Civil Disobedience

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
The smoke is thick over North America, the woods are basically giant tinder boxes, campers are ignoring fire bans and governments are left trying to figure out how to mitigate the damage, so they ban going into the woods because idiot campers ruined it for everyone.

And Rita, you're here generating outrage over the erosion of civil liberties using clickbait headlines.

If only Nova Scotia had a Conservative government, eh?
 
chansen said:
The smoke is thick over North America, the woods are basically giant tinder boxes, campers are ignoring fire bans and governments are left trying to figure out how to mitigate the damage, so they ban going into the woods because idiot campers ruined it for everyone.

And Rita, you're here generating outrage over the erosion of civil liberties using clickbait headlines.

If only Nova Scotia had a Conservative government, eh?
Click to expand...

Or some medium level of intellectual emotional development ... alas such things have stopped for the sake of economy ... no one can think of a way out of the crisis we've created because we denied culpability ... we fell for it ... as Love for hard cash is extensive in the spot we are in ...

Anyone with a levitated thought? Up she goes ... smoked it ... smoke dite? There's a hot tongue ... fiery word ...
 
This focus on rugged individualism and "me first" in North American society is going to be the death of us. Sometimes, people need to think of something besides themselves.

Honestly, it should be enough for the government to say, "Hey, there's a high risk of fires. Here's how to stay safe and not burn the country down" and people do it. Instead, people just keep on keeping on, raising the fire risk, which is why the government uses regulations to control these things.

Because if someone starts a wildfire, it's not them putting their life on the line to fight it. It's the firefighters who take those risks. It's the homeowners whose properties are in the path of the fire who stand to lose. And the dumb f*ck who couldn't follow the rules is probably comfy and safe in their living room watching the story on the news.

Same with COVID. People from societies where they actually give a s*** about society, not just themselves, were already masking and minimizing contacts before the government mandated it. In fact, they were masking for years when they had colds or the flu.

No person is an island. What we do affects others. That's how existence works. When we focus solely on ourselves and how others affect us without paying attention to how we affect others, then something is profoundly wrong. And we shouldn't need regulations and laws to enforce that. It should be part of our nature. Sadly, it is not.
 
Mendalla said:
This focus on rugged individualism and "me first" in North American society is going to be the death of us. Sometimes, people need to think of something besides themselves.

Honestly, it should be enough for the government to say, "Hey, there's a high risk of fires. Here's how to stay safe and not burn the country down" and people do it. Instead, people just keep on keeping on, raising the fire risk, which is why the government uses regulations to control these things.

Because if someone starts a wildfire, it's not them putting their life on the line to fight it. It's the firefighters who take those risks. It's the homeowners whose properties are in the path of the fire who stand to lose. And the dumb f*ck who couldn't follow the rules is probably comfy and safe in their living room watching the story on the news.

Same with COVID. People from societies where they actually give a s*** about society, not just themselves, were already masking and minimizing contacts before the government mandated it. In fact, they were masking for years when they had colds or the flu.

No person is an island. What we do affects others. That's how existence works. When we focus solely on ourselves and how others affect us without paying attention to how we affect others, then something is profoundly wrong. And we shouldn't need regulations and laws to enforce that. It should be part of our nature. Sadly, it is not.
Click to expand...
Well said!!!
 
Mendalla said:
This focus on rugged individualism and "me first" in North American society is going to be the death of us. Sometimes, people need to think of something besides themselves.

Honestly, it should be enough for the government to say, "Hey, there's a high risk of fires. Here's how to stay safe and not burn the country down" and people do it. Instead, people just keep on keeping on, raising the fire risk, which is why the government uses regulations to control these things.

Because if someone starts a wildfire, it's not them putting their life on the line to fight it. It's the firefighters who take those risks. It's the homeowners whose properties are in the path of the fire who stand to lose. And the dumb f*ck who couldn't follow the rules is probably comfy and safe in their living room watching the story on the news.

