Human Rights

[Danoff]

Agreed, government could ban visitation if they needed to.

 

[GTsail]

*****First of all, what contraband are we talking about here? Drugs? It's a violation of your rights that your government has labeled them contraband. Weapons? I think you know where I'll go with that. In fact most of the things that you'd list that the government has concerns over importing I'd say should be allowed to be imported.

To me, making a distinction over the type of contraband, does not seem to be logically consistent.

I think that a "generic" Island is within its rights to limit contraband (of whatever nature) if its Government/Citizens want to do so. And I think that if my non-generic Island of Maui wants to limit the import of non-Hawaiian plants and animals that will harm the native Hawaiian ecology, it should have the right to do so. If Maui wants to limit fire ants and snakes, it probably should have the right to do so (as long as it doesn't violate some US Federal law).

I do not see how it can possibly be right that a sovereign Island can't put some restrictions on the import of foreign objects. Where is it written that travelers to Maui or my "generic" Island have the "right" to bring whatever they wish to the island? Aren't the travelers "choosing" to visit Maui? To borrow from FoolKiller just above .... couldn't it be said that traveling to Maui is a "privilege" .... and therefore travelers to Maui can be subject to the Island's regulations?

I would even go so far as to say that the Government of Maui has the "duty" to protect its environment and the island ecology and limit the potential harm that foreign contraband might impose upon its citizens.

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[FoolKiller]

I think you are mixing a government's power to create laws with a government's right. People should be able to enter any public land they wish unhindered. Now, when the society agrees to place rules in the use of that public land they can. It is their group agreement. It still violates rights. The group agreed to releasing some rights for a form of protection.

However, that does not mean the right of citizens to have pet snakes or non-native birds is not violated. The tyranny of the majority out rules them. It does not mean the rights of tradesmen selling contrabanded items isn't violated. To use a real world example from Maui, they have a very good microbrew. It is illegal for them to sell their beer outside the state. Many agricultural-based goods cannot enter or leave the state. They also pay a very high price for this (literally).

Does your argument work for anywhere? I cannot import wine to my state. There are some very good wines I cannot buy on store shelves here that I just cannot get legally. Is it the right of Kentucky, as a sovereign state, to keep me from being able to enjoy those at home? Or is it my right to be allowed to drink an otherwise legal and non-dangerous product on my property? If I get caught with a case of Mangria as I enter the state and have to pay a fine or go to jail, is it just or unjust? The state is just protecting local wineries.

 

[Danoff]

To me, making a distinction over the type of contraband, does not seem to be logically consistent.

I wasn't making a distinction over the type. I was trying to get you to think about what constitutes contraband, and how I wouldn't support labeling it contraband.

I think that a "generic" Island is within its rights to limit contraband (of whatever nature) if its Government/Citizens want to do so.

No it is not. To put it a bluntly as possible, it is not within your rights to tell your neighbor that he cannot import his favorite plant. Why do you think you have that power over him?

And I think that if my non-generic Island of Maui wants to limit the import of non-Hawaiian plants and animals that will harm the native Hawaiian ecology, it should have the right to do so.

You know what else can harm the native Hawaiian ecology? A bulldozer, a car, gasoline, an axe, salt, human beings...

Seems like an arbitrary line to me, and one extremely likely to be co-opted by special interest. "No, importing non-local beer is damaging to the native Hawaiian breweries, it destroys Hawaiian culture (also I stand to lose money)".

Where is it written that travelers to Maui or my "generic" Island have the "right" to bring whatever they wish to the island?

Where is it written that Maui has the right to tell people what they can and cannot bring?

Aren't the travelers "choosing" to visit Maui? To borrow from FoolKiller just above .... couldn't it be said that traveling to Maui is a "privilege" .... and therefore travelers to Maui can be subject to the Island's regulations?

As with the prison example, restrictions on who can enter or leave and what they can bring with them must be based not on arbitrary values like "we think this plant is better than that plant" but based on whether it is required for the Maui government to do the job it has been charged with (same as the prison). In this case, the government has been charged with protecting human rights (as is the only legitimate function of a government over free people with rights). So any labels of contraband or restrictions on who is allowed to enter the nation must be rooted in the protection of human rights - like the examples I gave earlier.

It is very consistent with the prison example.

 

[GTsail]

*****As with the prison example, restrictions on who can enter or leave and what they can bring with them must be based not on arbitrary values like "we think this plant is better than that plant" but based on whether it is required for the Maui government to do the job it has been charged with (same as the prison). In this case, the government has been charged with protecting human rights (as is the only legitimate function of a government over free people with rights). So any labels of contraband or restrictions on who is allowed to enter the nation must be rooted in the protection of human rights - like the examples I gave earlier.

I agree with the general thrust of this part, and it's why I think that a Government has the right and the "duty" to protect its citizen's from harm. Not only its citizen's human rights but also its citizen's property and its citizen's businesses and livelyhoods.

Another Island example (its not really any different from my Maui one, so you don't need to read it if you are pressed for time):

The Island of Bermuda:

Lets say that on the Island of Bermuda, there is a McDonald's that uses nice metallic salt & pepper shaker's, that are put out on the tables for customers to use while they are in the McDonald's restaurant. The salt & pepper shakers have a nice Ronald McDonald logo on them, so they are quite enchanting.

Over time, the McDonald's restaurant realizes that the salt & pepper shakers are being stolen by the restaurant's customers. It seems that about one out of every 100 customers decides to appropriate the Ronald McDonald shakers for themselves.

After trying a few other alternatives to prevent this theft, the McDonald's restaurant decides to install scanner's at the exit from the restaurant, and requires everyone to walk thru the scanners when they exit the restaurant. These new scanners are immediately effective in reducing the "shaker" theft since they are able to detect the shaker's even if the theiving customers try to hide the stolen shakers in their backpacks or elsewhere. Nice!

Lets also say that Bermuda has a nice beach with pink sand (IRL --- I think the Elbow Beach Hotel fronts this beach).

Travelers to Bermuda have always been enchanted by the pink sand on this beach. And it is one of Bermuda's tourist attractions that pulls tourists to Bermuda each year.

However, this pink sand is so enchanting, that there has been a tendency for visitors to Bermuda to pack up some of this sand and take it away with them when they leave. About one out of a 100 visitors seem to take some of this pink sand (not IRL, this is just for my example).

Studies are done, donuts are consummed, etc......

and it is determined that at the current rate of sand "theft", in 100 years, Bermuda will no longer have a "Pink Beach".

The citizens and Government of Bermuda do not want to lose their "Pink" Beach (the citizens of Bermuda realize the draw that this "Pink" Beach has and they don't want to lose the tourist business that is created by the Beach), so they ask the TSA to install scanners at all their ports and airports.

These new airport scanners are immediately effective in reducing the pink sand theft, since the scanners are able to detect the sand even if the theiving travelers try to hide the sand in their backpack's or shoes.

My questions:

Is it ok if the Bermudian McDonald's installs scanners to prevent "shaker" theft?

Is it ok if the Bermudian TSA installs scanners to prevent "pink sand" theft?

The way I look at this is:
1) the the Ronald shakers are the property of the McDonald's restaurant, and therefore they have the "right" to limit un-authorized use of the shakers outside of the restaurant.
2) the Bermudian "pink" sand is the property of Bermuda, and therefore its citizens have the "right" to limit un-authorized use of this "pink sand" outside of the Island of Bermuda. Especially since eventually, its loss would destroy some of the Island businesses (especially the Elbow Beach Hotel).

For informational purposes, Bermuda has quite an extensive list of items that it prohibits, including the following:
Illegal drugs
Guns, explosives and ammunition
Knives and other deadly weapons
All protected species of fish
Marine turtles
Atlantic Pearl oysters
Marine mammals of all species
Historical artefacts - unless specifically authorized
Gaming machines
Counterfeit money and other goods
Hazardous materials

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[FoolKiller]

I agree with the general thrust of this part, and it's why I think that a Government has the right and the "duty" to protect its citizen's from harm. Not only its citizen's human rights but also its citizen's property and its citizen's businesses and livelyhoods.

So, are you saying Kentucky has the right to forbid me from ordering wine to be shipped to me? I asked about this before, but you either missed it or don't want to answer conflicting questions. If I try to ship wine to my home in Kentucky I could face a fine. Are my rights being violated or was I violating the rights of my local winery?

As for your example: McDonald's is fine, although why they wouldn't do the simpler, quicker, less evasive, and much cheaper RFID system every Walmart in the world uses, I don't know.

Bermuda, not fine. No clue why you changed islands for that. Maui and most Hawaiian islands have various colored beaches, including pink, and do not allow the sand to be taken, subjecting every bag to a quick search at the airport. But they do sell small bottles of the sand in gift shops. They aren't protecting their ecology, they're cashing in on tourists.

Now, you may consider that protecting their businesses, but from what? The free market? Competition? Protecting businesses is the best way to stall an economy. It is not the place of government to chose which businesses to support with law at the cost of other businesses or customers.

 

[GTsail]

*****No it is not. To put it a bluntly as possible, it is not within your rights to tell your neighbor that he cannot import his favorite plant. Why do you think you have that power over him?

Because of the potential for harm caused by the import of his favorite plant.

Here in Massachusetts, we have a relatively strict import regulation around the import and movement of ash trees and ash tree by-products. This import restiction is in place to limit the spread of the Emerald Ash Borer (a very invasive insect) which has the potential to destroy thousands of trees if its allowed to spread to the trees within the State.

My neighbor may love his ash trees, but un-restricted importation of ash trees and ash wood has the potential to destroy all of the ash forests in Massachusetts.

I agree that this regulation restricts my neighbor's enjoyment of his favorite plant, but his imported ash trees have the potential to destroy whole forests in Massachusetts, and therefore he doesn't have the right to destroy the rest of the trees in Massachusetts.

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[GTsail]

So, are you saying Kentucky has the right to forbid me from ordering wine to be shipped to me? I asked about this before, but you either missed it or don't want to answer conflicting questions. If I try to ship wine to my home in Kentucky I could face a fine. Are my rights being violated or was I violating the rights of my local winery?

Sorry I didn't answer your question earlier.... I had overlooked it.

My first thought would be that your rights as a US citizen are being violated, but not your "human rights". I would think that per Section 8 of the US Constitution, the Federal Government has the right to regulate interstate commerce, and that Kentucky doesn't have the right to treat wine from other states any different than it treats wine from within the state (with the caveat that there wasn't some other reason to restrict wine import, like contamination or disease).

But, I don't know much about interstate wine laws, so I would really need to read more to give you a more complete answer.

I did find a web-site that said that Kentucky's wine shipping laws stem from the repeal of Prohibition, and at that time, each State took it upon themselves to set up their own liquor laws. So Kentucky's wine laws probably date back to 1933.

On the face of it, Kentucky's wine laws could be something that could be over-ruled by the Federal Government as being an un-fair interstate commerce restriction. However, its likely that the Federal Government doesn't want to get back involved in liquor issues (after its black eye from Prohibition), so I doubt that you (a Kentuckian citizen) will get any relief from that direction any time soon.

Here in Massachusetts, a Federal Court in 2008, said that our liquor laws were too complex and that they violated Federal laws. However, I think that this Federal ruling to overturn the Mass liquor laws is under appeal, so I'm not sure if its been fully resolved.

Now, if it was determined that all non-Kentuckian wine was contaminated by the Emerald Ash Borer, and Kentucky wanted to prevent the import of the this invasive insect so it doesn't ruin all your Kentucky blue-grass, then I would agree that the State of Kentucky has the right to limit the import of non-Kentuckian wine. And me as a wine seller from Massachusetts, is just going to be tough-out-of-luck in being able to sell my wine into Kentucky.

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[FoolKiller]

Kentucky's wine law is restricted to only wineries making less than 50,000 gallons can ship to Kentucky consumers. That is the 2007 revision. It is clearly protecting small wineries from large Napa Valley wineries. It also allows anyone to sell through stores, which requires tons of paperwork and thousands in fees.

The initial laws come from prohibition because pre-prohibition Kentucky had a booming wine industry. They've been trying to protect and nurse it back ever since.

 

[niky]

Continued from here:

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?p=8077652#post8077652

Don't you see the problem with that? What right? I don't think anyone has the right to live, we just live. To kill me because I believe I don't have the right to live is illogical, it doesn't justify why you killed me. People have killed themselves and based upon what you said, since they don't want to live, we should kill them.

Do you believe you have the right to live or not? If you don't believe then would you defend yourself if someone tried to kill you? Ah... you would? Then you believe you have the right to live. If you don't believe, then this conversation is worthless.

People who don't believe they have the right to live have the right to kill themselves. (Well, given that they are in a sound state of mind... but typically people who do not want to live have mental problems) *I* would not kill them, because *I* believe in the right to life.

I won't deal with rights of people. I think I made myself clear that laws based upon logic can deal with most issues, but those "grey areas" proves my point that there is an issue that logic just doesn't tell much of what is just. Just that it's logically wrong.

How do they prove it?

There is only one really gray area. Abortion. And that is only gray because there is a disagreement over when a fetus becomes a human being. In other words, a lack of knowledge.

"Based upon statistics and science", ahhh the truthfulness lol.

"Lies, damn lies and statistics"-Mark Twain

Cute sayings are merely cute sayings. In this case, though, the statistics are backed up by experimental evidence.

We don't need proof to know that drunk driving is wrong. And I'm hesitating in saying that, because is it true because of the evidence or my belief? I guess now we have proof for it and it was always there... or was it?

We need proof if we're to make a law about it. Fortunately, we have it. We have anecdotal and statistical proof that people who drive drunk have caused death and destruction.

We have experimental proof showing that people who are drunk have poor judgment, poor coordination and poor reflexes. There is also experimental proof showing that even before a drinker reaches the legal limit, their ability to drive is impaired.

What more evidence do you need?

drunk driving is not wrong until you violate someone, just saying.

Penalties are almost as stiff where there is no victim as they are when the victim dies(where I live).

Here's where it gets sticky. Operating dangerous machinery when you're drunk and on your own property with no one else around is your own business and nobody else's. You're only going to hurt yourself.

"Public" roads are the property of the State, and driving on those roads is a privelege, not a right. Yes, you pay taxes for those roads, but you don't own them. The State does. And an anti-drunk driving law is the State's way of protecting its citizens. Drunk driving on public roads is like shooting your gun into the air in a crowded neighborhood. It's homicidally dangerous and rightfully illegal.

