Man busted by traffic camera gets unique revenge on police department

Originally posted by Freqzer0
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Lol, I can't sense wether that was sarcasm I'd not.

*sarcasm*

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Although I'm not planning on having children in the foreseeable future (because I'm enjoying my life way too much to take on such a time consuming responsibility, but I can see the other joys it would bring), I have thought about how I would raise them. I would start with the truth about the world. I would treat them more like a friend than a child. I'm sure its likely they wouldn't be born with any psychological problems that make them feel pleasure from mutilating animals or killing me in my sleep. If you have children do you think the only reason they don't kill you in your sleep is because it is against the house rules!? If I have no respect for the laws of the land what do you think is holding me back from going on a murder spree? I'm sure they would grow up looking at me as a role model and adopt nearly the same moral code as me due to genetics (my GF is a sweet heart) and watching me. Of-course there are some things that a child can't understand or is not ready to understand so there would be certain rules and discipline.

I disagree that the world would fall to chaos. I actually believe the opposite. The world of today is pretty chaotic, a large part (IMO) is due to people not being accountable for their own actions, something I do not advocate. This is something that is terribly easy to do when mindlessly living by rules set by others. IMO another large part of the chaos comes from all types of religion, which seems to generate hatred and war against people who are different. It has been going on since man first developed superstitious beliefs to explain the unexplained and declared war on anyone who might challenge those beliefs because a religion is only as "true" as the amount of followers it has. Humans will forever seek to reinforce what they believe, a great way to achieve this reinforcement is to have lots of people believe the same thing. I believe that if what my opinion of the truth is was widely believed then the world would know a lot less suffering (there was recently a thread on ATS showing statistically how religious countries are a lot less peaceful, for instance). I'd be teaching my children that we are all God and that we are all one. It is difficult to hate someone when you think like that. Of-course I would not tunnel vision them and encourage them to think for themselves spirituality. And that life was not intended to be as serious as most people make it out to be. Some of the happiest people I've ever met know that they are God.

By the way if we were going to pull out the logic cannon I would ask why you feel the need to tell your God how to do his job (through prayer), as if he didn't already know?

You and I may find those acts disgusting, but hey, who are we to judge others who are just fine with them in their personal morale code??

These acts are going on today all over the world, I don't think the law is doing much to prevent them.

Speed limits are for everyone, if you have trouble getting to your destination in the allotted time, then LEAVE SOONER.

They are not for me, I don't buy into it. I have the freedom to decide how much time I'm allotting to what.

If it was perfectly okay for everyone on the road to drive based on their own person preferences then the roads would not be safe for your wife to drive your kids to soccer practice in the family van.

IMO it is perfectly ok. The majority of drivers that attempt this however would end up with very heavy speeding fines, in jail, or upside down in a ditch. Good enough drivers should go for it though. The reality is the majority are always going to obey the law of the land so it is not something that requires much concern. And what I've been saying is that wifey in the family van with screaming kids that takes twice the distance to stop IS the problem.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Relativism is ABSURD.

When one takes relativism to it's logical conclusion things get ludicrous.

Relativism taken to it's logical outcome is outright absurd.

There are many people on this board that would call many of your beliefs absurd or ludicrous. It is impossible for human beings at this point in history or evolution to know the absolute "truth" about everything (if such a thing even exists for everything), relativism is necessary in some instances.

"I am too high born to be propertied,
To be a second at control,
Or useful serving-man and instrument
To any sovereign state throughout the world." - Henry David Thoreau

Originally posted by Freqzer0
Nobody cries when cameras are used to convict a sex offender, or catch a bank robber or to convict someone of child abuse. But, when someone gets a ticket, that's when they start to complain. To those who don't believe in using cameras to catch traffic violations, should we not convict someone of rape if they were caught on camera? I really want to hear a response to that.

I would suggest something like rape being in a completely different ballpark to something like speeding. Yes we should convict someone of rape if they were caught on camera. Sorry if that is not the exciting response you were looking for.

