|
General » rec.autos.driving » You have the Right to Drive
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797510 ] |
Mon, 10 March 2008 04:56 |
|
In article <99a40547-e639-4172-ac22-a2fd89135995 [at] p73g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>On Mar 7, 7:03 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>> In article <311e7928-e4c6-454d-bcb5-ac198c90e... [at] m34g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> >> Nibbling at the margins in such a way that it goes after the
>> >> politically most vunerable, the teenagers.
>> >I guess it's just a coincidence that they are also the very most
>> >likely to have a collision.
>>
>> Didn't say otherwise. I argue it isn't a function of age.
>That's pretty nitpicky, even for you.
My whole argument is that government age table doesn't replace parental
responsibility.
>Sixteen is the minimum age for a DL, and not much experience accrues
>before that, so *in reality* the lack of experience is a function of
>age, *for the overwhelming majority of drivers*.
16 was the age decided upon by government. So you have inexperienced
drivers at 16 because that's the age the government says is 'start' more
or less. Setting the ages back some only pushes the inexperience out
further.
>> >> That is because of the
>> >> government and how it functions.
>> >Your conclusion doesn't follow. The reason it doesn't follow is
>> >because stats show that
>> >1.) Inexperienced drivers are the ones most likely to be in a
>> >collision.
>> Which matters not if they are 12 or 22. Where's the graduated licensing
>> for the immigrant who comes to this contry never having driven before at
>> age 25?
>Brain development comes mind. Look up the age of maturation of the
>prefrontal cortex, and that region of the brain's function. Apply to
>the skill of driving.
>In this case, age makes a big difference.
And yet you, having had proper parental instruction were quite able to
handle driving at 16 as a non-event having started many years before.
>> >2.) In places that graduated licensing has been implemented, teen
>> >crashes have been reduced.
>>
>> Not per mile driven I'll wager.
>
>That's the way I've seen it.
I'd wonder how that was collected....
>> >Would you like to guess what the biggest killer of teens happens to
>> >be?
>>
>> They are bit young for heart disease and cancer to get them, a bit too
>> old for infant mortality. It's going to be the biggest killer because
>> its the most common activity that can have fatal accidents in the group.
>And yet, in the early 20s, the death rate goes way down.
>Strange.
Now you switch measures... cute. I'll wager the biggest killer of people
in their 20s is also car wrecks.
>> >> >No matter WHAT the thing is being restricted, some folks on the
>> >> >prohibited side of the line get screwed.
>> >> So long as the measure being used is something like age or political
>> >> connections.
>> >In this case, age happens to be very nearly correlated to experience.
>>
>> Of course it is, the government *MADATES* that it is. Let's say the
>> government made a law that says children under the age of 15 can't touch
>> a computer. Do you think that will make teens more or less experienced
>> with a computer at age 16?
>When computers come self-propelled and weighing two tons, maybe your
>analogy would be apt.
*sigh* then you missed the point. It's the government prohibition that's
the issue. Instead of being eased into driving over time, they are
dumped right in the deep end of the pool at 16. Same with the drinking
prohibition. At 21, right into the deep end of the pool. Prohibition to
full personal responsibility at an arbitary age instead of being eased
into it over a period of years as a child is with just about everything
else in life. It would be like keeping a kid from crawling or standing
until walking age and then 'bam' expecting him to walk.
>> >And since a person may not legally enter into a contract until they
>> >are 18, restrictions on driving under that age isn't discrimination,
>> >per se. No more than truancy laws are infringements upon freedom of
>> >movement.
>> So you are using an age restriction to validate an age restriction.
>You have made a very good point. Circular reasoning is never
>persuasive.
>
>So, with having been said, you claim that this is a government control
>issue. I invite you to prove it with facts. Avoid circular
>reasoning.
As you have by your own personal story, experience behind the wheel is
not related to age other than the decision by government to say you
start at 15.5 or so and get a license at 16. Now the government decides
that those between 16 and 18 should have all sorts of further
restrictions because they are immature and inexperienced. The government
from far away has just decided to replace parenting and training with an
age table to be enforced by the police forces. I don't see how that
isn't a government control issue by definition. Instead of parents
making informed choices about when to give their kids keys to the
vehicles we have the government involved in it, actually taking it over
to a large degree. Now we rely on the government to be responsible for
when and where and with who teenagers drive with. Government deciding
for all what is best and punishing the kids who don't obey.
My mustang was smashed by a 16 year old with a freshly minted license
who took his sibling's car out without permission. The insurance on the
car had lasped because the sibling was in the military. His parents paid
for the damage to my car. I trust the parents did far more to correct
his behavior than the government could EVER hope for.
My maverick was smashed by a 17 year old who crossed the center line.
This kid didn't care. His mother didn't care. The government didn't care
about correcting the kid's behavior. The judge only asked if insurance
was covering the damages. Since the kid was insured that was the end of
it.
BTW, both were under conditions that were permissible in graduated
licensing. One was in daylight, the other was in late afternoon and the
passenger was a sibling.
Government isn't going to change anything in either case, of
irresponsible parents or responsible ones. Although I think it can make
borderline ones worse by 'taking over' for them.
>I seriously doubt you'll be able to even offer innuendo, much less
>hard cites.
Ahh yes, the call for cites. I always have to have cites while others
need none. I provide the cites and then they are disregarded. Blah. Same
old game.
>There are age restrictions on such things as eligibility to be POTUS,
>age of consent, and minimum age for entering into contracts. Nobody
>is pretending that one size fits all here, but surely some of these
>age limitations exist for some reason other than government control.
nice strawman there, implying I argued something about all age
restrictions. Do I really need to explain the differences of those to
you?
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797511 ] |
Mon, 10 March 2008 04:56 |
|
In article <2c7c35fe-4c7d-455e-8b2b-87dc3124aba4 [at] m34g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>On Mar 8, 12:14 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
>wrote:
>>
>>
>> I don't expect the graduated system to stay forever ending at 18 or
>> remain as flexible as it is. The genie is out of the bottle.
>
>Logical fallacy - slippery slope.
Because it 'never' happens.... lol.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797512 ] |
Mon, 10 March 2008 05:03 |
|
In article <6b13b050-957a-4a51-bbf7-042e3e3e0ff1 [at] e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, websurf1 [at] cox.net wrote:
>On Mar 8, 10:32 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
>wrote:
>>
>>
>> No, it's the government taking over more control.
>
>The government DOES control auto driver licensing. It's not taking
>more, it's just changing the rules a bit.
Because it's all at the whim of government. Don't get lost hiking if
some have their way in NH.
>> Except in driving the government has replaced the instructor with a time
>> table. It doesn't matter if they've learned a damned thing, its all
>> based on age. To take your flying example further, you could fail to
>> show any competence in flying but since you aged enough you'd be passed
>> to the next step.
>You miswrote, or I am misinterpreting.
>In flying, you MUST show competence at EVERY step, regardless of age
>(You can solo a glider at 14, pilot's licenses require age 16, IIRC).
>Other than that, age has nothing to do with it.
>And you have to be a much better pilot to get a pilot's license than
>you do car driver to get a driver's license!!!!!
In driving you have to show competence. In driving it's just an age
table. Your comparison is not valid.
>> In driving, the parents are supposed to know
>> the teenager well. Far better than the government can ever know. The
>> parents make a decentralized decison based on the actual abilities,
>> temperment, responsibility, etc of their kid. The government can never
>> do that anywhere close to as well.
>Yeah. Snort. Way too many parents think their kids are angels. They
>buy the little brat a muscle car and turn him/her loose upon the
>population. When they are with Mom and Pop, they behave. Turned
>loose, they may not. And when with their not-so-angelic friends, they
>tend to bend to peer pressure because it's incredibly strong. Once
>they've passed the driver test, the government doesn't know a thing,
>until they get to scrape the kids off the pavement.
So because some parents are bad everyone must be under tighter
government control? I'm sorry, state control can never be a replacement
for people's own responsibilities.
>> >Teens in groups don't pay that much attention to the driving. They
>> >are easily challenged do to stupid things (especially the guys). Let
>> >them get some experience alone before they have friends and nighttime
>> >privileges.
>>
>> Nice group think there. Not every teen is that way. Of course if you
>> treat people like children for longer and longer it's not surprising to
>> see childish behavior at older and older ages.
>You are right in both cases.
>But time and again, we learn that overall kids survive longer if they
>are in the car withOUT their friends for a while.
So we make the government's police forces responsible for checking up on
that? Where else should government enforcers make sure parents are doing
their jobs properly?
