AUSTIN | Photos & Videos Thread

[the Genral]

Originally Posted by Hill Country

Why the "genral" spelling instead of "general"?

"Byotch" is what you thought you were.

Genral is just my thang. General is over used. Don't want to be confused with that dopey insurance commercial. And if you know me like you once said you think you do...its an abreviation of my name. Byotch, thanks for correcting my spelling.

[wwmiv]

Amen to the genral and his responses. Note the spelling of genral is correct.

[Syndic]

Originally Posted by the Genral

REALLY? Do you really believe what you just said Laws are in place to protect people and property. In a civilized society, we're not supposed to pick and choose the ones we obey or disobey. Minimizing someone's convictions like this just minimizes the counterpoint you are trying to make. And those of us who pick and choose our battles certainly don't need to chill. But maybe tomorrow we can take on ISIS and ebola...

Do I really believe that it's okay to break some laws? Of course I do. I smoke pot every once in a while. Does that put you in danger? No. When there's no around and I need to cross the street, I sometimes jaywalk. Does that put you in danger? No. When I'm on a road trip and I want to make good time, sometimes I go 5 miles over the speed limit. I don't think that endangers anybody, either, as I know perfectly well how to drive and I have common sense. I've even been known to protest without a permit. Or illegally download highly successful movies. Also victimless crimes.

And regarding civilization, industrial civilization has brought the planet to the brink of environmental ruin. Civilization = sitting at a stoplight with no one in a 100 mile radius and waiting for the light to change. Too few people use their common sense these days and, instead, place way too much trust in our lawmakers and follow every single law like a goodie two shoe. We're humans, not robots. Use your damn brains. That's what they're there for. I don't trust politicians farther than I can throw a rock. Sometimes, laws are made with agendas. At one point, in one part of the world, walking the streets as a Jew was illegal. Representative governments are often fucktarded. Someday, you will learn that. I hope.

[the Genral]

[QUOTE=Syndic;6693141]Do I really believe that it's okay to break some laws? Of course I do. I smoke pot every once in a while. Does that put you in danger? No. When there's no around and I need to cross the street, I sometimes jaywalk. Does that put you in danger? No. When I'm on a road trip and I want to make good time, sometimes I go 5 miles over the speed limit. I don't think that endangers anybody, either, as I know perfectly well how to drive and I have common sense. I've even been known to protest without a permit. Or illegally download highly successful movies. Also victimless crimes.

And regarding civilization, industrial civilization has brought the planet to the brink of environmental ruin. Civilization = sitting at a stoplight with no one in a 100 mile radius and waiting for the light to change. Too few people use their common sense these days and, instead, place way too much trust in our lawmakers and follow every single law like a goodie two shoe. We're humans, not robots. Use your damn brains. That's what they're there for. I don't trust politicians farther than I can throw a rock. Sometimes, laws are made with agendas. At one point, in one part of the world, walking the streets as a Jew was illegal. Representative governments are often fucktarded. Someday, you will learn that. I hope.[/ p
QUOTE]
FINALLY! A point for point debate without insults! I don't agree with most of what you just said, and I choose to learn from my own observations, not so much on other people's opinions, but you did just prove differences of opinions can be discussed without defamation of character or character assassination, for that, I commend you
Btw, if you don't like a law, then fight the law, ie: its no longer illegal to ride a motorcycle without a helmet. But you still need to wear a seatbelt in a car. I get what you are saying, but you still need to wear your seatbelt unless you are willing to pay the consequences if you get caught whether or not you think it makes sense or hurts no one but yourself.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Syndic

Do I really believe that it's okay to break some laws? Of course I do. I smoke pot every once in a while. Does that put you in danger? No. When there's no around and I need to cross the street, I sometimes jaywalk. Does that put you in danger? No. When I'm on a road trip and I want to make good time, sometimes I go 5 miles over the speed limit. I don't think that endangers anybody, either, as I know perfectly well how to drive and I have common sense. I've even been known to protest without a permit. Or illegally download highly successful movies. Also victimless crimes.

Does trespassing on a construction site put people (both the perpetrator and potential victims) in danger? Potentially yes.

Does trespassing have victims? Yes: the property owner.

Is trespassing legitimately illegal, unlike smoking pot? Yes, for reasons that both myself and the genral have recounted here.

---

You have tried to equate trespassing with these other crimes on the basis of victimhood and you have absolutely failed.

[the Genral]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Does trespassing on a construction site put people (both the perpetrator and potential victims) in danger? Potentially yes.

Does trespassing have victims? Yes: the property owner.

Is trespassing legitimately illegal, unlike smoking pot? Yes, for reasons that both myself and the genral have recounted here.

