• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NYPD dictators

Seriously, it's not emotionally satisfying for me either, but yes, sometimes people do need to be protected from themselves.

So basically what you're saying is that it's ok to arrest people if they put themselves in danger. Good idea all around there.
 
You didn't answer my question. What other things do people pay for and yet don't have a right to use?

It's real easy to understand pards. A few years ago, people died in NYC because selfish people got stuck in the middle of the streets during a storm. The city first responders were literally shut down in some areas of the city.

Don't know about you, but I would gladly keep my car/truck parked to save a life.
 
I was speaking towards the privilege mindset when it comes to driving, not situational occurrences. It's all fine and good to put situational clauses in an agreement or have situations where the service can't be offered

It's the same thing here. Because of the extreme weather, people can't drive on the roads.

but what people say towards driving on public roads is that you own the roads, you pay for the roads, and yet, you don't have a right to drive on the roads.

Ok. I see your point. So your objection isn't to the actual action taken, but to the language used to justify it?

That is like saying I own my house, but I can't actually live in my house without the government permission. Oh wait..the government does that too.

I disapprove of that, for the record. But that's different in that you personally have a substantial personal right to your house.
 
It's real easy to understand pards. A few years ago, people died in NYC because selfish people got stuck in the middle of the streets during a storm. The city first responders were literally shut down in some areas of the city.

Don't know about you, but I would gladly keep my car/truck parked to save a life.

Why are they selfish? :lol:
 
It's the same thing here. Because of the extreme weather, people can't drive on the roads.



Ok. I see your point. So your objection isn't to the actual action taken, but to the language used to justify it?



I disapprove of that, for the record. But that's different in that you personally have a substantial personal right to your house.

A bit of both actually. Arresting people for driving is unacceptable, but shutting down the road is acceptable. At the same time, calling driving a privilege when you damn well already told them they own the roads, and you did in fact take their money to pay for the roads is complete and utter nonsense.
 
I find myself curious how this privilege logic works. I can't think of a situation outside of dealings with the government where you pay for something and yet don't have the right to use what you paid for.

I have a membership to my local gym. I went there the other day to use the pool but the pool was closed for an emergency cleaning due to someone having an accident in there. The pool looked fine to me but people still weren't allowed to use it.

A few months ago there was a big gas leak near my apartment. They closed down the playground during the cleanup process.

On more than one occasion I have been to Six Flags and when bad weather approached they closed some of the taller rides even though I paid full price.

About an hour ago I went to my bank to get something out of my safety deposit box and they were still closed due to the snow even though most of the other businesses in the area have reopened today.

I could go on and on and...
 
You didn't answer my question. What other things do people pay for and yet don't have a right to use?
I didn't answer because it was a dumb question. But if you insist, here's a partial list...

  • Missles
  • City street sweepers
  • Spacecraft
  • Jail cells/beds as cheap hotels
  • Congressional Gym
...and it goes on from there. You're a smart guy, I'm sure you actually know the answer and are just being purposely difficult.


Why are they selfish? :lol:
Seriously? :roll:
 
I have a membership to my local gym. I went there the other day to use the pool but the pool was closed for an emergency cleaning due to someone having an accident in there. The pool looked fine to me but people still weren't allowed to use it.

That is an agreement issue to use someone else's property. We are talking about property that the government claims you own and then turns around and says that using it is a privilege. That isn't a situational occurrence or using property that is not your own, but basically a sleight of hand where you can both be the owner of something and yet not be the owner of it.

If you own something then you have the right to use it. If you don't have the right to use it then by all accounts you don't own it. It is a lie to say the property is the peoples, but if they wish to make that lie then they have to stop calling it a privilege to use.

The language they have decided to use is dishonest and should be insulting to anyone that understands ownership.
 
Last edited:
Do people pay for the roads? If they pay for the roads then they do in fact have a right to use them. Regardless, arresting someone for driving is completely unacceptable.

They sure do have a right to use them, they can walk or wait until the people responsible for managing them say they are okay to use. As noted there were no arrests last year and I haven't heard of any this year. Apparently they need to threaten certain types of morons who would otherwise not take them seriously. I can't even guess what those people are like. LOL!
 
They sure do have a right to use them, they can walk or wait until the people responsible for managing them say they are okay to use. As noted there were no arrests last year and I haven't heard of any this year. Apparently they need to threaten certain types of morons who would otherwise not take them seriously. I can't even guess what those people are like. LOL!

It would have the same result, but be less heavy-handed if NYC followed Colorado's lead and required tire chains. That's of course because very few people in NYC are likely to own tire chains.
 
It would have the same result, but be less heavy-handed if NYC followed Colorado's lead and required tire chains. That's of course because very few people in NYC are likely to own tire chains.

Tire chains in NYC? Do you realize how many pot holes they have already? I dread taking the Cross Bronx because its a hazard. They just don't have enough snow for them. Also a lot of tunnels and bridges.
 
Back
Top Bottom