[Blue Lion]

Lion, it's obvious you aren't gonna change your mind, so I'm not gonna bother

I'm not going to change my mind that laws are the result of a communities ethics?

"This is a matter of what we think is right and wrong, not the rules we use to enforce what is right and wrong!"

You're dealing with an issue that can't be solved by one person's morals or ethics. You have to use the communities morals or ethics, we call those 'laws'. I'm not sure what part is giving you trouble.

[peterv]

And as Joshua pointed:

I, myself, as a dutch youth, have never encountered the mosquito (I live in a rural area). However, I am quite sure it IS unconstitutional. We have a Freedom-Of-Gathering constitution, which allows any group to form anywhere within the bounds of the law (In other words, if they don't go throwing rocks, 8 16-year olds may go anywhere as they please by the constituion) The mosquite prevents that from happening, thus, it is unconstitutional.

Now, you don't have to be a lowyer to understand that the constitution is the Superior law and everything that opposes it is by default illegal. So, based on your argument, i rest my case.

[Ford Prefect]

You're dealing with an issue that can't be solved by one person's morals or ethics. You have to use the communities morals or ethics, we call those 'laws'. I'm not sure what part is giving you trouble.

No, the law is, ideally, an extrapolation from what are perceived to be societal morals and ethics. The whole point of having a debate like this is to determine what those morals are. This is a debate over whether the measure is reasonable. In all likelihood it's perfectly legal, but that doesn't mean it's not a dick thing to do. Simply deferring to its legal status just circumvents the question at hand entirely.

[Blue Lion]

And as Joshua pointed:

I, myself, as a dutch youth, have never encountered the mosquito (I live in a rural area). However, I am quite sure it IS unconstitutional. We have a Freedom-Of-Gathering constitution, which allows any group to form anywhere within the bounds of the law (In other words, if they don't go throwing rocks, 8 16-year olds may go anywhere as they please by the constituion) The mosquite prevents that from happening, thus, it is unconstitutional.

Now, you don't have to be a lowyer to understand that the constitution is the Superior law and everything that opposes it is by default illegal. So, based on your argument, i rest my case.

You're not getting it. That sound does not stop you from standing there. You can go stand there right now. Stand there all night if you want to.

No one will arrest you or remove you from that spot.

The whole argument that they won't let you stand there is kinda silly cause you can walk up and do it.

[peterv]

No BL, you're not getting it.
That sound is a form of pure and unprovoked violence. You can't stand there, unless you're a masochist (or older than 25).

[Blue Lion]

You're dealing with an issue that can't be solved by one person's morals or ethics. You have to use the communities morals or ethics, we call those 'laws'. I'm not sure what part is giving you trouble.

No, the law is, ideally, an extrapolation from what are perceived to be societal morals and ethics. The whole point of having a debate like this is to determine what those morals are. This is a debate over whether the measure is reasonable. In all likelihood it's perfectly legal, but that doesn't mean it's not a dick thing to do. Simply deferring to its legal status just circumvents the question at hand entirely.

Yes. You change the law. The laws are our ethics. To say it isn't about laws is kinda not true. It's almost only about laws. We can't change our ethics and then not change the laws.

[Blue Lion]

No BL, you're not getting it.
That sound is a form of pure and unprovoked violence. You can't stand there, unless you're a masochist (or older than 25).

It's almost as if you have proof the sound hurts teens. All I find are inconclusive studies that show it can't be determined.

I'd like to see studies that show it hurts people.

(Don't they put electric fences around places? Doesn't that hurt people?)

[peterv]

Pushing someone back for no reason doesn't hurt people either. I don't have to prove that it's illegal and unethical.

[Blue Lion]

Pushing someone back doesn't hurt people either. I don't have to prove that it's illegal and unethical.

If it doesn't hurt people, how is it violent?

[peterv]

This is the definition of violence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence

EDIT: and besides that i'd like to see studies that show that it doesn't hurt people before it's applied on them and especially on children.

[Blue Lion]

"Violence is the expression of physical force against self or other, compelling action against one's will on pain of being hurt."

So let's do this one more time.

"If it doesn't hurt, how is it violence?"

[peterv]

Gladly:

"It should be noted that violence can be non-physical as well".

[Ford Prefect]

Yes. You change the law. The laws are our ethics. To say it isn't about laws is kinda not true. It's almost only about laws. We can't change our ethics and then not change the laws.

It's perfectly legal for me to call my sister a whore, but I sure as hell wouldn't do it. That's all I'm saying about the subject being discussed: There's an argument to be made for it being an inconsiderate thing to do. That doesn't mean I think it should be illegal. In fact, I'd probably be against such a law. There's a discursive space beyond the law in which right and wrong are continuously being determined, and in which the legal process will always be too unwieldy to justify its involvement. Your only recourse in this space is to argue for the merits of your position. It happens between people countless times, every minute of every day. That's what I thought this debate was about.

[Blue Lion]

What does it being non physical have to do with causing pain?

[Mars]

The sound is genuinely painful, let me tell you

[Blue Lion]

It's perfectly legal for me to call my sister a whore, but I sure as hell wouldn't do it. That's all I'm saying about the subject being discussed: There's an argument to be made for it being an inconsiderate thing to do. That doesn't mean I think it should be illegal. In fact, I'd probably be against such a law. There's a discursive space beyond the law in which right and wrong are continuously being determined, and in which the legal process will always be too unwieldy to justify its involvement. Your only recourse in this space is to argue for the merits of your position. It happens between people countless times, every minute of every day. That's what I thought this debate was about.

I thought this started as a thread to bash old people because young people think they hate them.

[peterv]

BL, this is getting us nowere. Besides Mars, ask tinfoil and FUBAR-BDHR if this thing is a form of violence or not.


EDIT:

I thought this started as a thread to bash old people because young people think they hate them.

Then you thought very wrong.

[Blue Lion]

The sound is genuinely painful, let me tell you

I heard it. It's a buzzing sound.

It's annoying to be sure, but painful? I didn't feel pain.

[Blue Lion]

BL, this is getting us nowere. Besides Mars, ask tinfoil and FUBAR-BDHR if this thing is a form of violence or not.

Your right it is getting nowhere. You're not telling me what makes it violent.

What makes this violent and not say... a radio violent.

I'm trying to figure out how this "hurts" everyone but no one answers.

[peterv]

Something that forces people out of a place is violence. O.K. ?