Same with COVID. People from societies where they actually give a s*** about society, not just themselves, were already masking and minimizing contacts before the government mandated it. In fact, they were masking for years when they had colds or the flu.

No person is an island. What we do affects others. That's how existence works. When we focus solely on ourselves and how others affect us without paying attention to how we affect others, then something is profoundly wrong. And we shouldn't need regulations and laws to enforce that. It should be part of our nature. Sadly, it is not.
Click to expand...
Would this go over well with the war mongers dedicated to more conflict and less cooperation as war is the best way to make money ... one way or the other ... except if you consider the chances of loosing when considering the greater numbers in the populace ... OH paradoxids ... a tertiary life for differing from paradoxism? Hold your breath the brutes tend not to listen ...

It does however point to a source of paranoia in the wealthy ... that something could cost them everything ... and so it goes! Shakespearean mule?

Now that sometimes goes by a varied label ... like something jousting at high winds ... Mariah? Das the Great Mutter ...

Those despising Psyche and related essence are out of the image ... just can't relate to the acacia plant ... a thorny issue among industrial conflicts!

From there a sophisticated presentation on what we shouldn't know as if WOKE was bad ... simple as that!

On FB someone posted a question of what would be like if 8.X billion folk cooperated instead of the alternate ... enigmatic ... EH? What if it is a test to see who really loves chaos ... and flaming situation on a bote going nowhere but to the great muttering Dae M'N? Remind you of cicada?

That too is a bug in the ointment ... because you just cannot tell one with greased hand much ... they'd be prepared for the hot irons ... cowboy-bull?

May explain the nard incident ... and some vain expression when the rooster was placed on the temple dome ... to test the winds!

You cannot act as if your understand these things when with authority ... it threatens something in their depths! Thus stressed hearts ... about lost love when you gain some alien expressions ... strange knowledge?

One might ask what do we really know of that beyond mortal ... some say id'll be the death of your old self ... as it freshens up ... after an encounter at 4 in the morning ...

Complexity? I'd assume a considerable bit of it because there's Eve in more ... strolling about in the odd gardens ... fores tales? Logged ...
 
Last edited:
I was hoping for a civil discussion around civil disobedience.

Does the example in the OP meet that criteria?
 
Everything has limits ... and so we must leave and return such intelligence to whatever community of Sophistic is out there ... tis way beyond mortals in my evaluation of mortal intelligence.

It bothers me how I lose it in particular environs ... de complexed, un pressured ... vacuum boilers? Face it there just isn't much there ... like water for elephants ... Rosie liked her Bo'Ze ... gave her relief from human contact ... touché? Somewhat thick skinned ... like Hannah Ba'aL? A spherical concern ...
 
WhyCzar said:
I was hoping for a civil discussion around civil disobedience.

Does the example in the OP meet that criteria?
Click to expand...
No. Civil disobedience is resistance to oppression and bigotry. Sensible laws designed to protect people or resources don't fill that bill for me.
 

civil disobedience​

https://www.britannica.com/editor/The-Editors-of-Encyclopaedia-Britannica/4419
On the Web: Social Sciences LibreTexts - Civil Disobedience (July 28, 2025)


civil disobedience, the refusal to obey the demands or commands of a government or occupying power, without resorting to violence or active measures of opposition; its usual purpose is to force concessions from the government or occupying power.

Civil disobedience is a symbolic or ritualistic violation of the law rather than a rejection of the system as a whole. The civil disobedient, finding legitimate avenues of change blocked or nonexistent, feels obligated by a higher, extralegal principle to break some specific law. It is because acts associated with civil disobedience are considered crimes, however, and known by actor and public alike to be punishable, that such acts serve as a protest. By submitting to punishment, the civil disobedient hopes to set a moral example that will provoke the majority or the government into effecting meaningful political, social, or economic change. Under the imperative of setting a moral example, leaders of civil disobedience insist that the illegal actions be nonviolent.
 
