's clear that Thoie wants to argue her point she is not campaigning to have this curfew brought in.


  • #73
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,535 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    randylonghorn wrote: »
    No, they can't. They don't have that right Thoie, because this is a constitutional democracy and they are elected to govern subject to that constitution.

    Beat ya to it!
    randylonghorn wrote: »
    Or choose to campaign to have them changed, as is your right in a democracy; or oppose them by other means up to and including civil unrest, if you feel they are sufficiently unjust; or indeed to oppose them beyond that point, where life and / or liberty are at risk.

    These are the basic ethical principles on which democracies are built, though as I am neither a philosopher or a political scientist, I may not have elucidated them very well.

    Democracy does not give you the right to create a risk to life and / or liberty. Ghandi did well for himself because he stuck to his non violent principles. Violence is so rarely the answer (but it can be fun).


  • #74
    randylonghorn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,509 ✭✭✭✭randylonghorn


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    Democracy does not give you the right to create a risk to life and / or liberty.
    Ghandi did well for himself because he stuck to his non violent principles. Violence is so rarely the answer (but it can be fun).
    Non-violence would tend to be my preference, tbh.

    However, it has traditionally been argued that where the state sets aside its responsibility to uphold liberty and protect life, the risk has already been created, and citizens have a right to respond in like manner.


  • #75
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    challengemaster wrote: »
    For the sake of everyone, I really hope you never ever get into any position with power.

    If that's directed at me, it might surprise you that I don't want any such position of power. I'm quite happy with my current life. :D


  • #76
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,535 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    randylonghorn wrote: »
    Non-violence would tend to be my preference, tbh.

    However, it has traditionally been argued that where the state sets aside its responsibility to uphold liberty and protect life, the risk has already been created, and citizens have a right to respond in like manner.

    That's Thomas Jefferson or one of those guys isn't it? I think their argument is more "you have the right to take arms against a tyrant" rather than you can take arms against any injustice you perceive. I guess though it's just a matter of scale.


  • #77
    randylonghorn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,509 ✭✭✭✭randylonghorn


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    That's Thomas Jefferson or one of those guys isn't it? I think their argument is more "you have the right to take arms against a tyrant" rather than you can take arms against any injustice you perceive.
    Indeed ...
    randylonghorn wrote: »
    ... by other means up to and including civil unrest, if you feel they are sufficiently unjust; or indeed to oppose them beyond that point, where life and / or liberty are at risk.
    randylonghorn wrote: »
    ... where the state sets aside its responsibility to uphold liberty and protect life, the risk has already been created, and citizens have a right to respond in like manner.

    Jefferson didn't come up with the basic ideas, though given his context and his ability to express himself he tends to be remembered.
    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    I guess though it's just a matter of scale.
    Indeed, dude, it often is! >_>


  • #78
    iguana
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,916 ✭✭✭✭iguana


    Thoie wrote: »
    Wow, I'm glad I posted this somewhere for reasoned debate. I'd hate any knee jerk reactions.
    Thoie wrote: »
    But then late at night, I'd like to be able to walk past a group of 6-7 teenagers without tensing up, and listening for footsteps following me afterwards...

    The irony is actually hurting me.


  • #79
    iguana
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,916 ✭✭✭✭iguana


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Ok. I've been asked to show ID in London, and Paris. Both by police carrying semi-automatic weapons. Is that a better example?

    Total and utter BS. The English police force is like the gardai, they are unarmed and only specialist units carry guns. There is also no legal requirement to carry ID in the UK, in fact the proposal of national ID cards is the cause of great national debate as the majority are opposed to the idea.






    i


  • #80
    Thoie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,344 ✭✭✭Thoie


    iguana wrote: »
    The irony is actually hurting me.

    I believe you're misquoting me, and I'd appreciate if you could double check that please. As far as I can see, Klaz made the second statement.

    In general, apologies for not coming back to this yet - a number of things have cropped up this week which have prevented me from continuing the discussion.


  • #81
    seahorse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,164 ✭✭✭seahorse


    Thoie wrote: »
    My first question is is my idea so whacky and horrendous?

    Yes; along with being unfair, unreasonable and unworkable.
    Thoie wrote: »
    Secondly, what are these legitimate things that teenagers/kids would need to be doing outside after hours?

    After what hours? 8pm in winter? - Socialising, traveling to and from the bowling alley, the youth club, the boxing club, the local chipper/supermarket/shops, friends/girlfriends/boyfriends houses - I could go on all day.

    My child is in his mid-teens and while I'd fully support a curfew on kids who've been proven to be guilty of anti-social behaviour, there's no way in hell I'd accept a curfew for kids who are simply socialising with their peers and doing no harm to anything or anyone. What adults sometimes forget is that teenagers put in as many hours in school as most adults do in a full-time job and as far as I'm concerned, as long as they're behaving themselves, they are damn well entitled to spend their out of school hours as they see fit.

    What you are talking about is punishing all under 18's for the actions of a small minority of their age-group, so since that is your attitude, presumably you'd happily accept not being allowed to drive after a certain hour, for example, since a minority of adults drive under the influence of alcohol after pub closing?


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement