Anyone ever worked as a bouncer or know about bouncing?

superrific said:
Also, he said he chose this example because it was the subject of a debate between Kant and some other guy.
Click to expand...
I thought the judge's justification of his order reminded me of Kant's statement "ought implies can," and I suspect that's what the judge was referring to when he cited Kant but I'm not sure it's a perfect (or even imperfect) analogy to what he's peddling...
 
hedge said:
I thought the judge's justification of his order reminded me of Kant's statement "ought implies can," and I suspect that's what the judge was referring to when he cited Kant but I'm not sure it's a perfect (or even imperfect) analogy to what he's peddling...
Click to expand...
No, I think he was just citing Kant in an attempt to show off. Kant had nothing to do with his main point.
 
ronjon said:
Pro tip if you’re breaking up a fight, try to get one of them airborne with a good toss. Not WWE overhead or anything, just a foot or two in the air for a couple of feet of distance.. it’s makes them more docile in my experience.
Click to expand...
I've also heard that going after a group of people like a rabid baboon for 45 seconds is effective...
 
superrific said:
No, I think he was just citing Kant in an attempt to show off. Kant had nothing to do with his main point.
Click to expand...
Well, "ought imples can" are the only words of Kant that I've ever been made to understand. The professor (the inimitable Dr. Smyth) explained that, according to Kant's dictum, you can't tell someone they ought not fall to the ground after jumping out of a window b/c, well, they can't not fall to ground after jumping out a window. I.e., you can't tell someone they ought to do something that they can't in fact do. Ought implies can. Again, I don't see how that equates to being able to stop someone from entering a bar implies that they can throw somebody out of the bar once they've entered but it's all I had...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top