"the public’s safety comes ahead of an individual’s right"

Do you agree that "the public’s safety comes ahead of an individual’s right"


  • Total voters
    9
  • Poll closed .

Wrmfd

Loves Spam
Joined
Feb 16, 2016
Posts
226
Do you generally agree with that simple statement? Or not?

Obscenely simple Yes or No question: it doesn't ask for anything at all more than if you agree or not, yes or no.
 
Do you generally agree with that simple statement? Or not?

Obscenely simple Yes or No question: it doesn't ask for anything at all more than if you agree or not, yes or no.

It does.

The public's safety comes from the preservation of an individual's rights.
 
There are Limits on Both.
That is why we have the Government we have...and intend to keep it.
 
I'll answer if you can tell us, when did you stop beating your wife?
 
To some extent, yes. I certainly believe that the government should limit a persons rights to harm others, but I don't think that the government should control an individuals every action. Like with anything, there has to be a balance.
 
Individuals have many rights, for some public safety comes first, some the right comes first.

Be more specific wormfood.
 
We had this discussion years ago, when Obamacare was passed. The right-wingers all felt it was imperative to preserve the right to be a toxic hazard to everyone else on the golf course.
 
Please clarify

An individual right to what. Freedom of religion or bear arms ?

Because I know you have that in here somewhere
 
Yeah, I discerned heavily that all the wannabe brainiacs would do this, so much so in my initial prose I even advised them to try not to over extend their already vastly limited mental resources.

The only thing possibly more stupid than being unable to simply answer yes or no is then proving it by wasting so many totally irrelevant words explaining why you can't.

All this stupid and no humor, even. Friggin' GB must need rebooted again.
 
(edited)

The only thing possibly more stupid than being unable to simply answer yes or no is then proving it by wasting so many totally irrelevant words explaining why you can't.
Oh, there's another thing more stupid than that.
 
Do you generally agree with that simple statement? Or not?

Obscenely simple Yes or No question: it doesn't ask for anything at all more than if you agree or not, yes or no.

Your question is whether I "generally agree." No, I don't generally agree. The Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the Constitution stipulate individual rights by which dangerous criminals may go free and continue to prey on society. Those rights are almost always appropriately protected.

But since you're playing a game of comparative moral values, I would make the rare exception and violate the individual rights of a suspect who was KNOWN to have information that would save hundreds, thousands or millions of lives. I would get that information.
 
the concept of safety and definition of rights varies greatly.
 
Really, Corporal Butthurt? Geez, I WISH I'D THOUGHT OF THAT WHEN I WROTE THE FUCKING QUESTION MYSELF!



Fucking wannabe lawyer.

Sorry, I didn't realize you had been banned again. Had I recognized it was you, the last thing I would have done is give a serious answer to such a stupid question.
 
Back
Top