---

You have tried to equate trespassing with these other crimes on the basis of victimhood and you have absolutely failed.

Oh, you just brought up a point I never considered, if someone gets hurt climbing around a construction site, the owner could potentially be liable for not providing adequate security even with the law in place. Mmmmm, no wonder my friends on the Colorado Tower were so interested, if not surprised when I mentioned this to them...ooops.

[Syndic]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Does trespassing on a construction site put people (both the perpetrator and potential victims) in danger? Potentially yes.

Does trespassing have victims? Yes: the property owner.

Is trespassing legitimately illegal, unlike smoking pot? Yes, for reasons that both myself and the genral have recounted here.

---

You have tried to equate trespassing with these other crimes on the basis of victimhood and you have absolutely failed.

Unless they did some vandalism (which I highly doubt), absolutely nobody is a victim of IluvATX here. Implying that simply going into a place is hurting somebody is extremely laughable. Private property rights are moronic. (Notice, I didn't say personal property rights, which are a completely different thing.) More of that libertarian absolutism rearing its ugly head again. Who knew our Democratic strategists were libertarian fundamentalists? Oh, Texas... never change. SMH

[Syndic]

Originally Posted by the Genral

FINALLY! A point for point debate without insults! I don't agree with most of what you just said, and I choose to learn from my own observations, not so much on other people's opinions, but you did just prove differences of opinions can be discussed without defamation of character or character assassination, for that, I commend you

You're welcome. I get emotional just like everyone else at times, but as someone who's into philosophy, I do like to stay on topic and address the points at hand, rather than just call names. It's not productive to just call names or assassinate characters.

Originally Posted by the Genral

Btw, if you don't like a law, then fight the law, ie: its no longer illegal to ride a motorcycle without a helmet. But you still need to wear a seatbelt in a car. I get what you are saying, but you still need to wear your seatbelt unless you are willing to pay the consequences if you get caught whether or not you think it makes sense or hurts no one but yourself.

You're absolutely right. With some laws, the most risk is to the perpetrator, like with seatbelts or, in this case, with IluvATX risking getting caught and facing prosecution. They apparently thought it was worth the risk. Just like I often think it's worth the risk to not wear my seat belt if I'm just driving a short distance.

[lzppjb]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Does trespassing on a construction site put people (both the perpetrator and potential victims) in danger? Potentially yes.

Does trespassing have victims? Yes: the property owner.

Is trespassing legitimately illegal, unlike smoking pot? Yes, for reasons that both myself and the genral have recounted here.

---

You have tried to equate trespassing with these other crimes on the basis of victimhood and you have absolutely failed.

The Genral said you can't pick and choose which laws to follow, so it really doesn't matter if there's a victim or not.

Do you ever speed? Do you ever roll through a stop sign? Turn without signaling? Did you ever download music w/out paying for it? That list can go on and on.

And you said "legitimately" illegal. What does that even mean? If it's a law, you can't pick and choose, right?

[lzppjb]

For the record, I don't have a problem with the photos. I think he's absolutely nuts for going up there, but whatever. I get the fear of him falling on someone. That's a legit concern. But so is walking by a skyscraper and having the glass fall off and onto your head.

The trespassing/owner's liability is a better angle, IMO.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Syndic

Unless they did some vandalism (which I highly doubt), absolutely nobody is a victim of IluvATX here. Implying that simply going into a place is hurting somebody is extremely laughable. Private property rights are moronic. (Notice, I didn't say personal property rights, which are a completely different thing.) More of that libertarian absolutism rearing its ugly head again. Who knew our Democratic strategists were libertarian fundamentalists? Oh, Texas... never change. SMH

No. If something happens to the person while they're trespassing, they can be liable under state law depending on the conditions present on the site. So, no, there are definitely victims here.

This is not libertarianism at all, but a focus on fundamental property rights that I believe a strong and well funded government (!!!) should protect.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

The Genral said you can't pick and choose which laws to follow, so it really doesn't matter if there's a victim or not.

Do you ever speed? Do you ever roll through a stop sign? Turn without signaling? Did you ever download music w/out paying for it? That list can go on and on.

And you said "legitimately" illegal. What does that even mean? If it's a law, you can't pick and choose, right?

Have you ever read Letter from Birmingham Jail?

[the Genral]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

For the record, I don't have a problem with the photos. I think he's absolutely nuts for going up there, but whatever. I get the fear of him falling on someone. That's a legit concern. But so is walking by a skyscraper and having the glass fall off and onto your head.

The trespassing/owner's liability is a better angle, IMO.

