14 yr old gets busted for lemonade stand..(w.t.f)

[shortz1994]

The cops were just doing their job and we should all take the time to thank the Georgia police. Without them, we would have kids learning responsibility and kids learning they must earn money to get what they want. What audacity these parents have for teaching them that instead of teaching them to be spoiled brats. Bad parents...you should know better...

That about sums it up. Welcome to Georgia, (If......{insert your higher power}, had to take a dump, this is were it comes out).

 

[DeathStrudel]

No, not what I'm saying at all. But nice attempt at a straw man.
I honestly don't think you even know what you're trying to say.

QUOTEI did form an argument but you ignored practically everything I said and kept talking about age and other things that had nothing to do with what I said, therefore, I consider you unintelligent. At least some people will admit that laws are unfair and illogical, but you've just been saying "It's a law so it doesn't matter if it's unfair because it's a law."

Age is absolutely crucial to the debate, if you're not willing to even consider it then there's ltitle point in having the debate at all.

You replied to what I said, and what I said had nothing to do with age, so when you brought up age it was unrelated and certainly not "crucial to the debate." This is just getting silly, do you really think I'm the one grasping for straws? You have made no logical arguments and when questioned (by both me and others) you have failed to explain. You don't know what you're talking about and you're a troll, it's as simple as that. Good day sir.

 

[BlueStar]

No, not what I'm saying at all. But nice attempt at a straw man.
I honestly don't think you even know what you're trying to say.

QUOTEI did form an argument but you ignored practically everything I said and kept talking about age and other things that had nothing to do with what I said, therefore, I consider you unintelligent. At least some people will admit that laws are unfair and illogical, but you've just been saying "It's a law so it doesn't matter if it's unfair because it's a law."

Age is absolutely crucial to the debate, if you're not willing to even consider it then there's ltitle point in having the debate at all.

You replied to what I said, and what I said had nothing to do with age, so when you brought up age it was unrelated and certainly not "crucial to the debate." This is just getting silly, do you really think I'm the one grasping for straws? You have made no logical arguments and when questioned (by both me and others) you have failed to explain. You don't know what you're talking about and you're a troll, it's as simple as that. Good day sir.

Wait.. You think people are trying to say that no permit should be needed for anyone to sell goods by the side of the road at all and it's just coincidence that the cause celebre for this grass roots campaign happen to be kids?

Age is crucial because the main argument is they're just kids. If you haven't seen that argument, you've been reading this thread with a blindfold on, which might explain some of your posts.

 

[DeathStrudel]

Wait.. You think people are trying to say that no permit should be needed for anyone to sell goods by the side of the road at all and it's just coincidence that the cause celebre for this grass roots campaign happen to be kids?

Age is crucial because the main argument is they're just kids. If you haven't seen that argument, you've been reading this thread with a blindfold on, which might explain some of your posts.

"my point is people(by people I mean everyone not just little kids, you really dont seem to grasp this) should be punished based on the severity/outcome of their crime, not just because it is a crime"

This was my point and I said it over and over to you and you still don't seem to be able to understand. My argument has nothing to do with this so called "main argument," of them being kids, i never said it did, and I didn't reply to somebody that did, you replied to me and brought age into my argument. It may have been crucial when responding to somebody else, but it is certainly not crucial when it was no factor in what I was saying. You've been trying to argue against something you don't even understand.

Also, I said Good Day

 

[BlueStar]

Wait.. You think people are trying to say that no permit should be needed for anyone to sell goods by the side of the road at all and it's just coincidence that the cause celebre for this grass roots campaign happen to be kids?

Age is crucial because the main argument is they're just kids. If you haven't seen that argument, you've been reading this thread with a blindfold on, which might explain some of your posts.
"my point is people(by people I mean everyone not just little kids, you really dont seem to grasp this) should be punished based on the severity/outcome of their crime, not just because it is a crime"


They. Weren't. Charged. With. Any. Crime.

They. Were. Given. No. Criminal. Punishment.

