PatronAnejo, please leave the snide asides out and concentrate on the topic.
FWIW, I have never stated that the current system is the best solution to issues of road-safety. Personally I’d like to see a system of variable speed limits depending on specific road and traffic conditions; but I can’t think of any truly practical ways to implement it. I’ll gladly listen to any you can suggest; in the meantime, leave out the little digs at people.
I never touched him, ref, honest!
It’s not counterintuitive - if it were meerly counterintuitive I could accept it. It’s wrong - by my personal experience.
Do you understand yet?
I’m glad that truck that nearly took my head off with it’s mirror when I was crossing the road was being driven by a courteous, attentive driver.
Wow. It’s about time you got around to attacting me. I was beginning to think there was something wrong with my arguement.
Eschew Obfuscation
That is , of course, the Germans’, not the German’s.
mattk:
This post made me laugh for a couple of reasons:[ul][li]Me, not concentrate on the topic? Do you read these posts or do you just scan them for your handle?Sorry to hold you accountable for your post. You might append a disclaimer next time: “I don’t really mean this; I posess a deeper understanding that I am unable to articulate and my comments here belie.”[/ul][/li]It is a matter of fact that a lot of folks fail to see the connection
I use the failure of even those among the teeming millions to be outraged at this state of affairs–and in your case, your failure to grasp the importance of public sentiment in legal reform–to demonstrate the scope of the task of education. That is neither little nor snide–your characterization is off the mark.
Tengu:
Well that changes everything. While we’re basing the law on one of your personal experiences, let’s incorporate a couple of mine, too. A black man broke into my car. We should do something about those people. I broke my arm playing soccer. It’s a dangerous activity, we should outlaw it. A friend of a friend of a friend received a transfusion from a homosexual donor and contracted AIDS. Let’s ban all homosexuals from donating blood.
This is what is known as reactionary thinking; it’s a failure to realize that everything should be taken on a case-by-case basis. “Do you understand yet” how insidious this kind of thinking is?
There’s a difference between a crazed trucker patrolling your town, deploying a mirror as an implement of decapitation, and someone who feels that competent drivers should not be restricted due to the incompetence of others.
Nice strawman, Anejo.
Too bad none of your examples come within hailing range of mine.
Let’s apply your logic to each of them, shall we?
It wasn’t a white man, so we shouldn’t accuse white men of theft.
But I did it when I was simply running the ball down the field. The guy who was spiked in the shins earlier came out alright, therefore let’s make spiking legal.
But let’s let any heterosexual donate without any testing whatsoever.
See how easy it is?
Now, let’s apply mine:
Anyone might be a thief, therefore we shouldn’t exclude anyone (regardless of race) until it’s proven they couldn’t have done it.
Thus all precautions should be taken to increase safety - make tackling illegal, instruct the players to watch for each other, etc.
Since AIDS is a threat, all donated blood must be tested - regardless of who it came from.
See how easy it is?
I don’t like making my decisions based on the worst possible scenario, but, I’m too sane to make them based on the best.
Many of your tactics in this discussion - attacking the person (Vogue, Zulu, Matt, myself, for instance), and strawman arguements such as the above - are deplorable and far from supporting your position paint you as an insane zealot.
Eschew Obfuscation
PatronAnejo, I read your posts and I recognise the arguments you’re making - I say “concentrate on the topic” because your attitude towards people you disagree with adds nothing to the perfectly valid points you’re expressing.
And as for my previous post; I’m sorry if I wasn’t eloquent enough for you, but I still think my point holds water.
If you break a law, no matter how much you disagree with it, you should not be surprised at receving a punishment allowed for by that law. That doesn’t make it “right” (whatever you choose to define that as), or separate it from concerns around issues of liberty.
As an aside, I spent six years studying for a Masters in politics - that doesn’t make me an expert in the matter, but I certainly hold a better understanding of “the importance of public sentiment in legal reform” than you credit me with. Hold me accountable for my posts - but please don’t patronise me.
I never touched him, ref, honest!
I believe the simplest answer is this:
The officer in question wasnt up to par for the month on his ticket quota. You were an easy pick. Cops dont have to “follow through” on a ticket, they make the quota for trying. So even if you get out of this one, he gets credit towards his monthly goal.