>They can learn to handle situations better if it ISN'T night.
Odd, I've had far more problems with teenage drivers in daylight.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797513 ] |
Mon, 10 March 2008 05:08 |
|
>In FLYing you have to show competence. In driving it's just an age
>table. Your comparison is not valid.
Correction in caps.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive With a License [message #797519 ] |
Mon, 10 March 2008 05:53 |
|
On Mar 9, 3:31=A0pm, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 8, 5:05 pm,proffsl<prof... [at] my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Same thing applies to alcohol sales. In truth, I believe a 10 year old
> > should be able to walk into a liquor store and purchase alcohol. =A0BUT,=
> > before any of you fly off at the handle, in saying that, I AM NOT
> > saying that I believe 10 year olds should be consuming alcohol.
>
> Should 10-year-olds be driving?
In last year's version of this thread, he ended up conceding that 10
year olds, toddlers, infants, family dogs and amoebae should be
permitted to drive unless and until each distinct one caused an
accident. In other words, one dog having an auto accident shouldn't
prevent all other dogs from driving.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive With a License [message #797521 ] |
Mon, 10 March 2008 05:57 |
|
In article <5ad28dfe-7a2c-4696-a716-6bc24c354cf1 [at] h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, k_flynn [at] lycos.com wrote:
>On Mar 9, 3:31 pm, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 8, 5:05 pm,proffsl<prof... [at] my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Same thing applies to alcohol sales. In truth, I believe a 10 year old
>> > should be able to walk into a liquor store and purchase alcohol. BUT,
>> > before any of you fly off at the handle, in saying that, I AM NOT
>> > saying that I believe 10 year olds should be consuming alcohol.
>>
>> Should 10-year-olds be driving?
>
>In last year's version of this thread, he ended up conceding that 10
>year olds, toddlers, infants, family dogs and amoebae should be
>permitted to drive unless and until each distinct one caused an
>accident. In other words, one dog having an auto accident shouldn't
>prevent all other dogs from driving.
Driving dogs just may increase the over all competence of drivers on the
road ;)
http://www.thecheers.org/news/Weird-news/news_15025_A-US-man -had-his-truck-stolen-by-his-own-dog.html
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive With a License [message #797548 ] |
Mon, 10 March 2008 15:45 |
|
On Mar 9, 10:57=A0pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article <5ad28dfe-7a2c-4696-a716-6bc24c354... [at] h11g2000prf.googlegroups.=
com>, k_fl... [at] lycos.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mar 9, 3:31=A0pm, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Mar 8, 5:05 pm,proffsl<prof... [at] my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Same thing applies to alcohol sales. In truth, I believe a 10 year ol=
d
> >> > should be able to walk into a liquor store and purchase alcohol. =A0B=
UT,
> >> > before any of you fly off at the handle, in saying that, I AM NOT
> >> > saying that I believe 10 year olds should be consuming alcohol.
>
> >> Should 10-year-olds be driving?
>
> >In last year's version of this thread, he ended up conceding that 10
> >year olds, toddlers, infants, family dogs and amoebae should be
> >permitted to drive unless and until each distinct one caused an
> >accident. In other words, one dog having an auto accident shouldn't
> >prevent all other dogs from driving.
>
> Driving dogs just may increase the over all competence of drivers on the
> road ;)
>
> http://www.thecheers.org/news/Weird-news/news_15025_A-US-man -had-his-...
Proffy will probably protest the gubmint requirement that they first
get a rabies shot.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797552 ] |
Mon, 10 March 2008 18:03 |
|
On Mar 9, 8:56=A0pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> In article <99a40547-e639-4172-ac22-a2fd89135... [at] p73g2000hsd.googlegroups.=
com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>
> >I seriously doubt you'll be able to even offer innuendo, much less
> >hard cites.
>
> Ahh yes, the call for cites. I always have to have cites while others
> need none. I provide the cites and then they are disregarded. Blah. Same
> old game.
So, IOW, it's merely your opinion. Gotcha.
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797553 ] |
Mon, 10 March 2008 18:04 |
|
On Mar 9, 8:56=A0pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> In article <2c7c35fe-4c7d-455e-8b2b-87dc3124a... [at] m34g2000hsc.googlegroups.=
com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >On Mar 8, 12:14 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
> >wrote:
>
> >> I don't expect the graduated system to stay forever ending at 18 or
> >> remain as flexible as it is. The genie is out of the bottle.
>
> >Logical fallacy - slippery slope.
>
> Because it 'never' happens.... lol.
A reiteration of the fallacy doesn't magically make it sound logic.
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797554 ] |
Mon, 10 March 2008 18:09 |
|
On Mar 9, 10:17=A0am, Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
> Scott in SoCal wrote:
> > On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 12:20:01 -0400, Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net>
> > =A0wrote:
>
> >> Scott in SoCal wrote:
>
> >>> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 23:32:44 -0600,
> >>> tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
> >>>> In article
> >>>> <10fd327c-9608-4af0-9b31-7964d3023... [at] d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> >>>> websu... [at] cox.net wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Mar 7, 2:06 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent
> >>>>> P) wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Is graduated licensing really any different than other
> >>>>>> areas where the government has taken over parental duties?
>
> >>>>> It's not parental replacement. =A0It's sorta common sense.
>
> >>>> No, it's the government taking over more control.
>
> >>>>> If you work to get a pilot's license, you fly with an
> >>>>> instructor. When he believes you are capable and safe, he
> >>>>> signs you off to solo. Then he monitors all your flights and
> >>>>> sets restrictions he is comfortable with. =A0Eventually, if you
> >>>>> don't run out of money, you fly enough to convince an
> >>>>> examiner that you won't kill yourself too quickly. =A0Only then
> >>>>> do you get a pilot's certificate. =A0Until you have that
> >>>>> certificate, you can't have ANY passengers; there's no one to
> >>>>> =A0show off to.
>
> >>>> Except in driving the government has replaced the instructor
> >>>> with a time table. It doesn't matter if they've learned a
> >>>> damned thing, its all based on age. To take your flying example
> >>>> further, you could fail to show any competence in flying but
> >>>> since you aged enough you'd be passed to the next step.
>
> >>> Sounds like the "Social Promotion" we have in public schools.
>
> >>>>> Teens in groups don't pay that much attention to the driving.
> >>>>> They are easily challenged do to stupid things (especially
> >>>>> the guys). =A0Let them get some experience alone before they
> >>>>> have friends and nighttime privileges.
>
> >>>> Nice group think there. Not every teen is that way.
>
> >>> I can't WAIT for you to have teenaged kids, Brent. :)
>
> >> I that ever happens to me, I'll give them the chance to prove
> >> they're responsible before assuming they're irresponsible.
>
> > Will you also give them the opportunity to prove that they're smart
> > enough not to stick their fingers into the wall sockets before you
> > plug in any of those little plastic protectors? Will you also give
> > them the benefit of the doubt before locking up the drain cleaner?
>
> > Bad analogy, you say?
>
> Yes.
>
> > Teenagers are more aware than toddlers, and never do stupid, risky
> > things? They aren't susceptible to peer pressure and raging hormones?
>
> We all know how well abstinence-based sex ed programs have worked.
> Better to clearly explain the possible courses of action and
> consequences and say "if you really *MUST* (drive, pork that hot chick,
> wire the garage for 240 for that sexy new plasma cutter, whatever) then
> this is what you must to to minimize your risk." =A0That at least gives
> them a fighting chance of coming out OK even if they don't do 100% of
> what you'd want them to do. =A0If you just say "don't (do X)" they won't
> understand why not, and go ahead and do it anyway when you're not looking.=
>
> > OK - you're the Dad! :)
>
> Dear God I hope not :)
Heh.
You'd be surprised how your attitudes change when you actually have
kids. I used to have all sorts of wacky ideas before I actually had
to do the day-to-day kid stuff.
It's easy to tell the folks in this thread that don't have kids.
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797555 ] |
Mon, 10 March 2008 18:09 |
|
In article <2933ab54-72f3-4de5-a450-ec1bf9ffee55 [at] e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>On Mar 9, 8:56 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>> In article <99a40547-e639-4172-ac22-a2fd89135... [at] p73g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>
>> >I seriously doubt you'll be able to even offer innuendo, much less
>> >hard cites.
>>
>> Ahh yes, the call for cites. I always have to have cites while others
>> need none. I provide the cites and then they are disregarded. Blah. Same
>> old game.
>
>So, IOW, it's merely your opinion. Gotcha.
