What makes a good citizen ?

Scioch

CruelCoin wrote: »

Nope and yup.

My one little voice of "i'd like to go faster" would be drowned out by the army of aul' biddies and outraged pram pushers.

If i ask, i'll get rejected. I want to go faster so i just do so.

This isnt off topic its the exact issue I'm talking about. You think you can pick and choose what ones to break to suit you personally and because you cannot justify that you try to turn it around and attack those who would disagree with you.

Orim

Scioch wrote: »

Just the fact that your not causing problems though contributes to society, you pay your bills, you add to local commerce, pay for services. You cannot exist in society without contributing unless you take more than you contribute. So I'm not so sure there is such thing as a neutral citizen.

Just paying your way is actively working to improve things though. Your paying for the services and committees and the wages of the people who's job is to actively improve things.

As I said being an active member of your local community is great but not necessary to make you a good citizen.

This is what makes me think we won't agree. I don't think doing the bare minimum is enough to be considered good. You need to be going above and the beyond what you are required to do. Examples such as paying for services and adding to commerce are things that people do for themselves. Most people will buy online or go up north or whatever if they can things so I can't see that being used as an argument for being a good citizen.

As I said a neutral citizen is one that offers what's required of them and nothing more. They pay their taxes but they'll avoid them if they can get away with it (Household Charge or TV License). As above they'll contribute to the economy but not if they can get a better deal.

As for the laws, an example I am guilty of is littering. I try to not to litter and if there is a bin in close proximity I will certainly use it but if not then I will litter.

Reason being when I was in college I used to walk from college to my bus. Early on I noticed that the route I took had no bins for the entirety of my walk. That day I had carried the wrapping of my roll and a couple of fag ends to my bus stop and had not reached a bin. This was about 15 minutes of actively checking each of the road.

I informed DCC of this and in the four years there I never saw a bin on the route. And this was pretty much all main streets from IFSC up towards Townsend Street. So I figure why bother?

Scioch

Orim wrote: »

This is what makes me think we won't agree. I don't think doing the bare minimum is enough to be considered good. You need to be going above and the beyond what you are required to do. Examples such as paying for services and adding to commerce are things that people do for themselves. Most people will buy online or go up north or whatever if they can things so I can't see that being used as an argument for being a good citizen.

It doesnt matter that they are doing it for themselves though its contributing to society. Your money flows through this economy, your taxes pay for services so you are of benefit to this society or this state simply by doing your thing here.

As I said a neutral citizen is one that offers what's required of them and nothing more. They pay their taxes but they'll avoid them if they can get away with it (Household Charge or TV License). As above they'll contribute to the economy but not if they can get a better deal.

If they are doing whats required of them then that makes them a good citizen though. They live here and meet the obligations placed on them by abiding by the law and contributing to the state and economy. A neutral citizen is someone who doesnt contribute and doesnt take away. But simply living here forces you to contribute so there cannot be such a thing a neutral citizen.

As for the laws, an example I am guilty of is littering. I try to not to litter and if there is a bin in close proximity I will certainly use it but if not then I will litter.

Reason being when I was in college I used to walk from college to my bus. Early on I noticed that the route I took had no bins for the entirety of my walk. That day I had carried the wrapping of my roll and a couple of fag ends to my bus stop and had not reached a bin. This was about 15 minutes of actively checking each of the road.

I informed DCC of this and in the four years there I never saw a bin on the route. And this was pretty much all main streets from IFSC up towards Townsend Street. So I figure why bother?

In fairness thats a rather flimsy argument. If a bin isnt provided for you you will litter ? You have no other way of disposing of that rubbish ? Come on your an adult human being with all the benefits of modern society and if there is no bin on your walk to the bus you have no option but to litter ? You couldnt have brought it with you ?

Its your rubbish, yes a bin could and probably should be there for convenience but thats all it is, convenience. If there is no bin you take care of your own rubbish you dont just shrug and throw it anywhere.

