• Dear forum visitor,

    It looks as though you have not registered for a forum account, or are not signed in. In order to participate in current discussions or create new threads, you will need to register for a forum account by clicking on the link below.

    Click here to register for a forum account!

    If you already have a forum account, you can simply click on the 'Log in' button at the top right of your forum screen.

    Your Elvenar Team

The Other "Why I'm better than everyone else" thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

shimmerfly

Well-Known Member
pitying those who require attention for validity
And those dang instructions to assemble something with steps that are left out.
 

Ashrem

Oh Wise One
So it's the dual of the competing laws. ..................... Just some thoughts on bankruptcy and the law.
You just, don't get it. I have been providing examples related to my rejection of your apparent belief (because it is by no means an established fact) that blind adherence to law is in some way an absolute moral choice vs people who's arguments do not embrace adherance to the letter of the law as morally superior.
I have no interest in debating law with you. I'm fully aware of how laws interact and precedence is decided when there is conflict. You're very skilled at trying to draw people back into your chosen conversation by turning the subject, but I'm not taking the bait.

"apparently" implies that the thing claimed is clearly there
That is absolutely false. Apparently means nothing more than based on the visible evidence. Every statement you have made regarding morals re the law is reasonably interpreted as indicating that you think strict adherence to law is a morally superior position. I have made no claim aside from that, and you have provided no statement that is reasonably interpreted as contrary to that.
 
Last edited:

teddeler

Member
Or walking in on your stepfather even though he told you to stay out of the basement, and seeing the pile of hobo brains on the floor.

Orrrr, maybe that's just me

>_>

Must just be you. I don't have a stepfather. I don't even watch movies with that kind of scene in them. :p
 

teddeler

Member
pitying those who require attention for validity
And those dang instructions to assemble something with steps that are left out.

Instructions that are in four languages that have steps left out. I keep thinking I can find the missing steps if I could just speak more languages.
 

SoggyShorts

Mathematician par Excellence
the condition of the road may be slightly to greatly less than ideal and therefore since no strict rule can be put forth for every condition it is necessary to allow you to adjust according to your judgement of the conditions.
I agree.
Under no conditions will this adjustment be in the upward direction in response to road conditions for the speed limit is set for the road under ideal conditions.
I disagree. I'm not convinced that speed limits are set for ideal situations, but rather for more average situations to allow for crappy cars and crappy drivers.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Or walking in on your stepfather even though he told you to stay out of the basement, and seeing the pile of hobo brains on the floor.

Orrrr, maybe that's just me

>_>

Part of the above comment is the basis for so many bad horror movies, I can't even begin to count them all. :eek:
 

ajqtrz

Chef - loquacious Old Dog
There is a difference between "blind adherence" to the law and "strict" adherence. We were speaking of "strict adherence" as being morally superior. I gave specific examples of when "strict" adherence is not a good thing and thus I must recognize that there are exceptions...i.e. situations where strict obedience is not warranted or desirable. But I also noted that in those cases the legal system, beginning with the attendant officer and moving up through the levels of authority, can accept actions not in strict accordance with the laws if a "higher law" is in effect. Thus, speeding to rescue someone would constitute obedience to a stricter law. What most people seem to want to argue is that the breaking of the speed laws may be justified in other ways. Those arguments are morally questionable since the justifications do not rest on higher laws but personal preference and convenience. Personal preference and convenience are insufficient to justify speeding, especially and specifically because they raise the danger of others sharing the roads.

@SoggyShorts

"The primary purpose of the speed limit is to advise drivers of the maximum reasonable and safe operating speed under favorable conditions. It provides a basis for enforcement and ought to be fair in the context of traffic law." (Emphasis added) https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/fhwasa12004/



AJ
 

Ashrem

Oh Wise One
There is a difference between "blind adherence" to the law and "strict" adherence. We were speaking of "strict adherence" as being morally superior.
I consider there to be sufficient evidence that the primary goal of some laws (particularly speed laws) are not as claimed by those that create them, and not necessarily/primarily aimed at the greatest common good. That being the case, as long as you accept the notion that the speeding law's primary goal is as stated, I am well within reason in considering that blind adherence. Note, again, I am not criticizing those who adhere blindly to the law, I am simply stating that I have no interest in debating someone who thinks that doing so makes their arguments morally superior. If I'm going to do that, I might as well debate which creation-based religion is a more "accurate" depiction of reality.

