How many of you parents would like the driving age raised to 18?
in [Drive]
|
From: Lookout on 15 Feb 2010 20:39 On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 23:15:08 +0000 (UTC), Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On 2010-02-15, Lookout <mrLookout(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 21:12:36 +0000 (UTC), Brent >><tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>>On 2010-02-15, Lookout <mrLookout(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 15:15:25 +0000 (UTC), Brent >>>><tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>On 2010-02-15, Lookout <mrLookout(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 13:32:05 +0000 (UTC), Brent >>>>>><tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On 2010-02-15, Lookout <mrLookout(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 21:45:19 +0000 (UTC), Brent >>>>>>>><tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On 2010-02-14, Lookout <mrLookout(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 21:33:10 -0700, richard <member(a)newsguy.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 12:42:57 -0600, Speeders & Drunk Drivers Kill Kids >>>>>>>>>>>wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It's such a huge worry when your kids hit 16 and you remember what you were >>>>>>>>>>>> like at that age and how easy it easy for a dumb kid to drive crazy and >>>>>>>>>>>> kill/cripple himself or someone else and destroy his whole life. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hell - 20 would be even better. Teens, esp boys, are wild and don't think >>>>>>>>>>>> about consequences. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Would age make any difference? It's the fact it's your first time. >>>>>>>>>>>Kind of like hitting an amusement park for the first time you want to do >>>>>>>>>>>everything as fast as you can. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Wrong. We were all much more mature at 21 than we were at 16. >>>>>>>>>> Or at least most of us were. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>So you'll punish those who were mature enough at 16? If we are going >>>>>>>>>to use the slow-ship-in-the-fleet logic, then the driving age would be >>>>>>>>>somewhere around 65 years old, upon which it would be limited because >>>>>>>>>of age related problems. People would be allowed to drive for a few >>>>>>>>>months of their lives. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> IF we have to make an arbitrary age I simply said 21. >>>>>>>> And there are very few 16 year olds mature enough to drive. And less >>>>>>>> now than there were 30 years ago. The kids today are idiots. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>of course 30 years ago people said: "The kids today are idiots" >>>>>>> >>>>>>>This could be a free country if it weren't for people's desires to >>>>>>>control others. >>>>>> >>>>>> I want to know the streets are safe when I'm driving. I was a Drivers >>>>>> Trainer in the Army and I have a CDL. 16 year olds are NOT capable of >>>>>> being trusted to drive except under very ridged circumstances. >>>>> >>>>>'safety' is always the excuse of the tyrant and control freak. >>>>> >>>> It's called society. >>> >>>No it's not. Society declines as government control increases. > >> That's an opinion and not a fact. > >Prove me wrong. Name a society that has thrived under government >micromanagement and a police state. YOU made the assertion so it's up to YOU to provide the proof. We'll wait.