During the 2023 Nova Scotia "Woods Ban", according to Jeff -- he filed an application for Judicial Review, citing his Constitutional Rights. The crown argued that his case was moot, because the ban had been lifted by the time his case made it to court. The court ruled that he did not have standing on his rights alone - there had to be money involved, like a fine. He now has that fine - by way of an act of Civil Disobedience.
 
Last edited:
Rita, what you're not acknowledging is that he's an idiot, looking for attention and failing to understand the reasons for the ban. Not everything is about your rights. Other residents have the right to not have their homes and woods burned to the ground. We balance the rights of the individual with the rights of others. You don't give a s**t about anyone else and because of that, we don't care about your outrage.
 
I live in a forest. I am cognizant of and voluntarily abide by common sense rules and regulations.

I have hiked, foraged and walked dogs in the woods - responsibly - for many a year.

I have 2 fire pits in my own yard. They are not used when conditions are fire hazardous.

When they are in use a water hose is always within reach and I do not leave them unattended.

My not going for a hike is not going to prevent a fire starting in my neck of the woods.

I am not going to deny myself a walk in nature when I know that I am not in anyway a threat.

Speaking of threats, it appears that restrictions are not being applied to high-risk logging activities in Nova Scotia :unsure:

Canada's National Observer logo

The province's industrial logging regime, which Houston has said can continue to operate with special permits the government has issued to forestry operators, is making the problem worse.​

Nina Newington was at her logging protest camp deep in the tinder-dry woods of Nova Scotia's Annapolis County early Tuesday afternoon when she learned the woods were being closed. She would need to get out of the bush within the next three hours or risk a $25,000 fine.

Tim Houston, the province's premier, had just banned anyone from entering the province's woodlands until Oct. 15 or until substantial rain reduces wildfire risk. Private landowners can still move about on their own property, but are forbidden from hosting others “to use wooded areas of their properties.”

Newington, who heads a group of citizen scientists called Save Our Old Forests, had spent the previous four months camped out on Crown land in a cluster of cutblocks slated for clear cutting, combing them for species at risk and nooks of old-growth forest. The ban cut Newington's efforts short, leaving her stranded at home, wondering if all their work to protect the forests was about to be undone.

The same is not true for forestry operators, who have been granted special exemptions from the wildfire restrictions. They are free to continue cutting trees, hauling them, doing silviculture (except planting) and road work on private land, which comprises about 70 percent of the province. On Crown land they're restricted to logging at night.

Several of these activities are deemed high risk under British Columbia’s wildfire act. Despite the extreme wildfire risks in Nova Scotia, however, the provincial government has issued blanket permits to forestry operators to continue logging on Crown land.

Todd Burgess, executive director of Forest Nova Scotia, said his group is "very supportive" of the ban, because the risk is so high. Nighttime logging is an exception, because it's a "measured risk that's worthwhile right now."

Industrial logging is "one of the main accelerants of the problem," said Mike Lancaster, executive director of the St. Margaret's Bay Stewardship Association. It has left more fire-prone trees and deadwood than would have once existed, transforming the landscape into a tinderbox.

"The pre-European forests that typically covered Nova Scotia, PEI and New Brunswick were these dark, closed canopy, very old forests for the most part," said Donna Crossland, a forest ecologist and vice-president of Nature Nova Scotia.

Because of the trees' size, shrubbery or small limbs couldn't grow and the ground was a lot more moist, making it nearly impossible for a fire to spread. Major wildfires only started after Europeans arrived, and they were almost exclusively triggered by human- or machine-caused fires getting out of hand, she explained.

The late 1700s and 1800s saw "wave after wave of fire" as settlers logged, cleared the land and covered the Maritimes with railways and sparking trains.

The ecological changes continued into the present as the pulp-and-paper and timber industries planted more fire-prone conifers and sprayed herbicides to kill off more fire-resistant deciduous trees.

Normally, Nova Scotia Environment and Climate Change (NSECC) issues herbicide spray permits for forestry operators in August, and makes those public. So far this year, there has been no official word about spray permits, but signs are appearing in woodlands notifying people that spraying has been approved.