IOW, you have no actual response.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797556 ] |
Mon, 10 March 2008 18:17 |
|
On Mar 10, 10:09=A0am, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article <2933ab54-72f3-4de5-a450-ec1bf9ffe... [at] e25g2000prg.googlegroups.=
com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >On Mar 9, 8:56=A0pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> >> In article <99a40547-e639-4172-ac22-a2fd89135... [at] p73g2000hsd.googlegrou=
ps.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>
> >> >I seriously doubt you'll be able to even offer innuendo, much less
> >> >hard cites.
>
> >> Ahh yes, the call for cites. I always have to have cites while others
> >> need none. I provide the cites and then they are disregarded. Blah. Sam=
e
> >> old game.
>
> >So, IOW, it's merely your opinion. =A0Gotcha.
>
> IOW, you have no actual response.
Go back and read in the thread. My response was previous. I
questioned your contention that it was about gov. control, and since
you have no proof of that, you are merely giving your opinion on the
subject.
To be polite, I will not characterize the opinion.
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797561 ] |
Mon, 10 March 2008 19:34 |
|
In article <84bac4ae-7f38-4cb5-9839-3c3b4406ccdd [at] e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>On Mar 10, 10:09 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
>wrote:
>> In article <2933ab54-72f3-4de5-a450-ec1bf9ffe... [at] e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> >On Mar 9, 8:56 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>> >> In article <99a40547-e639-4172-ac22-a2fd89135... [at] p73g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>
>> >> >I seriously doubt you'll be able to even offer innuendo, much less
>> >> >hard cites.
>>
>> >> Ahh yes, the call for cites. I always have to have cites while others
>> >> need none. I provide the cites and then they are disregarded. Blah. Same
>> >> old game.
>>
>> >So, IOW, it's merely your opinion. Gotcha.
>>
>> IOW, you have no actual response.
>
>Go back and read in the thread. My response was previous. I
>questioned your contention that it was about gov. control, and since
>you have no proof of that, you are merely giving your opinion on the
>subject.
Licensing is government control by definition. Licensing is the
requirement of government granting a person permission to do something.
>To be polite, I will not characterize the opinion.
I've got to provide cites defining simple words or they are 'opinions'
Fine, hear ya go:
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=license
S: (n) license, licence, permit (a legal document giving official
permission to do something)
http://www.dictionary.net/licensing
License \Li"cense\ (l[imac]"sens), v. t. [imp. & p. p. Licensed
(l[imac]"senst); p. pr. & vb. n. Licensing.]
To permit or authorize by license; to give license to; as, to license a
man to preach. --Milton. Shak.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)
http://janus.state.me.us/legis/statutes/5/title5sec8002.html
5. License. "License" includes the whole or any part of any agency
permit, certificate, approval, registration, charter or similar form of
permission required by law which represents an exercise of the state's
regulatory or police powers.
6. Licensing. "Licensing" means the administrative process resulting in
the grant, denial, renewal, revocation, suspension or modification of a
license.
So clearly right there the government of Maine spells out that licensing
is an exercise of the state's (government) power (control).
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Licensing+(strategic+alliance)
A license gives a person or organization permission to engage in a
particular activity. If the government requires a license for an
activity, it may issue criminal charges if a person engages in the
activity without obtaining a license. Most licenses expire after a
certain period of time, and most may be renewed. Failure to abide by
certain laws and regulations can result in suspension or revocation of a
license. Acquiring a license through Fraud or Misrepresentation will
result in revocation of the license.
<...>
The licensing process helps to control activity in a variety of ways.
License application procedures allow government authorities to screen
applicants to verify that they are fit to engage in the particular
activity. Before any license is issued by an agency, the applicant must
meet certain standards. For example, a person who seeks a driver's
license must be at least age 16, must have passed a driver's test and a
vision test, and must pay a fee. If an applicant is under age 18, the
state department of motor vehicles may require that the applicant obtain
the signature of a parent or guardian. If the applicant seeks to drive
other than a passenger vehicle, such as a motorcycle or semi-truck, the
applicant has to pass tests that relate to the driving of that vehicle
and obtain a separate license for driving that vehicle.
----
So there, you have the legal definition of licensing showing that it is
by definition, government control.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797563 ] |
Mon, 10 March 2008 20:57 |
|
On Mar 10, 11:34=A0am, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
>
>
> Licensing is government control by definition. Licensing is the
> requirement of government granting a person permission to do something.
Logical fallacy - red herring.
Your argument isn't about the control part, it's about the
reasonableness of it. And we both know it. And so does everyone else
reading.
After all, you've stated that you would accept German-style
"governmental control", with some modifications.
Again, I will refrain from characterizing your opinion.
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797564 ] |
Mon, 10 March 2008 21:28 |
|
In article <e1afc96b-04d6-464d-8806-20c036ef1af2 [at] e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>On Mar 10, 11:34 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
>wrote:
>>
>>
>> Licensing is government control by definition. Licensing is the
>> requirement of government granting a person permission to do something.
>
>Logical fallacy - red herring.
It's what you asked me to cite. I cited it. Your removal of context
doesn't change it. I love how when you are failing you become the mad
trimmer. I quote you:
"So, with having been said, you claim that this is a government control
issue. I invite you to prove it with facts. "
I have shown, by legal and common definition that licensing is an
excerise of government power, of its control.
>Your argument isn't about the control part, it's about the
>reasonableness of it. And we both know it. And so does everyone else
>reading.
Reasonableness? Not at all, my argument is about what those concerned
with driving hope to achieve (safety, competency) vs. what the drivers'
licensing is often used for and was set up for, the state granting
permission, privilege, to drive as an excerise of its power.
When you strip away the veneer of competency in the US system what you
are left with is a government excerising it's power, its control by
applying a time table of restrictions in the case of teens or child
support payments or not getting lost when hiking should that bill
become law, and numerous other conditions and restrictions both dealing
with driving and not. WRT to the graduated conditions placed on
teens, those restrictions are enforced by the government's police and
the only way (provided that thedriver is not the registered owner of
the car) the government's police can even determine compliance is to
stop motorists and view their papers to determine their age. That to me
is not arguing the reasonableness but the very thing we hope to achieve
from licensing.
What is it that is to be achieved? Competence behind the wheel or
allowing a government to excerise greater power by intruding into
parental role?
>After all, you've stated that you would accept German-style
>"governmental control", with some modifications.
With regard to competency tests. If we want to achieve competency then
adopting Germany's competency testing would help achieve that goal.
When it comes to US licensing there are merely controls and
restrictions. Exercises of government power. We are all well aware here
in rad that US licensing has 'safety' and competency as an illusion not
unlike that TSA creates with regard to security. The motions are gone
through but measured results are poor at best.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797566 ] |
Mon, 10 March 2008 21:44 |
|
On Mar 10, 1:28=A0pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article <e1afc96b-04d6-464d-8806-20c036ef1... [at] e10g2000prf.googlegroups.=
com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >On Mar 10, 11:34=A0am, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
> >wrote:
>
> >> Licensing is government control by definition. Licensing is the
> >> requirement of government granting a person permission to do something.=
>
> >Logical fallacy - red herring.
>
> It's what you asked me to cite.
No. Either you are being obtuse, or being stupid.
> "So, with having been said, you claim that this is a government control
> issue. =A0I invite you to prove it with facts. "
>
> I have shown, by legal and common definition that licensing is an
> excerise of government power, of its control.
Or, an exercise of it's legitimate authority.
If you look in the Preamble, I'm sure you'll find something about the
"general Welfare."
It all depends on the context of the comments, and the person making
them.
Anyone who reads this group with any regularity knows exactly what
you're talking about. Pretending you are talking about something else
is beneath you.
> >Your argument isn't about the control part, it's about the
> >reasonableness of it. =A0And we both know it. =A0And so does everyone els=
e
> >reading.
>
> Reasonableness? Not at all, my argument is about what those concerned
> with driving hope to achieve (safety, competency) vs. what the drivers'
> licensing is often used for and was set up for, the state granting
> permission, privilege, to drive as an excerise of its power. =A0
It's that second part that you haven't proven. Legitimate exercise of
authority vs. some nebulous, sinister "control".
> When you strip away the veneer of competency in the US system what you
> are left with is a government excerising it's power, its control by
> applying a time table of restrictions in the case of teens or child
> support payments or not getting lost when hiking should that bill
> become law, and numerous other conditions and restrictions both dealing
> with driving and not. WRT to the graduated conditions placed on
> teens, those restrictions are enforced by the government's police and
> the only way (provided that thedriver is not the registered owner of
> the car) the government's police can even determine compliance is to
> stop motorists and view their papers to determine their age. That to me
> is not arguing the reasonableness but the very thing we hope to achieve
> from licensing.
