11-03-09, 12:23 AM | #61 |
Yes. I had a good taxidermist stuff my carp, then I hung it on the wall.
__________________
I'm not an idiot. I'm just harmlessly psychotic. |
|
11-03-09, 02:51 AM | #62 | |
As it can be legitimately claimed that adjusting the volume on your car radio can be as much of a distraction as texting while driving (I mean, an accident can occur at any split second of driving time), how would such legislation be enforced? I'd like for you to lay out the complete picture on this new set of rules and legislation you seem to support. Help me understand how these things are determined, enforced, and penalized. It appears you are taking the position there are no existing laws to protect people on the road. That simply isn't the case. |
||
11-03-09, 05:42 AM | #63 | |
To the earlier comments about paying more attention to the phone, from my experience it'd guess a lot of that has to do with the difficulty of hearing someone over the phone as opposed to next to you. Most headsets (and cell phones in general) are low power and only in one ear. Any other noise then distorts how well you can hear the person on the phone requiring you to pay more attention to what they're saying to be able to fully listen. If someone is next to you the sound quality is much better and brought in through both ears, allowing for less concentration to be needed. |
||
11-03-09, 11:06 AM | #64 | |
I mean, we want to protect all life, right? And of course we want to remove/prevent all distractions, right? Who decides which distractions are dangerous enough to legislate against? How are they enforced? Think about it. For as many reasons as people are justifying "against" texting, there are as many other equally dangerous (and potentially more so) actions that might cause as many accidents on the road. Are we only concerned about a few? Hmmm. Last edited by Republic : 11-03-09 at 05:11 PM. |
||
11-03-09, 04:12 PM | #65 | |
I would name examples of laws and treaties that spawned something our gov't (and citizens) regretted afterward, but it's specific to USA and other nationalities might be offended. I'm sure every nationality reading this thread can give an example relative to their nation. |
||
11-03-09, 05:15 PM | #66 | |
I'm withholding further commentary until some of my most recent questions are answered |
||
11-04-09, 12:30 PM | #67 | ||||
Montana used to have no speed limits... instead they had what was called the Reasonable and Prudent law. In other words the only limit was what was safe. And trust me, some days in Montana, 30 miles an hour on a near empty freeway is not safe. But instead we have speed limits, and it is near impossible to prosecute someone for reckless driving, no matter what the driving conditions are like if they are traveling at the speed limit. Sadly this is the system we live in. I'm all for reform, but until that happens, we have to deal with the system as it works currently, and as it works currently, generic distracted driving laws don't do the job.
I can't walk down the street naked... Oh noes! My liberty! I also can't walk into a bank wearing a ski-mask and packing a hunting rifle to deposit my paycheck. Help, help I'm being oppressed! (Note: no one will ever die from my performing these actions, well, except maybe me when the bank guard shoots me) In reality, you're misusing the word Liberty here, so lets have a look at what it actually means. From Websters: 1 : the quality or state of being free (vague to the point of useless... what is free?) a : the power to do as one pleases (clearly not relevant in this case, I think its safe to say we all agree that I should not be allowed to murder, no matter how much it pleases me) b : freedom from physical restraint (well these laws certainly wouldn't strap you to a table) c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control (ah! here's a usefully one! Well the law certainly wouldn't be arbitrary. Cell phones+driving=dangerous there is plenty of proof of that, neither does it create a despot) d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges (ok, another useful one.. does it affect your social rights? Nah, you can always pull over... Political/Economic? clearly not) e : the power of choice (You can still choose to drive while texting... but then we'll choose to charge you for it, the choice is still there. Choice ~= choice without consequence) 2 a : a right or immunity enjoyed by prescription or by grant : privilege (I like this one too, liberty is granted. I happily grant you the liberty to chat on the phone. I don't grant you the liberty to risk my life while you do so) b : permission especially to go freely within specified limits (Note: Limits) (Beyond this point, not relevant to the discussion, but included for completeness sake) 3 : an action going beyond normal limits: as a : a breach of etiquette or propriety : familiarity b : risk, chance <took foolish liberties with his health> c : a violation of rules or a deviation from standard practice d : a distortion of fact 4 : a short authorized absence from naval duty usually for less than 48 hours Last edited by Vyper : 11-04-09 at 12:34 PM. |
|||||
11-04-09, 04:07 PM | #68 |
Vyper...
answer all my questions please... Specifically, these... By whose determination is the element of infringement decided? And, are you willing to apply the same criteria to every aspect of life? At what point does the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" begin? Where does it end? Thanks |
|
11-04-09, 04:23 PM | #69 | |||
Are you really comparing criminal activity to texting? If it's legal to carry firearms into a bank where you live, that's a personal liberty you have that should be defended as any other rights you may have anywhere else. I'm guessing it's not though. Oppression really has nothing to do with giving up personal liberty. People voluntarily give it up all the time, sometimes not even knowing it. |
||||
11-04-09, 05:24 PM | #70 | ||||
And yes, if any aspect of my life it going to get someone else killed sure, I'll apply it. As for where your rights begin and end, they begin... well at the beginning, and end when they start to infringe on others rights.
1 : the quality or state of being free (vague to the point of useless... what is free?) Your definition of freedom seems to imply that any law takes away my liberty. Thus the law against me coming to your house at night and stealing your television impinges on my liberty. Darn fascist!
|
|||||
11-04-09, 06:11 PM | #71 |
I wonder what people in this thread think about this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8339680.stm |
|
11-04-09, 06:49 PM | #72 |
11-04-09, 08:04 PM | #73 | |
Where did I defend anyone's right to risk the lives of others? Distracted driving also doesn't kill people. Where do the distractions begin (as per your impression)? Where do they end? Which distractions are "worse" than others? Who decides that? How is it decided? Many examples of distractions have been described in this thread. Are they all as dangerous? These are the determinations I'm interested in hearing more about. I'm assuming you're pro-life as well? I mean, it's pretty clear that abortion impedes someone's "right to life". It logically seems to me that anyone in favor of additional driving restrictions who also use the "right to life" position should also be against abortion, smoking, drinking, drug use, etc. Am I right? These things kill more people than text messaging ever will. Where's the outrage in these cases? Laws such as the ones relevant to this thread are just like all the others. They cause a major nuisance to the good among us who try to live as best as we can because the idiots need to be told every breath to take. Those of us who have common sense are never put into compromising positions in the first place. I guess my overall question is how stupid do you think people are and how far are you willing to go to tell people how to live? |
||
11-04-09, 08:26 PM | #74 | |
Look, I'll save you some time here. I'm basically in agreement that there may be a need to adapt laws around current technology, ways of life, etc. I've never really been against necessary legal protections that preserve life, etc. What I do object to is the thinking that throwing a bunch of laws at a problem fixes it. That clearly isn't the case. People are still idiots. Some need Mother Government to hold their hand. I don't deny that. What I get sick of is having to pay for other people's stupidity all the time. My objection(s) in this thread are more towards the process of determining what deserves new laws than the new laws themselves. The immediate response of "we need the government to outlaw this" is a dangerous one in my view. We aren't Europe. This isn't how our system works. The "change we can believe in" mentality has it wrong. |
||
11-05-09, 10:42 AM | #75 | ||||||||
Actually, that's exactly how our system works. Maybe not how it should, work, maybe not how it was intended to work, but that is how it works. |
|||||||||
WoWInterface » General Discussion » Chit-Chat » Survey: Distracted Driving |
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode |
Switch to Hybrid Mode |
Switch to Threaded Mode |
|
|