Topic: Arrested for feeding the homeless [UPDATE: Anonymous Involvement] (Read 3159 times)
Food Not Bombs is generally an anarchist (libertarian socialist) project.
June 16, 2011, 07:24:31 PM
Supposedly Anonymous is jumping in and attacking Orlando's website. The plan is to do it tomorrow I guess.
June 15, 2011, 08:48:10 PM
Here's a video from today's food sharing. A little better in terms of shakiness, because I actually held the camera this time. My favorite part of this was when I asked the guy why he was being arrested and he said, "For feeding the hungry." You could tell he was nervous, because the rest of his response was stuttery.
EDIT: I guess I should've posted the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn3GRz8nk6E
EDIT: I guess I should've posted the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn3GRz8nk6E
June 15, 2011, 06:34:12 AM
Quote
About two dozen activists and homeless people booed and chanted "Food is a right, not a privilege" as they were loaded into a waiting police van.
I'm confused. Do they mean that we have the right to feed people or that people have the right to be fed. If it's the former, I agree. If it's the later, I disagree. Rights are only negative. You have the right not to be raped, robbed, murdered, etc. However, if you have the right to be fed then by me not feeding you, I'm somehow violating your rights. That's unacceptable. Nobody has the right for me to be their personal slave. If you want food, earn it or wait for someone to give it to you voluntarily.
I'm hoping they mean that we have the right to feed people.
Your dogmatism is frightening.
What are you going to do about it? Point a gun at me and force me to feed the poor? If not, I don't particularly care. You're welcome to have your opinion. Just give me the same respect and allow me to have my own opinion too.
https://i.imgur.com/nf5bP.jpg
Hopefully.
June 15, 2011, 06:31:56 AM
Quote
About two dozen activists and homeless people booed and chanted "Food is a right, not a privilege" as they were loaded into a waiting police van.
I'm confused. Do they mean that we have the right to feed people or that people have the right to be fed. If it's the former, I agree. If it's the later, I disagree. Rights are only negative. You have the right not to be raped, robbed, murdered, etc. However, if you have the right to be fed then by me not feeding you, I'm somehow violating your rights. That's unacceptable. Nobody has the right for me to be their personal slave. If you want food, earn it or wait for someone to give it to you voluntarily.
I'm hoping they mean that we have the right to feed people.
Your dogmatism is frightening.
What are you going to do about it? Point a gun at me and force me to feed the poor? If not, I don't particularly care. You're welcome to have your opinion. Just give me the same respect and allow me to have my own opinion too.
June 15, 2011, 03:53:28 AM
As much as I hate rich greedy old men like Atlas, I have no sympathy whatsoever for homeless adult men. They are ultimately the reason for a lot of the poverty in our society. Since they'd rather drink, do drugs, and enjoy themselves than take care of the children they ultimately sire.
Ultimately, the laissez-faire system people like Atlas propose is fair. People who work should not be forced to support those who refuse to do so and are detriment to society. Except in the case of impoverished children. Children born into poverty and abusive homes do not deserve their plight at all. They can't possibly support or defend themselves.
In the case of children and young people (it takes a long time for someone to fully mature in this society) I feel complete government support is justified. The thing is, if the government stopped giving handouts and healthcare to useless old men, there'd be a lot more available for the children they've been abusing and forcing into poverty. We don't really need more taxes but better management of what's collected now.
Ultimately, the laissez-faire system people like Atlas propose is fair. People who work should not be forced to support those who refuse to do so and are detriment to society. Except in the case of impoverished children. Children born into poverty and abusive homes do not deserve their plight at all. They can't possibly support or defend themselves.
In the case of children and young people (it takes a long time for someone to fully mature in this society) I feel complete government support is justified. The thing is, if the government stopped giving handouts and healthcare to useless old men, there'd be a lot more available for the children they've been abusing and forcing into poverty. We don't really need more taxes but better management of what's collected now.
"People have no control of what circumstances they are born into."
Really does the homeless veteran have control over the nightmares that keep him from having a steady job?
Does the soulcrushed prostitute who has been on the street for a decade have control over the fear of pimps and battery?