Thank you for going above and beyond to prove the point I was making.
You *were* being obtuse, at best. At the very least, being pedantic
in hopes the red herring technique would work. But in the end, you
always come back to the accusations (completely unproven) that it's
about "control".
Again, it is on *you* to prove that the restrictions are not about
exactly what they are written to be about, but about "control".
> >After all, you've stated that you would accept German-style
> >"governmental control", with some modifications.
>
> With regard to competency tests. If we want to achieve competency then
> adopting Germany's competency testing would help achieve that goal.
Yeah. Sure.
You would ensure that folks are competent, how? Let's think about the
simplest way to do that. Could it be through, oh, say, a driver's
licensing program?
> When it comes to US licensing there are merely controls and
> restrictions. Exercises of government power.
Re-asserting the same thing without proof doesn't make it true.
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797567 ] |
Mon, 10 March 2008 21:45 |
|
On Mar 9, 11:23=A0am, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt... [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 12:35:24 -0500, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
>
> (Brent P) wrote:
> >In article <fg18t3hsv0k7dlbdcbqun4vie51udsn... [at] 4ax.com>, Scott in SoCal w=
rote:
>
> >>>Except in driving the government has replaced the instructor with a tim=
e
> >>>table. It doesn't matter if they've learned a damned thing, its all
> >>>based on age. To take your flying example further, you could fail to
> >>>show any competence in flying but since you aged enough you'd be passed=
> >>>to the next step.
>
> >>Sounds like the "Social Promotion" we have in public schools.
>
> >Yes, it is much like the government schools.
>
> >>>>Teens in groups don't pay that much attention to the driving. =A0They
> >>>>are easily challenged do to stupid things (especially the guys). =A0Le=
t
> >>>>them get some experience alone before they have friends and nighttime
> >>>>privileges.
>
> >>>Nice group think there. Not every teen is that way.
>
> >>I can't WAIT for you to have teenaged kids, Brent. :)
>
> >What is that supposed to mean?
>
> You'll find out. It's something you have to live through to fully
> understand. :)
You mispelled "survive with shreds of sanity", there.
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797577 ] |
Mon, 10 March 2008 23:24 |
|
In article <a8e73f5b-5241-4986-838d-ceeabc73b052 [at] i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>On Mar 10, 1:28 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
>wrote:
>> In article <e1afc96b-04d6-464d-8806-20c036ef1... [at] e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> >On Mar 10, 11:34 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
>> >wrote:
>>
>> >> Licensing is government control by definition. Licensing is the
>> >> requirement of government granting a person permission to do something.
>>
>> >Logical fallacy - red herring.
>>
>> It's what you asked me to cite.
>
>No. Either you are being obtuse, or being stupid.
>
>> "So, with having been said, you claim that this is a government control
>> issue. I invite you to prove it with facts. "
>>
>> I have shown, by legal and common definition that licensing is an
>> excerise of government power, of its control.
>
>Or, an exercise of it's legitimate authority.
>
>If you look in the Preamble, I'm sure you'll find something about the
>"general Welfare."
You can do better than a lame overused catch all for anything and
everything.
>It all depends on the context of the comments, and the person making
>them.
>Anyone who reads this group with any regularity knows exactly what
>you're talking about. Pretending you are talking about something else
>is beneath you.
I am not pretending anything Ed. It's you that keeps pushing a
characterization of me. I've never played along with it and I am not
about to start.
Licensing is a form of government control, plain and simple. Driver's
licensing in the USA as it practiced doesn't do much more than first
grader's understand of 'red'=stop 'green'=go and DUI BAC =
0.08% competency wise. The purposes it serves are more inline with its
creation, simply control. Every year we are treated to more legislation
where people can lose their DL, their government permission to drive for
this, that, or the other thing that doesn't have any connection to
driving safely or driving at all.
>> >Your argument isn't about the control part, it's about the
>> >reasonableness of it. And we both know it. And so does everyone else
>> >reading.
>> Reasonableness? Not at all, my argument is about what those concerned
>> with driving hope to achieve (safety, competency) vs. what the drivers'
>> licensing is often used for and was set up for, the state granting
>> permission, privilege, to drive as an excerise of its power.
>It's that second part that you haven't proven. Legitimate exercise of
>authority vs. some nebulous, sinister "control".
See here you are again with your characterization. I am sure if we had a
loving, bevenolent government it would fail at parenting just as well as
if we had an evil, sinister one. Government cannot do the task. There is
no way central command with its age tables can do the parental decision
making. All it can do is assume the very worst case for everyone and
restrict all. The results of restricting all to the capabilities of
the least capable is damaging to the economy and the society.
>> When you strip away the veneer of competency in the US system what you
>> are left with is a government excerising it's power, its control by
>> applying a time table of restrictions in the case of teens or child
>> support payments or not getting lost when hiking should that bill
>> become law, and numerous other conditions and restrictions both dealing
>> with driving and not. WRT to the graduated conditions placed on
>> teens, those restrictions are enforced by the government's police and
>> the only way (provided that thedriver is not the registered owner of
>> the car) the government's police can even determine compliance is to
>> stop motorists and view their papers to determine their age. That to me
>> is not arguing the reasonableness but the very thing we hope to achieve
>> from licensing.
>Thank you for going above and beyond to prove the point I was making.
>You *were* being obtuse, at best. At the very least, being pedantic
>in hopes the red herring technique would work. But in the end, you
>always come back to the accusations (completely unproven) that it's
>about "control".
Government licensing by definition is about control. I have never
stated otherwise. Your problem is that you have this characterization
you've built and repeated so often you now believe its true.
>Again, it is on *you* to prove that the restrictions are not about
>exactly what they are written to be about, but about "control".
They are effectively about control, it's licensing requirements,
restrictions enforced by the state instead of the parent. I'm sure that
most of the legislators and most of the people for it think they are
protecting the precious little snowflakes, however the end result is
more government intrusion. Those who got prohibition passed certainly
thought they were protecting everyone for their own good. Although they
at least had the respect of the constitution to go for an amendment. The
war on drugs, that too was designed to keep us safe, for government to
protect the children and all of us from horrible substances. What's the
end result of government making these decisions for us in the war on
drugs? Even when the failure of the war on drugs is obvious as well as
what we've lost and the abuses many still think its a good thing.
But in the end these sort of things are used by those who wish to
control others one way or another. To displace decentralized processes
in the hands of the people with centralized ones in the hands of the
state.
>> >After all, you've stated that you would accept German-style
>> >"governmental control", with some modifications.
>> With regard to competency tests. If we want to achieve competency then
>> adopting Germany's competency testing would help achieve that goal.
>Yeah. Sure.
>You would ensure that folks are competent, how? Let's think about the
>simplest way to do that. Could it be through, oh, say, a driver's
>licensing program?
Setting people out with a bunch of universal restrictions and a generic
time table shows competence exactly how?
>> When it comes to US licensing there are merely controls and
>> restrictions. Exercises of government power.
>Re-asserting the same thing without proof doesn't make it true.
It's in the very definition of the situation.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797579 ] |
Mon, 10 March 2008 23:42 |
|
On Mar 10, 3:24=A0pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article <a8e73f5b-5241-4986-838d-ceeabc73b... [at] i29g2000prf.googlegroups.=
com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>
> >Or, an exercise of it's legitimate authority.
>
> >If you look in the Preamble, I'm sure you'll find something about the
> >"general Welfare."
>
> You can do better than a lame overused catch all for anything and
> everything.
:shrug: The USC is the basis for the Republic. Somehow, I doubt you
could come up with "something better".
[snip ad infinitem repetition of unproven claim]
Without proof that the graduated licenses are about control, I am not
persuaded.
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797583 ] |
Tue, 11 March 2008 00:16 |
|
In article <78fdb240-df24-4ecc-9643-b7a0314be9f8 [at] d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>On Mar 10, 3:24 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
>wrote:
>> In article <a8e73f5b-5241-4986-838d-ceeabc73b... [at] i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>
>> >Or, an exercise of it's legitimate authority.
>>
>> >If you look in the Preamble, I'm sure you'll find something about the
>> >"general Welfare."
>>
>> You can do better than a lame overused catch all for anything and
>> everything.
>
>:shrug: The USC is the basis for the Republic. Somehow, I doubt you
>could come up with "something better".