I had a problem with speed cameras even during the point in my life where I had an unhealthy respect for the law. During a long drive on a rural two lane road (traffic opposing directions with no center divider) I was stuck behind a slow traveling vehicle (especially slow around corners). Upon pulling out to overtake on the other side of the road I start winding up the speedo to well over the speed limit (as I'd rather spend the least amount of time on the opposite side of the road as necessary), only to spot a speed camera designed to catch people in this popular overtaking zone. Other overtakers are close up behind me. We are all forced to slam on the breaks almost to the point of locking up to avoid getting our photo taken (I was successful!). Now I'm kind of stuck on the other side of the road alongside the large slow vehicle with other vehicles behind me, doing the speed limit with a blind corner fast approaching, well outside of my engines power band. This type of revenue gathering is far more dangerous than a driver who wishes to complete an overtaking maneuver as safely as possible. I believe a safe overtaking maneuver should not be limited to a certain speed to keep the vehicle on the opposite side of the road for a long period of time. Especially when you have drivers who insist on slowing a great deal for every corner and accelerating back to the speed limit on straights.

To people that have a problem with my driving, would you still have a problem if I told you I did crazy speeds legally on unlimited stretches of Autobahn? Is it the breaking of the law of the land or the speed itself?



[edit on 11-6-2010 by Azp420]

Originally posted by Azp420

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Relativism is ABSURD.

When one takes relativism to it's logical conclusion things get ludicrous.

Relativism taken to it's logical outcome is outright absurd.

There are many people on this board that would call many of your beliefs absurd or ludicrous.

Who cares? Appeal to numbers fallacy. The number of people who agree to a certain thing does not make it true or false.

It is impossible for human beings at this point in history or evolution to know the absolute "truth" about everything (if such a thing even exists for everything), relativism is necessary in some instances.

I reject that idea firmly, the Word of God is an absolute truth. People can reject God, but where does that leave them when they are treated unjustly by others?? If right and wrong are reduced to human whims, we can ultimately expect a society to be destroyed by anarchy or oppressed by tyranny.

Don't you realize that if right and wrong don't rest upon an authority higher than mankind and His absolutes then you have no way at all to determine right or wrong other than by making arbitrary assertions that can just as arbitrarily be rejected by anyone else. Ultimately only an anarchist or a or a tyrant can prosper under such a worldview.

Let me ask you a question, presuppose for the sake of argument, you have a wife and child. If a man breaks into your house and kills your wife and child would it be wrong? In my worldview of absolutes it would be wrong, every time. In your relativist worldview it wouldn't be wrong, that man is free to make his own choices about what is right and wrong for him.

Such an attitude is not as practical as it seems on the surface. Every person has a value system of what's right and what's wrong, but no person has any right to expect others to honor it unless the system is given to ALL of us by an authority that transcends finite mankind.

I hope you can see that relativism, while seems reasonable on the surface, is actually very logically flawed.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Who cares? Appeal to numbers fallacy. The number of people who agree to a certain thing does not make it true or false.

Yes I agree, I mocked the appeal to numbers fallacy in my post where I stated:

a religion is only as "true" as the amount of followers it has. Humans will forever seek to reinforce what they believe, a great way to achieve this reinforcement is to have lots of people believe the same thing.

It is impossible for human beings at this point in history or evolution to know the absolute "truth" about everything (if such a thing even exists for everything), relativism is necessary in some instances.

I reject that idea firmly, the Word of God is an absolute truth. People can reject God, but where does that leave them when they are treated unjustly by others?? If right and wrong are reduced to human whims, we can ultimately expect a society to be destroyed by anarchy or oppressed by tyranny.

