It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Legalize Drunk Driving

page: 38
64
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Lose a family member to a drunken driver. Then tell me you still feel this way.




posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Lose a family member to a drunken driver. Then tell me you still feel this way.


And what of the family member lost to a sober driver? What act of legislation do you propose to prevent that, or are those family members not as deserving of such a privilege?



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Lose a family member to a drunken driver. Then tell me you still feel this way.


And what of the family member lost to a sober driver? What act of legislation do you propose to prevent that, or are those family members not as deserving of such a privilege?


Was waiting for this. Here's the thing:

you do not have a right to drive. It is a privelage. Therefore, when you drive, you must adhere to certain rules(I.E. getting a license, following traffic laws, etc).

So, that pretty much shoots your entire argument out of the water. Accidents happen. When they happen because one is not following the laws that they agreed to when they signed for their license, they are liable.

The big difference between the two is, one is preventable, on is not. And when someone kills another in an automobile while not following the laws, they are responsible for the consequences.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 





you do not have a right to drive. It is a privelage.


This is blatant propaganda put forth by government that you have fallen for hook, line, and sinker. Government has no legal authority to declare anything that can not be demonstrated as an abrogation or derogation of a right, as not a right. If there is no victim, then there is no crime, and if there is no crime, then what a person does they do by right.

Rights are not legal fictions granted by the artifice of government. Rights are law, and as such universal in their applicability, as opposed to privileges that are reserved for the chosen only. It matters not how many state legislatures declare driving a "privilege and not a right", it is not criminal for government to lie, and government takes full advantage of this fact. All rights are retained by the people.


The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Ninth Amendment, The Bill of Rights, The Constitution for the United States of America

Of course, since it is the individual states making this claim, it can be argued that the Ninth Amendment does not apply. Living in the State of California, I will supply just one example of what that State Constitution has to say on the same matter:


This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.



Article I, Section 24, Declaration of Rights; California State Constitution

www.leginfo.ca.gov...

Reification is a logical fallacy and things are not true just because you, or someone else declares them to be true, things are true because they are true. Truth, just like law, is universal in its applicability and applies to all. Advocating an unequality under the law is not advocating law.

You might want to put some effort into target practice since your shooting leaves much to be desired.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 





you do not have a right to drive. It is a privelage.


This is blatant propaganda put forth by government that you have fallen for hook, line, and sinker. Government has no legal authority to declare anything that can not be demonstrated as an abrogation or derogation of a right, as not a right. If there is no victim, then there is no crime, and if there is no crime, then what a person does they do by right.

Rights are not legal fictions granted by the artifice of government. Rights are law, and as such universal in their applicability, as opposed to privileges that are reserved for the chosen only. It matters not how many state legislatures declare driving a "privilege and not a right", it is not criminal for government to lie, and government takes full advantage of this fact. All rights are retained by the people.


The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Ninth Amendment, The Bill of Rights, The Constitution for the United States of America

Of course, since it is the individual states making this claim, it can be argued that the Ninth Amendment does not apply. Living in the State of California, I will supply just one example of what that State Constitution has to say on the same matter:


This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.



Article I, Section 24, Declaration of Rights; California State Constitution

www.leginfo.ca.gov...

Reification is a logical fallacy and things are not true just because you, or someone else declares them to be true, things are true because they are true. Truth, just like law, is universal in its applicability and applies to all. Advocating an unequality under the law is not advocating law.

You might want to put some effort into target practice since your shooting leaves much to be desired.



All that and you missed the point. Again, you agree to follow the rules of the road when you are licensed to drive, as it is a privilage, not a right.

If you cannot do that, you are liable. Anything else is deflection.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 





All that and you missed the point. Again, you agree to follow the rules of the road when you are licensed to drive, as it is a privilage, not a right.