QUOTE

My argument has nothing to do with this so called "main argument," of them being kids, i never said it did, and I didn't reply to somebody that did, you replied to me and brought age into my argument. It may have been crucial when responding to somebody else, but it is certainly not crucial when it was no factor in what I was saying. You've been trying to argue against something you don't even understand.

Then your argument has nothing to do with the actual topic.

 

[Nujui]

I'm not the one who's butthurt about it, I'm not the one that's bawwwwwwwwwwwing about the situation. And I don't see anyone going 'gaga' over toxins, I'm certainly not. That's not the issue here at all.

If you think there should be a change in the law, campign for permits to not be needed for kids. But like I say, I don't think it will be as simple as people think. You can't write a law saying "People can't sell on the street without a permit unless they're kids doing something cool like lemonade stands and stuff." You need to define what a stall is, what a kid is, where they can set it up. And if people answer the questions in my last post, you'll suddenly find it's not all "common sense" after all.
You shouldn't have to get a law changed, the cop could've just stopped and thought, "hey, these kids are not harming anybody in any way so why should I force them to shut it down?" People seem to use the law as an excuse to not have morals. Laws are made for a reason, to protect people; if the cops are clearly not protecting anybody by enforcing a law then I see no reason as to why it was enforced.


QUOTE(BlueStar @ Jul 17 2011, 11:27 AM) How could the 'punishment' be any less?

umm, to let them continue since they were doing no harm?

This, definitely this.

 

[thela_kid]

I'm sorry, but Bluestar, no offense but DeathStrudel is right in that your sight is not lucid to the fact that deathstrudel doesn't want to state his opinion without you sparking a flame. He even tried to call it quits but you dragged him back in. This is what my father does so that explains why it is a pet peeve of mine.

 

[BlueStar]

Oh, I'm sorry, so if I have a go at someone and then say "good day" it means they're not allowed to counter my argument? Or if I say 'you don't understand so don't bother to reply'?

If he doesn't want to continue the thread he can simply not press the post button.

 

[thela_kid]

I don't even understand what your last post means and frankly I don't think you know either. Just call it quits man, don't be an immature politician. We have too many in the states

 

[Nujui]

Oh, I'm sorry, so if I have a go at someone and then say "good day" it means they're not allowed to counter my argument? Or if I say 'you don't understand so don't bother to reply'? If he doesn't want to continue the thread he can simply not press the post button.

It doesn't mean they don't want to counter it, it means they don't want to argue over it anymore.

 

[DeathStrudel]

Wait.. You think people are trying to say that no permit should be needed for anyone to sell goods by the side of the road at all and it's just coincidence that the cause celebre for this grass roots campaign happen to be kids?

Age is crucial because the main argument is they're just kids. If you haven't seen that argument, you've been reading this thread with a blindfold on, which might explain some of your posts.
"my point is people(by people I mean everyone not just little kids, you really dont seem to grasp this) should be punished based on the severity/outcome of their crime, not just because it is a crime"


They. Weren't. Charged. With. Any. Crime.

They. Were. Given. No. Criminal. Punishment.
"Punishment is the authoritative imposition of something negative or unpleasant on a person or animal in response to behavior deemed wrong by an individual or group."
They were forced to shut down, by definition, it's punishment. I never said criminal punishment, once again you continue to bring unneeded and unrelated things into the discussion

QUOTE(BlueStar @ Jul 17 2011, 01:53 PM) QUOTE

My argument has nothing to do with this so called "main argument," of them being kids, i never said it did, and I didn't reply to somebody that did, you replied to me and brought age into my argument. It may have been crucial when responding to somebody else, but it is certainly not crucial when it was no factor in what I was saying. You've been trying to argue against something you don't even understand.

Then your argument has nothing to do with the actual topic.

Umm, yeah, it really does, I was saying the law is unfair which is definitely related to the topic

 

[BlueStar]

They were not forced to shut down, they were told they needed a permit and then they could continue. They were not punished for their previous violation at all. If the permit is too much, that's another matter. Maybe we could campaign for there to be a sliding scale, with stalls that make lots of money paying more and a two-bit lemonade stall paying a nominal fee. But then that's seen as communist and 'punishing success'.