How do you know the Word of God is an absolute truth, or what the Word of God truly is? Were you born with that belief or was it installed in you by other people? Has God spoken to you and told you the Word of God directly or are you believing other people when they say God spoke to them? Even if God did speak to them the information is still limited by language and other man made concepts. Most religions are based on some texts that were written by men who God had spoken to. Are you saying the only true word of God comes from your religion? If someone is not raised into a religious family why should they believe your religion to be any more true than what other religions are saying? What is a sure fire way for someone to find the truth without having to believe what they are told by other people? I am seeking this truth and do not expect to ever fully become aware of it. I am not an atheist but I can have no way of saying what I believe is the truth.

I disagree that a Godless society would be reduced to anarchy and tyranny.

Don't you realize that if right and wrong don't rest upon an authority higher than mankind and His absolutes then you have no way at all to determine right or wrong other than by making arbitrary assertions that can just as arbitrarily be rejected by anyone else. Ultimately only an anarchist or a or a tyrant can prosper under such a worldview.

Just because my moral code was not dictated to me by a higher being or authority does not mean it is much different to yours. I'm not out raping, murdering stealing and pillaging. I give to charity and try to make this world a better place because that's what makes me happy and I suspect that's what makes a lot of people happy. There are vast amounts of people without God who live what you or I would call a moral life so the Word of God is not what is stopping the world from falling into tyranny, the genuine goodness of the human soul is imo. It's something we are born with. We seem to put such little faith into ourselves.

reply to post by Azp420

I'd love to answer all your questions, but I see that my last post has completely shifted this thread into the realm of Theology. Kindly copy/paste your reply above to a U2U to me, or make a thread in the religion forum on BTS and I'll answer every question you've brought up.

Deal?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Let me ask you a question, presuppose for the sake of argument, you have a wife and child. If a man breaks into your house and kills your wife and child would it be wrong? In my worldview of absolutes it would be wrong, every time. In your relativist worldview it wouldn't be wrong, that man is free to make his own choices about what is right and wrong for him.

It would be wrong from my point of view, I could not say if he felt it was wrong or not. He must have done it because that's what he thought would make him happy (for whatever reasons or motives he had). That man is free to make his own choices (free will). People like this no doubt exist in the world, determining whether it is right or wrong and from who's point of view does nothing to prevent the situation (as does making it illegal). That is why I don't really worry about what others think is moral. I identify that people like this exist, put big locks on my doors, buy a German Shepard, buy a Glock, buy an alarm system and go to sleep. It would be impossible to me to convince every person in the world that murder is wrong. All I can do is live my live how I think is right. I do not need to rely on the Word of God or the Government to keep me safe. People don't stop themselves from murdering because it is against the rules.

What of the Religious Soldiers, Police, CIA etc who kill people in the line of their work? Do they justify their killing as "right" because the government has told them it is "right"? What an innocent civilian caught in the crossfire of a Christian Soldiers gun? Even with the Word of God humans are still justifying their own actions and living by their own unique morals. It would be difficult to find even two Christians who attend different churches with identical views on what is wrong and what is right in every situation. Both are aware of the Word of God. At some point people need to start taking responsibility for their own morals.

Such an attitude is not as practical as it seems on the surface. Every person has a value system of what's right and what's wrong, but no person has any right to expect others to honor it unless the system is given to ALL of us by an authority that transcends finite mankind.

I believe such an attitude could be very practical. It would be nice if there was indisputable truth of higher authority that all of mankind agreed on but this is not the case. It seems like a lot of people want this to be the case because it seems like the best solution, especially with a corrupt government.

I hope you can see that relativism, while seems reasonable on the surface, is actually very logically flawed.

It seems we have reached an impasse. Good debating anyway.



Edit: Sorry, didn't see your above post, I'll send you a U2U. Sorry for taking the thread away from topic.

[edit on 12-6-2010 by Azp420]

Oh, there is no such impasse I can assure you. Your responses deserve equally reasoned responses from me Sir, however, as I state above your last post we should move our discussion to another venue, either U2Us or a thread in the Religion forum on BTS.

My response has turned our discussion into one of Theology and a Relativist VS. Biblical worldview and even though you rightly deserve to have your questions answered, it's no longer right to do so in this particular thread about cops and traffic cameras.