From: Brent on 16 Feb 2010 22:54 On 2010-02-17, Matthew Russotto <russotto(a)grace.speakeasy.net> wrote: > In article <hlckhs$qnd$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>Prove me wrong. Name a society that has thrived under government >>micromanagement and a police state. > > Singapore. > > (It is, AFAIK, the only one.) Economically it is ranked as the second freest country in it's region. It has thrived as controls have eased. http://www.heritage.org/index/country/Singapore
From: Brent on 16 Feb 2010 22:51 On 2010-02-16, Lookout <mrLookout(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> Still waiting for proof that it ALWAYS happens. >> >>I didn't say "ALWAYS". > > "No it's not. Society declines as government control increases. " > That's a DEFINITIVE statement. That means all no matter how you read > it. That's because that's what happens. >>ALWAYS is impossible because I'd have to prove >>things that haven't happened yet. Show me a society thriving under a >>control-freak government. > So I was right and you're wrong. Now admit it....if you can. Yes, I can't predict the future. Maybe there will be a beveloent control freak nation. Anything can happen... the chance is for all essential purposes, zero, but that's the typical BS usenet argument.... 'you can't make future predictions with 100% accuracy so you're wrong'. Never mind that the possibility of such thing is extremely small. >>>>> 2. A few examples don't justify the statement "Society declines as >>>>> government control increases". It would take a research paper to do >>>>> that.. >>>> >>>>Ahh, the old usenet 'not enough'. You're the one making the assertion >>>>that "society" is about control. >> >>> Nope. I never said that. You're lying again. >> >>You did right above. > Where? I never said those words. See below. >>me> 'safety' is always the excuse of the tyrant and control freak. >>you> It's called society. >>(control) is called society. > the word (control) is YOUR word, not mine. > You're wrong AGAIN. It's called context of your response. That's why I explained it to you with ()'s. >>>>You need to prove control is >>>>beneficial, not me needing to prove it harmful. You're the one that >>>>wants to take action, you prove the benefit. The benefit of being ruled >>>>over by a bunch of idiot control freaks deciding what is best for us and >>>>using force to achieve those ends. >>>>"society" is not control. "society" is the peaceful voluntary >>>>associations between individuals. The state is collectivism and control. >>>>Where broad definitions are used like '16 year olds are too >>>>irresponsible to drive'. There was a time when the USA was more free >>>>that 12 year olds could drive without issue. But leave it to the >>>>collectivist control freaks to decide what is best and their one size >>>>fits all policies. >>>> >>>>> Please let us know when it's published. >>>> >>>>For something that is obvious? Since smart people already know it, and >>>>dummies won't read it, there's little point of writing it. >>> You have no proof. Thank you. >>Name a nation that has thrived under a controlling micromanging central >>government. > Many monarchies have and are still. Monarchy != control freak. Monarchy is private ownership of the state. An enlightened owner of such a state knows not to be a control freak for that would destroy the asset he may wish to pass down to his children. Actually many monarchies tend to be less controlling than some if not many democracies. The US war of independence was fought over far less taxation (as percentage of income) than is extracted from us for the federal government todal. The regulations of George III were much much less than that of the US federal government as well. We are far more controlled than what the war of independence was fought to prevent. >> I gave you several examples of ones that did not. I could >>list even more and you'll say 'not enough'. You will say not >>enough once I cover every government that has ever existed because >>I don't know the ones that will exist in the future. You'll demand that >>I prove that the next time it's tried it the result will be the same. >>You'll claim lack of 100% psyhic ability as 'lack of proof'. I've been >>through this dance before. You on the other hand have a simple task >>rather than the impossible one you pose for me. You can: >>1) Find a single control freak government that ruled over a thriving >>society and endured. >>2) Prove that central control and management is beneficial. >> >>Or you can ignore the obvious fact that a central ruling group of >>control freaks stifles creativity, stifiles economic activity, makes >>people suspicious of everyone else stifiling communication and >>association, and many other things destructive to society. > > I just proved you wrong. > But you won't admit it. All you've proven is that your ignorance is greater than previously thought.
From: Lookout on 16 Feb 2010 23:21 On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 03:51:23 +0000 (UTC), Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On 2010-02-16, Lookout <mrLookout(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>>> Still waiting for proof that it ALWAYS happens. >>> >>>I didn't say "ALWAYS". >> >> "No it's not. Society declines as government control increases. " >> That's a DEFINITIVE statement. That means all no matter how you read >> it. > >That's because that's what happens. > >>>ALWAYS is impossible because I'd have to prove >>>things that haven't happened yet. Show me a society thriving under a >>>control-freak government. I've already pointed out there are many monarchies that flourish right now. You're idea has been squashed. >> So I was right and you're wrong. Now admit it....if you can. > >Yes, I can't predict the future. Maybe there will be a beveloent control >freak nation. Anything can happen... the chance is for all essential >purposes, zero, but that's the typical BS usenet argument.... 'you can't >make future predictions with 100% accuracy so you're wrong'. Never mind >that the possibility of such thing is extremely small. > >>>>>> 2. A few examples don't justify the statement "Society declines as >>>>>> government control increases". It would take a research paper to do >>>>>> that.. >>>>> >>>>>Ahh, the old usenet 'not enough'. You're the one making the assertion >>>>>that "society" is about control. >>> >>>> Nope. I never said that. You're lying again. >>> >>>You did right above. > >> Where? I never said those words. > >See below. > >>>me> 'safety' is always the excuse of the tyrant and control freak. >>>you> It's called society. > >>>(control) is called society. > >> the word (control) is YOUR word, not mine. >> You're wrong AGAIN. > >It's called context of your response. That's why I explained it to you >with ()'s. And you're wrong. I did NOT mean that. >>>>>You need to prove control is >>>>>beneficial, not me needing to prove it harmful. You're the one that >>>>>wants to take action, you prove the benefit. The benefit of being ruled >>>>>over by a bunch of idiot control freaks deciding what is best for us and >>>>>using force to achieve those ends. > >>>>>"society" is not control. "society" is the peaceful voluntary >>>>>associations between individuals. The state is collectivism and control. >>>>>Where broad definitions are used like '16 year olds are too >>>>>irresponsible to drive'. There was a time when the USA was more free >>>>>that 12 year olds could drive without issue. But leave it to the >>>>>collectivist control freaks to decide what is best and their one size >>>>>fits all policies. >>>>> >>>>>> Please let us know when it's published. >>>>> >>>>>For something that is obvious? Since smart people already know it, and >>>>>dummies won't read it, there's little point of writing it. > >>>> You have no proof. Thank you. > >>>Name a nation that has thrived under a controlling micromanging central >>>government. > >> Many monarchies have and are still. > >Monarchy != control freak. Monarchy is private ownership of the state. >An enlightened owner of such a state knows not to be a control freak for >that would destroy the asset he may wish to pass down to his children. "Society declines as government control increases" YOUR WORDS. And a monarchy has TOTAL control and they flourish. >Actually many monarchies tend to be less controlling than some if not >many democracies. Now you're back stepping. What you said was "Society declines as government control increases". You lose again. Now the blah blah blah as he tries to change the subject >The US war of independence was fought over far less >taxation (as percentage of income) than is extracted from us for the >federal government todal. The regulations of George III were much much >less than that of the US federal government as well. We are far more >controlled than what the war of independence was fought to prevent. > >>> I gave you several examples of ones that did not. I could >>>list even more and you'll say 'not enough'. You will say not >>>enough once I cover every government that has ever existed because >>>I don't know the ones that will exist in the future. You'll demand that >>>I prove that the next time it's tried it the result will be the same. >>>You'll claim lack of 100% psyhic ability as 'lack of proof'. I've been >>>through this dance before. You on the other hand have a simple task >>>rather than the impossible one you pose for me. You can: > >>>1) Find a single control freak government that ruled over a thriving >>>society and endured. >>>2) Prove that central control and management is beneficial. >>> >>>Or you can ignore the obvious fact that a central ruling group of >>>control freaks stifles creativity, stifiles economic activity, makes >>>people suspicious of everyone else stifiling communication and >>>association, and many other things destructive to society. >> >> I just proved you wrong. >> But you won't admit it. > >All you've proven is that your ignorance is greater than previously >thought. Nope. Monarchies have TOTAL control yet the still exist. Your bullshit has been proven wrong.
From: Lookout on 16 Feb 2010 23:22
On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 03:54:56 +0000 (UTC), Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On 2010-02-17, Matthew Russotto <russotto(a)grace.speakeasy.net> wrote: >> In article <hlckhs$qnd$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, >> Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>Prove me wrong. Name a society that has thrived under government >>>micromanagement and a police state. >> >> Singapore. >> >> (It is, AFAIK, the only one.) > >Economically it is ranked as the second freest country in it's region. >It has thrived as controls have eased. It's still a society that is under total control and it thrives. You lose again. |