 

[Keef]

Here's where it gets sticky. Operating dangerous machinery when you're drunk and on your own property with no one else around is your own business and nobody else's. You're only going to hurt yourself.

"Public" roads are the property of the State, and driving on those roads is a privelege, not a right. Yes, you pay taxes for those roads, but you don't own them. The State does. And an anti-drunk driving law is the State's way of protecting its citizens. Drunk driving on public roads is like shooting your gun into the air in a crowded neighborhood. It's homicidally dangerous and rightfully illegal.

Let's be clear for people not in the know: The word State in the US refers to the citizens, not the institution of government. The only reason the American government has any authority is because the people allow it to through a contractual agreement made long ago. That's why it's called public - not because the government owns it and allows people to use it, but because the people own it and allow the government to take care of it.

Obviously that precedent is rarely understood or followed.

As for victimless crimes like drunk driving and speeding, I think they should be unenforceable. They illegal, yes, but why? No life, liberty, or property was harmed. Until you harm it of course, and then you should be prosecuted for that rights violation. It's illogical to me to punish somebody when they've not done anything wrong.

As for shooting carelessly: It's almost universally illegal in urban areas and universally not illegal in rural areas. Could it still randomely land on somebody or somebody's property and cause a violation? Yes. Then why isn't it illegal everywhere?

 

[skoSko9]

Continued from here:

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?p=8077652#post8077652



Do you believe you have the right to live or not? If you don't believe then would you defend yourself if someone tried to kill you? Ah... you would? Then you believe you have the right to live. If you don't believe, then this conversation is worthless.

People who don't believe they have the right to live have the right to kill themselves. (Well, given that they are in a sound state of mind... but typically people who do not want to live have mental problems) *I* would not kill them, because *I* believe in the right to life.

I just want to say sorry about how i kept on posting in the god thread, i forgot to post here because i didnt expect it to get into law.

Anyway, its not a right. Its respecting someone elses life but it is not a right. And if it so happens someone attacks me and i dont make it out alive, who's to say he is wrong? If he is wrong, its because of a belief from respect through which logic defines the appropriate method. Its so easy to say stuff like killing them because of their beliefs that no one has a right to live, but is that the way it works?

How do they prove it?

There is only one really gray area. Abortion. And that is only gray because there is a disagreement over when a fetus becomes a human being. In other words, a lack of knowledge.

What? Seriously? A lack of knowledge? So its okay to make a choice since we dont know? Again, i dont mind, as I've said before it depends on the situation which one has to take into account the pros and cons. But dont tell me its going to be clear after we have knowledge, its a gray area because we cant know if it is a right or wrong choice until we make the choice.

Cute sayings are merely cute sayings. In this case, though, the statistics are backed up by experimental evidence.

Statistics justifies adding fecal matter to rivers, because a "little" wont hurt, right? Its okay to cut trees because statistically we have more than ever before! Oh lets ignore their only 5ft tall. It justifies, but doesnt tell whether we should or not. Thats why a cute saying explains most of the issues that there is no such thing as water pollution, air pollution, radiation, etc. And if it turns out that it is affecting us, we still turn our cars, waste water and paper because it's "necessary". Hey im okay with that, and i can do something that helps the environment. I may be wrong, but the consequences will come from reality, not from logic. Logic can help us with the evidence, but the evidence wont show until we did the damage, and a good example of this is the ozone layer hole in 1980(?) from fluorocarbons.

We need proof if we're to make a law about it. Fortunately, we have it. We have anecdotal and statistical proof that people who drive drunk have caused death and destruction.

We have experimental proof showing that people who are drunk have poor judgment, poor coordination and poor reflexes. There is also experimental proof showing that even before a drinker reaches the legal limit, their ability to drive is impaired.

What more evidence do you need?

I am not denying that drunk driving does increase the chance that it can kill victims, just why does punishing them will do any justice to the damage already done? If they dont believe they done anything wrong, where is the justice from that? It deters people because of fear, but there isnt any justice when it happens, its too late...

*EDIT*

The last part got a bit personal, it seems stupid to ask that, my bad

 

[hogger129]

Life, liberty and property with the ability to defend all three in the best way possible.

 

[niky]

I just want to say sorry about how i kept on posting in the god thread, i forgot to post here because i didnt expect it to get into law.

No problem.

Anyway, its not a right. Its respecting someone elses life but it is not a right. And if it so happens someone attacks me and i dont make it out alive, who's to say he is wrong? If he is wrong, its because of a belief from respect through which logic defines the appropriate method. Its so easy to say stuff like killing them because of their beliefs that no one has a right to live, but is that the way it works?

What is a logical reason for someone else to attack you?

What? Seriously? A lack of knowledge? So its okay to make a choice since we dont know? Again, i dont mind, as I've said before it depends on the situation which one has to take into account the pros and cons. But dont tell me its going to be clear after we have knowledge, its a gray area because we cant know if it is a right or wrong choice until we make the choice.

I'm not saying it is right to make the choice The question of whether abortion is right or wrong doesn't change after an abortion. If an abortion is medically necessary, then it's medically necessary.

We lack the knowledge to pinpoint when the baby becomes human. Some say it's as soon as it's fertilized, but is a clump of undifferentiated cells a human? Some say a baby that can't exist outside the womb doesn't count as human, but babies outside the womb in incubators and people on life support are still human.

If we could pinpoint the exact moment human consciousness occurs, then we might get a better idea, but we probably would ignore the data if it shows that consciousness (humanity/spirit/whatever) occurs at three years of age instead of birth.

Mind you... I am NOT pro-Abortion. But I recognize that abortion is sometimes medically necessary. And I recognize a mother's rights to her own body. The question in my mind is when do the rights of the child begin, and how far before birth they begin.

Statistics justifies adding fecal matter to rivers, because a "little" wont hurt, right? Its okay to cut trees because statistically we have more than ever before! Oh lets ignore their only 5ft tall. It justifies, but doesnt tell whether we should or not. Thats why a cute saying explains most of the issues that there is no such thing as water pollution, air pollution, radiation, etc. And if it turns out that it is affecting us, we still turn our cars, waste water and paper because it's "necessary". Hey im okay with that, and i can do something that helps the environment. I may be wrong, but the consequences will come from reality, not from logic. Logic can help us with the evidence, but the evidence wont show until we did the damage, and a good example of this is the ozone layer hole in 1980(?) from fluorocarbons.

No. Human fecal matter adds pathogens to the water.

We don't have more trees than ever before. There is no logic in cutting down trees wholesale. But there is nothing wrong with farming trees.

And we really shouldn't be churning out disposable stuff, because of the waste. We do anyway because people have illogical wants and desires.

RE: Ozone hole... and yet when presented with the evidence, we changed that, didn't we?

I am not denying that drunk driving does increase the chance that it can kill victims, just why does punishing them will do any justice to the damage already done? If they dont believe they done anything wrong, where is the justice from that? It deters people because of fear, but there isnt any justice when it happens, its too late...

*EDIT*

The last part got a bit personal, it seems stupid to ask that, my bad

As for victimless crimes like drunk driving and speeding, I think they should be unenforceable. They illegal, yes, but why? No life, liberty, or property was harmed. Until you harm it of course, and then you should be prosecuted for that rights violation. It's illogical to me to punish somebody when they've not done anything wrong.

