Understanding or not, FoolKiller was just doing what dads do in scenarios like this. Thankfully it didn't escalate into a more serious altercation.
This is fairly normal, yes.
However, I would disagree in that one should be
"thankful". One should simply
expect this from respectful, rational society that is not impulsive, insecure, and eager to enforce their own will upon others.
If it did, I doubt the police would do much, because A.) the guy was homeless B.) he smelled of drugs and C.) He mentioned something oddly pedo in the vicinity of a school and of his kid.
Your cynicism is not misplaced.
Actually, I would hope that someone would dissuade me from that disposition. I don't want to actually harm anyone. I have never started a physical altercation in my life (unless hitting my brother in the crotch with countless thrown objects counts) and do not want to. I am not violent by nature, but at that moment, before any other thought crossed my mind I saw red and thought immediately of the table leg just inside my door.
Here is the simple (but not, by any means would I ever concede, easy) instruction (unsolicited, I know) I would impart to you: consider yourself not necessarily in his position, but as a potential agent of his words. When you become responsible—or hypothetically responsible—not for his life or actions, but
for the words he utters which are susceptible to the interpretations of others, it clarifies rather quickly what are and are not acceptable actions to perform in response to them.
[
]Parental instinct is strange. When you think your child is in danger adrenaline kicks in and instinct takes over.
These are two scales of response which are dissimilar in both immediacy and scale of threat. I trust nobody will impede you in the immediate safeguarding of your daughter, and may they suffer if they do so.
Yes, thought that was clear...
Well, no. Yes, you said you would indicate "this is for food". That's neat. But now, once handed over to Mr Hobo, this is for Mr. Hobo. You're asserting your right to what is classically known (in the early modern sense) as "slavery", ie the state-sanctioned approval of one to dictate the terms under which a stipend may be utilized by a receiver of such credit. However, it is no longer state-sanctioned, at least on this continent. So wherein again, exactly, is this authority vested, from which you dictate what he does with that stipend? I mean, in this context it's obvious you're not giving it to him just for his own benefit—the amount of barking you do about the encroaching paternalism of American government would indicate you're not a supporter of such oversight—I can't help but wonder where exactly you extract this authority, other than your own ego?
Well, I'll admit I have no clue how Canada works,
That's nice - such a concession would mean you're not extrapolating any "Canadianisms" from what I'm saying and erroneously applying them to that nation then, correct?
Sorry, what? I don't see how this qualifies what you said.
people here usually don't hang out at daycare centers commenting on how cute the kids are to parents walking their children unless they are up to something.
Ohhhh, I see—you
were extrapolating normative tendencies from what I said as an indicator of "Canadianism", or, as it's formally known, an ad hominem (ad nationem?) attack.
Right. Let me make this easy for you.
Remember how the law is
written down, in text, in very short, but multiple sentences? Do you know what that's for? It's so you don't have to exert a whole lot of effort interpreting it. Believe it or not, the American government strives in some sense—it is a capitalist one, after all—after efficiency of operation. Government is business, after all (British Idioms, p942). This means having simple heuristics by which most people are able to understand its operation, and thereby achieve a kind of standard of behaviour and enforcement. This means the law says
you cannot do that. It's literally that simple—it says that, to spare you the effort of thinking about rationalizing the decision over whether or not it's OK to do it.
It has decided for you (ie you are not free!). And, even better, if you make a decision that is sanctioned within the law, you haven't violated US authority ...and that makes you a good American!
In fact, you guys were kind of pioneers behind that. Us backwards Canadians were just lowly peasants imbued with the sense of British Imperialistic double-standardness that navigated the murky waters of dominion-status quasi-constitutional-parliamentary monarchy, which has a weird legal system based on "interpretation" (LOLWUTEV) and "precedent" (no, not "presidents").
In my case the guy asked for money for food outside a restaurant. The purpose was pretty clear.
C'mon. If we're going to be literal about this, sure—but you've already admitted as much that you don't restrict your interpretation to
the text.
Out of curiosity, did you walk in here with the intent to piss off all of the American members by pigeon-holing them into one tiny ignorantly conceived stereotype? Even your sig file seems designed to be working toward it, what with the out of context quote and all.
Actually it's completely calculated and I await some of the interesting results from doing so.
Actually we do. A jury is 12 regular citizens who have the power to not only determine guilt based on the evidence, but also to determine the validity of the law the defendant is accused of breaking, and even the justification of the violation.
Well, no. You don't make those arguments, lawyers do. You're imbued with the power to decide guilt, and the extent to which someone is culpable, on the basis of evidence which is—again—presented to you by lawyers.
But as the great judge of all things American, you know that already, don't you?
I understand your frustration at being interpreted by a foreigner, but that never stopped anyone from taking seriously Adorno, Thatcher, Scharwzeneggar, etc did it? Besides, it's difficult not to be intimately familiarized with Rome when they have, at times, literally threatened to invade you. ("Know you enemy!", amirite? ps sorry 'bout Iraq/Afghanistan.)