The "general welfare" has been greatly mis-used over the years,
especially in the last several decades to support many things that go
against individual liberty. To do come up with something better I
suggest you find a portion that isn't so vague and not used as an
'everything under the sun' excuse clause.
>[snip ad infinitem repetition of unproven claim]
>Without proof that the graduated licenses are about control, I am not
>persuaded.
I thought you were using the gpstroll style... 'appease me'
You stated it yourself here:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/41ccbf2 4e8df46a9?dmode=source
<ab421092-baac-4cc2-9d9f-4481a2df15eb [at] s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
"Except that responsible parents are quite few. As long as we have
some sort of LCD licensing system, then nibbling at the margins is
about the best we can hope for. The enemy really isn't the gov. -
it's all of us, for accepting the system as it stands."
It would appear to me that you are saying the drive behind these laws is
in part a lack of responsible parents so the government has to step in
and take up the slack. 'nibble at the margins' as it were to eek out
what improvement there can be in a an LCD licensing system.
In the end, that is probably the drive for many supporters of these
schemes, to use the government to control the neighbor kids because
the supporters feel the kids' parents aren't doing the job. That they
aren't monitoring their kids. So a whole new set of laws is created that
allow police to stop, detain, question, etc. Afterall, someone has to
keep these kids safe, yes?
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive With a License [message #797604 ] |
Tue, 11 March 2008 03:37 |
|
On Mar 9, 10:53=A0pm, "k_fl... [at] lycos.com" <k_fl... [at] lycos.com> wrote:
> On Mar 9, 3:31=A0pm, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 8, 5:05 pm,proffsl<prof... [at] my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > Same thing applies to alcohol sales. In truth, I believe a 10 year old=
> > > should be able to walk into a liquor store and purchase alcohol. =A0BU=
T,
> > > before any of you fly off at the handle, in saying that, I AM NOT
> > > saying that I believe 10 year olds should be consuming alcohol.
>
> > Should 10-year-olds be driving?
>
> In last year's version of this thread, he ended up conceding that 10
> year olds, toddlers, infants, family dogs and amoebae should be
> permitted to drive unless and until each distinct one caused an
> accident. In other words, one dog having an auto accident shouldn't
> prevent all other dogs from driving.
k_flynn is a liar, and he knows he is a liar.
k_flynn has been told by myself numerous times that my claim is that
we have the Right to Drive safely. If we can not drive safely, we do
not have the Right to Drive dangerously.
I say we have the Right to Drive safely, and k_flynn slanders what I
say claiming I have said toddlers, infants, family dogs and amoebae
have the Right to Drive. Makes me wonder if k_flynn actually believes
toddlers, infants, family dogs and amoebae actually can drive safely.
k_flynn is a FREQUENT LIAR.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797605 ] |
Tue, 11 March 2008 03:45 |
|
On Mar 8, 10:54=A0pm, gpsman <gps... [at] driversmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 8, 7:05 pm, proffsl <prof... [at] my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> > Irresponsible people create irresponsible laws that create
> > irresponsible parents who create irresponsible children. Laws
> > that presume to do the parent's job are irresponsible by producing
> > parents who believe they don't have to do their job. Driver licensing
> > laws make the parents believe the state is doing their job of
> > determining of their child is mature enough to be allowed to drive,
> > so the parents surrender that decision to the state, often to their
> > own demise.
>
> That's about the dumbest shit ever posted to Usenet,
Why don't you explain exactly how it is the "dumbest shit" ever?
> but I'm willing to concede it might be true in your case.
What you are doing is making a baseless accusation, and attempting to
falsely identify it as a concession. You are also resorting to
personal attacks.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797610 ] |
Tue, 11 March 2008 04:07 |
|
On Mar 8, 9:28=A0pm, Harry K <turnkey4... [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 8, 3:32=A0pm, proffsl <prof... [at] my-deja.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 7, 1:01=A0pm, Harry K <turnkey4... [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 6, 11:01=A0am, proffsl <prof... [at] my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Read about it at:
>
> > > >http://proffsl.110mb.com/driving.php
>
> > > > and
>
> > > >http://proffsl.110mb.com/driver_licensing.php
>
> > > So turn in your license and refuse to get another one.
>
> > I am sure you feel as if you have exercised an authoritative
> > power beyond what you are normally use to in this police
> > state government we live our restricted lives in, just as I am
> > sure that doing so gives you a false sense of achievement
> > beyond what you are normally use to, but I am not here to
> > take directives.
>
> > I am here to debate the validity of my claims.
>
> Uhuh. =A0Translated: "I don't have the balls to put my money where my
> mouth is"
Well, after we run your responce through the translator, it comes out:
"I do not have the ability to be part of a rational discussion, much
less produce any valid counter arguments to your claim, so I will
attempt to make you the issue, I will then proceed to make baseless
accusations on your part and to personally attack you."
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797614 ] |
Tue, 11 March 2008 04:52 |
|
On Mar 9, 9:08 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
> >In FLYing you have to show competence. In driving it's just an age
> >table. Your comparison is not valid.
>
> Correction in caps.
Thanks. You had me reading that over and over, trying to figger out
what's wrong with ya! ;<)
I still mildly disagree with your line of thought though.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797615 ] |
Tue, 11 March 2008 04:54 |
|
On Mar 10, 10:09 am, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 9, 10:17 am, Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Scott in SoCal wrote:
> > > On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 12:20:01 -0400, Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net>
> > > wrote:
>
> > >> Scott in SoCal wrote:
>
> > >>> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 23:32:44 -0600,
> > >>> tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
> > >>>> In article
> > >>>> <10fd327c-9608-4af0-9b31-7964d3023... [at] d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> > >>>> websu... [at] cox.net wrote:
>
> > >>>>> On Mar 7, 2:06 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent
> > >>>>> P) wrote:
>
> > >>>>>> Is graduated licensing really any different than other
> > >>>>>> areas where the government has taken over parental duties?
>
> > >>>>> It's not parental replacement. It's sorta common sense.
>
> > >>>> No, it's the government taking over more control.
>
> > >>>>> If you work to get a pilot's license, you fly with an
> > >>>>> instructor. When he believes you are capable and safe, he
> > >>>>> signs you off to solo. Then he monitors all your flights and
> > >>>>> sets restrictions he is comfortable with. Eventually, if you
> > >>>>> don't run out of money, you fly enough to convince an
> > >>>>> examiner that you won't kill yourself too quickly. Only then
> > >>>>> do you get a pilot's certificate. Until you have that
> > >>>>> certificate, you can't have ANY passengers; there's no one to
> > >>>>> show off to.
>
> > >>>> Except in driving the government has replaced the instructor
> > >>>> with a time table. It doesn't matter if they've learned a
> > >>>> damned thing, its all based on age. To take your flying example
> > >>>> further, you could fail to show any competence in flying but
> > >>>> since you aged enough you'd be passed to the next step.
>
> > >>> Sounds like the "Social Promotion" we have in public schools.
>
> > >>>>> Teens in groups don't pay that much attention to the driving.
> > >>>>> They are easily challenged do to stupid things (especially
> > >>>>> the guys). Let them get some experience alone before they
> > >>>>> have friends and nighttime privileges.
>
> > >>>> Nice group think there. Not every teen is that way.
>
> > >>> I can't WAIT for you to have teenaged kids, Brent. :)
>
> > >> I that ever happens to me, I'll give them the chance to prove
> > >> they're responsible before assuming they're irresponsible.
>
> > > Will you also give them the opportunity to prove that they're smart
> > > enough not to stick their fingers into the wall sockets before you
> > > plug in any of those little plastic protectors? Will you also give
> > > them the benefit of the doubt before locking up the drain cleaner?
>
> > > Bad analogy, you say?
>
> > Yes.
>
> > > Teenagers are more aware than toddlers, and never do stupid, risky
> > > things? They aren't susceptible to peer pressure and raging hormones?
>
> > We all know how well abstinence-based sex ed programs have worked.
> > Better to clearly explain the possible courses of action and
> > consequences and say "if you really *MUST* (drive, pork that hot chick,
> > wire the garage for 240 for that sexy new plasma cutter, whatever) then
> > this is what you must to to minimize your risk." That at least gives
> > them a fighting chance of coming out OK even if they don't do 100% of
> > what you'd want them to do. If you just say "don't (do X)" they won't
> > understand why not, and go ahead and do it anyway when you're not looking.
>
> > > OK - you're the Dad! :)
>
> > Dear God I hope not :)
>
> Heh.