As for shooting carelessly: It's almost universally illegal in urban areas and universally not illegal in rural areas. Could it still randomely land on somebody or somebody's property and cause a violation? Yes. Then why isn't it illegal everywhere?

RE: State, it is understood that the State represents the people, and it acts to promote the interests of the people. Of course, it doesn't always do that, but that's a quibble.

I have stated that I see nothing wrong with drunk driving on private property, with no one else around. What you do to mangle, decapitate or kill yourself (good lucking doing the second without doing the third) is your own business. Driving drunk on the open road that you share with other users is a bit like juggling chainsaws in a crowded mall. Except people can see you're juggling chainsaws and stay away from you. On the road, it's not always obvious when crossing an intersection that there's a chainsaw-wielding juggler coming around the bend.

Indiscriminate shooting into the air is the same. Not really any difference between doing that and shooting into a crowded room without aiming. Here it's illegal wherever you are, but obviously can't be enforced out in the boondocks. I suppose the exception in the United States is to make way for hunters, but shooting at a bird for sport is not indiscriminate. Not unless you're Dick Cheney.

In victimless crimes such as these, I think the question is willful disregard for the safety of others... or homicidal intent... are you violating the rights of others by knowingly playing Russian Roulette with their lives?

 

[skoSko9]

What is a logical reason for someone else to attack you?

Well, it's not really a logical reason... A belief can justify why someone decides to attack someone, sometimes there are no reason, just a way to blow off some steam. I guess this sounds logical, but I argue that it's not that it makes sense from reason, rather from experience.

I'm not saying it is right to make the choice The question of whether abortion is right or wrong doesn't change after an abortion. If an abortion is medically necessary, then it's medically necessary.

We lack the knowledge to pinpoint when the baby becomes human. Some say it's as soon as it's fertilized, but is a clump of undifferentiated cells a human? Some say a baby that can't exist outside the womb doesn't count as human, but babies outside the womb in incubators and people on life support are still human.

If we could pinpoint the exact moment human consciousness occurs, then we might get a better idea, but we probably would ignore the data if it shows that consciousness (humanity/spirit/whatever) occurs at three years of age instead of birth.

Mind you... I am NOT pro-Abortion. But I recognize that abortion is sometimes medically necessary. And I recognize a mother's rights to her own body. The question in my mind is when do the rights of the child begin, and how far before birth they begin.

The problem of personhood, probably the biggest issue we face to this day. I agree to you about how the rights (this is totally off topic, but after a good minute of reflecting what I was saying[bull****lol], you were right about rights lol) of women should be allow and the situation taken into account. My issue is that what practical difference does it make when the child becomes conscious or not? You said that "babies outside the womb in incubators and people on life support are still human"... hmmm that's questionable too, we say they are but are they really? I think the issue with laws is that it is too absolute for situations in which it doesn't care about the situation, just what is right under the state.

For me, its after the choice, not making the choice that then decides whether it was right or wrong. The reason I say this is because again, it is subjective. And I stress this on my last post that the Law can be wrong, despite coming from a true premise. This might be irrelevant to abortion, but in cases of death row, imprisonment and torture, sometimes breaking the law can be a good thing.

No. Human fecal matter adds pathogens to the water.

We don't have more trees than ever before. There is no logic in cutting down trees wholesale. But there is nothing wrong with farming trees.

And we really shouldn't be churning out disposable stuff, because of the waste. We do anyway because people have illogical wants and desires.

RE: Ozone hole... and yet when presented with the evidence, we changed that, didn't we?

The thing with the fecal matter is true, except they call it sewage maintenance or something in corporate jargon. And the trees, not sure if it is true, but people use it anyways.

And the thing with the ozone hole, it's just a matter of ignorance which is fascinating. If we've done damage, damn we must stop! We sometimes don't, which is not surprising. Right now, they just recently showed that pesticides is bad for humans (no ****, Sherlock), but they still put it on every food in the store (except the "organic"). What surprises me is that no one thought it was such a bad idea when they planned for it in the first place. Only after the damage was done to the environment, to other species and now to us, maybe we'll do something about it. It goes to show, the more smarter we are, the more ignorant we become. This can be solved by being more open to our ignorance...

RE: State, it is understood that the State represents the people, and it acts to promote the interests of the people. Of course, it doesn't always do that, but that's a quibble.

I have stated that I see nothing wrong with drunk driving on private property, with no one else around. What you do to mangle, decapitate or kill yourself (good lucking doing the second without doing the third) is your own business. Driving drunk on the open road that you share with other users is a bit like juggling chainsaws in a crowded mall. Except people can see you're juggling chainsaws and stay away from you. On the road, it's not always obvious when crossing an intersection that there's a chainsaw-wielding juggler coming around the bend.

Indiscriminate shooting into the air is the same. Not really any difference between doing that and shooting into a crowded room without aiming. Here it's illegal wherever you are, but obviously can't be enforced out in the boondocks. I suppose the exception in the United States is to make way for hunters, but shooting at a bird for sport is not indiscriminate. Not unless you're Dick Cheney.

In victimless crimes such as these, I think the question is willful disregard for the safety of others... or homicidal intent... are you violating the rights of others by knowingly playing Russian Roulette with their lives?

I guess when you're talking about just one person, who cares. But when you include the family that loses (not at risk) the person, then maybe it's wrong? When it gets personal, my issue is that the state just follows procedures which can be wrong. But hey that's the best we can do...

 

[Keef]

shooting into a crowded room without aiming.

There's nothing criminal about shooting into a crowded room without aiming. Now, if you do that and harm somebody, then you've got a problem. If you do that and harm someone's property, you've got a problem. If you do that and limit somebody's liberty, you've got a problem.

In victimless crimes such as these, I think the question is willful disregard for the safety of others...

What if I said I drive drunk all the time but never willfully endanger others. I don't want to put anybody in a spot, I just want to get home. Surely it happens but that would have to be proven in court. If no crime is committed (no life, liberty, or property infringed) then I don't believe there is reason to believe a person willfully endangered others. If they got home then there is reason to believe that they wanted to get home.

I've actually called the cops on a drunk driver before. I followed her for about 20 miles. She never violated any lives or properties but I believed she violated my freedom to choose my own personal space on the road.

People still have the right to complain and call the cops. Not everything has to be illegal preemptively.

...are you violating the rights of others by knowingly playing Russian Roulette with their lives?

As I insinuated, it would depend on if the potential victim felt their rights were violated and complained. At that point, or when a crime has been committed and police catch their guy, these issues need to be resolved in court on an individual basis.

 

[niky]

Well, it's not really a logical reason... A belief can justify why someone decides to attack someone, sometimes there are no reason, just a way to blow off some steam. I guess this sounds logical, but I argue that it's not that it makes sense from reason, rather from experience.

You can only make sense of things through the application of reason.

The problem of personhood, probably the biggest issue we face to this day. I agree to you about how the rights (this is totally off topic, but after a good minute of reflecting what I was saying[bull****lol], you were right about rights lol) of women should be allow and the situation taken into account. My issue is that what practical difference does it make when the child becomes conscious or not? You said that "babies outside the womb in incubators and people on life support are still human"... hmmm that's questionable too, we say they are but are they really? I think the issue with laws is that it is too absolute for situations in which it doesn't care about the situation, just what is right under the state.