Fight it using the argument(s) that you were unable to see the sign or limit line clearly and in fact believed it was still ahead of you, due to grime or bad weather et al.
Second (should you not choose the first)that from the distance at which the officer saw your vehicle he could not have possibly seen whether you came to a complete stop unless he was directly behind you. Draw a diagram and situation representation, and include some math and grpahics. The intimidation of a prepared and educated opponent is more then any “ticket” can handle.
I have done this 4 times, never had a ticket.
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. "
Jonathan Swift
mattk:
I have scrupulously avoided applying pejorative to the posters here regardless of the nature of their posts. Examination of my comments will reveal that remarks and attitudes are the object of my vituperative; I have engaged in no argumentation ad hominem. Underinformed viewpoints, slipshod research, and fallacious logic will be exposed and disparaged, if it is my inclination to do so. If that to you is patronizing, so be it. If you are too thin-skinned to stand correction, I suggest you put greater consideration into your opinion before you express it.
That said, your post is a far cry from being the most egregious example of ill-conceived, underinformed supposition that I read. If it is the association of yours with the others’ that you feel constitutes unwarranted admonishment, I understand that the matter cannot be as trivial to you as it is to me, and I concede the point.
Tengu:
Your logic (I apply the term loosely) is fundamentally flawed.[ul][li]Straw Man defense: The author attacks an argument which is different from, and usually weaker than, the opposition’s best argument.[sup]<a href="#footer">1</a>[/sup] [emphasis mine][/li]
This description is clearly not applicable to my post, as your own rebuttal blatantly affirms the characterization I assigned to you:
You have predictably missed the point; race is a canard. If it were a white man that had broken into your car, you would hold all white men guilty of the crime until they proved themselves innocent. That you are an equal-opportunity reactionary has no effect on the logic.
[li]Ad Hominem argument: an ad hominem argument to your position would need to be framed as follows[sup]<a href="#footer2">2</a>[/sup]: “Tengu is known to be stupid [or immoral, or insane]. On that basis, I declare his position on this particular matter to be invalid.”[/li]
Clearly, I have never employed such a tactic. Rather, I contrast your stand to supported fact, highlighting the misinformed nature of your position.[/ul]
What is deplorable is that in your desperation to protect your prejudices, you would post such garbage about someone who has effectively eroded the basis of your prejudices using nothing but fact and logic. That is, ironically, a highly effective demonstration of zealotry.[/list]
[sup]<a name=“footer2”>1</a>[/sup]<font size=“1”>Cedarblom, Jerry and Paulsen, David W… Critical Reasoning: Understanding and Criticizing Arguments and Theories. Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1997.</font>
[sup]2[/sup]<font size=“1”>Ibid.</font>
Actually, it’s the very definition of a strawman arguement.
You throw in the race card - and in your arguement it wasn’t just ‘They’re a suspect until eliminated’ it was ‘They’re bad whether they did anything or not’ - then when called on it you withdraw and claim it was a canard.
Let me put my arguement into terms even you can’t distort:
There are idiots with licences.
These idiots, if it weren’t for traffic laws, couldn’t be reigned in until they did actual damage.
Keeping a handful of ‘enthusiats’ from driving at the speed they want, with no real inconvenice to them, is a small price to pay for minimizing the damage the idiots will do if left to their own devices.
Simple as that.
I am, due to mountains of proof to the contrary, unable to believe in the fundimental goodness and intelligence of humanity. I want to protect myself and others from the idiots. Thank you for informing me that this makes me a prejudiced zealot, rather than someone who’s justifiably scared of the consequences of optimism.
Eschew Obfuscation
Ugh, that post didn’t come out right.
Let me try that again:
Your example is the very definition of a strawman arguement.
You played the race card - which bore no resemblance to my arguement. And in your arguement it wasn’t just ‘Anyone is a suspect until eliminated’ it was ‘Blacks are bad whether they did anything or not’. Thus you were comparing my arguement to racism, allowing you to knock it down easily.
And - if the strawman weren’t bad enough - when called on it, you’re not even man enough to support it.
My arguement in simple terms:
There are idiots with licences.
These idiots, if it weren’t for traffic laws, couldn’t be reigned in until they did actual damage.
Keeping a handful of ‘enthusiasts’ from driving at the speed they want, with no real inconvenience to them, is a small price to pay for minimizing the damage the idiots would do if left to their own devices.