>
> You'd be surprised how your attitudes change when you actually have
> kids. I used to have all sorts of wacky ideas before I actually had
> to do the day-to-day kid stuff.
>
> It's easy to tell the folks in this thread that don't have kids.
>
> E.P.
Yup. Especially when the kids are out for the late evening, and the
phone rings after you are in bed.....
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive With a License [message #797616 ] |
Tue, 11 March 2008 05:11 |
|
On Mar 10, 8:37 pm, proffsl <prof... [at] my-deja.com> wrote:
> On Mar 9, 10:53 pm, "k_fl... [at] lycos.com" <k_fl... [at] lycos.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 9, 3:31 pm, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 8, 5:05 pm,proffsl<prof... [at] my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Same thing applies to alcohol sales. In truth, I believe a 10 year old
> > > > should be able to walk into a liquor store and purchase alcohol. BUT,
> > > > before any of you fly off at the handle, in saying that, I AM NOT
> > > > saying that I believe 10 year olds should be consuming alcohol.
>
> > > Should 10-year-olds be driving?
>
> > In last year's version of this thread, he ended up conceding that 10
> > year olds, toddlers, infants, family dogs and amoebae should be
> > permitted to drive unless and until each distinct one caused an
> > accident. In other words, one dog having an auto accident shouldn't
> > prevent all other dogs from driving.
>
> k_flynn always tells the truth, and he proved me to be a liar many times over
Why, Proffy, we knew that. Of course I always told the truth and
accurately conveyed the true context of all the court cases cited in
your version of this losing argument last year.
All of your citations contradicted you. Remember that?
> k_flynn has been told by myself numerous times that my claim is that
> we have the Right to Drive safely.
But only with a license and insurance.
> If we can not drive safely, we do
> not have the Right to Drive dangerously.
And that's where you had to agree that dogs, cats, toddler, gnats,
amoebae and anything else that could get behind a wheel must be
allowed to drive up until the time they cause an accident. For on what
basis could we forbid all dogs to drive merely because one dog caused
an accident? Under your reasoning, we couldn't.
I of course rightly disagree.
> I say we have the Right to Drive safely, and k_flynn slanders what I
> say claiming I have said toddlers, infants, family dogs and amoebae
> have the Right to Drive
You agreed. Unless and until each and every amoebae causes an
accident, we can only forbid them one by one from driving. That was
the absolute necessary outcome of your position. Same with infants,
cats, dogs and 15 year olds.
>.. Makes me wonder if k_flynn actually believes
> toddlers, infants, family dogs and amoebae actually can drive safely.
Absolutely not, Proffy. Why, I *never* agreed with you on that point.
As you well know when you misrepresented my position above, I
consistently disagreed with that notion of yours. I believe rightly,
as courts have held consistently, that we the people have the right
through our government to set up rules and regulations fro driving
automobiles. I believe they are very reasonable and that we can
rightly conclude that amoebae in fact cannot drive safely with enough
consistently as a class to be allowed to drive. Same with cats,
infants, dogs, horses and unicorns, which I presume exist in your
fantasy world.
> k_flynn is an absolute truth teller and quite a good interpreter
> of legal opinions and cases as he was able to demonstrate when
> in fact all my court cites ended up contradicting my own position.
I know. Thank you!
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797617 ] |
Tue, 11 March 2008 05:31 |
|
On Mar 9, 3:31=A0pm, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Should 10-year-olds be driving?
Can this 10 year old drive safely?
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797619 ] |
Tue, 11 March 2008 06:22 |
|
On Mar 10, 10:31=A0pm, proffsl <prof... [at] my-deja.com> wrote:
> On Mar 9, 3:31=A0pm, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Should 10-year-olds be driving?
>
> Can this 10 year old drive safely?
And this three year old cat.
According to you, it all depends on each distinct individual and we
are not allowed to make class distinctions. So the logical end of your
position is that we must let each and every 10-year-old drive and only
prohibit the ones who do have an accident. Then the 5 year olds, one
at a time of course. Then the family dog, unless and until Fido hits
the tree with the car. Then the cats, then the amoebae... each one
judged free to drive regardless of how many amoebae have their own
accidents.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797644 ] |
Tue, 11 March 2008 15:46 |
|
On Mar 10, 7:45=A0pm, proffsl <prof... [at] my-deja.com> wrote:
> On Mar 8, 10:54=A0pm, gpsman <gps... [at] driversmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 8, 7:05 pm, proffsl <prof... [at] my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > Irresponsible people create irresponsible laws that create
> > > irresponsible parents who create irresponsible children. Laws
> > > that presume to do the parent's job are irresponsible by producing
> > > parents who believe they don't have to do their job. Driver licensing
> > > laws make the parents believe the state is doing their job of
> > > determining of their child is mature enough to be allowed to drive,
> > > so the parents surrender that decision to the state, often to their
> > > own demise.
>
> > That's about the dumbest shit ever posted to Usenet,
>
> Why don't you explain exactly how it is the "dumbest shit" ever?
>
> > but I'm willing to concede it might be true in your case.
>
> What you are doing is making a baseless accusation, and attempting to
> falsely identify it as a concession. =A0You are also resorting to
> personal attacks.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797649 ] |
Tue, 11 March 2008 16:42 |
|
On Mar 10, 4:16=A0pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article <78fdb240-df24-4ecc-9643-b7a0314be... [at] d4g2000prg.googlegroups.c=
om>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >On Mar 10, 3:24=A0pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
> >wrote:
> >> In article <a8e73f5b-5241-4986-838d-ceeabc73b... [at] i29g2000prf.googlegrou=
ps.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>
> >> >Or, an exercise of it's legitimate authority.
>
> >> >If you look in the Preamble, I'm sure you'll find something about the
> >> >"general Welfare."
>
> >> You can do better than a lame overused catch all for anything and
> >> everything.
>
> >:shrug: =A0The USC is the basis for the Republic. =A0Somehow, I doubt you=
> >could come up with "something better".
>
> The "general welfare" has been greatly mis-used over the years,
> especially in the last several decades to support many things that go
> against individual liberty. To do come up with something better I
> suggest you find a portion that isn't so vague and not used as an
> 'everything under the sun' excuse clause.
It is support for legitimate gov. function, and one more cite than you
have proving the law is due to some desire for additional control.
You have offered not a shred of evidence that it is for control
purposes.
In addition, you have a desire for a German-style system. Which
smells a bit of hypocrisy. Hmmm, ISTR an age limit in the German
system...
> You stated it yourself here:http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos.drivi=
ng/msg/41ccbf24e8df46a9...
> <ab421092-baac-4cc2-9d9f-4481a2df1... [at] s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
>
> "Except that responsible parents are quite few. =A0As long as we have
> some sort of LCD licensing system, then nibbling at the margins is
> about the best we can hope for. =A0The enemy really isn't the gov. -
> it's all of us, for accepting the system as it stands."
>
> It would appear to me that you are saying the drive behind these laws is
> in part a lack of responsible parents so the government has to step in
> and take up the slack.
No. I was stating a fact. In addition, it's a quote out of context.
Parenting *isn't* the issue. Lack of driving skill is. The state has
no interest in parenting skills. It does have an interest in keeping
unqualified motorists off the public roadways. Conflating those two
issues is a handy way to make your argument seem plausible, but they
are not the same issue.
> 'nibble at the margins' as it were to eek out
> what improvement there can be in a an LCD licensing system.
Until there is comprehensive licensing reform, ANYTHING that improves
the quality of driving is a plus. And frankly, if it's not mandated,
people won't do it. I suppose *some* people might do it - after all,
my kids are going to a real driving school well before they turn 16.
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797650 ] |
Tue, 11 March 2008 16:50 |
|
On Mar 10, 9:31=A0pm, proffsl <prof... [at] my-deja.com> wrote:
> On Mar 9, 3:31=A0pm, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Should 10-year-olds be driving?
>
> Can this 10 year old drive safely?
I don't know. Maybe we should wait until they run someone over before
we find out?
Or, better yet, let's test them to see if they can drive safely. Oh,
and let's make sure they can afford to responsibly own an automobile,
which means carrying some form of insurance or bonding.
And after testing them, why don't we issue them some sort of
certificate so we can tell which ten-year-old is actually safe, and
which one isn't. Maybe they could laminate this certificate and keep
it with them, so that, in the case there was a hassle, we could
separate the tested ten-year-olds from the non-tested ones.
Luckily, everyone except a small few boneheads understands that
operating a motor vehicle is not something a child can do safely with
reliability.
