Your Right to Drive
in [Drive]
|
From: Larry on 10 Mar 2007 22:22 In article <1173572257.339025.321680(a)t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>, "proffsl" <proffsl(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > Regardless of k_flynn's claim to honesty, he would have us believe we > have the Right to use our public highways for personal travel in the > ordinary way, so long as we obey laws that presume to convert that > Right into a privilege. He would have you believe that, because it's true. Well, except for it being a right converted into a privilege. It's just a privilege. Always has been, always will be (absent legislation or constitutional amendment saying otherwise) You really don't understand the difference between traveling and operating a multi-ton machine, do you? > Additionally, if a natural accoutrement of > that ordinary way was to "get a license", then 120 years ago citizens > would have been required to "get a license" in order to exercise their > Right to use the public highways for personal travel in the ordinary > way. What's the "ordinary way" can change over time. In the wild west, the "ordinary way" of communicating was the Pony Express. Then the "ordinary way" of communicating became the landline telephone. Now its cell phones and pagers and two-way text messaging. Of course the first car ever rolled off the assembly line didn't require a license to operate - the law is always playing catch-up to technology. But considering that the overwhelming majority of drivers (and all legal drivers) have driver's licenses and properly registered vehicles, I would say that's the ordinary way of driving these days! (And this is assuming that the "ordinary way" argument even applies. As K_flynn has explained to you umpteen times, that was dicta in a case that has NOTHING TO DO WITH DRIVER LICENSING.) > Fact is, the requirement that we "get a license" is not a natural > accoutrement of "personal travel in the ordinary way", but instead it > is an artificial attachment made at the whim of the state. It is not made on a whim. Every state has clear, objective requirements for obtaining a license. They're extremely basic thresholds - heck, many people think the standards should be tightened. But there's no whim involved - meet the criteria, you get your license. It doesn't matter what race you are, or gender, or hair color, or whether the state likes you or not. Everyone who meets the criteria gets a license. > Given this > artificial attachment, K_flynn would have us think that "personal > travel in the ordinary way" really means "personal travel in the > permitted way". Well, the "ordinary way" is by obtaining a license, so sure, I'll buy that. > > > But, deny it as he assuredly will, k_flynn did > > > inadvertently allow this implicit conclusion to come > > > through. After denying it here, he will next excuse it. > > > > No need to excuse something that I neither implicitly nor > > explicitly said. > > Which explains k_flynn's need for excusing it. He's not excusing anything. As is standard M.O. for you, you're twisting and contorting what he said. > > You cannot put words in my mouth; > > I have put no words into k_flynn's mouth. Yes, you have. > Unlike k_flynn, when I > asked the question: "If someone is driving in a safe manner, what > objection could you have?". He insisted the question was invalid and > that I exchange the "someone" with "a toddler" Well, a toddler is someone, isn't s/he? > so I obliged him to > demonstrate the validity of the question, and asked: "If a toddler is > driving in a safe manner, what objection could you have?". K_flynn > never did answer the question as I originally asked it, but he did > then begin to falsely claim I had said toddlers can drive safely. You are strongly suggesting a toddler could drive safely. If you admit a toddler cannot drive safely (which I think all rational people would agree) than your question is utter nonsense, since it asks about a situation that is factually impossible. So either you think that toddlers can drive safely or you are spewing nonsense. And you deny stating that you think toddlers can drive safely, so that means you're spewing nonsense. > > > > you can barley get coherent words out of your own. > > Now k_flynn is attempting to divert the discussion from the issue onto > his impression of myself. No, it is his impression of the quality of your argument. Don't take it personally - he's right. As others have noted, your grammar, spelling, sentence construction, and capitalization are atrocious. And your logic isn't far behind! > > Get this straight: > > Coming from k_flynn, That would be an oxymoronic request. Since you are incapable of thinking clearly, it is. > > The "ordinary way" in which we use our streets fully > > includes a system of licensing and registration. > > You cannot illogically put that outside the system > > and claim it's not part of it. > > Rather, it is k_flynn who is disingenuously attempting to convert the > meaning of "personal travel in the ordinary way" into "personal travel > in the permitted way", thereby artificially and illogically putting it > inside the system. Why are you referring to what k_flynn is doing every time you reply to one of his comments? Your arguments would be alot stronger if, instead of telling us what you think he is doing, you actually responded to what he was saying. Perhaps with some (unfabricated, authentic) court cases, even! (the rest of proffy-woffy's useless and repetitive drivel snipped)
From: Larry on 11 Mar 2007 01:12 In article <1173591827.239046.154850(a)30g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, k_flynn(a)lycos.com wrote: > > THIS IS AN INFRINGEMENT ON MY RIGHT TO TRAVEL FREELY!! BAN STOP > LIGHTS!!! You know, I think proffy has a point (wanna bet he'll disingenuously snip just this part of my post to imply I agree with him?) - we are prisoners to blacktop. I want to drive wherever I want, but the guiderails on the side of the road are preventing me from exercising my Right to Travel! And don't even get me started about exits on the highway. It's infringing on my rights to say I can only exit in the places that the government says I can exit!!!
From: proffsl on 11 Mar 2007 09:17 Larry <x...(a)y.com> wrote: > "proffsl" <prof...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > Unlike k_flynn, when I asked the question: > > "If someone is driving in a safe manner, what > > objection could you have?". He insisted the > > question was invalid and that I exchange the > > "someone" with "a toddler" > > Well, a toddler is someone, isn't s/he? True. > > so I obliged him to demonstrate the validity of the > > question, and asked: "If a toddler is driving in a safe > > manner, what objection could you have?". K_flynn > > never did answer the question as I originally asked it, > > but he did then begin to falsely claim I had said > > toddlers can drive safely. > > You are strongly suggesting a toddler could drive safely. False. I SUGGESTED nothing. I only ASKED something. It was you and k_flynn who were wrongfully suggesting something. > If you admit a toddler cannot drive safely (which I think > all rational people would agree) than your question is > utter nonsense, since it asks about a situation that is > factually impossible. You are, deliberately I hope, overlooking the blatantly obvious counterpart to the question, that being: If someone isn't driving safely, what objection can you have? Every objection, I would hope. > So either you think that toddlers can drive safely or you > are spewing nonsense. We have both agreed that a "toddler" is someone. I don't have to think "someone" can drive safely for the question to be completely valid. The question asks: "If someone IS DRIVING safely". It does not ask: "If someone CAN DRIVE safely". > And you deny stating that you think toddlers can drive > safely, I'm not going to be required to answer: "If I THINK someone CAN DRIVE safely", when I asked the question: "If someone IS DRIVING safely". Even if you had have answered my question, I still would not have answered your question. Additionally, my refusal to answer: "If I THINK someone CAN DRIVE safely" did not give you LICENSE to claim I THINK either one way or the other, as you and k_flynn have wrongfully done. > so that means you're spewing nonsense. False. What this means is that you, and k_flynn, are quite deliberately putting words into my mouth, which I never spoke. But, that's par for the course when playing with you two.
From: proffsl on 11 Mar 2007 09:22 Larry <x...(a)y.com> wrote: > "proffsl" <prof...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > Unlike k_flynn, when I asked the question: > > "If someone is driving in a safe manner, what > > objection could you have?". He insisted the > > question was invalid and that I exchange the > > "someone" with "a toddler" > > Well, a toddler is someone, isn't s/he? True. > > so I obliged him to demonstrate the validity of the > > question, and asked: "If a toddler is driving in a safe > > manner, what objection could you have?". K_flynn > > never did answer the question as I originally asked it, > > but he did then begin to falsely claim I had said > > toddlers can drive safely. > > You are strongly suggesting a toddler could drive safely. False. I SUGGESTED nothing. I only ASKED something. It was you and k_flynn who were wrongfully suggesting something. > If you admit a toddler cannot drive safely (which I think > all rational people would agree) than your question is > utter nonsense, since it asks about a situation that is > factually impossible. I don't have to admit to anything for my question to be completely valid. If someone is driving safely, what objection can you have? None, I would think. You are, deliberately I hope, overlooking the blatantly obvious counterpart to the question, that being: If someone isn't driving safely, what objection can you have? Every objection, I would hope. > So either you think that toddlers can drive safely or you > are spewing nonsense. We have both agreed that a "toddler" is someone. I don't have to think "someone" can drive safely for the question to be completely valid. The question asks: "If someone IS DRIVING safely". It does not ask: "If someone CAN DRIVE safely". > And you deny stating that you think toddlers can drive > safely, I'm not going to be required to answer: "If I THINK someone CAN DRIVE safely", when I asked the question: "If someone IS DRIVING safely". Even if you had have answered my question, I still would not have answered your question. Additionally, my refusal to answer: "If I THINK someone CAN DRIVE safely" did not give you LICENSE to claim I THINK either one way or the other, as you and k_flynn have wrongfully done. > so that means you're spewing nonsense. False. What this means is that you, and k_flynn, are quite deliberately putting words into my mouth, which I never spoke. But, that's par for the course when playing with you two.
From: k_flynn on 11 Mar 2007 11:59
On Mar 11, 7:22 am, "proffsl" <prof...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > False. What this means is that you, and k_flynn, are quite > deliberately putting words into my mouth, which I never spoke. But, > that's par for the course when playing with you two. Wrong, dopehead. It's you who lies. You put words into a court's decision that were never written. Now THAT'S lying and THAT's par for the course when playing with you. |