The glyphosate spray kills broad-leaf plants and deciduous trees that compete with the conifers, and in doing so, produces large amounts of highly flammable dead material in the landscape. Inquiries to NSECC and to Natural Resources, the department in charge of enforcing the wildfire restrictions, on whether spraying can go ahead with such extreme wildfire risk in the woodlands went unanswered

Between 2001 and 2024 Nova Scotia lost about 17 percent of the tree cover the province had in 2000. The vast majority of this loss came from forestry, according to data collected by Global Forest Watch. Researchers have also pinned the shift on logging patterns.
Click to expand...
www.nationalobserver.com

How industrial forestry and climate change created the NS wildfire problem

Nova Scotia's ban on entering the forest due to wildfire fears comes as the province deals with a moderate-to-severe drought, no rain in the forecast and a forest more susceptible to burn because of logging, say experts.
www.nationalobserver.com www.nationalobserver.com
 
They have to apply the same restrictions to all just in case. Don’t be so selfish and narrow minded. You’d then just create more waste of ranger etc resources and staffing to prevent you and others from going for a hike because you feel like it. Then you might get arrested and tie up the court system - or get a fine and tie up the court system fighting it when they’ve got better things to do. More waste of time and resources - all because you just felt like hiking - or because you felt like challenging them because of some misplaced righteousness. Even the most seasoned campers can cause accidents or get caught in them (search and rescue resources) in tinder dry conditions. They aren’t against campers and hikers, they are for preventing and putting out forest fires and keeping people safe when the conditions are high risk.

If you really want to hike, go somewhere that isn’t closed.

If you want to stand up to injustice pick a better battle for god’s sake.

There are some people hanging on hoping they won’t lose their homes, people who’ve lost everything to wildfires - they know prevention matters and it has to be broadly applied - you’re just spitting in their faces. It’s not authoritarian overreach. We need these particular efforts these days.
 
Last edited:
Kimmio Laughterlove said:
They have to apply the same restrictions to all just in case. Don’t be so selfish and narrow minded. You’d then just create more waste of ranger etc resources and staffing to prevent you and others from going for a hike because you feel like it. Then you might get arrested and tie up the court system - or get a fine and tie up the court system fighting it when they’ve got better things to do. More waste of time and resources - all because you just felt like hiking - or because you felt like challenging them because of some misplaced righteousness. Even the most seasoned campers can cause accidents or get caught in them (search and rescue resources) in tinder dry conditions. They aren’t against campers and hikers, they are for preventing and putting out forest fires and keeping people safe when the conditions are high risk.

If you really want to hike, go somewhere that isn’t closed.

If you want to stand up to injustice pick a better battle for god’s sake.

There are some people hanging on hoping they won’t lose their homes, people who’ve lost everything to wildfires - they know prevention matters and it has to be broadly applied - you’re just spitting in their faces. It’s not authoritarian overreach. We need these particular efforts these days.
Click to expand...
I thought you were suggesting that because you have experience you shouldn’t be prevented from hiking. I went a bit overboard on my criticism and so, for that, I apologize. However, I leave it up to the appropriate wilderness safety services to decide when to put restrictions in place that need to apply to everyone.
 
Last edited:
Your brand of libertarianism irks me. I read into things you didn’t say that maybe you didn’t imply but I can’t tell. The title of the thread is civil disobedience - which from your brand of libertarianism, is most often about negative freedom - and so that’s why I thought you did imply that.
 
Last edited:
Can your image us not having some sway over burning idiots in the forest? These people lead a burned earth method of control that is beyond personal rite ... no names mentioned! It often targets the Serendipity Prayer regarding the enemy, toxic and deep within ... just a gut feeling on intellection AL dispersion ... eclectic?

It comes ... it goes like the wind ... there's Mariah and then the wayward 1 ... axis? Medi-ocrea ... the struggle between occur and ochre ...

Many cannot di-vine it ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top