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797651 ] |
Tue, 11 March 2008 16:51 |
|
On Mar 10, 8:07=A0pm, proffsl <prof... [at] my-deja.com> wrote:
> On Mar 8, 9:28=A0pm, Harry K <turnkey4... [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 8, 3:32=A0pm, proffsl <prof... [at] my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 7, 1:01=A0pm, Harry K <turnkey4... [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mar 6, 11:01=A0am, proffsl <prof... [at] my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Read about it at:
>
> > > > >http://proffsl.110mb.com/driving.php
>
> > > > > and
>
> > > > >http://proffsl.110mb.com/driver_licensing.php
>
> > > > So turn in your license and refuse to get another one.
>
> > > I am sure you feel as if you have exercised an authoritative
> > > power beyond what you are normally use to in this police
> > > state government we live our restricted lives in, just as I am
> > > sure that doing so gives you a false sense of achievement
> > > beyond what you are normally use to, but I am not here to
> > > take directives.
>
> > > I am here to debate the validity of my claims.
>
> > Uhuh. =A0Translated: "I don't have the balls to put my money where my
> > mouth is"
>
> Well, after we run your responce through the translator, it comes out:
> "I do not have the ability to be part of a rational discussion, much
> less produce any valid counter arguments to your claim, so I will
> attempt to make you the issue, I will then proceed to make baseless
> accusations on your part and to personally attack you."- Hide quoted text =
-
The irony is hilarious.
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797652 ] |
Tue, 11 March 2008 17:12 |
|
proffsl wrote:
> Well, after we run your responce through the translator, it comes out:
> "I do not have the ability to be part of a rational discussion, much
> less produce any valid counter arguments to your claim, so I will
> attempt to make you the issue, I will then proceed to make baseless
> accusations on your part and to personally attack you."
Wrong. The plain fact is you do not make a valid argument in the first
place that needs to be countered. Your entire position is based on
misinterpretations of court cases that actually contradict you. You
even presented one "case" that was entirely fabricated. All of your
cites support the constitutionality of licensing.
If you would only present a case advocating a reasonable change in the
law, rather than a discredited and already thoroughly debunked case
that the right exists when it does now, as I told you often I could
support you. But alas, you haven't addressed the many fatal flaws in
your position, so it is still untenable on its face and needs no
countering.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797653 ] |
Tue, 11 March 2008 17:26 |
|
In article <5f597b65-fa1f-4d0b-a087-4e505537a4e6 [at] s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>On Mar 10, 4:16 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
>wrote:
>> In article <78fdb240-df24-4ecc-9643-b7a0314be... [at] d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> >On Mar 10, 3:24 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
>> >wrote:
>> >> In article <a8e73f5b-5241-4986-838d-ceeabc73b... [at] i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>
>> >> >Or, an exercise of it's legitimate authority.
>>
>> >> >If you look in the Preamble, I'm sure you'll find something about the
>> >> >"general Welfare."
>>
>> >> You can do better than a lame overused catch all for anything and
>> >> everything.
>>
>> >:shrug: The USC is the basis for the Republic. Somehow, I doubt you
>> >could come up with "something better".
>>
>> The "general welfare" has been greatly mis-used over the years,
>> especially in the last several decades to support many things that go
>> against individual liberty. To do come up with something better I
>> suggest you find a portion that isn't so vague and not used as an
>> 'everything under the sun' excuse clause.
>
>It is support for legitimate gov. function, and one more cite than you
>have proving the law is due to some desire for additional control.
>You have offered not a shred of evidence that it is for control
>purposes.
The restrictions for global warming are for the "general welfare" too.
Just about all statist control is justified as being for the "general
welfare". And on the cite count, I provided several that show licensing
is about control. It's a very mis-used catch-all.
>In addition, you have a desire for a German-style system. Which
>smells a bit of hypocrisy. Hmmm, ISTR an age limit in the German
>system...
It smells of out of context. I specifically stated a modified version
regarding competency, not the control portion which is their system as
well. The German system has a control portion which includes a very well
controlled system of driving schools and the associated high costs.
That's just one example. I specifically stated those sorts of things
would need to be stripped off.
>> You stated it yourself here:http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/41 ccbf24e8df46a9...
>> <ab421092-baac-4cc2-9d9f-4481a2df1... [at] s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
>>
>> "Except that responsible parents are quite few. As long as we have
>> some sort of LCD licensing system, then nibbling at the margins is
>> about the best we can hope for. The enemy really isn't the gov. -
>> it's all of us, for accepting the system as it stands."
>>
>> It would appear to me that you are saying the drive behind these laws is
>> in part a lack of responsible parents so the government has to step in
>> and take up the slack.
>No. I was stating a fact. In addition, it's a quote out of context.
>Parenting *isn't* the issue. Lack of driving skill is.
Graduated licensing is about when and with who the kids can drive.
That's a parenting issue. Their driving skill doesn't come into
question. Nobody is insuring they can navigate through snow or don't run
red signals, or know to turn in to the near lane or keep right except to
pass. It's about restricting when they can drive and with who.
> The state has no interest in parenting skills.
So you're going to tell me the entire CPS type systems around the nation
along with the government control over the schools are a figment of my
imagination the same way you told me the adminstrative courts were
something I 'made up'?
The state's interest in children and taking over from parents to ensure
they grow up into proper taxpayers for the general welfare has a long
history.
> It does have an interest in keeping
>unqualified motorists off the public roadways. Conflating those two
>issues is a handy way to make your argument seem plausible, but they
>are not the same issue.
IL has a graduated license system yet I was hit by a teenager in broad
daylight driving by himself. It's not doing anything with regard to
unqualified motorists here, he had all the driving skills the state
demanded and was following their rules on passenger restrictions etc as
per the graduated licensing system. He still made a boneheaded
stupid move.
Graduated licensing functions under the premise that teen drivers are
effected by their passengers and shouldn't be out at night. You said it
yourself, it was to restrict them from more challenging driving
environments... oddly they can still drive a morning commute in a snow
storm legally.
>> 'nibble at the margins' as it were to eek out
>> what improvement there can be in a an LCD licensing system.
>Until there is comprehensive licensing reform, ANYTHING that improves
>the quality of driving is a plus.
Graduated licensing doesn't improve the quality of the driving. It
restricts driving leading to less crashes in the group it restricts from
driving. Unavailable fuel has the same effect.
> And frankly, if it's not mandated,
>people won't do it. I suppose *some* people might do it - after all,
>my kids are going to a real driving school well before they turn 16.
If it's not mandated.... There's the statist think showing through even
though you yourself need no mandate. I argue the reverse, that low
government mandated standards cause people to believe they know all they
need to know when they meet the low standard. This gives them a false
sense of security and confindence they shouldn't have. They fall into
the trap of a little bit of knowledge.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797654 ] |
Tue, 11 March 2008 17:35 |
|
On Mar 11, 9:26=A0am, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article <5f597b65-fa1f-4d0b-a087-4e505537a... [at] s8g2000prg.googlegroups.c=
om>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >On Mar 10, 4:16=A0pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
> >wrote:
> >> In article <78fdb240-df24-4ecc-9643-b7a0314be... [at] d4g2000prg.googlegroup=
s.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >> >On Mar 10, 3:24=A0pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET... [at] yahoo.com (Brent P)
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> In article <a8e73f5b-5241-4986-838d-ceeabc73b... [at] i29g2000prf.googleg=
roups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>
> >> >> >Or, an exercise of it's legitimate authority.
>
> >> >> >If you look in the Preamble, I'm sure you'll find something about t=
he
> >> >> >"general Welfare."
>
> >> >> You can do better than a lame overused catch all for anything and
> >> >> everything.
>
> >> >:shrug: =A0The USC is the basis for the Republic. =A0Somehow, I doubt =
you
> >> >could come up with "something better".
>
> >> The "general welfare" has been greatly mis-used over the years,
> >> especially in the last several decades to support many things that go
> >> against individual liberty. To do come up with something better I
> >> suggest you find a portion that isn't so vague and not used as an
> >> 'everything under the sun' excuse clause.
>
> >It is support for legitimate gov. function, and one more cite than you
> >have proving the law is due to some desire for additional control.
> >You have offered not a shred of evidence that it is for control
> >purposes.
>
> The restrictions for global warming are for the "general welfare" too.
Maybe they are. How can you tell?
> Just about all statist control is justified as being for the "general
> welfare".
And legit functions of government *are* for the general welfare.
Somehow, *you* claim to be able to tell the diference without being
able to prove it.
