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:
|
Thu, 9 Sep 1999 11:49:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1728 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote
> 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.
Sounds good to me. Thank you for the retraction and thought you've put into
the topic.
> 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.
Actually I seem to recall reading this recently, that there are counties(?)
that raise most of their budget this way. I have to admit that it strikes me
as amusing, and also as a "tax" that you would agree with - it's a volutary
act with known consequences :) Of course, you'll not *like* it because it
costs money you could spend on Lego, but philosophically?
> Now, in that context, to drive faster than the limit is NOT negligent.
It's not negligance in the sense of "here's a risk that I will disregard",
but it is negligant in the sense of "the community has a rule, but I will
ignore it because it suits me to do so". Doesn't matter how misplaced the
rule is in the single instance, what is important is that other people
have the expectation that you will behave lawfully, and may reasonably
act in a way that will make your judgement of risk false.
> But speeding aside, there are other conventions that we all, as drivers,
> must use, or else chaos will ensue.
This is, to me, the key statement. Speeding is acceptable insofar as it
is the expected behaviour in the time and place you are. Doing 60mph
in a residential area at 3am is negligant, regardless of the situation,
IMO, because it's so unexpected. But doing 70 in a 60 zone on the
highway may well be the accepted practice, and in that case you're right,
doing 70 is not negligant in any real way.
> 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,
Oh, I know about the rules for interaction between car and concrete. And
that they do take into account the meat on top. But I'd rather drive so
that there was as much margin for error as I can reasonably get. I drove
a truck for a job at one stage, and saw some real idiots. They scare me.
And I get to interact with some doozies every day on my bike. I'm
surprised more bank robbers don't use bikes because they're completely
invisible to so many motorists. "he ran out of the bank and just vanished!".
> Now, it is up to each and every driver to decide for themselves how to
> drive in a safe and prudent manner.
It is well established by the transportation engineers that in fact most
motorist do not make conscious decisions about that sort of thing. They
drive to the posted limit plus whatever margin they think they can get
away with.
> 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.
See above for why I disbelieve that you are avoiding negligance by speeding.
> 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.
That's what I expected you to say. We agree on that, then.
> 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
Yes. Deliberate killing is what I mean by murder, and I don't see a big
line between "die die die alien scum" and "who gives a fish". Intent,
sure, to some extent. But in both cases a decision has been made that
other peoples lives are forfeit. Bad, bad user.
> 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.
Actually the bit I remembered was a real, honest to goodness shock horror
type difference. I couldn't beleive you were serious, but you claimed to
be.
Moz
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