I like debating, but only on a level playing field. I will not debate someone who argues from a position that their position is morally superior based solely on faith in a third party, whether divine or elected.
 
Last edited:

ajqtrz

Chef - loquacious Old Dog
I am quite glad that you have stated that you believe there is "sufficient evidence that the primary goal of some laws (particularly spped laws) ae not as claimed" because now that you have claimed to have evidence I would love to see it. Having little evidence to support your claim myself, I can be persuaded. But even if the primary reason for the laws, any law, was, as you say, not the primary goal stated, that does not mean obedience to that law is therefore either blind or less moral. The motivations for a law may be one thing and the obedience to it may be morally important in spite of the motivations. What can't be argued is that the effect of a uniform speed and direction on a freeway reduces both accidents and the severity of injuries. That is a measurable effect. If so, then laws passed and enforced that generate revenues can serve both motivations. Again, it matters not what the motive for the law is, if the effect is positive in some manner and that positive effect is used to "sell" the law.

Take the case of Lindale, Ohio a notorious "speed trap." 80% of there income has been from stopping speeders for years. The mayor argues that the easiest way to stop their revenue stream is to just drive the speed limit. Easy. But people get upset when they knowingly break the law (and 90% of the time people ARE aware that they are going over the speed limit), and then get nabbed for it. Why is that? They rolled the dice and came with a bad roll. Who's fault is that? Blaming the authorities for you own gambling habit is a bit silly, but people do it all the time and what's more, in the case of Lindale, they try to stop the authorities from enforcing the laws they made! For years there has been 440 yards of an interstate going through Lindale. There is no on/off ramp but the Lindale police are required to patrol that 440 yards by both Federal and State laws. So they do, (or did as things have changed and they had to go to court to get permission to stop enforcing the laws in that 440 yards) So they pulled over, and they ticketed. The speed limits were posted, the locals all knew to slow down, and in that 440 yards over the years the accident rate was less and the severity of accidents lower (although the measurements were probably not enough to know this for certain, it must be said). In any case, their reliance upon traffic stops was challenged in the courts and the Ohio Supreme court sided with them, arguing that the purpose of fines was to get people to slow down and that strict enforcement, wherever it occurs, does do that. The problem is not the motivations of the city, but the lack of motivation in the jurisdictions surrounding Lindale. If the other jurisdictions in the area would have had the same robust enforcement, Lindale would have folded as a "speed trap" and probably as a "city."

Suppose you lived in a city that didn't took car theaft very seriously. Car thieves would get a minimum of 10 years hard labor. And they always got caught. Strict enforcement does not stop criminal behavior, but it does drive it into other jurisdictions. So where strict enforcement is done, crime lessens. In New York City about 30 years ago a mayor ordered a change in enforcement. Instead of letting the "little things" go, he ordered the police to enforce them. So "broken windows" going unrepaired were ticketed. This "broken window" policy contributed to the drop in crime NYC experienced over the next ten years of 20%. Other cities around NYC did not experience near the same drop in the same period.

In the end, if you want the jurisdictions to stop using fines to finance themselves, you should be encouraging everybody to obey the laws. Once you do that, and get everybody on board, the motivation for making unreasonable laws (so you can fine people) will fall away and all laws will become more reasonable.

As for the moral superiority of a position, first, it's important to understand that both sides think their position intellectually superior and in a good debate they rely upon reason and evidence to bolster their position. And the purpose of the debate is to figure out which side has the superior position. Thus, it would seem that it's possible that there is no moral judgment, and hence neither side can be seen as "morally superior" by any standard. However, if you ask the debaters if they think the other side ought to believe their position, the debaters say "yes" every time. In other words, nobody takes a position they think true only for themselves but insists that because their position it the truth, everyone ought to order their lives with the truth in mind. Under every debate is the idea that reality is superior to non-reality (or truth is superior to non-truth). Once you see that living by the trugh is morally superior and in fact, if we find people living by clearly untrue things, we call them deranged, delusional, and if the problem is sufficient, we say they are mentally ill. So in the end all debate is about morality to the degree we insist on reason, logic and evidence to discover which of two positions is true and then expect people to live by what is true rather than what is not.

