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.
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.
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?
you do not have a right to drive. It is a privelage.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
This declaration of rights may not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
"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...
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.
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.
Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
So, how does it feel to have your beliefs based upon a bunch of conditioned responses?
Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
Do not like to think outside that box that others and yourself provided for huh?
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.
I would think something more along the lines of the movie with the infinite box trap, cannot place the name now.
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.
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,