Orim

Scioch wrote: »

It doesnt matter that they are doing it for themselves though its contributing to society. Your money flows through this economy, your taxes pay for services so you are of benefit to this society or this state simply by doing your thing here.



If they are doing whats required of them then that makes them a good citizen though. They live here and meet the obligations placed on them by abiding by the law and contributing to the state and economy. A neutral citizen is someone who doesnt contribute and doesnt take away. But simply living here forces you to contribute so there cannot be such a thing a neutral citizen.

You seem to taking neutral in a more literal contect then I meant. By neutral I meant a middling ground between good and bad. And as I have I argued, I don't see doing the bare minimum as enough to qualify as good.

As I said before, we'll have to agree to disagree as it seems to be a very black and white situation and I can't see it that way.

Scioch wrote: »

In fairness thats a rather flimsy argument. If a bin isnt provided for you you will litter ? You have no other way of disposing of that rubbish ? Come on your an adult human being with all the benefits of modern society and if there is no bin on your walk to the bus you have no option but to litter ? You couldnt have brought it with you ?

Its your rubbish, yes a bin could and probably should be there for convenience but thats all it is, convenience. If there is no bin you take care of your own rubbish you dont just shrug and throw it anywhere.

I don't think it is flimsy. Yes if there is no bin then I will litter. I could have brought it with me but I had already been carrying it for a quarter of an hour and I had no intention of carryng it for another hour. From this experience I've come to conclusion that if I do not know of a bin nearby then I will litter as I don't know how long I may have to hold onto the rubbish.

I don't particularly see it as a convenience. I see it as a service provided by the DCC, paid for in a roundabout way by my taxes. They did not provide it, despite having this flaw pointed out to them so I took advantage of another service provided by them, street cleaners.

Scioch

Orim wrote: »

You seem to taking neutral in a more literal contect then I meant. By neutral I meant a middling ground between good and bad. And as I have I argued, I don't see doing the bare minimum as enough to qualify as good.

As I said before, we'll have to agree to disagree as it seems to be a very black and white situation and I can't see it that way.

In my view your either of benefit to society or your not. Doing the bare minimum isnt just scraping by an exam. Its meeting your obligations as a member of society, its doing everything expected of you in regards to being a citizen of the state. I dont how you can meet your obligations and not be classed a good citizen.

I don't think it is flimsy. Yes if there is no bin then I will litter. I could have brought it with me but I had already been carrying it for a quarter of an hour and I had no intention of carryng it for another hour. From this experience I've come to conclusion that if I do not know of a bin nearby then I will litter as I don't know how long I may have to hold onto the rubbish.

I don't particularly see it as a convenience. I see it as a service provided by the DCC, paid for in a roundabout way by my taxes. They did not provide it, despite having this flaw pointed out to them so I took advantage of another service provided by them, street cleaners.

Thats the definition of a flimsy argument, probably encroaching on being childish if I'm being honest. Actually its not encroaching on, it is a childish argument. You didnt want to hold onto your rubbish so you threw it on the ground.

Its your rubbish not the DCC's, you bought the items, the remains belong to you and its your responsibility to dispose of them.

Son Of A Vidic

Scioch wrote: »

Laws exist to protect people and society.

Only in fairy tales I'm afraid, not all laws protect us or indeed serve our interest. As the recent and continuing financial rape of this island has borne out.

Scioch

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Only in fairy tales I'm afraid, not all laws protect us or indeed serve our interest. As the recent and continuing financial rape of this island has borne out.

Just because loopholes can be found and certain people can and have taken advantage of certain things doesnt mean that on the whole the law is not there to protect people and society.

I'm not describing a utopian society here I'm simply discussing the reason for law and order. And that is to provide people with a safe and stable environment in which to live and allow society as a whole to exist and grow . Thats not the thing of fairy tales.

CruelCoin

Scioch wrote: »

This isnt off topic its the exact issue I'm talking about. You think you can pick and choose what ones to break to suit you personally and because you cannot justify that you try to turn it around and attack those who would disagree with you.