As for "faith in a third party" I would say that's a red herring argument. You read, you listen, you experience things. Do you only believe what you have personally experienced? Does Dubai exist? How do you know -- third party perhaps? It is impossible to live without faith in third parties. You enter you home or apartment trusting the engineering of a third party who designed the place, a third party who built the place, and a third party who inspected the place. You drive on roads, eat at restaurants, drink tap water (or bottled for that matter) all based upon faith in a third party. And you've been doing it for years. You eat chicken, beef, pork, eggs, and a whole host of other things all certified as healthy by a third party. You take aspirin, prescription drugs, eat off of plates cleaned in restaurants, drive you car, take a bus, and so on and so on, based upon your trust in third parties. And that's a host of third parties, almost none of whom you elected. You have no say in most of the third parties you are asked to trust.

But you do in those you elect. If you don't trust them, don't elect them. Run yourself! The answer is not "I don't trust them" but if you don't trust them, to get rid of them and replace them with third parties you do trust. It's a democracy and you can do that.

AJ
 

Ashrem

Oh Wise One
because now that you have claimed to have evidence I would love to see it.
You have looked at most of it before and either found it unpersuasive or chose to ignore it in favor of redirecting the conversation to your preference, but here we go again. Limits that are permitted to be set by local entities rather than by dispassionate central bodies in line with actual research (and which may even be changed on little notice after pressure from a small number of influential individuals or in a knee-jerk reaction to specific incidents), inconsistent setting of those limits across (and even within), jurisdictions and conditions, inconsistent enforcement (even within jurisdictions), and penalties which are demonstrably insufficient to actually form a deterrent.

For the rest, as previously, I'm not interested in a discussion based on the assumption that you are morally superior. People ignore a variety of laws, for a variety of reasons. I don't assume I'm morally superior to the neighbor who often leaves his vehicle on the street for more than 48 hours (in violation of city ordinance), nor do I think I'm morally superior to people who choose to speed. I do, however, think I'm morally superior to someone blocks the passing lane because they can by doing exactly the speed limit.
 

DeletedUser7370

Guest
Yot aur argument is just another "it's okay as long as I get away with it." Since this is your attitude I assume you are morally okay with my stealing your car as long as I get away with it?
Corpus delicti. That used to be the requirement for laws. Literally: "display the body". It meant that a law had to have an injured or aggrieved party.
What leads to my stealing your car is an attitude that it’s okay for me to do so as long as I can get away with it. The situations may, in your opinion, be far apart in the consequences, but they are both the result of the same attitude on the part of the law breaker.
Again corpus delicti. The injury when a car or anything is stolen is clear. The injury when a person is speeding only exists when a wreck is caused. Absent an injured or aggrieved party the law should sit lifeless.
but the one death caused by speeding is
During that statement you were speaking about a person that dies alone as a result of their own failure to control their vehicle and did no harm to anyone else. If that failure was caused by speeding then that was their choice. In subsequent statements you talked about how other people could be affected by that fatal wreck. Emergency workers chose to work in that field; making that part of your statements pointless. Family and friends, on the other hand, didn't get to chose the experience of having someone die. There are thousands of things that can kill a person and some are personal choices which include knowledge of risk or even intent and desire to die. You mentioned libertarian whatever at some point; in that case you should respect personal choice, and understand that as long as a person's choice does not cause harm to another then it is right to make that choice unimpeded by law. Again corpus delicti.
The cops don’t know your experience or auto condition so they pull you over for speeding and you (I presume happily) pay the fine.
I do not happily pay the fine. I go to court, plead not guilty, and request a supporting deposition. The laws in NY require in cases of traffic infractions that once requested a supporting deposition must be within 30 days: filed with the court, provided to the defendant, and proof of service of the document provided to the court. I have yet to see a police officer follow that law, and so all of my tickets are dismissed as a matter of law.
As I said before, why stop there? If people smoke weed and think it's ok because they can get away with it, they must be ok with genocide as long as you get away with it right? It's a garbage argument.
Again the definition of corpus delicti; where is the person being harmed?

