Personal Freedom vs. Public Welfare

[eider]

You're kidding, right?

:AMR:

How could folks believe that a confession is certain proof? It's crazy, isn't it.....

We watched the films about Rillington Place ... both of them, these last two evenings. Evan's confessions in his Sworn Statements are a typical example of confessions having been rubbish.

 

[eider]

Nah, it's just you acting like a dipstick. You have no room to blabber on about emotional maturity given your track record of obsessive stalking on here. Who on earth would be so much of a kid to challenge another poster on their obvious legal credentials on pain of a permanent ban on here? Just you.

I've never been banned on here for that kind of whacko stuff.

(Stop driving while drunk).

Have you adjusted your 'ignore' list?
I haven't!

 

[ok doser]

Have you adjusted your 'ignore' list?
I haven't!

That's retarded

 

[ok doser]

.... the potential to cause harm ....

So this is the determinant factor for you, the presence of which allows you to judge as just a law that seeks to punish a person for engaging in an action which has caused no harm?

You're willing to accept laws that are designed to mitigate the potential to cause harm?

While I am more accepting of laws that seek to punish wrongdoers AFTER harm occurs.

 

[ok doser]

Nah, it's just you acting like a dipstick. You have no room to blabber on about emotional maturity ...

I said nothing about "emotional maturity". Go back and reread what I wrote. I was describing your stunted degree of development of REASONING which is stalled at the level of a child who uses emotions as facts and can't operate on fact-based reason and logic.

 

[ok doser]

You seem to be smarting because you can't justify your ...

Not smarting and not justifying


I presented a scenario to illustrate a point I was making in a conversation with Chair. All the rest of YOUR involvement has been an emotional reaction to what you thought was a factual narrative.

Because you're retarded. :sigh:

 

[Arthur Brain]

I said nothing about "emotional maturity". Go back and reread what I wrote. I was describing your stunted degree of development of REASONING which is stalled at the level of a child who uses emotions as facts and can't operate on fact-based reason and logic.

Well, just as well really because you haven't got any but again, this is fascinating stuff. You've been presented with reason, logic and facts and because you can't refute them you project your own petulance which is both amusing and ironic. Dude, your game was up a long time ago. Stalking posters to the point of distraction? Seriously, what were you "thinking" of when you challenged TH on his lawyer credentials?

Don't drive while drunk.

 

[Arthur Brain]

How could folks believe that a confession is certain proof? It's crazy, isn't it.....

We watched the films about Rillington Place ... both of them, these last two evenings. Evan's confessions in his Sworn Statements are a typical example of confessions having been rubbish.

Crazy and then some but bear in mind, the guy ain't overly blessed in the brain department...

 

[Arthur Brain]

So this is the determinant factor for you, the presence of which allows you to judge as just a law that seeks to punish a person for engaging in an action which has caused no harm?

You're willing to accept laws that are designed to mitigate the potential to cause harm?

While I am more accepting of laws that seek to punish wrongdoers AFTER harm occurs.

You're a wrongdoer each and every time you are irresponsible enough to get drunk and drive. You get caught doing so then you deserve to be punished for it. Don't like it? Go and drive drunk to the state troopers barracks and whine about it to them. See how that works out for ya.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Not smarting and not justifying


I presented a scenario to illustrate a point I was making in a conversation with Chair. All the rest of YOUR involvement has been an emotional reaction to what you thought was a factual narrative.

Because you're retarded. :sigh:

Oh c'mon dude, you must have something else besides the "retarded" shtick? Seriously, it's boring, get some new material.

It wasn't a "scenario", you were talking about criminal activity that you've engaged in so don't be all coy because your position is untenable. Just stop doing it.

:thumb:

 

[Rusha]

Here, let me spell it out for you in simple terms. Being drunk and driving car bad. Drunk be like brain not working right. Slow like reaction times. Bigger risk of stuff going bad and crashes and stuff. That be why it criminal offence.

Ya got it now?

Yay, jolly good!