As an aside: I apologise for the unwarranted ‘terms even you can’t distort’ remark in the above post. Being compared to a bigot pisses me off. That doesn’t make the insult proper, however.
And let me now respond to another point from your post:
Not true. Also not a very close fit - though almost understandable, due to my less than ideal phrasing.
Anyone who was in the area at the time of the crime who fit the description of the thief - not just in race and sex, but height, weight, hair colour - I would view as equally likely to be the criminal. Note that this is very different (if subtly so) from ‘Guilty until proven innocent.’
This isn’t prejudice. This isn’t zealotry. This is simply not looking at the world through rose coloured glasses.
Eschew Obfuscation
Why not simply eliminate all laws and legislation, and arbitrate and enforce the Noncoercion Principle instead?
Tengu:
This is a brilliant theory of law. In fact, we ought to be able to apply it to lots of other situations as well! Let’s see…
There are idiots who know how to speak.
These idiots, if it we don’t repeal the first amendment, couldn’t be reigned in until they did actual damage, such as slandering someone or insighting a riot.
Keeping a handful of ‘enthusiasts’ from speaking their mind, with no real inconvenience to them, is a small price to pay for minimizing the damage the idiots would do if left to their own devices.
Or…
There are some burglars who wear dark clothing.
These burglars, if it weren’t for laws which make dark clothing illegal, couldn’t be seen until they actually break into your house (they blend into the night, you see…).
Keeping a handful of ‘enthusiasts’ from wearing the clothing they want, with no real inconvenience to them, is a small price to pay for minimizing the damage the burglars would do if left to their own devices.
Or…
There are idiots who know how to walk.
These idiots, if it weren’t for laws against pedestrians, couldn’t be reigned in until they actually caused an accident.
Keeping a handful of ‘enthusiasts’ from walking where they want, with no real inconvenience to them, is a small price to pay for minimizing the damage the idiots would do to themselves and others if left to their own devices.
PatronAnejo’s race analogy: It is inappropriate to make being black illegal just because one particular black person did something harmful. It is inappropriate to make driving at a particular speed illegal just because one particular person (your hypothetical “idiot”) who was driving at that speed did something harmful.
And, by the way, here is the rationale behind And, you are basically setting up another straw man, anyway, in your latest posts. Aren’t these idiots engaging in actual unsafe behavior? Why don’t you try to tailor the laws to fight the actual problem rather than subject an entire class of people (capable drivers) to your brand of logic? We would get quite a few criminals behind bars if we made being black illegal, but we’d get many more completely innocent people. Similarly, speeding laws may stop a few of your “idiots”, but they stop a lot more safe and responsible drivers who are perfectly capable of driving at reasonable speeds in appropriate conditions.
Interesting attempt at refutation there. A complete inability to move is no real inconvenience, huh?
An absurd counter-example does not make for a good arguement.
They are already doing something harmful - driving at excessive speeds. Even if our hypothetical driver is capable of driving safely at the speeds he wants to drive, the others on the road - who are forced to speed up to accomodate them, or else are prompted to speed up to fill the gap left by our ‘enthusiast’ - may not be.
Also, I’m not speaking only of speeding - running a stop sign - the act that prompted this thread - is a blatantly stupid thing to do.
Yes - driving faster than they should - faster than many can do safely; running stop signs/lights.
Because - as I’ve said - the only way to deal with the problem drivers without making the laws apply to capable drivers is to apply them after they’ve done damage.
Good gods, man, Anejo disavowed that analogy when called on it, why do you continue it?
See my answer to him.
Even if I grant your statement that there are ‘more safe and responsable drivers’ than idiots - their freedom has not been removed - simply reduced in a non-onerous way.
In your theory of law, the idiots would have to have done damage - quite possibly killed - before they could be dealt with.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Frankly, I don’t think there should be private vehicles, at all. I’m bending backwards simply allowing that it might be a good thing to allow people to drive at all.
Eschew Obfuscation
Please note that should read ‘private motor vehicles’.
People nowadays are too bloody lazy.
Eschew Obfuscation
Tengu:
You couldn’t be more wrong; I withdraw absolutely nothing. Your claim that my argument is a straw man is absolutely unfounded, as my characterization of your attitude differs in no way from your own description of your philosophy. Blanket treatment of everyone as a suspect places an unreasonable, unwarranted onus probandi on the innocent majority.
