Philadelphia Zoo

[dgg9]

Originally Posted by Elmar

Rights are distinct from law. You are currently discussing law while I am discussing a mutual respect for the rights of others.

Actually, you're not. By making an irrational request that does me objective harm, the zoo is not respecting me or my rights. They're consciously placing my right to life lower than their lawyer's desire for liability CYA. Where do you see respect in any of this?

[dgg9]

Originally Posted by adymond

What about the express request that you not even enter the property with what is defined as a weapon?

Request != right

Wouldn't you be breaking the law by tresspassing the minute you step onto the property?

No.

[adymond]

Being on the property while carrying a weapon while that is a disquilifying act for admission to the property means you are not welcome. So by you entering the property in direct disregard for the property owner's wishes means you are tresspassing. You have just not been caught until they ask you to leave because someone has seen it. How can you say that is not tresspassing? Elmer is correct about the purchase of a ticket being a contract. You are agreeing by purchasing that ticket that you will follow the rules set forth by the property owner. This takes on another dimension since the Zoo is a city owned entity. Preemption of state law makes the regulation/rule/policy invalid in that case.

Just because you aren't caught doing something wrong does not mean you are doing nothing wrong.

[Elmar]

Originally Posted by adymond

What about the express request that you not even enter the property with what is defined as a weapon? Wouldn't you be breaking the law by tresspassing the minute you step onto the property? You would just not be caught until they asked you to leave. So does that mean it is not wrong until you get caught?

Exactly there are two things to judge here.

One is the letter of the law. No one disagrees that it isn't against the law to proceed with a firearm onto the property.

The other is the spirit of mutual respect for rights. This is where the disagreement lies, entirely outside the bounds of law.

[dgg9]

Originally Posted by adymond

Being on the property while carrying a weapon while that is a disquilifying act for admission to the property means you are not welcome. So by you entering the property in direct disregard for the property owner's wishes means you are tresspassing.

Again, that's creative, but the law disagrees with you. Take it up with the PA legislature.

Just because you aren't caught doing something wrong does not mean you are doing nothing wrong.

And just because you disregard someone's irrational wishes does not mean you are "wrong." Further, not all "wrongs" are equal, nor is every remote, tenuous, irrational vestige of a right on exactly the same footing as all other rights. That makes for fine, absolutist, Randian rhetoric, but doesn't help much in the real world.

[Elmar]

Originally Posted by dgg9

Actually, you're not. By making an irrational request that does me objective harm, the zoo is not respecting me or my rights. They're consciously placing my right to life lower than their lawyer's desire for liability CYA. Where do you see respect in any of this?

The request isn't irrational. It does you no objective harm, it does you subjective harm you view it as harm - others would not which means the state changes by the subject viewing it ergo: subjective.

They don't have to respect your rights as part of granting access to their property. That is the purpose of property - to be able to discriminate based on whatever qualifying conditions that property owner wants.

They aren't placing anything anywhere they are setting terms for use of property which you are free to accept or deny. If you don't believe the subjective harm you see is worth the benefit of going onto their property than you can choose not to. No force is present.

They don't have to respect your 2nd amendment rights. Neither do I if I tell you that you can't come onto my property, into my house, or in my car armed. I don't have to let you into any of those if I don't like the color of your shirt - it is all at the property owner's discretion.

Respecting your rights would mean not using force to deprive you of them whether under the color of law or not. Respecting their rights means abiding by the terms they set forth to make their property open to you - which they don't have to do which is why you being there is a privilege.

You want to treat a privilege (going to the zoo) as a right - it is not.

[dgg9]

Originally Posted by Elmar

Exactly there are two things to judge here.

One is the letter of the law. No one disagrees that it isn't against the law to proceed with a firearm onto the property.

The other is the spirit of mutual respect for rights. This is where the disagreement lies, entirely outside the bounds of law.

Except that the respect is not mutual (since the zoo cares more about it's CYA liability than my right to life) and the rights are not on equal footing. Not all aspects of all rights are the same. In the real world, one has to make useful distinctions.

[Elmar]

Originally Posted by ThomasJ

Because this is not a matter of just and unjust. It is not "unjust" for someone to disobey policy. It is not "unjust" if I carry my hotdog and soda into the musuem or if I bring in candy purchased from a drugstore into a movie theater. It is not "unjust" if I choose to run in my bare feet around the community pool.

Yes it is unjust for a person to willfully misrepresent themselves in contract. Yes it is unjust if you carry a hot dog and soda into a museum. The museum has the right to set forth terms you must agree to in order to use their property. You can agree or not, you don't have a right to go to the museum. When you willfully misrepresent yourself (lie) that is an unjust and immoral action.

Originally Posted by ThomasJ

No, it doesn't. This "opinion" of mine is in regards to the law. It is not infringing upon the property owner's right for me to carry a gun onto their premises; I am not breaking any law.

This isn't and never has been about the law. It is about mutual respect for rights. You wish others to respect your rights but you have absolutely zero regard for the rights of others when they conflict with your selfish desires.

Originally Posted by ThomasJ

I am breaking a law if I refuse to leave when asked. The problem with your thinking is that you are equating policy and signage with rights and law, and you are putting them all on equal footing. You make a lot of assumptions when you would best be served by asking questions.

No the problem is you are under the misconception that law equates to rights.

You don't seem to grasp the subtitles I am arguing no matter how many times I state it. This is not about the law. Rights do not stem from the law. Rights are not defined by law and law does not perfectly mirror rights. Which of these do you not understand?

[ThomasJ]

Originally Posted by Elmar

It is emotional however it is not empty. Respecting others even for the most pragmatic terms of wishing respect for one's self is a sophisticated form of thinking. Respecting others because it is the moral thing to do is even more sophisticated thus not doing so is brining one closer to a child's thought process.

Well I thought you were arrogant and on a high horse before, but this really takes the cake. I bask in your sophisticatedishness. I am not worthy.

If you disagree with my position perhaps it would be more beneficial to critique the position and its reasoning than to simply dismiss with no evidence? I've shown precisely how it is fraudulent representation could you provide some idea why it is not?

You've shown nothing; you've stated an opinion. Maybe if you stopped admiring yourself and your sophisticated thinking for a moment, you'd realize that your position and your posts are being and have been critiqued.

[ThomasJ]

Originally Posted by adymond

What about the express request that you not even enter the property with what is defined as a weapon? Wouldn't you be breaking the law by tresspassing the minute you step onto the property?

What about it?

No, you are not trespassing just by walking onto the property with a weapon.