Typical of those who reify you ignore all that I wrote and pretend I did not refute your assertion that "driving is a privilege and not a right". Driving is a right. Driving recklessly to the point that it causes demonstrable harm is not a right, and there is no need for licensing schemes with the doling out of privileges in order to enforce such a law. Of course, when one is desperately advocating privileges as superior to rights, it is understandable why you would stick your fingers in your ears and scream at the top of your lungs; "La la la la la la la, I can't hear you!"



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 





All that and you missed the point. Again, you agree to follow the rules of the road when you are licensed to drive, as it is a privilage, not a right.


Typical of those who reify you ignore all that I wrote and pretend I did not refute your assertion that "driving is a privilege and not a right". Driving is a right. Driving recklessly to the point that it causes demonstrable harm is not a right, and there is no need for licensing schemes with the doling out of privileges in order to enforce such a law. Of course, when one is desperately advocating privileges as superior to rights, it is understandable why you would stick your fingers in your ears and scream at the top of your lungs; "La la la la la la la, I can't hear you!"


Driving is not a right. In now way can it be defined as such. You are using PUBLIC roadways. You are using PUBLIC taxdollars on those roadway. You have no more right to drive than I have a right to fly a plane.

Did you sign for your license? Then it doesnt matter what your argument is: you agreed that it was a privilege and that you would follow the rules that go along with that privilege.

But hey, lets go with the illusion that anarchy is the answer. Hope that goes well for you.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 





Driving is not a right. In now way can it be defined as such. You are using PUBLIC roadways. You are using PUBLIC taxdollars on those roadway. You have no more right to drive than I have a right to fly a plane.


Here is the legal definition of public:


public 1) n. the people of the nation, state, county, district or municipality, which the government serves. 2) adj. referring to any agency, interest, property, or activity which is under the authority of the government or which belongs to the people. This distinguishes public from private interests as with public and private schools, public and private utilities, public and private hospitals, public and private lands, and public and private roads.


(Emphasis added)

Government serves the people, not the other way around. Law is above this, and no one is above the law. Legislation is not law, merely evidence of law. If it were actually law, courts could not strike it down as unlawful. Laws entrusted to government are a collective protection of individual rights, or the establishment of justice in the event of an abrogation or derogation of rights. All other legislation is merely that, legislation.




Did you sign for your license? Then it doesnt matter what your argument is: you agreed that it was a privilege and that you would follow the rules that go along with that privilege.


And if I did not sign for any license, what then? Would you advocate the violent force of the state to trample all over my right to drive? Contract law is contract law, and if you are to rely on contract law in order to support your argument, once again reification will not make any person who has used their unalienable right to not contract obligated to such a contract.




But hey, lets go with the illusion that anarchy is the answer. Hope that goes well for you.


But hey, let's pretend that your advocacy of capriciousness and privileges is not the very same kind of anarchy that you accuse me of. Hope that goes well for you. How's it working out for you so far? Satisfied with the system are you? All closed systems tend towards entropy. This is not reification, it is observably so.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
Laws do act as a deterrent. Of course I think I'm fine to drive after a few drinks. But I don't.
Why? Because I don't want to spend the night in a jail and I don't want my reputation sullied.



Maybe.

But what about the risk of mangling yourself or some family? Surely as a decent person, that also acts as a deterrent for you?



After my other comments I would have thought that would go without saying.
Of course. This would be the primary reason.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 





Government has no legal authority to declare anything that can not be demonstrated as an abrogation or derogation of a right, as not a right.


OK.

But driving without a license, driving drunk, speeding etc. infringe on a right of people to be safe on public roads. So yes, government has the authority to declare these things not a right, or ban them, even by your logic.
edit on 23/12/10 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 03:29 AM
link   
I brought out the five monkey story on another thread, time to break it out here.

You are all just a bunch of damn monkeys.