Your willful misapprehension of the analogy is that it is a charge of racism; in fact, race is not a player in the logic of the argument. The inclusion of race serves as a real-world illustration of the insidious effects of your way of thinking (more on this below). Your ostensible open-mindedness in being willing to place the onus of self-vindication on everyone, not just a subset of the whole, serves to further cement your status as a reactionary. Hence, race is a canard: the nature of your reaction to the race issue backfires on you. The phrase constitues no retraction, withdrawal, back-pedaling, or disavowal; this is unequivocal.
Again, the issue of race is auxiliary to the main argument and demonstrates a consequence of your way of thinking. Erratum’s recent post demonstrates still others.
Let us definitively contrast the aspects of my argument with those that define the straw man.[ul][li]I characterize you as a reactionary, not a racist. Racism is a real-world consequence of reactionary attitudes, but it is not a necessary consequence; you do not have to be a racist for my characterization of you as a reactionary to hold.Second, your rebuttal[/li][quote]
Anyone might be a thief, therefore we shouldn’t exclude anyone (regardless of race) until it’s proven they couldn’t have done it.
[/quote]
affirms your reactionary worldview. Your willingness to distibute onus probandi on an ever-widening target group has the effect of further affirming your willingness to abridge the Constitution (not, as is your intent, of making the underlying philosophy easier to swallow). Hence, my characterization of you does not differ from the argument you make.
It is possible that you have disavowed the quoted position–to wit,
so allow me to provide you with a fresh one.
In addition to being another horrifying example of your reactionary attitude (see Erratum’s effective dissection)–again demonstrating a violation of the requirement that the argument I offer differ from your position–this statement is rife with inaccuracies and unsupportable implications:
Handful of enthusiasts implies that our numbers are insignificant. The combined paid circulation of Motor Trend, Road and Track, Car and Driver, and Automobile magazines is 3,824,352[sup]<a href="#numbers">1</a>[/sup];
no real inconvenience to them implies that you are an effective judge of the offense others take at the abridgement of their rights–the posts of Erratum, Libertarian, MaxTorque, and PatronAnejo are vehement indications to the contrary;
small price to pay implies that you have the right to determine what price in freedom others should pay; it also implies that you posess a complete awareness of the full cost of the erosion of liberty–both implications are unequivocally false;
damage the idiots would do implies that the only way to control incompetent drivers is to abridge the rights of everyone–this has already been demonstrated to be false;
Simple as that indicates that you take pride in the obfuscatory statement debunked above.
[li]Finally, I don’t attack your argument on the basis of your postulatory racism–no effort is made at knocking down your delusory straw man.[/ul][/li]Before making remarks such as yours, I suggest you be “man enough” to spend a little time learning basic terms (I won’t require you to be much of a man–the explanations provided in my previous post require no more than a sixth-grade reading level). If you are going to employ the language of logic, it is only reasonable to expect you to use it properly.
Again–unequivocally–I disavow nothing. Erratum’s characterization is unimpeachable. You are indeed a reactionary; the truth of that is not dependent upon your acknowledgement of such.
No-one is asking you to be an optimist; any argument that insists that you abandon skepticism is immediately suspect. Your arguments indicate a failure to recognize that every individual has the right to be assessed on his own merits. A government whose purported role is to protect freedom is hypocritcal and self-defeating if it arrogates for itself the task of abridging one’s right to conduct activities which do not violate the rights of others even if the intent of such a task is to curtail actions which violate others’ rights. It is inconsistent with the Constitution to demand such protection, and it is inconsistent with the Constitution for you to wish to impose such protection on the public. Thanks, but no thanks.
It is the activities of your idiots that should be restricted, not those of competent drivers.
It’s no surprise that you are unable to conceive a scheme which restricts incompetent drivers’ violation of other drivers’ rights without abridging the rights of competent drivers (whose circumspect application of speed or contravention of traffic control signals violate no-one’s rights). That doesn’t mean such a scheme cannot be conceived. Moreover, it is the duty of a freedom-loving government to do so.
[quote]
As an aside: I apologise for the unwarranted ‘terms even you can’t distort’ remark in the above post. Being compared to a bigot pisses