A human is a human, even with a non-functional heart. Is Stephen Hawking a human? He has a non-functional body, yet he can use reason and logic better than most of us. In the case of Siamese twins, sometimes one will have incomplete organs, effectively becoming a parasite of the other. Yet that one will have the capacity to think, feel and act as a human being.

This is why I reject the operational definition of a "separate organic entity" when treating an unborn child as non-human. If that organism is a parasite, so be it. But that organism may be human.

The point at which a child or fetus becomes a thinking human being is definitely important. We don't assign vegetables human rights. And it's very easy to see that a blastocyst is not much more than a vegetable, but what about an eight month old fetus?

For me, its after the choice, not making the choice that then decides whether it was right or wrong. The reason I say this is because again, it is subjective. And I stress this on my last post that the Law can be wrong, despite coming from a true premise. This might be irrelevant to abortion, but in cases of death row, imprisonment and torture, sometimes breaking the law can be a good thing.

Others in this thread would have something to say about the ends not justifying the means.

Deciding things on a case by case basis doesn't have to be subjective. It can be objective. What you're arguing against is absolute laws with no leeway. But we try not to make them that way.

The thing with the fecal matter is true, except they call it sewage maintenance or something in corporate jargon. And the trees, not sure if it is true, but people use it anyways.

And the thing with the ozone hole, it's just a matter of ignorance which is fascinating. If we've done damage, damn we must stop! We sometimes don't, which is not surprising. Right now, they just recently showed that pesticides is bad for humans (no ****, Sherlock), but they still put it on every food in the store (except the "organic"). What surprises me is that no one thought it was such a bad idea when they planned for it in the first place. Only after the damage was done to the environment, to other species and now to us, maybe we'll do something about it. It goes to show, the more smarter we are, the more ignorant we become. This can be solved by being more open to our ignorance...

Treated sewage is relatively safe. Except for the problem of algae bloom. But waste has to go somewhere.

Pesticides are a tricky problem. Some pesticides have been developed from natural substances. Lots of plants already have natural pesticides built into them. In fact, one of the most protested pesticides out there... RoundUp... developed by the (evilcorporatebloodsuckinggiant) Monsato Corporation, was developed from naturally occurring substances. It's definitely dangerous stuff, in the right concentrations. But those concentrations are so high that you'd have to be drinking it straight to die from it. The latest "study" on it (the famed cancerous rat study) was laughable, anti-GMO propaganda released by a "scientist" who actively promotes anti-glycophosate homeopathic therapies for the fringe.

This is not an endorsement of industrial agriculture... the improper application of which makes our soil poorer. I like the term used by one wag: Soil Mining. Robbing us of our most precious resource, topsoil.

Ignorance is not an option. That's why billions are spent each year in research to ensure we don't remain ignorant of the risks. Which people usually choose to ignore, anyway. But if you mean we should admit we don't know what we don't know... yes... that's true. But again... that's why so many studies and certifications are required before products go to market.

I guess when you're talking about just one person, who cares. But when you include the family that loses (not at risk) the person, then maybe it's wrong? When it gets personal, my issue is that the state just follows procedures which can be wrong. But hey that's the best we can do...

True. The State often gets it wrong.

As for the family. Yes, that's a complicating factor. But their attachment to you doesn't outweigh your right to decide your own destiny. Put another way, if you rely on life-support and want the plug pulled, who gets to decide whether it's pulled or not? You or your family?

There's nothing criminal about shooting into a crowded room without aiming. Now, if you do that and harm somebody, then you've got a problem. If you do that and harm someone's property, you've got a problem. If you do that and limit somebody's liberty, you've got a problem.

It's the intent to harm. Difficult to prove in court, but honestly, if you're a firearm owner and with the proper training to acquire a license, you've had it drilled into your head over and over that you never, ever discharge a firearm without the intent to kill something or hit something, because you will eventually hit something. Indiscriminate firing, in this case, would signal the intent to harm, and should be appropriately punished. Laws against firing into the air take this into account.

Drunk driving would be similar. We've been trained to drive and and have had it drilled into our heads that driving under the influence is dangerous to other road users. Thus, driving this way, we are willfully ignoring everyone else's rights to life.

While, yes, I have driven drunk in the past, I would certainly have thrown my own ass in jail if I were the cop responding to a call for drunk driving. The difference between drunk driving and other forms of distracted driving is that your ability to perceive how impaired you are is less, so while it's possible to drive home dead drunk without getting into an accident, it's only possible if you know you're dead drunk.

-

Let's put it this way: If you shoot at a man on purpose and miss, what's the difference between that and shooting in his general direction and missing? You've still unleashed a dangerous projectile towards him for no good reason.

 

[skoSko9]

You can only make sense of things through the application of reason.

Based upon a belief. A famous quote by St. Augustine, "believe to understand," which is true for very simple reasons.

A human is a human, even with a non-functional heart. Is Stephen Hawking a human? He has a non-functional body, yet he can use reason and logic better than most of us. In the case of Siamese twins, sometimes one will have incomplete organs, effectively becoming a parasite of the other. Yet that one will have the capacity to think, feel and act as a human being.

This is why I reject the operational definition of a "separate organic entity" when treating an unborn child as non-human. If that organism is a parasite, so be it. But that organism may be human.

The point at which a child or fetus becomes a thinking human being is definitely important. We don't assign vegetables human rights. And it's very easy to see that a blastocyst is not much more than a vegetable, but what about an eight month old fetus?

A human is a human, but if we killed a fetus or a 2 day old fertilized egg is it okay? Again, depends on the situation. In all honesty, I can't say anything about it because I have a penis. But to give personhood to an egg so abortion would be illegal? This gets into problems that what then is a person? Steven Hawking may be smart, still could care less if he was robbed and raped (If it was someone else, anybody else, I would be more sympathetic. But I don't care about Steven Hawking lol). Siamese twins? If the human is a parasite to the host, I might cut it off to save the host. If the parasite is conscious? Damn, I really don't know... It depends on the situation and what I believe...

Others in this thread would have something to say about the ends not justifying the means.

Deciding things on a case by case basis doesn't have to be subjective. It can be objective. What you're arguing against is absolute laws with no leeway. But we try not to make them that way.

I think you made a great point about how it has to be objective and not subjective. I think that's what I was attacking in the first place, the objectivity of absoluteness. Even if it has some leeway, I still think that in the end it has to be dealt with subjectively. A bit of wisdom would unite both the objectivity and subjectivity, and I can see how this can lead to some problems in the end. But it's only a problem if we see it broadly. If we narrow it locally and not worldwide, I think it is manageable.

A good example of the ends justifying the means is imagine you are hiding Jews in your house, and Nazi's coming to your house and asks you "Do you have Jews in your house?". I would say, "No".

But I really can't say that if I believed the ends don't justify the means. I always say, it depends on the situation. Sometimes yes, sometimes no it depends. It's after the choice that then tells me whether I was right or wrong. I know you didn't say that, but to whoever did, this is my argument!!

Treated sewage is relatively safe. Except for the problem of algae bloom. But waste has to go somewhere.

