Aspies For Freedom

Full Version: Regarding illegal action (read before posting)
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.

nick012000 Wrote:
And if the curebies actually succeed in making a cure, and commence their planned genocide campaign?


Then I am sure some right wingers will use it as an excuse to blow up "treatment" providers/ abortion clinics. We wouldnt actually have to do anything.

EvilZakkie Wrote:

Tigger_the_Wing Wrote:

Stilkon Wrote:
My dad works at a place called STRYKER BIOtech, and they do things like research medicinal substances. What if I had to save a guy from there?

........I'd probably organize a ring of Master Aspie Ninja-Thieves!
Go MANTs!


Thank goodness you didn't decide on Professional Aspie Ninja-Thieves! Tongue


...or the Fighting Aspie Retrieval Team...


Or Aspie Stealth Squad.

Tigger_the_Wing Wrote:

flardox Wrote:

Tigger_the_Wing Wrote:

Stilkon Wrote:
don't go for aspie soldiers squad. It won't work well


I can just visualise it! Big GrinBig GrinBig GrinBig Grin

Given how many ways orders can be misinterpreted (and argued with for their logic value), how uncomfortable uniforms are, etc.

Mind you, not looking at the speaker's eyes is an asset when the speaker is a Sergeant Major! And strict rules that everyone has to comply with can sometimes be comforting. The peacetime army seems to be very predictable.


lol!

I think it would b easier to stick with hypnotised NT's!! Tongue Big Grin


Oh yes! And I noticed that when they raised the school leaving age to fifteen, then sixteen, in the UK the armed forces argued that the earlier age should apply to potential recruits - and they were right! Applications have dropped. Older kids cannot be as easily brain-washed into thinking that the armed forces are a good career.

Mind you, the quotes on this page show that Military Intelligence really is an oxymoron. Big Grin


wasn't it always? Big Grin

Barney Wrote:
There are times when we have to break the law. Historically, the best example is Harriet Tubman founding and operating the underground railoroad.
     When cigarette machines were legal, they wre legal for the illegal purpose of selling cigarettes to children. They were delberately placed where children could buy cigarettes unseen. They were also placed for the convenience of public smokers long after the entire mainstream scientific community had concluded definitively that chronic exposure to second hand smoke causes diseases that kill tens of thousands of non smokers per country per year. Since murder is illegal and selling cigarettes to children is illegal and bribing law writers to allow it is liiegal, was it really illegal to sabotage cigarette machines by filling the coin slots with epoxy so as to disable these machines or pouring acid into any seams or openings in the tops of these machines?
     When I was prosecuted for fighting back with tear gas against a smoker who was blowing smoke in my face, the guards at the prison where they were planning to send me promised to have me gang raped when I arraived. Perhaps it was against some trivial law to take advantage of an opportunity to blackmail a state witness in order to destroy the prosecutor's case against me but what about laws against having me gang raped if I had not bkackmailed the witness?
     When the law refuses to protect everyone you can't reasonably ask the unprotected to obey laws they can't live with, can you?


Hmmm...if you're breaking the law to protect someone else. It is really hard to figure out when the end justifies the means. If you break into the JRC and free those poor kids, you're doing a good thing for them, but they might end up back in the JRC plus you might end up in jail. I think a good thing to do is to get a job there and have a hidden camera with you so that you can prove that the JRC is being cruel to children. Or better yet, you can speak out against it and spread the word on how bad it is.

earthmonkey Wrote:

Johanna Wrote:

Barney Wrote:
There are times when we have to break the law. Historically, the best example is Harriet Tubman founding and operating the underground railoroad.
     When cigarette machines were legal, they wre legal for the illegal purpose of selling cigarettes to children. They were delberately placed where children could buy cigarettes unseen. They were also placed for the convenience of public smokers long after the entire mainstream scientific community had concluded definitively that chronic exposure to second hand smoke causes diseases that kill tens of thousands of non smokers per country per year. Since murder is illegal and selling cigarettes to children is illegal and bribing law writers to allow it is liiegal, was it really illegal to sabotage cigarette machines by filling the coin slots with epoxy so as to disable these machines or pouring acid into any seams or openings in the tops of these machines?
     When I was prosecuted for fighting back with tear gas against a smoker who was blowing smoke in my face, the guards at the prison where they were planning to send me promised to have me gang raped when I arraived. Perhaps it was against some trivial law to take advantage of an opportunity to blackmail a state witness in order to destroy the prosecutor's case against me but what about laws against having me gang raped if I had not bkackmailed the witness?
     When the law refuses to protect everyone you can't reasonably ask the unprotected to obey laws they can't live with, can you?