For there to be a slippery slope argument...
I make no links between speeding and car theft
What leads to each though, is the same attitude...
And that last statement links the 2 actions. Directly in contradiction to your previous statement. I love it when people contradict themselves. Such behavior makes it very easy to spot the weaknesses in their thought process.

one which allows the individual to decide what laws should be obeyed and which should not?
"breaks the law" the cops have the discretion of either accepting it as a necessary thing or not. It's their choice.
Again contradicting yourself. You suggest that no one should decide what laws must be followed or when to break them, but then say that "cops" can decide what laws must be followed and when to break them. See my earlier statement about not paying fines because the cops can't be bothered to follow the law.

speed is related to the rate of accidents because people do not adjust to increased speed sufficiently.
you've eliminated the difference in direction as the cause, then the difference in speed must be the cause.
Finally you arrive at reality. Speed itself is not the problem. As I write this I am moving at a very great speed; over 483,000 MPH. That must really jack up my risk of having an accident! https://astrosociety.org/edu/publications/tnl/71/howfast.html

But hey, the issue of speeding is all relative. I mean your going along at the same ~483,000 MPH while reading this and so relativity eliminates that from being a problem. And likewise the absolute legal speed limit is a matter of relativity. http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/connecticut-enacts-first-speed-limit-law

Speed limits vary. Montana used to have no speed limit and they enjoyed one of the lowest accident fatality rates in the country. The German Autobahn still has no speed limit in many areas and has significantly less fatal accidents that the US average. https://www.motorists.org/press/montana-no-speed-limit-safety-paradox/ http://www.businessinsider.com/germanys-autobahn-vs-us-highways-compared-2016-3/

You said it quite succinctly, "difference in speed must be the cause." Your original statements that speeding increases the chances of an accident have been refuted by your own statements that accidents are caused by a difference in speeds. There is nothing more to say on the issue.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
People who mean well but don't post things in the right place, despite the fact things are clearly labeled so that they can do so.
 

mucksterme

Oh Wise One
People who restate what you just said but try to make it sound like an original thought.

2) The people who say "great idea" to the guy who stole your thought. -_-

3) The guy who is considering restating this post as a joke.
 

ajqtrz

Chef - loquacious Old Dog
You have looked at most of it before and either found it unpersuasive or chose to ignore it in favor of redirecting the conversation to your preference, but here we go again. Limits that are permitted to be set by local entities rather than by dispassionate central bodies in line with actual research (and which may even be changed on little notice after pressure from a small number of influential individuals or in a knee-jerk reaction to specific incidents), inconsistent setting of those limits across (and even within), jurisdictions and conditions, inconsistent enforcement (even within jurisdictions), and penalties which are demonstrably insufficient to actually form a deterrent.

For the rest, as previously, I'm not interested in a discussion based on the assumption that you are morally superior. People ignore a variety of laws, for a variety of reasons. I don't assume I'm morally superior to the neighbor who often leaves his vehicle on the street for more than 48 hours (in violation of city ordinance), nor do I think I'm morally superior to people who choose to speed. I do, however, think I'm morally superior to someone blocks the passing lane because they can by doing exactly the speed limit.

I agree that speed limits set by local entities in an arbitrary manner would be a disaster, however to receive federal highway funds cities, counties and states must adhere to a set of speed standards according to the road classification. And almost always those standards are set by a good set of engineering standards which note the type of road and give a range of speeds acceptable. It is true that it is a range and a 35mph road can be set as low as 25mph (the "local conditions" clause allows this) but they cannot go below the standards and receive federal funds without getting permission. That some use the system to fund their budgets is not disputed, although most authorities derive less than 10% from traffic fines. This does not mean it's right, and there are many, many small towns where they DO use their authority to ticket to raise revenues. However, it raises an important conflict: if you tell those cities to NOT do so, the number of traffic citations will drop AND there will be less likely a chance of actually slowing traffic. In other words, when you reduce the chance of getting caught more people will break the law and in the is case that means a higher rate of accidents and accidents that are more severe as well.