 

[DeathStrudel]

They were not forced to shut down, they were told they needed a permit and then they could continue. They were not punished for their previous violation at all. If the permit is too much, that's another matter. Maybe we could campaign for there to be a sliding scale, with stalls that make lots of money paying more and a two-bit lemonade stall paying a nominal fee. But then that's seen as communist and 'punishing success'.

“It was fun, but we had to listen to the cops and shut it down."
Did you read the article? How can't you say they weren't forced to shut it down? They were told they couldn't continue selling lemonade, how is that not shutting them down? If they got a permit, then they could reopen but that doesn't mean that they weren't shut down in the first place. Wow, go read a dictionary, you have very strange definitions of words.

And when I say good day, I'm not saying you can't reply but just know if you do you will look incredibly childish cause I have nothing else to say to you

This time, for real, good day sir, I've got some stuff to do so I couldn't even stay if I wanted

 

[thela_kid]

Just saw your edit.

 

[Shinigami357]

Wow... Seriously? Dude, why are all your posts laden with "what if"s and "it's seen as" assumptions? The case is clear-cut, why put your own twist into it? You're making a mountain out of a molehill and expecting all of us to treat it like it's frigging Everest. Damn.

Also, you say they weren't forced to shut down. A bunch of BS. They told the kids that they needed to pay for the permit or shut down - those are their only two choices. Even a 7 year-old should be able to grasp the concept that if you're required to do something and you can't, then you will be forced by the authorities to stop. That right there, is more than enough to say that they were forced to shut down - directly or indirectly.

Again, nothing against you, but please, for the love of everything good and holy, stop pulling things out of your ass and making it out like they matter in this discussion. Because that doesn't make your argument better- it makes it confusing and frankly, irrelevant.

 

[Jamstruth]

Can I be the first to suggest we give up? Bluestar is not going to see past his black and white view of the law even when applied to a 10 year old on their front lawn selling some lemonade. You gonna make them pay tax on the lemonade they sell if they did pay the permits well?

There's a measure of common sense that needs to be applied. The argument about toxins in the lemonade given by the police holds the most weight in stopping the kids in my opinion but when its just some neighbourhood kids nobody's going to complain about shoddy lemonade... I hope. *now awaits someone suing a 10 year old for terrible lemonade*

 

[Shinigami357]

Can I be the first to suggest we give up?

Well I tried the "can't we all get along?" route but that did jacksh*t, so... Well, good luck to you guys, anyway.

 

[thela_kid]

i suggest this thread be closed now. what ever needed to be said has been.

 

[BlueStar]

Oh, give over. They didn't have their stand shut down as a punishment, they were told they needed a permit before they could continue to sell the stuff. If they couldn't afford it, then your issue is with the people who set the permit costs, not the cop.

If you're walking through a park and you're told, perfectly reasonably "Sorry, there's a charge for entering the park. You didn't know, so we won't charge you for the time you've been here or arrest you or anything, but if you want to stay you have to pay the admission fee" are you being 'punished' if you can't afford it? No.

If you've got issues with the law or permit costs, take them up by all means, but don't cry about a cop doing his job.

Hey, actually, if you cry any more maybe the kids could swim in your tears?

 

[nryn99]

BlueStar.

yes i see your point, but you don't see their point.

you're right about the kids having an option to get a permit.
however if they don't get a permit(which they didn't bother getting) they will be shut down which is what happened.

If you're walking through a park and you're told, perfectly reasonably "Sorry, there's a charge for entering the park. You didn't know, so we won't charge you for the time you've been here or arrest you or anything, but if you want to stay you have to pay the admission fee" are you being 'punished' if you can't afford it? No.

the punishment in that case would be you leaving the park. or rather 'consequences'

also about them 'crying' about about the cops, is taking it a bit too far. it may be considered an insult.

if you think about punishment as the consequences of an action you take then you will get what the others are telling you.

though my argument is not perfect since i've only read pages 9, 10 and a few of 8.