Subject:
|
Re: Latter Day Saints (was:Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 8 Sep 1999 11:46:48 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
lpieniazek@SPAMCAKEnovera.com
|
Viewed:
|
1427 times
|
| |
|
|
<37D509B5.92E4ADBC@voyager.net> <FHqI70.MIy@lugnet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Moz (Chris Moseley) wrote:
> Your comment that you have the right to speed because you can afford to
> compensate my family should you kill me.
Ah. OK. Well, that's putting the pieces together rather differently than
I intended, but I see where you're coming from. Let me retract the
pieces, put them together the way I intend and if you still draw the
same conclusion then lets debate it.
I still haven't dug up the original post but I recall the conversation
now. As I recall, we were talking about obeying traffic laws, and I had
stated that I did not feel bound to obey each and every law about how
fast one could go, as I felt I was a better judge of reasonable and
proper speed than a local jurisdiction who had set a speed deliberately
lower than what the road could bear and deliberately lower than what
reasonable and prudent drivers would and did drive at. I did not mention
it at the time, but this is a fairly common practice in the US, and even
considered as a way for local governments to raise additional funds from
those from out of town.
Now, in that context, to drive faster than the limit is NOT negligent.
In fact, in some of these cases, if you drive the limit you will be
CAUSING accidents because everyone else around you is going the right
(faster) speed. The proof of why this is so I will defer unless it's a
big deal, but trust me, it's straightforward transportation engineering,
which I have some familiarity with. (why that is is a long story).
Now, it is up to each and every driver to decide for themselves how to
drive in a safe and prudent manner. Usually, we are well served by
signage and laws, which act as guides to us and give us good
information. Speed traps are a case where that is not so. They are a
case where we are deliberately given bad information.
But speeding aside, there are other conventions that we all, as drivers,
must use, or else chaos will ensue. For example, in the US, there is a
convention about which side we drive on, and one about who goes in what
order upon coming to an all-way stop, the person who got there first, or
if two people arrived at the same time, the person who is to the right
of all the others (viewed as a "circle").
On public roads, and on private roads today, these conventions are
codified in the form of traffic laws. Perhaps in some future day, they
will be codified in the form of implicit or explicit contracts between
road owners and the users, but the same principles apply.
Flaunt most any of these, and you're a reckless and negligent driver.
But accidents happen, even to good drivers. It's part and parcel of the
risk one takes in being a driver or a passenger or even a pedestrian.
There is no way to make the world 100% safe, everything we do has a
risk.
If you are a driver, even a good driver, you have a duty, a
responsibility to be financially able to take care of the consequences
of accidents to the extent that you were at fault (or that no one was at
fault, in which case things get divvied up anyway, that's life...
sometimes accidents happen through no fault of anyone).
If you are reckless or negligent you are violating rights of others.
And you had better be prepared to suffer the consequences. Being ready
to suffer the consequences of being negligent is NOT the same thing as
saying it's OK to be negligent.
> You became silent when I asked
> whether I could refuse to sell the item in question.
I will be explicit now. No one can sell the life of another. No one can
buy the life of another without that other persons' explicit consent.
And being insured does not take the place of the requirement and
expectation that one should not be negligent.
> I regard deliberate
> negligance resulting in death as murder, for reasons I trust are clear.
I'm not sure if such a death is murder per se, but it certainly is
negligent homicide. Murder seems to require identification of a victim
and specific intent and motive. But that's a legalistic definition, and
I would have the penalties for both be substantially the same. So the
distinction may be moot in a practical sense but it is a distinction.
> Perhaps I just interpret what you say according to my worldview and not
> yours. As most people do :)
Na. It's more like twisting things around on purpose because you like
seeing who'll rise to the troll bait even when you know darn well what
really was intended. With this clarification or restatement (which I
think a thinking person would have arrived at without me needing to be
explicit) do you still persist in your allegation?
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ Member ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to
lugnet.
NOTE: I have left CTP, effective 18 June 99, and my CTP email
will not work after then. Please switch to my Novera ID.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
277 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
