Shopsmith Forums

db5 wrote:Dealing with Self-Proclaimed AuthorityWhen people tell you that you can’t do something or that you must do something just agree and move on, doing whatever it was you intended. Immediately they will leave you alone. Never argue nor explain. Just agree, "Okay," and do whatever it was that you wanted to do. They did what they were trained to do and don't want to do anything differently so nothing will result from your agreement. Just agree and move on.

I assume you read the first part of this, which described who those people are.

Ever hear the word "anarchy" or "rebellion"?

I have seen the results of some people that have followed this line of thinking. They usually get themselves into a fix simply because they didn't have to listen to the "no authority person" that was there to protect them.

steve4447 wrote:You hit the nail on the head....All I know about you is what you have disclosed...in these posts...Which I interpret as what you want me to know or think of you....

You may indeed be the kindest of souls and very charitable....but that is not what I have seen...Rather a different picture...

My argument is not with you about that particular issue of prostitution but rather the need of society to restrain it's worst actors against their own free will....I also call to your attention that neither you or I get to interpret The Constitution but that is the obligation of The Courts...Our obligation is to comply with their judgment...

I chose to stand with the honest hardworking little people who do get up in the morning and show up and do their job to the best of their abilities...It is unfortunate that you feel that they are oppressing you..Perhaps by telling where they require you to park on their private property....I can only wonder what a greeting I will get when I park on your lawn?..

Cheers

When I'm late to a thread, I usually read the whole thing before I start chiming in. I haven't read beyond this post yet, but feel like I need to say something n response.

It is NOT our "obligation" to comply with the judgement of the courts when those judgements infringe upon our rights and liberties. It is our obligation, as sovereign beings and as handed to us by our Founders, to fight for and defend our rights and liberties, even against the courts. Whether that's in the arena of public opinion, electing officials dedicated to changing the makeup of the courts, or armed resistance if that is necessary. "We The People" are the masters of the government. The government is not my master.

I think the passive-aggressive method described in the OP is OK for dealing with the truly self-appointed busy-bodies. But, it's inappropriate for dealing with the peons charged with enforcing management's rules.

If I park at a hotel, I'll probably park where they want me to. I might try to get away with parking elsewhere, but if caught, I won't fall back on a sense of entitlement and dismiss the poor guy who's only trying to do his job. Instead, I'll probably be embarrassed that I was caught, in some small way, diminishing the social contract.

Ed in Tampa wrote:Ever hear the word "anarchy" or "rebellion"?

I have seen the results of some people that have followed this line of thinking. They usually get themselves into a fix simply because they didn't have to listen to the "no authority person" that was there to protect them.

Perhaps, but as sentient beings we do have the ability to reason for ourselves and do not depend upon 'big brother'.

It is when 'big brother' deviates from benign protective endeavors that is cause for 'rebellion'!

It is when 'we' deviate from collective concern for each other that anarchy exists.

Be sure the 'shoe' fits before putting it on.

steve4447 wrote:Constitutional Freedoms are not absolute....The often cited freedom of Speech and ..shouting FIRE ..in a crowed theater...

I really hate that analogy. Shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater is not "speech." And saying you can't do that is NOT an example of a justified "limitation of free speech" that we have to accept. I absolutely hate that it is commonly seen that way.

Shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater (when there's no fire) could result in mass panic, trampling, injury, and death. It's no different than waving a gun around in a crowded theater and telling people to get out as fast as they can or you're going to start shooting. It doesn't matter that it's a toy gun just like it doesn't matter that there's really no fire. You are directly causing people physical and emotional harm. Your ACTIONS are hurting other people. Not your "speech." And a law against that is NOT a "free speech" limitation. We can still talk about a theater burning all we want.

There is no way that the First Amendment applies to that situation. So the converse is true. There is no way that situation applies to the First Amendment somehow implying that there are justified limitations to the right to free speech.

The First Amendment protects your right (it doesn't give that right to you, but protects a right you have as a result of existing) to express ideas, share opinions, and speak your mind without fear of imprisonment, fines, or other forms of punishment from the government. There are no justified exceptions to that protection and I hate that the "shouting fire in a crowded theater" example is misconstrued as being one.

heathicus wrote:When I'm late to a thread, I usually read the whole thing before I start chiming in. I haven't read beyond this post yet, but feel like I need to say something n response.

It is NOT our "obligation" to comply with the judgement of the courts when those judgements infringe upon our rights and liberties. It is our obligation, as sovereign beings and as handed to us by our Founders, to fight for and defend our rights and liberties, even against the courts. Whether that's in the arena of public opinion, electing officials dedicated to changing the makeup of the courts, or armed resistance if that is necessary. "We The People" are the masters of the government. The government is not my master.

Another 'AMEN'!:)

heathicus wrote:I really hate that analogy. Shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater is not "speech." And saying you can't do that is NOT an example of a justified "limitation of free speech" that we have to accept. I absolutely hate that it is commonly seen that way.

Shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater (when there's no fire) could result in mass panic, trampling, injury, and death. It's no different than waving a gun around in a crowded theater and telling people to get out as fast as they can or you're going to start shooting. It doesn't matter that it's a toy gun just like it doesn't matter that there's really no fire. You are directly causing people physical and emotional harm. Your ACTIONS are hurting other people. Not your "speech." And a law against that is NOT a "free speech" limitation. We can still talk about a theater burning all we want.

There is no way that the First Amendment applies to that situation. So the converse is true. There is no way that situation applies to the First Amendment somehow implying that there are justified limitations to the right to free speech.

The First Amendment protects your right (it doesn't give that right to you, but protects a right you have as a result of existing) to express ideas, share opinions, and speak your mind without fear of imprisonment, fines, or other forms of punishment from the government. There are no justified exceptions to that protection and I hate that the "shouting fire in a crowded theater" example is misconstrued as being one.

And again!!!!

Anybody else notice how a certain psychologist has a penchant for throwing mental bombs and then stands back and observes the resultant explosions?

JPG40504 wrote:Anybody else notice how a certain psychologist has a penchant for throwing mental bombs and then stands back and observes the resultant explosions?

Did you ever notice that bullies don't like it when you hit back?...

I have decided that for the good of all I will stop commenting on this forum...I'm hurting tender feelings..What I am seeing is the reason that Shopsmith is going to slip into obscurity...The ever shrinking demographic of entitled bitter old white men...

No one else welcome....It has been an enlightening experience for me..but I think I'll go back and hand out with the working poor and the other people...

Thanks for the education....

I can only speak for myself, but you haven't hurt my feelings. They're not that tender! And, I also think these discussions are "for the good of all." People need to think about these kind of things instead of just blindly doing whatever they're told. These discussions encourage those thoughts. As long as it stays civil and doesn't devolve into personal attacks, and I don't think it has, then the discussion - the exchange of ideas and the challenge and defense of those ideas - can only be for the good.