By giving you the example of the 80kph road i did justify....

I'll elaborate then.

The road in question is the N4. In the past, this road was given the 100kph limit, but due to nonsense, you cannot legally have a 100kph road next to a motorway, so when the motorway went up, the road got downgraded to 80kph.
Does this mean the N4 magically deteriorated? Nope.
Is this due to increased traffic? Nope, traffic numbers are way down due to the motorway.

This current speed limit is a nonsense, which takes no account of the actual factors regarding width, smoothness, traffic, etc.
It is an idiotic rule, based on bureaucracy, and as such i reject it.

And it's not just me breaking this rule, 90% of all drivers on this road are doing the same and speeding along it at 100kph.
Its a general consensus in this case that the 80kph limit is flawed.

Scioch

CruelCoin wrote: »

By giving you the example of the 80kph road i did justify....

I'll elaborate then.

The road in question is the N4. In the past, this road was given the 100kph limit, but due to nonsense, you cannot legally have a 100kph road next to a motorway, so when the motorway went up, the road got downgraded to 80kph.
Does this mean the N4 magically deteriorated? Nope.
Is this due to increased traffic? Nope, traffic numbers are way down due to the motorway.

This current speed limit is a nonsense, which takes no account of the actual factors regarding width, smoothness, traffic, etc.
It is an idiotic rule, based on bureaucracy, and as such i reject it.

And it's not just me breaking this rule, 90% of all drivers on this road are doing the same and speeding along it at 100kph.
Its a general consensus in this case that the 80kph limit is flawed.

Your not justifying anything, all you have done is say "I disagree with the speed limit on this road". Thats not justifying ignoring speed limits, its not doing anything to change it. All your doing is ignoring a law that doesnt suit you.

Do you need to go faster than 80kph ? No you dont, you just want to go faster than 80kph. You said as much in your previous post where you described your issue as your want to go faster and will be downed out by old biddies if you speak up about it.

You want to go faster, the laws that prohibit that you call idiotic nonsense, your not arsed changing anything, you do what you want regardless of the law and call anyone with a contrary opinion names. And use this to ignore speed limits in general as you see them as arbitrary.

There is no justification for breaking the law in that argument. Just a convenient dismissal of the law to suit yourself. You dont want to abide by it because it doesnt suit you personally so you ignore it.

CruelCoin

Scioch wrote: »

There is no justification for breaking the law in that argument. Just a convenient dismissal of the law to suit yourself. You dont want to abide by it because it doesnt suit you personally so you ignore it.

So when a law is put in place, you have no problem with abiding by it, no matter how ridiculous?

Were the government to introduce a law requiring you wear tinfoil hats and say "chocolate sandwich" 5 times a day, on pain of death, you'd be ok with that?

I'm going to go ahead and assume that you would not be ok with this as it ridiculous and farcical.
Likewise the reduction of a roads speed limits based on what other roads are around it is equally farcical.

The law is an ass, and in many cases, its worth taking a bucket of salt with it.

Scioch

CruelCoin wrote: »

So when a law is put in place, you have no problem with abiding by it, no matter how ridiculous?

Were the government to introduce a law requiring you wear tinfoil hats and say "chocolate sandwich" 5 times a day, on pain of death, you'd be ok with that?

I'm going to go ahead and assume that you would not be ok with this as it ridiculous and farcical.
Likewise the reduction of a roads speed limits based on what other roads are around it is equally farcical.

The law is an ass, and in many cases, its worth taking a bucket of salt with it.

Those laws dont exist, they would go against peoples rights and as such could not exist. Speed limits are not as equally as farcical. Speed limits exist and they exist for a very good reason.

But the absurdity of your argument is your using the fact you think they need to change to dismiss them completely. By your logic someone who thinks they should be allowed to drive as fast as they want should do so regardless of the law. How can you argue they should be 100kph zones when you wanting to drive faster than the law allows is enough to ignore the speed limit ? When that road is re-classified 100kph what possible reason do you have to abide by that ? None whatsoever.