Pesticides are a tricky problem. Some pesticides have been developed from natural substances. Lots of plants already have natural pesticides built into them. In fact, one of the most protested pesticides out there... RoundUp... developed by the (evilcorporatebloodsuckinggiant) Monsato Corporation, was developed from naturally occurring substances. It's definitely dangerous stuff, in the right concentrations. But those concentrations are so high that you'd have to be drinking it straight to die from it. The latest "study" on it (the famed cancerous rat study) was laughable, anti-GMO propaganda released by a "scientist" who actively promotes anti-glycophosate homeopathic therapies for the fringe.

This is not an endorsement of industrial agriculture... the improper application of which makes our soil poorer. I like the term used by one wag: Soil Mining. Robbing us of our most precious resource, topsoil.

Ignorance is not an option. That's why billions are spent each year in research to ensure we don't remain ignorant of the risks. Which people usually choose to ignore, anyway. But if you mean we should admit we don't know what we don't know... yes... that's true. But again... that's why so many studies and certifications are required before products go to market.

Yep agree!👍

True. The State often gets it wrong.

As for the family. Yes, that's a complicating factor. But their attachment to you doesn't outweigh your right to decide your own destiny. Put another way, if you rely on life-support and want the plug pulled, who gets to decide whether it's pulled or not? You or your family?

Again, you make great points, but in the end it must be dealt with subjectively. If I decide to pull the plug but my family doesn't want to, who's to say who's right and who's wrong? I really don't know, even if the State gives me the right to do so, I can't help but wonder if that was what should've been done.

Let's put it this way: If you shoot at a man on purpose and miss, what's the difference between that and shooting in his general direction and missing? You've still unleashed a dangerous projectile towards him for no good reason.

I'll attack this if you don't mind... What's the difference between holding a gun and not? The reason I say that is because it makes clear the danger between both of them. If I apply this to a car, then it makes sense to say "you run the risk of harming someone when driving a car" which is true, whether under the influence or not. If that's the case, then normal accidents should be treated the same as drunk driving, depending on the severity of the law in the state. I don't deny that driving drunk is more dangerous, just where do we set the line in how we operate the car and the consequences of what we do?

 

[niky]

Based upon a belief. A famous quote by St. Augustine, "believe to understand," which is true for very simple reasons.

Belief is a tricky thing. The greatest misapplication of logic (and the use it is typically put to) is to justify people's beliefs rather than to verify them. Personally, I'd rather believe in that which can be proven.

A human is a human, but if we killed a fetus or a 2 day old fertilized egg is it okay? Again, depends on the situation. In all honesty, I can't say anything about it because I have a penis. But to give personhood to an egg so abortion would be illegal? This gets into problems that what then is a person? Steven Hawking may be smart, still could care less if he was robbed and raped (If it was someone else, anybody else, I would be more sympathetic. But I don't care about Steven Hawking lol). Siamese twins? If the human is a parasite to the host, I might cut it off to save the host. If the parasite is conscious? Damn, I really don't know... It depends on the situation and what I believe...

Ignoring the latent Hawkingphobia here, the question is whether the host will die if the parasite remains attached. That is what is often considered when separating conjoined twins. With abortion, it is often a shortcut to waiting out nine months of your life, after which, you will be rid of the parasite forever.

A good example of the ends justifying the means is imagine you are hiding Jews in your house, and Nazi's coming to your house and asks you "Do you have Jews in your house?". I would say, "No".

But I really can't say that if I believed the ends don't justify the means. I always say, it depends on the situation. Sometimes yes, sometimes no it depends. It's after the choice that then tells me whether I was right or wrong. I know you didn't say that, but to whoever did, this is my argument!!

More of the case going like this: The Nazis ask you if you are hiding Jews. If you turn them over, they die.

If you don't turn them over, the Nazis will raze a nearby village and kill more innocent people. What do you do?

Again, you make great points, but in the end it must be dealt with subjectively. If I decide to pull the plug but my family doesn't want to, who's to say who's right and who's wrong? I really don't know, even if the State gives me the right to do so, I can't help but wonder if that was what should've been done.

The wishes of the patient are the ones that are always followed. You have the right to your life, and nobody else may gainsay you in this.

I'll attack this if you don't mind... What's the difference between holding a gun and not? The reason I say that is because it makes clear the danger between both of them. If I apply this to a car, then it makes sense to say "you run the risk of harming someone when driving a car" which is true, whether under the influence or not. If that's the case, then normal accidents should be treated the same as drunk driving, depending on the severity of the law in the state. I don't deny that driving drunk is more dangerous, just where do we set the line in how we operate the car and the consequences of what we do?

If a person chooses to jump out in front of a car or pull a fake gun on you and go "bang bang", then they have performed an action that may cause their deaths. Your liability is minimal to non-existent.

The mere act of driving is dangerous. The mere act of shooting a gun is dangerous. But in each case, you can take precautions so that any death results from using either will not be due to your actions. That's why we have rules on the use of both guns and motor vehicles. Those rules are the line we set that determines our liability.

"Normal" accidents caused by recklessness or disregard of these rules are punished more severely than a simple DUI with no accident, if I recall properly. Especially if someone dies as a result.

If a car could be equipped with a breathalyzer attached to a siren and big billboards that would scream: "DRUNK" to the world at large as a car goes down the street, there may be no issue. A drunk driver can wind his merry way home and the entire world would avoid him. But most of the time, the first indication you get that the guy crossing against the red light at the next intersection is drunk is when his front bumper goes through your driver side door.

 

[Keef]

never, ever discharge a firearm without the intent to kill something or hit something, because you will eventually hit something.

Drunk driving would be similar. We've been trained to drive and and have had it drilled into our heads that driving under the influence is dangerous to other road users. Thus, driving this way, we are willfully ignoring everyone else's rights to life.

The only way to drive without endangering anybody would be to simply not drive. Like the only way to not shoot anybody is to not shoot. Driving is inherently dangerous. Perfectly "good" and sober drivers crash at an alarming rate. You may say drunk ones have a higher percentage but we don't have statistics for all the drunk drivers who never get caught. I really don't think drunk driving is anything to worry about given that people hit things perfectly sober way too often.

While, yes, I have driven drunk in the past, I would certainly have thrown my own ass in jail if I were the cop responding to a call for drunk driving.

We've both done it. The difference between us is that you're insinuating you'll never again drive over the legal limit, or that you'll at least feel really bad about it, while I'm not insinuating either of those but simply that I'd own up if I actually harmed somebody's life, liberty, or property.

You've still unleashed a dangerous projectile towards him for no good reason.[/B][/COLOR]

Re: Sober people still crash because driving is inherently dangerous, unlike not shooting a gun.

 

[Danoff]

The mere act of driving is dangerous. The mere act of shooting a gun is dangerous. But in each case, you can take precautions so that any death results from using either will not be due to your actions. That's why we have rules on the use of both guns and motor vehicles. Those rules are the line we set that determines our liability.

Those rules are determined by popular vote and not logic. Don't appeal to law for what's right. Death can result from your actions and still be right. For example, if someone pulls a fake gun on you, and it is convincing that the person intended to kill you, you can shoot them dead and be in the right. Your action killed them, and you are in the right.

"Normal" accidents caused by recklessness or disregard of these rules are punished more severely than a simple DUI with no accident, if I recall properly. Especially if someone dies as a result.

Punishment is a separate issue from rights and from just action.