:thumb:

You need to be more to the point.

 

[chair]

What I wrote was in English and used fairly common, fairly simple language that should have been understandable. What part are you struggling with?

I say that it is impossible to maintain a society without rules, including rules that punish dangerous behavior- even if such behavior did not in fact cause harm. You claim that such rules are "unjust" in that they punish people for their behavior even though they haven't harmed anybody.

So I asked you a simple question, which you have repeatedly avoiding answering: How can a society have reasonable and safe traffic without traffic laws- including laws that punish people for not obeying traffic lights. Describe to me such a setup!

You can't and keep playing games.

 

[quip]

So I asked you a simple question, which you have repeatedly avoiding answering: How can a society have reasonable and safe traffic without traffic laws- including laws that punish people for not obeying traffic lights. Describe to me such a setup!

He can't....because this is about HIM, not other people.



It's all 'bout doser!

 

[ok doser]

You're a wrongdoer each and every time you are irresponsible enough to get drunk and drive.

Right. That's your position and that's the way the law's written now. And you're willing to accept it as a just law.

You get caught doing so then you deserve to be punished for it.

Again I understand that that's your position and you feel that way. This is your emotions talking.

I disagree

Don't like it?

Again this is your emotions talking. It's not a matter of whether or not I like it. It's a matter of whether or not I think it's a just law.


The rest of your post was just more silly emotional nonsense.

 

[ok doser]

Oh c'mon dude, you must have something else besides the "retarded" shtick?

You ARE retarded artie, as is quip, as is eider, as are many of the posters here. Your reasoning is stunted at the developmental level of a child. It is delayed. It is retarded. You treat emotions as facts. You are unable to reason using real facts. You are unable to use or understand logic. Your reasoning is that of a child.

 

[Arthur Brain]

You ARE retarded artie, as is quip, as is eider, as are many of the posters here. Your reasoning is stunted at the developmental level of a child. It is delayed. It is retarded. You treat emotions as facts. You are unable to reason using real facts. You are unable to use or understand logic. Your reasoning is that of a child.

Calm down Nancy, just because you've made a clot of yourself on here, there's no need for these sort of histrionics...

 

[ok doser]

I say that it is impossible to maintain a society without rules ...

And I would agree

, including rules that punish dangerous behavior- even if such behavior did not in fact cause harm.

I don't disagree with that, merely recognize that those rules are inherently unjust. They may be necessary.

You claim that such rules are "unjust" in that they punish people for their behavior even though they haven't harmed anybody.

Yes, they are inherently unjust

It may be that society cannot function without inherently unjust rules.

So I asked you a simple question, which you have repeatedly avoiding answering: How can a society have reasonable and safe traffic without traffic laws ...

it can't

- including laws that punish people for not obeying traffic lights. Describe to me such a setup!

Easy - formulate such laws so that they are inherently just, so that they punish behaviors and actions that cause harm.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Right. That's your position and that's the way the law's written now. And you're willing to accept it as a just law.

It is a just law, one that makes absolute sense

Again I understand that that's your position and you feel that way. This is your emotions talking.

I disagree

No, it's simply a law that makes sense. Drink driving should be an offence for obvious reasons so those caught over the limit should be punished for it. Simple stuff.

Again this is your emotions talking. It's not a matter of whether or not I like it. It's a matter of whether or not I think it's a just law.


The rest of your post was just more silly emotional nonsense.

The projection is strong with this one...

It's a law based on sound reason. As explained umpteen times already, being drunk renders you in an unfit state to drive a vehicle. Your judgement, response and reactions are impaired and slowed and you are a danger on the road.

 

[ok doser]

Calm down Nancy,

:yawn: emotional

just because you've made a clot of yourself on here,

:yawn: emotional

there's no need for these sort of histrionics...

:yawn: emotional

:sigh: every post you make further proves my point

 

[ok doser]

It wasn't a "scenario"..

It was.

It was a scenario that I was using to illustrate a point I was making in a conversation I was having with Chair.