> And on the cite count, I provided several that show licensing
> is about control. It's a very mis-used catch-all.
The definition of license is not proof of anything. It is certainly
not proof of "control", or "competance" or skill. No more than a
diploma is a guarantee of knowledge.
Get back to me when you can actually prove your claim, much less
support your opinion.
E.P.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797656 ] |
Tue, 11 March 2008 17:59 |
|
In article <2ba20aba-1368-4fd9-ba26-20cd41427b38 [at] s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> The restrictions for global warming are for the "general welfare" too.
>
>Maybe they are. How can you tell?
But 'authority' can tell? Our parental government knows what's good for
us? That's a long way from individual liberty.
>> Just about all statist control is justified as being for the "general
>> welfare".
>And legit functions of government *are* for the general welfare.
Like taking one man's property and giving it to another man because it
will be for the general welfare, in the public interest. You have too
many cars Ed. In the cause of the general welfare you should have to
give some away to people who don't have cars. Sound good? Afterall,
government has declared activities of taking from some citizens to give
to others as a legit function for itself justified by providing for the
general welfare.
>Somehow, *you* claim to be able to tell the diference without being
>able to prove it.
Well if you don't believe in individual liberty, individual rights, then
there can never be any proof.
>> And on the cite count, I provided several that show licensing
>> is about control. It's a very mis-used catch-all.
>The definition of license is not proof of anything. It is certainly
>not proof of "control", or "competance" or skill. No more than a
>diploma is a guarantee of knowledge.
>Get back to me when you can actually prove your claim, much less
>support your opinion.
Why don't you read the restictions of graduated licensing? Nahh...
because then you'll find there is nothing there to insure driving skill.
Only controls on when, where, and with who teenagers can drive. This
under the guise they will get experience under better conditions. Yet
they can still go out and drive in traffic conditions and weather that
would be extremely challenging.
The result is restrictions that are removed if they don't crash and
don't get a ticket conviction on their record. How does that do anything
wrt driving skill? Doesn't do a thing. A teenager could go to europe for
an exchange program soon after turning 16 and getting his DL then
returns just before turning 18 not having driven a car except maybe a
couple of times in the whole two years and pass right through the
restricted licensing process with flying colors. No convictions, no
crashes.... no driving experience either. Same as a kid who got a
license but had no car to drive.
You can keep trimming and squaking 'no proof!' and saying you aren't
convinced all you want, but it doesn't change the nature of these laws.
They are controls. They act to limit driving which will result in fewer
crashes by the limited group just from limiting driving. They won't
bring about experience. Anyone who knows how to design an experiment
should see right through it. You certainly should. My guess is you're
just playing games here. You know better, your own words have given it
away.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797657 ] |
Tue, 11 March 2008 18:13 |
|
On Mar 11, 9:50=A0am, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 10, 9:31=A0pm, proffsl <prof... [at] my-deja.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 9, 3:31=A0pm, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Should 10-year-olds be driving?
> >
> > Can this 10 year old drive safely?
>
> I don't know.
Why don't you know? It's your scenario.
>=A0Maybe we should wait until they run someone over
> before we find out?
If their unable to drive safely, this will most likely show itself
long before someone is run over.
> Or, better yet, let's test them to see if they can drive safely.
So, are you suggesting we License 10 year olds? Are you moving the
line in the sand? What about 9 year olds, 8 year olds? This "one
size fits all" mentality just doesn't work in the real world.
> Oh, and let's make sure they can afford to responsibly own
> an automobile, which means carrying some form of insurance
> or bonding.
"[The Individual] owes nothing to the public so long as he does not
trespass upon their rights." -- Hale vs. Hinkel, 201 US 43, 74-75 -
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/201/43.html#74
> And after testing them, why don't we issue them some sort of
> certificate so we can tell which ten-year-old is actually safe,
> and which one isn't.
>
> Maybe they could laminate this certificate and keep it with them,
> so that, in the case there was a hassle, we could separate the
> tested ten-year-olds from the non-tested ones.
Instead, why don't we just stop those who exhibit unsafe driving
behaviors before they actually run over someone? Makes more sense than
stopping people who are driving safely just to see if they have a
laminated driver license certificate! Fact is, if we're spending less
time stopping people who are driving safely just to see if they have a
laminated driver license certificate, we could spend more time
stopping people who exhibit unsafe driving behaviors.
> Luckily, everyone except a small few boneheads understands that
> operating a motor vehicle is not something a child can do safely
> with reliability.
Now you contradict yourself. Above, you said you didn't know if the
10 year old could drive safely. Now, you say they can not.
|
|
|
| Re: You have the Right to Drive [message #797661 ] |
Tue, 11 March 2008 19:14 |
|
proffsl wrote:
> On Mar 11, 9:50=EF=BF=BDam, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 10, 9:31=EF=BF=BDpm, proffsl <prof... [at] my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 9, 3:31=EF=BF=BDpm, Ed Pirrero <gcmschem... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Should 10-year-olds be driving?
> > >
> > > Can this 10 year old drive safely?
> >
> > I don't know.
>
> Why don't you know? It's your scenario.
That doesn=E2=80=99t mean he can know the safe driving abilities of every 10=
year old. Your solution is let them all drive, along with infants,
dogs and cats, unless and until they have an accident. After all, up
until they have an accident, they are likely driving safely.
You would also prevent us from setting up a system that would prohibit
10-year-old, or dogs, cats and toddlers, from driving because each
individual has the right to drive, according to you, and we cannot
judge the entire class of dogs or 10-year-old by the unsafe driving of
one Johnny, Fifi or Fido.
For you to admit that would be to open the door to legitimate
governmental authority to regulate others =E2=80=93 perhaps blind people mig=
ht
be prohibited from driving then.
> >=EF=BF=BDMaybe we should wait until they run someone over
> > before we find out?
>
> If their unable to drive safely, this will most likely show itself
> long before someone is run over.
Like when they hit my house, or a tree, or another car. But then,
under your system, we can only prohibit that particular 10-year-old,
or cat, or dog or infant, from driving, and not the whole class of
them.
>
>
> > Or, better yet, let's test them to see if they can drive safely.
>
> So, are you suggesting we License 10 year olds? Are you moving the
> line in the sand? What about 9 year olds, 8 year olds? This "one
> size fits all" mentality just doesn't work in the real world.
Correct. That=E2=80=99s one reason why we have licensing in the first place
and set ages and other restrictions. You=E2=80=99ve opened Pandora=E2=80=99s=
Box now
to legitimate government interest in safety and general welfare.
>
>
> > Oh, and let's make sure they can afford to responsibly own
> > an automobile, which means carrying some form of insurance
> > or bonding.
>
> "[The Individual] owes nothing to the public so long as he does not
> trespass upon their rights." -- Hale vs. Hinkel, 201 US 43, 74-75 -
> http://laws.findlaw.com/us/201/43.html#74
Hale was a habeas corpus case in which the word =E2=80=9Clicense=E2=80=9D ne=
ver
appears. It is non-applicable. Heck, it was a **1906** case and MV
licensing hadn=E2=80=99t even yet occurred. It involved a tobacco company
executive who refused to testify and produce company documents to a
grand jury investigating Sherman Act violations. Incidentally he lost
the case.
This is where you went wrong in your last three losing arguments on
this issue. You cannot lift isolated dicta out of completely unrelated
court cases that had nothing to do with licensing and pretend to
cobble together your own Frankenstein monster of a case law argument.
It doesn=E2=80=99t work that way. Each case decides only the questions put
before the court. If you wish to take court dicta from one case and
use it to support another point, you actually must argue that before
another court in a relevant on-point case and try to apply it. Anti-
licensing people have tried that for decades and have lost every time.
> > And after testing them, why don't we issue them some sort of
> > certificate so we can tell which ten-year-old is actually safe,
> > and which one isn't.
> >
> > Maybe they could laminate this certificate and keep it with them,
> > so that, in the case there was a hassle, we could separate the
> > tested ten-year-olds from the non-tested ones.
>
> Instead, why don't we just stop those who exhibit unsafe driving
> behaviors before they actually run over someone?
Same with infants, dogs, cats and amoebae. I see where you=E2=80=99re going
with this!
> Makes more sense than
> stopping people who are driving safely just to see if they have a
> laminated driver license certificate!
That=E2=80=99s never happened to me, nor anyone I know.
> Fact is, if we're spending less
> time stopping people who are driving safely just to see if they have a
> laminated driver license certificate, we could spend more t | |
|