Hmmm...if you're breaking the law to protect someone else. It is really hard to figure out when the end justifies the means. If you break into the JRC and free those poor kids, you're doing a good thing for them, but they might end up back in the JRC plus you might end up in jail. I think a good thing to do is to get a job there and have a hidden camera with you so that you can prove that the JRC is being cruel to children. Or better yet, you can speak out against it and spread the word on how bad it is.


Hmm...while breaking them out yourself, is likely to just end up in them being put back in JRC and you in jail, just working there and getting evidence won't help - the evidence is already there, has been considered by courts, and such. Probably the best course of action will be something big and kind of edgy sort of publicity, but not going overboard (again, lots of judgment calls here, and I definitely think that any sort of stunt should be discussed within the community - I know myself that I've had lots of ideas that at the time seemed really good, but when looking back on it days or months or years later, if I had done those things it just would've made me look foolish and not helped at all).


Well it is breaking the law to touch someone elses kid - it would be like kidnapping wouldn't it? and breaking and entering? Whereas if you are walking in a school corrdior and you see a teacher dragging a kid down the hall, you can say something and report it, you have some recourse as what they did was in public view.... you can help chnage the structure, within the law./

There are sometimes people who are arrested because what they have done is currently against the law- on the books.  However, with a jury trial (in the US) by your peers, if you were arrested for (let's say) keeping someone from harm (by interfering in a fight between two people (one obviously weaker) - where you inadvertantly harm one of the people in defense of another and the harmed party presses charges of aggravated assault or assault...something like that). You may be arrested, but you may not be guilty, morally or otherwise. The grand jury sometimes will not even indict, or the jury will not convict because of mitigating circumstances or because they agree with your choice.  The morality of what you did. Not guilty.

I tend to think (occasionally/mostly?) common sense wins, so that is why people should not be afraid to do the right thing.  Setting out to break the law, is different.  Of course AFF would be against breaking the law as AFF seeks to get legal status and standing for minorites in the spectrum.

earthmonkey Wrote:
I think the main thing about why it would be unwise to just go in there and break people out, is because it would be unwise and ultimately your goals wouldn't be fulfilled. I mean, you'd have to have some place for them to go for one thing, even if it were totally legal and everything.

Second, since it's not legal, then you'd get in trouble, they'd get sent back like they would be there anyway, and people who hear about it will think of you as some radical nutjob. That doesn't seem like an effective way to bring about better treatment for people in schools and so-called "schools".


Very wise words indeed, earthmonkey.

Pikajedi5 Wrote:

earthmonkey Wrote:

Second, since it's not legal, then you'd get in trouble, they'd get sent back like they would be there anyway, and people who hear about it will think of you as some radical nutjob. That doesn't seem like an effective way to bring about better treatment for people in schools and so-called "schools".



...They already do.

Due to the...misinformation, when you say that you are against a cure for autism, you are likely to be considered a crackpot.


Three words: What the hell?

Barney Wrote:
We can say that we do not approve of breaking the law, but I do not think it is as simple as that. There is probably a law against using hidden cameras to catch them abusing children but is it not against some law or morality to let their illegal and immoral action continue if you can stop it? Then there would still be a question of whether the law might refuse to prosecute you for taking video tape to TV news.
     Several years ago a woman who knew that her husband who had put her in the hospital several times would soon kill her. The law refused to help her so one night she killed her husband while he slept. She was acquitted for self defennse. Some of thet was because she had a good lawyer. What about the innocent convict who escaped from prison and skipped the country because the guards had a contract out on him?
     The question is all too complicated for a simple rule to cover it.


As I've said before, morality and the law are kind of twisted, so it's hard to figure out when the end justifies the means.

Pages: 1 2 3
Reference URL's