So here we go...a guy climbs on top of my roof at 6am because he wants to take pictures of the sunrise from the vantage point, without my permission. He falls and breaks his leg and causes damage on the way down. He later sues me in court for his injuries. Whether he has a case or not, I am now forced to defend myself and will no doubt incur some expenses in the meantime. Btw, he claims I provided him the means to access my roof because I left a ladder in the back yard. In the meantime he posts these awesome pictures of the sunrise that while people on the forum don't condone what he did, they still think its ok for him to post the pictures. Now...a man robs another man of $1000, he then gives his friends $50 each. They don't condone what the man did, but they accept the gift because at least they didn't steal it so its ok. Look, if you can't condone the actions of an individual, and I'm not directing this to just you lz' , then in principle you shouldn't accept any part of it. What wwmiv and I are saying is no one has the right to climb around on private property for various reasons, notwithstanding that there is a purposeful law against it, whether it hurts someone or not, or makes sense or not you do not have the right to do it. If you agree that its wrong, then EVERYTHING that comes out of it is wrong, its ill gotten booty. If you don't think its wrong, then by all means say so and stand on that side of the line. I respect full commitment, even if I don't agree. When people straddle the fence, it even makes my balls hurt. If this was safe, smart, and legal, I'd pay to have an opportunity to catch those views. Since its not, maybe that's why for some, you are ok with someone else doing the dirty work for you...welllll while your up there, even though I don't agree with what you're doing, why don't cha just snap off a few shots so we can see what we're missing?! And by all means, keep 'em coming...
ok, this time I'm really done. I'm preached out. May I get a "Thank The Lord and Amen!

[wwmiv]

Thanks be to Him and praise the Lord and savior almighty Jesus Christ, God, the Holy Ghost and amen and all that jazz (hands)!

(can you tell I'm atheist?)

[the Genral]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Thanks be to Him and praise the Lord and savior almighty Jesus Christ, God, the Holy Ghost and amen and all that jazz (hands)!

(can you tell I'm atheist?)

Only since you just mentioned it. Holy shit I'm teamed up with someone whose going to hell

[wwmiv]

Lol.

[Syndic]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

No. If something happens to the person while they're trespassing, they can be liable under state law depending on the conditions present on the site. So, no, there are definitely victims here.

This is not libertarianism at all, but a focus on fundamental property rights that I believe a strong and well funded government (!!!) should protect.

Well, since no one got hurt, there isn't a victim here. I suppose there was a risk of creating a "victim" (via liability), if you can really ever see a giant corporation as a "victim", but none was created by just IluvATX entering the place. Putting someone at risk of liability is not victimizing them. I'm pretty sure they don't even know this happened.

I'm a socialist and an atheist (I'm doubly going to Hell, amirite?) so all this talk about "fundamental property rights" seems disgustingly capitalist and illegitimate. I don't believe in private property rights. That's not real. You do your thing, IluvATX.

[wwmiv]

I literally just lost all respect for you.

How can you not respect or believe in property rights and hate capitalism, yet be a member of a board whose existence and modus operandi is completely owed to the success and vision of both of those cultural/economic systems?

It's at once both ironic and hypocritical.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Syndic

Well, since no one got hurt, there isn't a victim here. I suppose there was a risk of creating a "victim" (via liability), if you can really ever see a giant corporation as a "victim", but none was created by just IluvATX entering the place. Putting someone at risk of liability is not victimizing them.

The law does not just exist to punish those who have created victims, but it also exists to prevent victims from being created in the first place.

[Syndic]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

I literally just lost all respect for you.

Oh how rational of you.

Originally Posted by wwmiv

How can you not respect or believe in property rights and hate capitalism, yet be a member of a board whose existence and modus operandi is completely owed to the success and vision of both of those cultural/economic systems?

Just because I like development doesn't mean I like the system that we're using to facilitate it right now (at a pace that's a little too slow for me, personally). Development would take place under socialism, too. Only, regular people would get to enjoy it instead of being KICKED OUT OF THE CITY. That being said, I also HATE a lot of development. I hate over-development that's destroying the environment. Private property rights turn the natural world into fenced parcels, completely jeopardizing animals' natural habitats. Name one ecological natural wonder that's not IN DECLINE because of capitalism and I'll be impressed.

It wasn't my intention to start a debate on economic philosophy. For that, I apologize. I just think people are insane if they think there's nothing negative about capitalism. I respect personal property rights but not private. I consider it to be theft. I wouldn't have respect for capitalists if I didn't think they were just asleep and ignorant of the truth. Evidence of that is the fact that much of what I'm saying here is likely completely going over your head.