Census Trouble, but I'm not backing down. Help?

[Dare Devil]

BluAffiliate -- answer the questions BOY, or else they'll ship you to FEMA CAMP.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3zSDdm-SHI

What's kind of interesting is that Madison, GA (the location this is about) is very close to the location of the "Georgia Guidestones" (aka "America's Stonehenge").

American Stonehenge: Monumental Instructions for the Post-Apocalypse

Or it could just be a big coincidence. The Guidestones are kind of cool, though. I recommend anyone that happens to be traveling along I-20 with a little extra time on their hands to check them out.

 

[Magic Hat]

The Census can go fuck itself. However, Blu, you handled that like a fucking retard. Way to call unnecessary attention to yourself. Just ignore it, and it goes away. Instead, you acted like a retard, and now you could get investigated. Use your fucking head, god damn.

 

[high risk]

Next time they send a census worker to the door just start masturbating in front of them. I've never tried it myself as I'm not as petty and irrationally indignant as you appear to be but they will probably leave you alone, but then you'll have to deal with the cops. Post a new thread when that happens and we'll go from there.

+rep for writing style

 

[Cap'nShplanky]

This whole thread just made me shit my pants.

 

[conv3rsion]

i get what you all are saying about the census and it trampling your right to privacy. I don't disagree with you guys, especially on questions about ethnicity, etc.

Ultimately I believe there are far more egregious violations of privacy currently happening (warrentless wiretapping on US citizens via the patriot act for example) that would be a better use of time / money if privacy violations are something that really piss you off.

To me this is akin to debating a parking ticket, sure you can go spend an hour downtown arguing about something worth 10-20 dollars on principle or you can spend your time in another manner. If I felt this strongly about fighting the current census on privacy reasons my guess is there that there are other more evil things I should be fighting.

 

[conv3rsion]

text while driving. But the moment someone says banning such things is okay, a small piece of liberty is eroded for everyone.

come on. not banning texting while driving erodes my right to life, even when I'm not driving. use a little sense here. If you take things to the extreme your argument loses credibility.

 

[nvanprooyen]

I was a lazy fuck and didn't touch the forms so some smelly lady with a mustache interrupted my rum and coke for like 3 minutes.

The questions were stupid as hell and very noninvasive. I don't see why you guys are tarding out.

(btw I made her put down "Unicorn" as my race and she said there was nothing she could do about it)

chriss makes me lol

 

[Refrozen]

I was a lazy fuck and didn't touch the forms so some smelly lady with a mustache interrupted my rum and coke for like 3 minutes.

The questions were stupid as hell and very noninvasive. I don't see why you guys are tarding out.

(btw I made her put down "Unicorn" as my race and she said there was nothing she could do about it)

I've lolled for like 3 minutes straight at this. Every time I stop, I think about it again and burst out laughing. Epic.

 

[SUP3RNOVA]

It took no more than a minute to fill out and then another minute to mail in. There are bigger things out there to fight.

 

[kingfish]

I agree, just let those minimum wage earners do their job.

You live in America buddy - the more America bankrupts itself the worse this is going to get. Go along with the jig until you get sick of it, then leave.




ROFL

Actually they make $17/h not bad pay more than double minimum wage.

 

[erect]

I told the census lady the names and the # of people in my household and politely declined the rest of the questions. They haven't been back since.

^^ this

I ditched the letter, got a note that someone stopped by, called and gave them 3 minutes of my time ... then told them that would be $50. I've not seen my check yet but they know where I live so I'm going to hold them to it.

IMO: the IRS is what needs to be fought, not the census. Talk about an unconstitutional clusterfuck. Plus, we'd have the public sympathy vote on that one .. nobody is as bothered by the census as they are the tax man.

 

[Trademark]

come on. not banning texting while driving erodes my right to life, even when I'm not driving.

By this line of reasoning, any distracting action taken by a driver could be considered an erosion of your right to life. Reaching for a radio knob, turning around to talk to a backseat passenger, looking down when a food item is dropped...

Do you consider each an erosion of your right to life? Or, are your thoughts regarding texting while driving - and the banning of that particular activity - based on the level of distraction it involves? If the latter, where is the line drawn? What level of distraction is considered "too much?" And who gets to decide?

One of the prerequisites of liberty is to allow others to do what they want as long as it does not make others worse off. It is not enough to merely presume certain activities could possibly result in bad outcomes, and thus should be banned. When bad outcomes occur, recompense can be made - either to the victim or the victim's survivors.

use a little sense here. If you take things to the extreme your argument loses credibility.

I always try to approach positions with "a little sense." When I stray, I appreciate being brought back on path. But it takes more than simply saying I "take things to the extreme" to do this.

 

[Dare Devil]

The "no texting while driving" laws I can almost understand. I don't necessarily agree with them, but I can definitely understand the logic behind them.

Now, seat belt laws are a completely different story. It's nanny state crap that is nothing but an all out gross infringement on rights. ESPECIALLY since they've increased it so that its a "moving violation" - meaning cops can now pull you over if they see you aren't wearing a seat belt.

 

[justo_tx]

By this line of reasoning, any distracting action taken by a driver could be considered an erosion of your right to life. Reaching for a radio knob, turning around to talk to a backseat passenger, looking down when a food item is dropped...

Do you consider each an erosion of your right to life? Or, are your thoughts regarding texting while driving - and the banning of that particular activity - based on the level of distraction it involves? If the latter, where is the line drawn? What level of distraction is considered "too much?" And who gets to decide?

One of the prerequisites of liberty is to allow others to do what they want as long as it does not make others worse off. It is not enough to merely presume certain activities could possibly result in bad outcomes, and thus should be banned. When bad outcomes occur, recompense can be made - either to the victim or the victim's survivors.

Do you view laws against drunk driving an erosion of liberty?

 

[Trademark]

Do you view laws against drunk driving an erosion of liberty?

I realize I'm going to sound like an idiot, but yes. Absolutely. It is an erosion of liberty.

Consider: drunk driving is a criminal offense. But what exactly has someone done to become a "criminal" in this case? He or she has simply consumed enough alcohol to push their blood alcohol level above 0.8 (or whatever it is) and operated his or her car, even if just to coast at 10 mph.

At this point, there has been no action on the part of the drunk driver (coaster?) that has made another person worse off. There is only a presumption of a bad outcome. Moreover, who gets to decide what the legal blood alcohol level is? Experts claim that most drunk driving accidents are caused by those who have far higher blood alcohol levels than the current limit. Some accidents, of course, are caused by those with levels far below the limit. So, what is the reason that the limit is set at 0.8? Why not 1.3? Why not 0.5?

What we've done is allowed the government to restrict what everyone does based on probabilities.

Here's an alternative: let people drink and drive. Hold them accountable if they make another person worse off. If they damage property or hurt someone, hold them responsible. Otherwise, let them do what they want.

I know it sounds crazy. But the more I think of all the activities that are currently illegal, or may become so on the whims of the state, the more I wish our rights were protected rather than our fears stoked.

 

[xmcp123]

I was going to be annoying about the census, but they sent a sexy census worker.
Plot=Foiled.

 

[justo_tx]

Here's an alternative: let people drink and drive. Hold them accountable if they make another person worse off. If they damage property or hurt someone, hold them responsible. Otherwise, let them do what they want.

I know it sounds crazy. But the more I think of all the activities that are currently illegal, or may become so on the whims of the state, the more I wish our rights were protected rather than our fears stoked.

It's easy to have such a cavalier attitude about something like that if it's never adversely impacted you. Putting a guy in jail, even for life, isn't much comfort to the family of 4 that just got buried, it's certainly not justice, and it's a very perverse view of the elevated status of "liberty".

There is only a presumption of a bad outcome.

Your argument for liberty above all else hinges on the above statement. It's hard to avoid dramatic scenarios when talking about "liberty" but I guess it's must. Can toxic waste be dumped next to a playground? Do we have to wait for kids to start developing cancer instead of just presuming it will happen?

If you know that bad shit is going to happen sooner or later why can't laws be put in place to prevent them? Drive drunk often enough and the law of averages will catch up to you sooner or later. Going back to your comparison of changing the station on your radio could also lead to an accident, true, but if the chance of an accident from that is 0.0001% vs 10% for drunk driving you keep the radio in the car but leave the bourbon behind. It's not that we've placed liberty on a "slippery slope", it's that we don't live in a theoretical society, you have to temper liberty with realpolitik.

 

[xmcp123]

If you know that bad shit is going to happen sooner or later why can't laws be put in place to prevent them? Drive drunk often enough and the law of averages will catch up to you sooner or later.

There is no law against drunk driving, because BAC is both flawed and not a measure of drunkeness. Here's everything you weren't told in high school about BAC and DUIs (that's page 3/8). The law is against having a BAC reading above a certain level.

To determine how much alcohol is on your breath, the breathalyzer machines assume a partition ratio (the amount in your breath times the partition ratio=the amount in your blood) in their calculations of 2100:1, while in reality partition ratio changes per person..varying from 1100:1 to 3500:1. As the article says, if your ratio is 1300:1, it's enough to make you blow a .11 on the breathalyzer, but your BAC is really .07.

How many innocent people is it ok to send to prison because of a flawed law that also happens to catch some people who really were guilty? What should the ratio on that be?

 

[cryptix]

Most Census workers are drugged out losers that rape women, and eat your chips. Keep an eye on your potato chips if they come to your door. I swear to God they will eat them.

 

[justo_tx]

To determine how much alcohol is on your breath, the breathalyzer machines assume a partition ratio (the amount in your breath times the partition ratio=the amount in your blood) in their calculations of 2100:1, while in reality partition ratio changes per person..varying from 1100:1 to 3500:1. As the article says, if your ratio is 1300:1, it's enough to make you blow a .11 on the breathalyzer, but your BAC is really .07.

How many innocent people is it ok to send to prison because of a flawed law that also happens to catch some people who really were guilty? What should the ratio on that be?

I think you're going down a different road other than if there are any acceptable limits placed on a person's "perception" of liberty. If the possibility of an innocent being wrongly convicted negates the validity of a law wouldn't that also make laws against rape or murder unacceptable?