Start with a cage containing five monkeys.
Inside the cage, hang a banana on a string and place a set of stairs under it.
Before long, a monkey will go to the stairs and start to climb towards the banana.
As soon as he touches the stairs, spray all of the monkeys with cold water.
After a while, another monkey makes an attempt with the same result - all the monkeys are sprayed with cold water.
Pretty soon, when another monkey tries to climb the stairs, the other monkeys will try to prevent it.
Now, turn off the cold water.
Remove one monkey from the cage and replace it with a new one.
The new monkey sees the banana and wants to climb the stairs.
To his surprise and horror, all of the other monkeys attack him.
After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs, he will be assaulted.
Next, remove another of the original five monkeys and replace it with a new one.
The newcomer goes to the stairs and is attacked.
The previous newcomer takes part in the punishment with enthusiasm.
Again, replace a third original monkey with a new one.
The new one makes it to the stairs and is attacked as well.
Two of the four monkeys that beat him have no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs, or why they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey.

After replacing the fourth and fifth original monkeys, all the monkeys that have been sprayed with cold water have been replaced.
Nevertheless, no monkey ever again approaches the stairs.
Why not?
Because as far as they know that's the way it's always been around here.

And so the story continues on....................................... here at ATS.

Bunch of monkeys arguing why someone does not get the bananas.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


Interesting urban legend.

Even though we are on the same side of the debate, I had to research this story, and this 5 monkey story is not based on a real experiment, but very loosely based on a behavior experiment.

This is the best link I could find on this.

wiki.answers.com...


"Stephenson (1967) trained adult male and female rhesus monkeys to avoid manipulating an object and then placed individual naïve animals in a cage with a trained individual of the same age and sex and the object in question. In one case, a trained male actually pulled his naïve partner away from the previously punished manipulandum during their period of interaction, whereas the other two trained males exhibited what were described as "threat facial expressions while in a fear posture" when a naïve animal approached the manipulandum. When placed alone in the cage with the novel object, naïve males that had been paired with trained males showed greatly reduced manipulation of the training object in comparison with controls. Unfortunately, training and testing were not carried out using a discrimination procedure so the nature of the transmitted information cannot be determined, but the data are of considerable interest."

Read more: wiki.answers.com...


If only the debate on drunk driving was that simple.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


Interesting that in a thread where the "pro liberty" crowd is arguing against the effectiveness of deterrents and conditioned response, you'd break out a story validating the efficacy of deterrents and conditioned response. So, our drunk driving monkeys WILL stop driving drunk.

Problem solved - point agreed upon by all sides!


~Heff



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


Yes, it is an old parable that I read about many years ago. I was going to do a thread on it but many have already.

reply to post by Hefficide
 


Why is it that "some people" will attempt to twist the meaning of something to further their argument?

This parable has to do with group think and conditioning. It has nothing to do with what you brought up in this comment.

For you, I guess that is always how it is been done so I guess you are arguing on the side of conditioning.

So, how does it feel to have your beliefs based upon a bunch of conditioned responses?

Do not like to think outside that box that others and yourself provided for huh?



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 



Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower

Why is it that "some people" will attempt to twist the meaning of something to further their argument?

This parable has to do with group think and conditioning. It has nothing to do with what you brought up in this comment.


So, am I correct in assuming that what you are saying is that your example of conditioning has nothing to do with conditioned response? I think you might be confused.

The monkeys, in your example, were prevented from performing a behavior by means of deterrent. This does not lend well to the argument that DUI laws do not work. In fact it does the opposite.


Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower

For you, I guess that is always how it is been done so I guess you are arguing on the side of conditioning.


I actually understand the concept of conditioned response, whereas you might need to update your interpretation of it. I suggest Googling "Pavlov" and proceeding from there.

One cannot be free from chains if they don't know what chains look like.


Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower

So, how does it feel to have your beliefs based upon a bunch of conditioned responses?


This is a totally inaccurate ad-hom Saltheart....You can do better than this. I am disappointed. I could easily stoop to this level by saying something like "Do you have a single thought that isn't borrowed from a conservative web site or Glen Beck?" and it would amount to the same lack of substance of debate. The ball and not the player Saltheart... the ball and not the player.


Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower

Do not like to think outside that box that others and yourself provided for huh?


Now you aren't going to try and convince the ATS universe that I think within any paradigms that might be labeled as "inside a box" are you? My God man, a look at my last 20 posts would refute that accusation for anyone who looks. I follow my own logic and it shows.

~Heff



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Pavlov is so 50 years ago. He began the research on scientifically quantifying conditional responses in unlearning animals. Animals do not have the cognitive ability to think outside the paradigm they are placed.

I would think something more along the lines of the movie with the infinite box trap, cannot place the name now.

I enjoy attempts at placing people in logical boxes or traps, to see how they perform. You did well.

I am iterating that the people that think that to punish someone, for doing something that actually did not cause harm, is to be a monkey taught to punish your fellow man for doing nothing criminal. Funny how those on the left side of the argument, always believe it is fine to punish those that have harmed no one, is fine.

This is the conditioned response technique of the leftists. They believe they can FORCE everyone into their little box of thought and reason. That is why they cannot argue logic. They tell you the sky is red and cannot understand the people that tell them their is factual evidence that it is not. They look at the blue and see red.

Otherwise explain to me the thinking behind their ability to defend sexually molesting people for the greater good? For allowing assassination of people? For giving the very perpetrators of the greatest horrors in mankind's history (government) more power?

I am speaking of the classical left and right, Anarchy vs Totalitarianism, not the neo defined left and right, Socialist vs Fascist. That is a misnomer created by the paradigm of today, a classic trap in thinking. That is why I have so many problems discussing the left/right issue with so many people. They believe that the Socialists and Fascists are on opposites of argument, where they are not, they are one and the same. Another 5 monkey analogy.

You and others believe that to not allow the government control of everything, would lead to a anarchist state. No, it would lead to a free state.

Tell me, if the government is so damn good at regulation and control, what the hell happened lately? OH, that would be the government, in bed with their corporate buddies, used both Fascism and Socialism to destroy the economy of the world. Hmmmmm, should we allow them to do more of the above or stop the damn madness?

How bout quit attacking your fellow monkeys and think outside that cage/box that you love so well?



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 




I am iterating that the people that think that to punish someone, for doing something that actually did not cause harm, is to be a monkey taught to punish your fellow man for doing nothing criminal.


False analogy. Eating banana is not harmful to other monkeys, whereas driving drunk is - it greatly increases the probability of harm.

Conditioned response is a TOOL, not inherently good or bad. If it causes harm to the conditioned (not eating good banana) it is bad, if it causes benefit to them (not touching hot plate, not driving drunk) it is GOOD.



I would think something more along the lines of the movie with the infinite box trap, cannot place the name now.


Cube trilogy

edit on 24/12/10 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


How dangerous driving under the influence is, greatly depends on BAC. Levels below .15, the original BAC limit, slightly in creases the chances of an accident, and very very slightly a death when no other traffic violations are associated. Age is also a huge factor.

Driving sober or UtI greatly increases probability of harm. The whole DUI claim is nothing but a scapegoat that allows people to pretend that their beloved cars are not as dangerous as they in fact are.



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Maslo
 


How dangerous driving under the influence is, greatly depends on BAC. Levels below .15, the original BAC limit, slightly in creases the chances of an accident, and very very slightly a death when no other traffic violations are associated. Age is also a huge factor.


Making up more facts on the spot ?



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
And what of the family member lost to a sober driver? What act of legislation do you propose to prevent that,


No law or legislation claims to end all drink or careless driving, that is your claim here, nobody elses. Laws make it illegal for anybody to drink and drive so if an individual is caught driving under the influence, they can be taken by police. Without the law individuals under the influence of alchohol can continue driving and police will not be able to take them in for that reason.

We can turn your exact same logic to fraud, or people who steal from businesses. The laws in place against fraud and stealing are not assured to stop every single person from committing these acts, it does allow for the law enforcement to send people who are caught to jail.
edit on 24-12-2010 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
64
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join