If a car could be equipped with a breathalyzer attached to a siren and big billboards that would scream: "DRUNK" to the world at large as a car goes down the street, there may be no issue. A drunk driver can wind his merry way home and the entire world would avoid him. But most of the time, the first indication you get that the guy crossing against the red light at the next intersection is drunk is when his front bumper goes through your driver side door.

Their bumper can go through your driver's side door for any number of reasons. They were changing the radio station, messing with satnav, changing the climate control, talking to a passenger, straightening out their kids in the back seat, a bee was in the car, their hair was in their face, they were doing their makeup, being high, being drunk, just being a bad driver, performing sexual acts, neglectful of brake maintenance, etc. etc. etc.

Most of those things aren't illegal, but it is still illegal to plow through someone's driver's side door - and that's all that really matters. Raise the penalty for being drunk and getting in an accident, that's fine with me. It does demonstrate poor judgement and neglect for those around you. But until you actually do something wrong (like swerving out of your lane, missing a stop sign, or hitting another car), it shouldn't be illegal. We don't want to go down the road of trying to make every irresponsible activity you could be performing in your car while driving illegal.

 

[niky]

RE: Punishment, that was in response to someone asking about it.

Some of the rules are determined by popular vote or by absolutely arbitrary measures, but some aren't. Not pointing a gun unless you intend to use it is not an arbitrary precaution. And not crossing against a red light is not due to popular opinion.

I'd argue that speed limits are absolutely arbitrary and done for reasons other than safety, if only because speed limits should be elastic and dependent on conditions and not set towards 80% of average speed to raise revenues. BAC limits are arbitrary, but that's just because we can't give license tests to every single drunk out on the road.

I can't argue FOR removing rules against "victimless" crimes on the road, because we implement rules against "victimless" crimes on the racetrack as a matter of course. You can't prevent all accidents, but removing stupid is always a good idea. We enforce codes of conduct on the racetrack BECAUSE it is dangerous, not in spite of it being so.

This limits the liability of those involved in accidents. All those who share the racetrack understand the risks and the expected code of conduct. This is the same on the road.

Again... driving off the road, your life, go ahead. Driving on a road that doesn't belong to you and which is shared with other users, you follow the etiquette and expected courtesies of road use or find somewhere else to exercise your freedom of mobility.

The laws of the sea are even stricter. And nobody owns the water...

 

[Danoff]

I can't argue FOR removing rules against "victimless" crimes on the road, because we implement rules against "victimless" crimes on the racetrack as a matter of course. You can't prevent all accidents, but removing stupid is always a good idea. We enforce codes of conduct on the racetrack BECAUSE it is dangerous, not in spite of it being so.

On a private track, feel free to prevent stupid. On public roads preventing stupid with the force of law has to be very carefully justified.

This limits the liability of those involved in accidents. All those who share the racetrack understand the risks and the expected code of conduct. This is the same on the road.

The road is built with tax dollars, so all tax payers own the road to some extent. Restricting the ability of someone from using something he has partial ownership in needs to be done with a great deal of care. What if there was a law that said that it is illegal to play certain kinds of music on your car stereo because it is distracting? The public owns the road right? They can discriminate against any minority they choose right? No rap or heavy metal music, it distracts the driver.

 

[niky]

Carefully yes. But to not do it at all? Consider the road a corporation and the taxpayers stakeholders... shouldn't the corporation act to protect the interests of the majority of its stakeholders?

-

I'm not going to argue about the slippery slope towards outlawing everything. And I'm not in favor of outlawing everything. But the obverse is to allow everything, from uninsured drivers (without proven capacity to pay) to unlicenses and untrained drivers in vehicles with sharp pointy bits pointing forward.

 

[Keef]

Not pointing a gun unless you intend to use it is not an arbitrary precaution.

I believe it is. Not pointing a gun at somebody unless you intend to use it is a goodwill guideline practiced by responsible gun owners, not because the law says so, but because they're not stupid and value safety.

And not crossing against a red light is not due to popular opinion.

It isn't? Then why has it been signed into law by representatives of the people? The only reason laws are laws are because the majority of people apparently think they should be laws. They do have the ability to stop any proposal from being signed in our representative government.

Personally, I see no logical reason to remain stopped at a red light when there is no traffic. There are a few locations and times around the city where I've recently begun treating them as stop signs because going on my merry way doesn't hurt anybody and therefore there's no logical argument against it.

I'd argue that speed limits are absolutely arbitrary and done for reasons other than safety, if only because speed limits should be elastic and dependent on conditions and not set towards 80% of average speed to raise revenues.

I agree with this. Following the speed limit where it's safe to go over is sort of like remaining stopped at a red light when nobody is coming. It makes the city money (red light cameras, etc) but it just doesn't make sense. Whether you take the risk to go faster to pull through the light is up to you, but you must take responsibility for any consequences.

BAC limits are arbitrary, but that's just because we can't give license tests to every single drunk out on the road.

Sure you can. All you have to do is set up a sobriety checkpoint, stop and harass every car that goes through it, and pick about one person over the legal limit (aka not drunk) out of every 200 that pass through.

...removing stupid is always a good idea.

The idea of liberty is that people have the freedom to make their own decisions, including stupid ones. If they can't make stupid decisions then they don't have liberty because their ability to choose has been restricted.

Removing stupid is never a good idea in a public setting. Enforcing high penalties for stupid after the stupid has been committed is a good idea. How about instead of handing out petty DUIs like they're candy, we instead hand out life sentences on the rare occasions when some drunk idiot runs over a kid. Go ahead and drive drunk all you want, but if you screw up your life is basically over. DUIs don't cut it - you get your license taken a few times and eventually you get a funny yellow plate but besides that you can still work and have a family and make money and whatever else. And they never even had a chance to actually harm somebody so people really don't see it as a big deal.

The laws of the sea are even stricter. And nobody owns the water...

I don't know much about the sea but I do know a lot about the air. The FAA proposes quite a lot of guidelines and recommendations but not nearly as many "laws" as you would think. The few laws that are strictly enforced have very heavy consequences, namely the removal of your ability to pilot an aircraft ever again. But it's a bit different system on the ground because ground-based law enforcement agencies have no authority in the air, though they all think they do.

 

[Danoff]

Carefully yes. But to not do it at all?

No I'm not arguing that we can't do it at all. We deny people use of public property, or particular use of public property all the time. Roads are no different in that regard. Denying someone the use of a road, for instance, who had demonstrated reckless driving, is a perfectly justifiable action. They had demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to follow the rules of the road. But denying someone the use of a public road who had not demonstrated those things simply because you think maybe they were doing something that would prevent them from doing so... despite not having any proof about this particular person... despite them not having actually broken any rules of the road? No that's not justifiable. Speed limits are arbitrary as well. Once again, reckless driving covers excessive speed. But at least in the case of speed one could demonstrate that all road-legal vehicles were incapable of driving above the posted speed responsibly. At least that's even possible. For drunk driving that's not even possible.

(^obscure temple of doom reference)

I'd also be happy for cars to get certified to go faster than a particular speed limit.

 

[Keef]

I'd also be happy for cars to get certified to go faster than a particular speed limit.

That sounds similar to how some airplanes are certified to do certain special things. To add to this I'd suggest the drivers getting certified to operate those special vehicles, as pilots have to be certified in more advanced airplanes.