You don't want to help, fine. You don't want to help because you judge, that's fine too, just stay out of my way when I choose to help. But if anyone ever so much suggests shutting down a group that was helping people help themselves because it irritates their armchair sensitivities, I'm going to be a pain in the ass in that endeavor.
I like what a lot of people on here are doing for bitcoin, but my alarms go off when people look down on people in pain regardless of whether it's self inflicted.
Hear, hear! Very well put.
June 14, 2011, 10:18:06 PM
As much as I hate rich greedy old men like Atlas, I have no sympathy whatsoever for homeless adult men. They are ultimately the reason for a lot of the poverty in our society. Since they'd rather drink, do drugs, and enjoy themselves than take care of the children they ultimately sire.
Ultimately, the laissez-faire system people like Atlas propose is fair. People who work should not be forced to support those who refuse to do so and are detriment to society. Except in the case of impoverished children. Children born into poverty and abusive homes do not deserve their plight at all. They can't possibly support or defend themselves.
In the case of children and young people (it takes a long time for someone to fully mature in this society) I feel complete government support is justified. The thing is, if the government stopped giving handouts and healthcare to useless old men, there'd be a lot more available for the children they've been abusing and forcing into poverty. We don't really need more taxes but better management of what's collected now.
Ultimately, the laissez-faire system people like Atlas propose is fair. People who work should not be forced to support those who refuse to do so and are detriment to society. Except in the case of impoverished children. Children born into poverty and abusive homes do not deserve their plight at all. They can't possibly support or defend themselves.
In the case of children and young people (it takes a long time for someone to fully mature in this society) I feel complete government support is justified. The thing is, if the government stopped giving handouts and healthcare to useless old men, there'd be a lot more available for the children they've been abusing and forcing into poverty. We don't really need more taxes but better management of what's collected now.
"People have no control of what circumstances they are born into."
Really does the homeless veteran have control over the nightmares that keep him from having a steady job?
Does the soulcrushed prostitute who has been on the street for a decade have control over the fear of pimps and battery?
You don't want to help, fine. You don't want to help because you judge, that's fine too, just stay out of my way when I choose to help. But if anyone ever so much suggests shutting down a group that was helping people help themselves because it irritates their armchair sensitivities, I'm going to be a pain in the ass in that endeavor.
I like what a lot of people on here are doing for bitcoin, but my alarms go off when people look down on people in pain regardless of whether it's self inflicted.
June 14, 2011, 09:25:28 PM
Yes, this is Orlando. This is where Mickey Mouse lives and where Dwight Howard dunks. It's also where you want to make sure you're up on your licensing, because you might get your door kicked in.
June 14, 2011, 09:05:59 PM
Here's my video. Sorry about the shakiness, I was filming from a case on my hip so I could use my still camera. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uN4b-kY3IVM
Here's what you're seeing: I started filming when the cops began approaching at a distance (a number of patrol cars, as many bike cops as you see in the video, and one van). There were officers (mostly plain clothes) set up at a fence to dictate when the arrests would happen. The line had cleared and everyone had their food when the arrests were made (presumably on purpose). So the bike cops walk up and zip tied anyone who touched a ladle. I followed them to the van. When we got there, I ran out of film (yes I was using a film camera), so I transitioned to my sidearm as it were (which is to say my camcorder).
Here's an interesting fact: the guy in the purple shirt you see in some of the shots at the end is not in anyway affiliated with this group, but was arrested recently and his camera stolen by the police. Read that story here.
Here's what you're seeing: I started filming when the cops began approaching at a distance (a number of patrol cars, as many bike cops as you see in the video, and one van). There were officers (mostly plain clothes) set up at a fence to dictate when the arrests would happen. The line had cleared and everyone had their food when the arrests were made (presumably on purpose). So the bike cops walk up and zip tied anyone who touched a ladle. I followed them to the van. When we got there, I ran out of film (yes I was using a film camera), so I transitioned to my sidearm as it were (which is to say my camcorder).
Here's an interesting fact: the guy in the purple shirt you see in some of the shots at the end is not in anyway affiliated with this group, but was arrested recently and his camera stolen by the police. Read that story here.
