711 and hats

[marshaul]

imported post

markand wrote:

There is no constitutional right I am aware of to wear a hat.

Bull@#$%.

The 9th Amendment to the US Constitution wrote:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

There is no way wearing a hat is an act of aggression. Human rights include everything that does not constitute an act of aggression. The enumeration of a few of them was designed to underline the concept that some things, like speaking freely and possessing weapons, do not constitute and are not to be viewed as acts of aggression no matter how hard some may try to paint them as such.

This does not change the fact that for you to assert that wearing hats is not a right protected by the constitution, you must also agree that wearing a hat constitutes an act of aggression.

It's about time Americans read the 9th Amendment, and understood what it means in the historical and philosophical context. Try reading any number of contemporary philosophical tracts on human rights (Thomas Paine is a place to start), or any number of modern books about the Constitutional Convention (Miracle at Philadelphia is assigned to high school students -- no doubt so that none of them will ever want to actually read it).

I have had enough of this "it's not enumerated!" crap.

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

markand wrote:

There is no constitutional right I am aware of to wear a hat.

Bull@#$%.

The 9th Amendment to the US Constitution wrote:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

There is no way wearing a hat is an act of aggression. Human rights include everything that does not constitute an act of aggression. The enumeration of a few of them was designed to underline the concept that some things, like speaking freely and possessing weapons, do not constitute and are not to be viewed as acts of aggression no matter how hard some may try to paint them as such.

This does not change the fact that for you to assert that wearing hats is not a right protected by the constitution, you must also agree that wearing a hat constitutes an act of aggression.

It's about time Americans read the 9th Amendment, and understood what it means in the historical and philosophical context. Try reading any number of contemporary philosophical tracts on human rights (Thomas Paine is a place to start), or any number of modern books about the Constitutional Convention (Miracle at Philadelphia is assigned to high school students -- no doubt so that none of them will ever want to actually read it).

I have had enough of this "it's not enumerated!" crap.

+1.

Humans don't need a written list of rights to have rights.

 

[Neplusultra]

imported post

marshaul wrote:

markand wrote:

There is no constitutional right I am aware of to wear a hat.

Bull@#$%.

The 9th Amendment to the US Constitution wrote:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

There is no way wearing a hat is an act of aggression. Human rights include everything that does not constitute an act of aggression. The enumeration of a few of them was designed to underline the concept that some things, like speaking freely and possessing weapons, do not constitute and are not to be viewed as acts of aggression no matter how hard some may try to paint them as such.

This does not change the fact that for you to assert that wearing hats is not a right protected by the constitution, you must also agree that wearing a hat constitutes an act of aggression.

It's about time Americans read the 9th Amendment, and understood what it means in the historical and philosophical context. Try reading any number of contemporary philosophical tracts on human rights (Thomas Paine is a place to start), or any number of modern books about the Constitutional Convention (Miracle at Philadelphia is assigned to high school students -- no doubt so that none of them will ever want to actually read it).

I have had enough of this "it's not enumerated!" crap.

I'm wearing my hat to bed tonight just because I feel aggressive......:^). The argument of custom to show "non-aggression" has a place though. In a civil society everyone needs to know that their neighbor is one of them and not an enemy. So social custom and conformity to it arises, I take it. But, IMO there is something greater than this, since this system is anti-freedom. It is a system used by a society that is not fully mature. One that is not mature enough to recognize difference is not equal to aggression. Perhaps a society where difference does not act fairly. One where principle and the belief in the ultimate victory of truth over falsehood dos not hold sway.

I have found that the most destructive thing in society is that the members of such do not have a absolute firm belief that truth will always prevail over falsehood in a fair debate. Think what that means if a society did not believe that. Chaos or dictatorship is the natural end result of such. The key feature of an orderly and civil society is the firm belief that reason and truth will always prevail over falsehood, and that without the need of force.

A lack of fairness you will notice in a lot of liberal/conservative debate even today in this most free country. Those who use names and hyperbole in their argument are one in the same that fight against this most mature society.

 

[Marco]

imported post

Neplusultra wrote:

I'm wearing my hat to bed tonight just because

Maybe, that is why you don't have a human bed warmer. :lol:

 

[paramedic70002]

imported post

I like the rule for banks. I can wear my hat and go straight to the front of the line as an IDed troublemaker. Plus I get extra attention! Talk about customer service...

As far as the 7-11 goes, that policy will die if enough people drop and break merchandise because they had to hold their hat in their hand while they were shopping.

 

[Chkultr]

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

At a 7-11! More likely she just didn't like your flag.

That made me LMFAO!

Maybe the hat thing is to let them know the GG vs the BG. If you comply they can relax and let their guard down. If you leave it on then they are on high alert and prepared for the fight of their life....

If they want a picture of you on video they really need to invest in some High Quality security systems. It would help out the local PD's.

My credit union goes a step further...No Hats, Hoodies, and cell phones. Phones take video and used to scope out the establishment. I OC all the time. One lady always looks at me weird, but will never say anything! I just smile and tell the ladies to have a great weekend!