Children are fighting back! [UK Drivers]

Prev: For all those Facebookers who don't like England Flags on cars..
Next: Yet another pavement killing, by police this time.

From: Doug on 9 Jun 2010 02:32

On 9 June, 07:05, webreader <websiterea...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Jun 9, 6:18 am, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 7 June, 20:18, "GT" <a...(a)b.c> wrote:> > "Doug" <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote in message
> > > >news:a3a3ca51-f379-4b98-96ca-19e8cb28d98f(a)c33g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> > > > On 5 June, 23:04, "jamesd1974" <easyh...(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > > > Windscreen gets broken and driver continues to proceed in a straight
> > > > line while cautiously applying her brakes and hits a cyclist who
> > > > wrongly gets in her way. Obviously the driver cannot be at fault
> > > > because children broke her windscreen thus absolving her from all
> > > > blame The fact that she is in sole charge of a dangerous machine, aka
> > > > 'weapon', in a public place is of no consequence.
>
> > > Before you use the word 'weapon' again to describe a 'vehicle'. Please give
> > > us a clear definition of the word weapon, then continue to explain how it
> > > can logically be applied to a car and why we don't us it to name every
> > > single thing in the world that has ever caused harm or death to a person.
>
> > In this context this is the definition I prefer...
>
> > "Anything that serves to outwit or get the better of an opponent".
>
> > Hence, a motorist can use his car as a weapon against a cyclist but it
> > is highly unlikely that a cyclist can against a motorist who remains
> > in his car. A cyclist can use his bike as a weapon against a
> > pedestrian, as can a car driver, but the cyclist is at risk of being
> > countered by the pedestrian pushing him off with his fist weapon or
> > jamming the spokes with his stick weapon, which would be useless
> > against a car weapon.
>
> > I do hope that clarifies the matter for you.
>
> > Of course, where a victim is killed or seriously injured by a car it
> > is more obviously a weapon and should be named as such.
>
>
> OK, so if I use a knife to attempt to rob somebody, but he beats me
> off, then the knife has not been used to 'outwit or get the better of
> an opponent', so it is not a weapon.
>
Nope. It is just that you have failed in your attempt to use your
weapon to outwit somebody. It is still a weapon.

> > --
> > UK Radical Campaigns.http://www.zing.icom43.net
> > A driving licence is a licence to kill.

From: Brimstone on 9 Jun 2010 03:09

"Doug" <jagmad(a)riseup.net> wrote in message
news:7dd81f03-357c-4c67-9c15-8fef86fa6c08(a)i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On 7 June, 20:18, "GT" <a...(a)b.c> wrote:
>> > "Doug" <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote in message
>> >news:a3a3ca51-f379-4b98-96ca-19e8cb28d98f(a)c33g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>> > On 5 June, 23:04, "jamesd1974" <easyh...(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> > Windscreen gets broken and driver continues to proceed in a straight
>> > line while cautiously applying her brakes and hits a cyclist who
>> > wrongly gets in her way. Obviously the driver cannot be at fault
>> > because children broke her windscreen thus absolving her from all
>> > blame The fact that she is in sole charge of a dangerous machine, aka
>> > 'weapon', in a public place is of no consequence.
>>
>> Before you use the word 'weapon' again to describe a 'vehicle'. Please
>> give
>> us a clear definition of the word weapon, then continue to explain how it
>> can logically be applied to a car and why we don't us it to name every
>> single thing in the world that has ever caused harm or death to a person.
>>
> In this context this is the definition I prefer...
>
> "Anything that serves to outwit or get the better of an opponent".
>
> Hence, a motorist can use his car as a weapon against a cyclist but it
> is highly unlikely that a cyclist can against a motorist who remains
> in his car. A cyclist can use his bike as a weapon against a
> pedestrian, as can a car driver, but the cyclist is at risk of being
> countered by the pedestrian pushing him off with his fist weapon or
> jamming the spokes with his stick weapon, which would be useless
> against a car weapon.

What makes you think (I use the term loosely) that car drivers and cyclists
are "opponents"?

> I do hope that clarifies the matter for you.

It does, but not in the way that you want it to.

> Of course, where a victim is killed or seriously injured by a car it
> is more obviously a weapon and should be named as such.
>
Use of a "weapon" implies intent. Of all the deaths that you've posted
about, and derived pleasure from, how many have been intentional?

From: GT on 10 Jun 2010 05:37

From: GT on 10 Jun 2010 05:39

"Doug" <jagmad(a)riseup.net> wrote in message
news:7aca7bbe-5235-4ed5-9c95-7d1b169f5d60(a)y4g2000yqy.googlegroups.com...
On 9 June, 07:05, webreader <websiterea...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Jun 9, 6:18 am, Doug <jag...(a)riseup.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 7 June, 20:18, "GT" <a...(a)b.c> wrote:> > "Doug" <jag...(a)riseup.net>
> > wrote in message
> > > >news:a3a3ca51-f379-4b98-96ca-19e8cb28d98f(a)c33g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> > > > On 5 June, 23:04, "jamesd1974" <easyh...(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > > > Windscreen gets broken and driver continues to proceed in a straight
> > > > line while cautiously applying her brakes and hits a cyclist who
> > > > wrongly gets in her way. Obviously the driver cannot be at fault
> > > > because children broke her windscreen thus absolving her from all
> > > > blame The fact that she is in sole charge of a dangerous machine,
> > > > aka
> > > > 'weapon', in a public place is of no consequence.
>
> > > Before you use the word 'weapon' again to describe a 'vehicle'. Please
> > > give
> > > us a clear definition of the word weapon, then continue to explain how
> > > it
> > > can logically be applied to a car and why we don't us it to name every
> > > single thing in the world that has ever caused harm or death to a
> > > person.
>
> > In this context this is the definition I prefer...
>
> > "Anything that serves to outwit or get the better of an opponent".
>
> > Hence, a motorist can use his car as a weapon against a cyclist but it
> > is highly unlikely that a cyclist can against a motorist who remains
> > in his car. A cyclist can use his bike as a weapon against a
> > pedestrian, as can a car driver, but the cyclist is at risk of being
> > countered by the pedestrian pushing him off with his fist weapon or
> > jamming the spokes with his stick weapon, which would be useless
> > against a car weapon.
>
> > I do hope that clarifies the matter for you.
>
> > Of course, where a victim is killed or seriously injured by a car it
> > is more obviously a weapon and should be named as such.
>
>
> OK, so if I use a knife to attempt to rob somebody, but he beats me
> off, then the knife has not been used to 'outwit or get the better of
> an opponent', so it is not a weapon.
>
Doug still can't post properly:
"Nope. It is just that you have failed in your attempt to use your
weapon to outwit somebody. It is still a weapon."

You could kill someone with a sufficiently deep paper cut to the neck.
Therefore by Doug's definition, paper is a lethal weapon!! Hang on... hasn't
he taken up writing??? Murderer.

First | Prev |
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Prev: For all those Facebookers who don't like England Flags on cars..
Next: Yet another pavement killing, by police this time.