You argued at one point, I believe, that the reason cops stop is to raise revenues. You may have not implied that it was their sole reason, but the implication is there. If that's what you meant, well, I doubt it. A cop, if left alone, will do as we all do to earn our paycheck -- as little as possible. So no cop will stop more than absolutely necessary unless he thinks by stopping them he is doing his job of "protect and serve." The only other scenario would be if he were ordered to stop more people -- in which case that would be to reduce accidents and/or raise revenues. In other words, the "raise revenues" and "reduce accidents" are not mutually exclusive categories. It may be quite possible that it's an ideal situation. The city, in order to reduce accidents AND raise revenues, orders a strict enforcement of traffic laws. If we order them to stop raising revenues aren't we also ordering them allow accident rates to increase? And if accident rates increase, who pays for the cleanup, investigation, reporting, etc.., etc...? At some point the cost of the cleanup will exceed the amount of revenue from fines so it may also be more costly for the city to NOT have strict enforcement.

I've seen your comments. Heard your opinions, and listened to the reasoning you use to persuade. But I can't find any actual verifiable evidence from credible sources in your many posts. Without actually using verifiable evidence I am not persuaded. Persuasion is done by using what persuades the target person, not what persuaded you. To you your experience and reasoning may be enough to persuade you, but to me I need evidence. It was Aristotle who said, "Rhetoric is the art of finding in the particular case, what are the available means of persuasion." Your rhetoric does not provide all the "available means of persuasion" because it relies upon your experience, opinion, and reasons without being tied solidly to verifiable research or authoratative sources.

I'm not sure I said, I was morally superior, so much as it was a morally superior position to adhere to the laws whenever possible. You do spend quite a bit of time chiding me and others for having a "morally superior" attitude as if that attitude automatically does not reflect reality. Are there morally superior people? If not, then by what measure do you condemn pedophiles or Hitler? (You can substitute whoever you find morally reprehensible here) If so, what's your basis if not their performance when faced with moral choices? Obeying the laws is a moral choice. Traditionally the argument that you were following a "higher law" is about the only recognized excuse for breaking a law and you have to persuade the authority that you were, in fact, following what they recognize as a "higher law." If a person is not citing a higher law in the breaking of the law society does judge their choice to be morally inferior and punishes them for their error. And if a person, after having had the error explained to them, continues to break the law, does that not make them an immoral person? And if they are immoral because they choose to ignore the facts of the law, to ignore the repercussions of their actions, and to continue doing what society deems illegal, does that not mean that the person who chooses to pay attention to the law, to pay attention to the repercussion for breaking the law, and discontinue doing what society deems illegal, is, as a person, morally superior?

But maybe you have a different definition of morality. Maybe the term, as applied to people, is repugnant. Maybe, like so many, because morality implies responsibility, you would rather do away with the term so no persons could be called moral or immoral. I have seen this a lot in our society....the idea that "judging" another person is taboo because it seems to condemn the person and to treat them as an inferior. It runs contrary to the basic assumption that all persons are valuable and to be treated with dignity in that to condemn a person implies that they are not worth as much and do not need therefore, to be treated with as much dignity as others. If this is your position -- and I am clearly not saying it is -- upon what basis do you determine that people should all be treated equally and with equal dignity? Upon what basis does anybody claim that people are intrinsically valuable? For there are only three possibilities: 1) people are intrinsically valuable; 2) people have no intrinsic value; or 3) the value of a human being is a product the one valuing -- i.e. value is imputed rather than intrinsic. So what is your definition of morality and how do you measure it?

AJ
 

shimmerfly

Well-Known Member
No sense of humor or light heartedness. (Is that a word?) If no,t it is now in my mind, but spell check doesn't think so.
I also don't care for spell check and prefer to make mistakes. SOmetimes they are pretty funny.
 

ajqtrz

Chef - loquacious Old Dog
You said it quite succinctly, "difference in speed must be the cause." Your original statements that speeding increases the chances of an accident have been refuted by your own statements that accidents are caused by a difference in speeds. There is nothing more to say on the issue.

@SoggyShorts

When I speak of "linking" speeding and car theft I am arguing, as a slipper slope argues, that one "causes" the other. The link is causal.