June 14, 2011, 08:59:52 PM
This is such fucking bullshit. I can barely believe it.
June 14, 2011, 08:26:25 PM
Well, for the record, I don't align with that group (Food Not Bombs) on just about any subject. They're outright communist. They hate capitalism and probably pray to statues of Karl Marx and Michael Moore every night. They mean that food is a right (which it's not). But, I fully support the right of people to freely and peaceably assemble in public areas. Even if "I disapprove of what you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it." They're using the state to inflict violence on people not committing crimes. So I will be out there to support the peoples right to nullify bad laws.
Thank you for standing up
But I could not find any information on their political standpoint and daily rituals, tho. Where did you find it?
I've spoke to many of the members to get their personal views. But you can also find it on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_Not_Bombs.
As a summary to what happened Monday, they got arrested. But they've also issued a letter to the mayor with their demands basically saying to stop arresting people, drop charges against those who've been arrested, and sit down and talk about homeless issues. You can read about it here.
I'll be posting my video soon.
June 13, 2011, 05:14:08 AM
I have no sympathy whatsoever for homeless adult men
Why only men? We get far more social service funds, and far more chances than men do. To be homeless and a women takes profound effort. June 13, 2011, 05:02:41 AM
Well, for the record, I don't align with that group (Food Not Bombs) on just about any subject. They're outright communist. They hate capitalism and probably pray to statues of Karl Marx and Michael Moore every night. They mean that food is a right (which it's not). But, I fully support the right of people to freely and peaceably assemble in public areas. Even if "I disapprove of what you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it." They're using the state to inflict violence on people not committing crimes. So I will be out there to support the peoples right to nullify bad laws.
Thank you for standing up
But I could not find any information on their political standpoint and daily rituals, tho. Where did you find it?
Quote
About two dozen activists and homeless people booed and chanted "Food is a right, not a privilege" as they were loaded into a waiting police van.
I'm confused. Do they mean that we have the right to feed people or that people have the right to be fed. If it's the former, I agree. If it's the later, I disagree. Rights are only negative. You have the right not to be raped, robbed, murdered, etc. However, if you have the right to be fed then by me not feeding you, I'm somehow violating your rights. That's unacceptable. Nobody has the right for me to be their personal slave. If you want food, earn it or wait for someone to give it to you voluntarily.
I'm hoping they mean that we have the right to feed people.
Your dogmatism is frightening.
As much as I hate rich greedy old men like Atlas, I have no sympathy whatsoever for homeless adult men. They are ultimately the reason for a lot of the poverty in our society. Since they'd rather drink, do drugs, and enjoy themselves than take care of the children they ultimately sire.
Ultimately, the laissez-faire system people like Atlas propose is fair. People who work should not be forced to support those who refuse to do so and are detriment to society. Except in the case of impoverished children. People have no control of what circumstances they are born into. Children born into poverty and abusive homes do not deserve their plight at all. They can't possibly support or defend themselves.
In the case of children and young people (it takes a long time for someone to fully mature in this society) I feel complete government support is justified. The thing is, if the government stopped giving handouts and healthcare to useless old men, there'd be a lot more available for the children they've been abusing and forcing into poverty. We don't really need more taxes but better management of what's collected now.
Ultimately, the laissez-faire system people like Atlas propose is fair. People who work should not be forced to support those who refuse to do so and are detriment to society. Except in the case of impoverished children. People have no control of what circumstances they are born into. Children born into poverty and abusive homes do not deserve their plight at all. They can't possibly support or defend themselves.
In the case of children and young people (it takes a long time for someone to fully mature in this society) I feel complete government support is justified. The thing is, if the government stopped giving handouts and healthcare to useless old men, there'd be a lot more available for the children they've been abusing and forcing into poverty. We don't really need more taxes but better management of what's collected now.
what about the useless homeless men that were once abandoned children, abused children, terrorised children, who were never given the structure, positive enviromental upbringing, and mental and physical tools necessary to barely survive, let alone succeed and prosper ?
buck up mister, you are an adult now ??
personal responsibility is certainly important, but what if they never were exposed to it in the first place?
what if the extent of your exposure was only protecting what little you have on the streets, because someone will kill you for the little amount of possessions you have (shoes, clothes,a bible, whatever) ?
