Again?!

User avatar
Montegriffo
Posts: 18718
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:14 am

Re: Again?!

Post by Montegriffo » Sun May 17, 2020 2:08 pm

BjornP wrote:
Sun May 17, 2020 2:01 pm
Montegriffo wrote:
Sun May 17, 2020 12:55 pm
BjornP wrote:
Sun May 17, 2020 12:45 pm
Don't fix with government what you can fix with society.

The first time some asshole blowing smoke in people's faces either gets a punch in the face, or otherwise through social means understands that no one thinks they're cool for being a cunt, everone else watching the exchange learns what the taboos and social limits are.

And if the lady has a good enough reason to run her engine for 20 mins and kids aren't gluing their mouths to the exhaust... it'll be alright.
Isn't that what I did by knocking on her window and asking why her engine was running?
All that resulted in was her giving me a ''what the fuck has it got to do with you'' look.
She said ''it's hot'' I said ''open your windows then'' and she just ignored me.
Selfish cow.
Meanwhile, people are having to walk past her fumes to get to the shop.
If I see her again I'll report her lawbreaking to the authorities since social pressure had zero fucking effect on her.
Let's see if a small fine works instead.
I got that from your earlier post that wanted that she should be subjected to legal sanction. Seems my assumption is correct.

You assume that because this small, isolated incident didn't immidiately result in her changing her ways, there wad "zero effect".

Wrong assumption. She could agree, but could have shocked, she could have doubled down out of pride. You never had so much trouble swallowing your pride despite you were wrong, that you just doubled down instead? Maybe she re alls to story to her friends, and instead calling you a Karen, they say she was in the wrong.

Lots of things can happen without you seeing them.

And also even if your assumption is correct, does her idling constitute a health risk that wouldn't or couldn't exist otherwise? That couldn't be avoided?
Well, if I see her again and she's not sat in the car with her engine running I'll have no need to do anything further.
If she's still being a selfish cow then at least I can say I asked her nicely last time. Which I did, I was perfectly polite.
Yes, obviously it was a health risk that wouldn't exist if she had been a considerate human being and turned her fucking engine off.
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
Image

User avatar
BjornP
Posts: 3360
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2016 9:36 am
Location: Aalborg, Denmark

Re: Again?!

Post by BjornP » Sun May 17, 2020 2:18 pm

What produces the most carbon monoxide close to pedestrians: Lots of cars driving slowly through a major city? A single car in a parking lot? :think:
Fame is not flattery. Respect is not agreement.

heydaralon
Posts: 7571
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2017 7:54 pm

Re: Again?!

Post by heydaralon » Sun May 17, 2020 2:19 pm

BjornP wrote:
Sun May 17, 2020 2:18 pm
What produces the most carbon monoxide close to pedestrians: Lots of cars driving slowly through a major city? A single car in a parking lot? :think:
The single car in the parking lot obviously. There is no way that someone would accost a random person minding their own business otherwise assuming we are even basing liberty on such erroneous assumptions.
Shikata ga nai

User avatar
DBTrek
Posts: 12241
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2017 7:04 pm

Re: Again?!

Post by DBTrek » Sun May 17, 2020 2:41 pm

... and what is anti-social about having children you can't care for? I mean, it's great for both your neighbors and your soon-to-be neglected children. Why so many haters?
:lol:

And when those kids flee their home . . . and start driving cars . .. or idling in parking lots ... :think:
"Hey varmints, don't mess with a guy that's riding a buffalo"

User avatar
TheReal_ND
Posts: 26035
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 6:23 pm

Re: Again?!

Post by TheReal_ND » Sun May 17, 2020 2:54 pm

lol i keep forgetting DB doesnt have children. They are cheap as hell dude anyone can afford kids. Dont get your info about child rearing from a copy of The Atlantic lmao

User avatar
DBTrek
Posts: 12241
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2017 7:04 pm

Re: Again?!

Post by DBTrek » Sun May 17, 2020 2:58 pm

TheReal_ND wrote:
Sun May 17, 2020 2:54 pm
lol i keep forgetting DB doesnt have children. They are cheap as hell dude anyone can afford kids. Dont get your info about child rearing from a copy of The Atlantic lmao
What you talkin'?
I got two.
And they're super cheap when the state sends you $3000 a month of other people's money to care for them (as some of my 'subsidized' friends get).
But that doesn't make the act of creating lives you cannot support less anti-social.
And it doesn't reduce the number of pollutants and average human contributes over the span of their days.

So single motherhood is both anti-social, and a contributor to pollution. It's far frorm the worst thing to ever happen to humanity, but it ain't a great thing either.
/shrug
"Hey varmints, don't mess with a guy that's riding a buffalo"

User avatar
TheReal_ND
Posts: 26035
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 6:23 pm

Re: Again?!

Post by TheReal_ND » Sun May 17, 2020 3:03 pm

No one in my family has ever accepted a check from the tax payers for anything except me and the Trump check. It literally costs nothing to raise a kid. I could likely do it in my van if I leave the windows down.

User avatar
DBTrek
Posts: 12241
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2017 7:04 pm

Re: Again?!

Post by DBTrek » Sun May 17, 2020 3:08 pm

TheReal_ND wrote:
Sun May 17, 2020 3:03 pm
No one in my family has ever accepted a check from the tax payers for anything except me and the Trump check. It literally costs nothing to raise a kid. I could likely do it in my van if I leave the windows down.
Citizen's officer Monte can barely abide to see an idling vehicle, no way he'd tolerate you raising a kid in a van.
But yeah, kids mad cheap to raise, which is why broke ass countries can afford to have so many.
Single mothers, hospitals, and public schools can make them pretty expensive to raise here tho.
"Hey varmints, don't mess with a guy that's riding a buffalo"

User avatar
Montegriffo
Posts: 18718
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:14 am

Re: Again?!

Post by Montegriffo » Sun May 17, 2020 4:32 pm

BjornP wrote:
Sun May 17, 2020 2:18 pm
What produces the most carbon monoxide close to pedestrians: Lots of cars driving slowly through a major city? A single car in a parking lot? :think:
Not the point.
The point is, there was no reason for her to leave her engine running while parked for 20 mins.
Moving cars, on the other hand, do need to keep their engines running.
Electric cars can't get here quickly enough then it will be a moot point.
Not to mention a mute point (for the benefit of Nuke). ;)
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
Image

User avatar
Montegriffo
Posts: 18718
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:14 am

Re: Again?!

Post by Montegriffo » Sun May 17, 2020 4:36 pm

DBTrek wrote:
Sun May 17, 2020 3:08 pm
TheReal_ND wrote:
Sun May 17, 2020 3:03 pm
No one in my family has ever accepted a check from the tax payers for anything except me and the Trump check. It literally costs nothing to raise a kid. I could likely do it in my van if I leave the windows down.
Citizen's officer Monte can barely abide to see an idling vehicle, no way he'd tolerate you raising a kid in a van.
But yeah, kids mad cheap to raise, which is why broke ass countries can afford to have so many.
Single mothers, hospitals, and public schools can make them pretty expensive to raise here tho.
Actually, back in the day, I knew several ''new age'' travellers who raised their kids in trucks and old buses. I had no objection so long as they didn't leave their engines running while stationary.
For legal reasons, we are not threatening to destroy U.S. government property with our glorious medieval siege engine. But if we wanted to, we could. But we won’t. But we could.
Image