But when I say: "What leads to each though, is the same attitude..." I am saying that each is caused by the same thing and would be there even if the other was not. In other words, the car theft would be there even if nobody had the attitude that speeding is okay as long as you get away with it. The believing that "speeding is okay as long as you don't get away with it" is not caused by the "stealing your car is okay so long as I can get away with it" nor is the "stealing your car is okay as long as I get away with it" cause "speeding is okay as long as I can get away with it." They are not casually linked. A slipper slope argument says that if X happens it will lead to Y but if X does not happen then Y will not exactly because X, it is claimed, would somehow cause Y. Since in my two examples neither causes the other or is necessary for the other, they cannot be described as a slipper slope argument.

So when you say:

"And that last statement links the 2 actions. Directly in contradiction to your previous statement. I love it when people contradict themselves. Such behavior makes it very easy to spot the weaknesses in their thought process."

you have misread my statements in that you take the "link" to be one of the two statements to be the cause of the other when, in fact, the cause of both is something else entirely: the attitude that it's okay so long as I can get away with it. Therefore the statements I made were not "directly in contradiction to [my] previous statement."

Now for the "corpus delicti" argument. You are quite right that when no accident has occurred there is no direct harm done. However, when you are driving over the speed limit you are endangering others on the road with you. The harm is that you have lowered the level of safety to which they have a right. Some laws measure the damage done and punish accordingly. Speed limits do not measure the damage done, but the increased risk you put yourself and everybody in, in driving them and therefore are "potential harm" laws. "Endangering public safety" is the general category. And just as it's a requirement in many states that you have auto insurance, and if you don't you can be fined, so speeding laws do not need a "corpus delicti" because they are punishment for damages but punishment for endangering public safety.

And even if you do drive and wreck your automobile and do yourself harm, it is not true that you have not caused anybody any harm other than yourself. Unless you get out of your hospital bed and sweep up the debris, unless you are a cop and fill out the paperwork and do the investigation, etc..etc...etc...you do the PUBLIC a lot of harm. AND, in my opinion, more importantly, you do those who care about you the harm of having to deal with your injuries, your lack of transportation, your increased insurance rates - which may or may not happen-- etc...etc...etc. You don't live on the planet alone and everything you do has an effect on somebody directly and on everybody indirectly.

You quote me quite correctly when you say:

"You said it quite succinctly, "difference in speed must be the cause."

However, when I say, "speeding increases" the chances of an accident, it is no contradiction. "Speeding" is defined as going over the speed limit and since some people drive the speed limit it is inherently obvious that speeding means that you are doing a different speed than somebody or the posted speed limit. In addition, "speeding" also refers to the activity of going over the speed limit, which, statistically speaking, does increase your chance of an accident even if you are the only one on the road. In other words "speed" and "speeding" are two different words, one measuring the rate of movement, the other the rate of movement against either others and/or a set standard.

Thus I do not contradict myself and the argument that excessive speed (i.e. moving in excess of the posted speed or those around you) raises the chances of an accident still stands.

This difference in the speed of movement which causes many accidents and is present in almost all is measured from a 0 (at rest) on the planet earth. You could, of course, calculate it based upon movement around the sun, the spinning of the galaxy, the turning of the earth, or any other of the many ways we are constantly in motion. However, even if you did, since the extended measurements would be the same for all vehicles the difference would be the same. We travel at about 1,000 mph as we circle the earth, (at the equator), but because the road itself is also traveling at that pace, that movement cancels itself out in our calculations and what remains is the speed of movement from the base line of 0 assumed when the car is not in motion relative to the surface upon which it sits. I hope this clarifies things for you.

When you claim by quoting my argument that when somebody "'breaks the law' the cops have the discretion of either accepting it as a necessary thing or not. It's their choice." You claim I am contradicting myself. You say: I "suggest that no one should decide what laws must be followed or when to break them, but then say that "cops" can decide what laws must be followed and when to break them." you mix up enforcing the laws with obeying or disobeying the laws. Cops represent the authorities and as with all authorities they have the right to punish or reward. The cops are not the ones breaking the laws but the ones deciding if the one breaking the law was justified by a higher law. The choice to break the law was in the law-breaker (or law keeper), not in the cops. The choice to prosecute or to recognize a "higher law" (usually the need to preserve live) was at play is there choice. Thus, no contradiction.

AJ
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top