I'm perfectly willing to accept more demanding drivers training. It's so pathetic it may as well not even exist (my mom never took driver's ed and she gets along just fine for an oldish lady). The more I fly the more convinced I am that I'm surrounded by thoughtless morons on the road, most of whom only think they know the actual rules, and then don't follow them with any discernible method anyhow. Where the money will come from to pay for this advanced training is up in the air - literally, because flight training comes out of my own pocket or that of an employer. Subsidizing should not be an option. If an advanced performance and problem-solving oriented course were offered for an extra fee I would probably sign my future kids up. If it came with extra privileges I'd definitely sign them up.

 

[skoSko9]

Belief is a tricky thing. The greatest misapplication of logic (and the use it is typically put to) is to justify people's beliefs rather than to verify them. Personally, I'd rather believe in that which can be proven.

But you believe what was proven based upon a premise that proves it to be true (did that make sense?). Which is basically a belief.

I understand that often people explain why their beliefs is right and not what it actually means for it to be right. But to even understand something, you need to believe in it.

A good example would be believing in miracles. Let's say that you believe in miracles (assume the premise). If something happens (massive car accident, yet child lives with few injuries) and someone says that's not a miracle because of lucky chance and so on (things that cannot be proven), how can he understand it's a miracle if he does not believe in miracles?

(Miracles are the unlikely chance of something happening that happens and favors the person.)

I don't want to get into God giving miracles or stuff like that, but if it's just based upon premises, then the only way those premises can make sense is if you believe them to be true.

Ignoring the latent Hawkingphobia here, the question is whether the host will die if the parasite remains attached. That is what is often considered when separating conjoined twins. With abortion, it is often a shortcut to waiting out nine months of your life, after which, you will be rid of the parasite forever.

The parasite usually is very unlikely to survive, but again it depends.

For abortion- No, you don't get rid of the parasite, it lives which must be maintained. My issue with people who are pro-life is that they only care about the baby when it's in the fetus. The moment that it is born, "good luck kid you're on your own" ******** comes out. They could care less about all the orphans that are out there, but if they do, it seems abortion is much more important than the orphans. If it's not even our problem, then doesn't it make sense to talk about what to do with the orphans than the fetuses? And if abortion is still a problem, then like I said, it depends on the situation.

More of the case going like this: The Nazis ask you if you are hiding Jews. If you turn them over, they die.

If you don't turn them over, the Nazis will raze a nearby village and kill more innocent people. What do you do?

Isn't that the same thing I said, just inverted? It's even more complicated because now I don't know which justifies the means, but I probably choose... damn this is difficult lol, saving the jews.

If a person chooses to jump out in front of a car or pull a fake gun on you and go "bang bang", then they have performed an action that may cause their deaths. Your liability is minimal to non-existent.

The mere act of driving is dangerous. The mere act of shooting a gun is dangerous. But in each case, you can take precautions so that any death results from using either will not be due to your actions. That's why we have rules on the use of both guns and motor vehicles. Those rules are the line we set that determines our liability.

"Normal" accidents caused by recklessness or disregard of these rules are punished more severely than a simple DUI with no accident, if I recall properly. Especially if someone dies as a result.

If a car could be equipped with a breathalyzer attached to a siren and big billboards that would scream: "DRUNK" to the world at large as a car goes down the street, there may be no issue. A drunk driver can wind his merry way home and the entire world would avoid him. But most of the time, the first indication you get that the guy crossing against the red light at the next intersection is drunk is when his front bumper goes through your driver side door.

Those rules are determined by popular vote and not logic. Don't appeal to law for what's right. Death can result from your actions and still be right. For example, if someone pulls a fake gun on you, and it is convincing that the person intended to kill you, you can shoot them dead and be in the right. Your action killed them, and you are in the right.

Regardless of the precautions, you still take the risk which of course if something bad were to happen, the State must punish the crime. What I'm saying is very simple, what determines the punishment of the crime? And why do we need to make drunk driving more punishable? Regardless of whether you're drunk or not, I said that this depends subjectively of the people, regardless of reason. What doesn't make sense is if all were doing is punishing the crime, why the added emphasis on drunk driving? If drunk driving should be treated harsh, isn't that because of opinion and not of reason? Even if we make the punishment harsher, it doesn't really do much to prevent it. Point proven on the "War on Drugs".

I think this is very simple flaw in Law, which the best way to deal with it is not by having harsher laws to prevent drunk driving, just educating that it is bad. The Law for drunk driving then becomes completely unnecessary.

 

[Danoff]

Regardless of the precautions, you still take the risk which of course if something bad were to happen, the State must punish the crime. What I'm saying is very simple, what determines the punishment of the crime? And why do we need to make drunk driving more punishable? Regardless of whether you're drunk or not, I said that this depends subjectively of the people, regardless of reason. What doesn't make sense is if all were doing is punishing the crime, why the added emphasis on drunk driving? If drunk driving should be treated harsh, isn't that because of opinion and not of reason? Even if we make the punishment harsher, it doesn't really do much to prevent it. Point proven on the "War on Drugs".

I think this is very simple flaw in Law, which the best way to deal with it is not by having harsher laws to prevent drunk driving, just educating that it is bad. The Law for drunk driving then becomes completely unnecessary.

Society can "punish" you for committing a crime, because when you commit a crime you (should) have violated someone's rights. Once you do that, you forfeit a corresponding set of your own rights. At that point whether or not society punishes you and how is up to them (within the bounds of your crime). You simply have no logical basis for claiming the punishment is unjust.

To take a simple example: you murder an innocent person. Your right to life is now forfeit. Society can execute you, incarcerate you, or do nothing. It is up to them. You cannot argue with any of those outcomes because you have forfeit your right to life.

 

[Ealirendur]

Society can "punish" you for committing a crime, because when you commit a crime you (should) have violated someone's rights. Once you do that, you forfeit a corresponding set of your own rights. At that point whether or not society punishes you and how is up to them (within the bounds of your crime). You simply have no logical basis for claiming the punishment is unjust.

To take a simple example: you murder an innocent person. Your right to life is now forfeit. Society can execute you, incarcerate you, or do nothing. It is up to them. You cannot argue with any of those outcomes because you have forfeit your right to life.

Opinion, not Fact, unless agreed on by that particular society (regarding the execution part). That's Lex Talionis in its simplest form, and is not universally agreed upon (whether or not it should be); there are a few weird places where the right to life is never directly forfeited (a mere 40% of the world's population, apparently). Of course, in some it is not a given in the first place.

Two questions. An evolving social contract could allow for a society to eventually allocate a cost to exercise any particular freedoms; that could include driving at all, let alone inebriated, based on the expected cost to said society (in the risk management sense). Increased taxation on smoking or alcohol is an example. Allowing for your preferred idealised set of natural rights (or whatever terms you prefer), at what point(s) are personal rights to Liberty outweighed by the right to Life ("Your right to do as you please ends at my nose" ... Or property)? Can we set a figure in terms of millimorts (including probable lifespan reduction, possibly to the person wanting to exercise the freedom)?

Second... Noting that Capital punishment is still employed in the most populous nations on earth, at what point is the right to life diminished (more easily forfeited) by population levels (possibly verminous, to use a deliberately inflammatory term for the purposes of discussion)? Perhaps again in terms of risk to other existing lives (or liberty)?

Are these affected if a portion of the population is effectively immortal?

Forgive me if badly written, on mobile device.