As much as I hate rich greedy old men like Atlas, I have no sympathy whatsoever for homeless adult men. They are ultimately the reason for a lot of the poverty in our society. Since they'd rather drink, do drugs, and enjoy themselves than take care of the children they ultimately sire.
Homeless people are the CAUSE of poverty? Are you insane? They are the victims of the system, not the perpetrators. If you want to blame some large faceless group, blame the welfare mommas and the government bureaucrats. The homeless guy is not the guy who raised minimum wage over what his employer could afford to pay him. He is not the one who raised taxes above what he could afford to pay. And as to your opinion on how they spend their time, How do you suggest they spend the pittance they get from the few charitable souls who don't spit at them and holler 'Get a Job!'? Curtains for their box? Maybe a nice little area rug?
As much as I hate rich greedy old men like Atlas, I have no sympathy whatsoever for homeless adult men. They are ultimately the reason for a lot of the poverty in our society. Since they'd rather drink, do drugs, and enjoy themselves than take care of the children they ultimately sire.
Ultimately, the laissez-faire system people like Atlas propose is fair. People who work should not be forced to support those who refuse to do so and are detriment to society. Except in the case of impoverished children. People have no control of what circumstances they are born into. Children born into poverty and abusive homes do not deserve their plight at all. They can't possibly support or defend themselves.
In the case of children and young people (it takes a long time for someone to fully mature in this society) I feel complete government support is justified. The thing is, if the government stopped giving handouts and healthcare to useless old men, there'd be a lot more available for the children they've been abusing and forcing into poverty. We don't really need more taxes but better management of what's collected now.
Ultimately, the laissez-faire system people like Atlas propose is fair. People who work should not be forced to support those who refuse to do so and are detriment to society. Except in the case of impoverished children. People have no control of what circumstances they are born into. Children born into poverty and abusive homes do not deserve their plight at all. They can't possibly support or defend themselves.
In the case of children and young people (it takes a long time for someone to fully mature in this society) I feel complete government support is justified. The thing is, if the government stopped giving handouts and healthcare to useless old men, there'd be a lot more available for the children they've been abusing and forcing into poverty. We don't really need more taxes but better management of what's collected now.
Quote
About two dozen activists and homeless people booed and chanted "Food is a right, not a privilege" as they were loaded into a waiting police van.
I'm confused. Do they mean that we have the right to feed people or that people have the right to be fed. If it's the former, I agree. If it's the later, I disagree. Rights are only negative. You have the right not to be raped, robbed, murdered, etc. However, if you have the right to be fed then by me not feeding you, I'm somehow violating your rights. That's unacceptable. Nobody has the right for me to be their personal slave. If you want food, earn it or wait for someone to give it to you voluntarily.
I'm hoping they mean that we have the right to feed people.
Well, for the record, I don't align with that group (Food Not Bombs) on just about any subject. They're outright communist. They hate capitalism and probably pray to statues of Karl Marx and Michael Moore every night. They mean that food is a right (which it's not). But, I fully support the right of people to freely and peaceably assemble in public areas. Even if "I disapprove of what you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it." They're using the state to inflict violence on people not committing crimes. So I will be out there to support the peoples right to nullify bad laws.
thats pretty rhetorical. and pointless.
like "did you have right to someone take you rights to enforce you rights then ?"&etc&etc looped nonsense-brainfuck.
like "did you have right to someone take you rights to enforce you rights then ?"&etc&etc looped nonsense-brainfuck.
Quote
About two dozen activists and homeless people booed and chanted "Food is a right, not a privilege" as they were loaded into a waiting police van.
I'm confused. Do they mean that we have the right to feed people or that people have the right to be fed. If it's the former, I agree. If it's the later, I disagree. Rights are only negative. You have the right not to be raped, robbed, murdered, etc. However, if you have the right to be fed then by me not feeding you, I'm somehow violating your rights. That's unacceptable. Nobody has the right for me to be their personal slave. If you want food, earn it or wait for someone to give it to you voluntarily.
I'm hoping they mean that we have the right to feed people.
Jump to: