4 ms·

Where do you see ANYthing about trespassing, and how do you interpret ANYthing that either I or the OP stated as condoning it? It was simply stated that trespas

Where do you see ANYthing about trespassing, and how do you interpret ANYthing that either I or the OP stated as condoning it? It was simply stated that trespassing is clearly defined as illegal. Lobbyists have cornered winning in the political process so all we have is our voice, which it sounds like you're trying to take away. Even as a country of laws (which I support), you still have to be able to admit that said laws are absurd when they are, in fact, absurd. This goes beyond absurd and endangers the populace. You seem more interested in ensuring that we definitively prosecute thought crimes rather than work to change the system which, at face value, appears to place the government as accessories to the wrongful deaths of many of its citizens (keeping focus on this particular topic). As such, doesn't OP have the right to criticize and suspect the government, especially when the government is ostensibly blockading one of those "inalienable rights" of "life ..." Keep shilling, though!

cookiecaper 10y ago
This comment was fine-ish up until that last line. Please edit it away. I don't think that the person you're replying to is suggesting that the law should remain as-is. Rather, he's suggesting that the law should be modified via the established political processes for doing so. I'm not sure where you're getting the "thought crime" thing -- even if he supported the ag-gag laws, it wouldn't be thought crime to say so, and he wouldn't be accusing others of thought crime by saying so. This is simply called a "disagreement". It doesn't need to be dramatized. Of course OP has a right to criticize and suspect the government. Who said he didn't? That doesn't mean OP has the right to disregard property boundaries or to enter a private premises under false pretenses, even if the stated intent is to "prove antibiotics in farm animals are causing human superbugs". If one believes that the local trespassing laws should be modified to accommodate persons acting in this particular public interest, he should contact his local representatives, or, alternately, run against them and lead the charge himself. It is probably much easier to convince someone in one of the several government bureaucracies to open an investigation than to get a special exception to trespassing laws codified.

cookiecaper 10y ago

This comment was fine-ish up until that last line. Please edit it away. I don't think that the person you're replying to is suggesting that the law should remain as-is. Rather, he's suggesting that the law should be modified via the established political processes for doing so. I'm not sure where you're getting the "thought crime" thing -- even if he supported the ag-gag laws, it wouldn't be thought crime to say so, and he wouldn't be accusing others of thought crime by saying so. This is simply called a "disagreement". It doesn't need to be dramatized. Of course OP has a right to criticize and suspect the government. Who said he didn't? That doesn't mean OP has the right to disregard property boundaries or to enter a private premises under false pretenses, even if the stated intent is to "prove antibiotics in farm animals are causing human superbugs". If one believes that the local trespassing laws should be modified to accommodate persons acting in this particular public interest, he should contact his local representatives, or, alternately, run against them and lead the charge himself. It is probably much easier to convince someone in one of the several government bureaucracies to open an investigation than to get a special exception to trespassing laws codified.