shimmerfly
Well-Known Member
pitying those who require attention for validity
And those dang instructions to assemble something with steps that are left out.
And those dang instructions to assemble something with steps that are left out.
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.So it's the dual of the competing laws. ..................... Just some thoughts on bankruptcy and the law.
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."apparently" implies that the thing claimed is clearly there
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
>_>
pitying those who require attention for validity
And those dang instructions to assemble something with steps that are left out.
I agree.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 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.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.
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.
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.There is a difference between "blind adherence" to the law and "strict" adherence. We were speaking of "strict adherence" as being morally superior.
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.because now that you have claimed to have evidence I would love to see 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.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?
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.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.
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.but the one death caused by speeding is
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.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.
Again the definition of corpus delicti; where is the person being harmed?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.
For there to be a slippery slope argument...
I make no links between speeding and car theft
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.What leads to each though, is the same attitude...
one which allows the individual to decide what laws should be obeyed and which should not?
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."breaks the law" the cops have the discretion of either accepting it as a necessary thing or not. It's their choice.
speed is related to the rate of accidents because people do not adjust to increased speed sufficiently.
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.htmlyou've eliminated the difference in direction as the cause, then the difference in speed must be the cause.
..There is nothing more to say on the issue.
People who are parked within three cars of the cart tip who can't be bothered to go the extra ten feet and put the cart away.
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.