Your Right to Drive
in [Drive]
|
From: proffsl on 12 Mar 2007 18:25 "proffsl" <prof...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > Strange that you appear to think we don't have > a Right to do one thing which does not trespass > upon the Rights of any others, but that we do > have a Right to do another thing which does > trespass upon the Rights of others. > > I've noticed a couple other posters in spicific who > think in the same way. Oh! It's YOU! Hahahahahaha!!!
From: Garth Almgren on 12 Mar 2007 18:31 On Mar 12, 3:12 pm, "proffsl" <prof...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: Golly, look at this! Proffy is trying to hide behind the "psudonym" <prof...(a)my-deja.com> just like he accused k_flynn of doing!@!$^ %11%@)&!!! :) > k_fl...(a)lycos.com wrote: > > > [prolific use of personal attacks deleted] > > Your prolific use of personal attacks and accusations makes it > unpleasant to seek sustentative discussion with you. <splutter> If anyone who may still be reading proffy's drivel ever had a life goal of responding to someone on Usenet with "Pot, kettle, black," now would be an opportune time... -- ~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie. Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave. ******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant." --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)
From: k_flynn on 13 Mar 2007 00:55 On Mar 12, 4:16 pm, "proffsl" <prof...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > On Mar 12, 4:12 pm, "proffsl" <prof...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > k_fl...(a)lycos.com wrote: > > > > [prolific use of personal attacks deleted] > > > Your prolific use of personal attacks and accusations makes it > > unpleasant to seek sustentative discussion with you. You lose. > > sustentative = substantive Wrong, birdbrain, I have news for you. "Sustentative" does NOT equal "substantive." Just a helpful hint from your intellectual superior.
From: proffsl on 13 Mar 2007 17:58 k_fl...(a)lycos.com wrote: > > [pathetic dribble deleted] k_fl or k_flynn, you are a waste of flesh, and time.
From: Larry on 13 Mar 2007 21:05
In article <1173736679.031038.325740(a)s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>, "proffsl" <proffsl(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > Larry <x...(a)y.com> wrote: > > "proffsl" <prof...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > 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. > > > > You ASKED a leading question. Leading questions > > imply the answer. > > I asked no leading question. An example of a leading question might > be: "You were fixing a flat tire on the evening of January 13, 2007, > weren't you?" The same question, in a non-leading form might be: > "What were you doing on the evening of January 13, 2007?" Yes, that's one example. The question you asked is another. > My question: "If someone is driving safely, what objection could you > have?" is not a leading question. That same question in a leading > form might be: "If someone is driving safely, you couldn't have any > objections, could you?" > > My question merely sets forth the condition "If someone is driving > safely" then asks the question "what objection can you have?" > > Nope. There was nothing leading about my question. You just keep telling yourself that. Just like you keep telling yourself there's a "right" to drive. > > > > 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. > > > > Not necessarily. > > That's why I can only hope they would have every objection, instead of > know they would have every objection. > > > > > > 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". > > > > Well, we cannot ensure that every person at every > > moment will actually drive safely. All we can ensure > > is that they COULD drive safely - that is, they know > > how to do so. Which is what licensing ensures. > > Pretty useless test, as virtually everyone over the age of 14 CAN > drive safely. So let's make the test more stringent! No argument from me about this! > Trouble is, many people 14 and above, are immature, and > WON'T drive safely, regardless that they CAN. Driver Licensing serves > no purpose to get those people who WILL NOT drive safely off the > streets that Laws against Reckless Endangerment didn't already serve. > There is no need to have everyone apply for a Liberty License in order > to deny one of their Right of Liberty if they abuse their Right. The > same applies to Driving. And, for such a useless test as Driver > Licensing, it sure has a lot of attachments being appended to it which > have absolutely nothing to do with driving skills. So let's make the test more stringent! No argument from me about this! > Fact is, if not for the addition of all the non-driving skill related > attachments to our Driver Licenses, I would probably have never began > my objections to the whole Driver Licensing scheme. Thanks for admitting you're opposition is not due to this supposed infringement on a "right" but because of government bureaucracy! Your entire argument exposed as fraud! > Still though, > after giving it thought, I see no practical purpose for them at all. > Except possibly for allowing minors to drive. > > If someone is immature, regardless of their age, and simply WILL NOT > drive safely, the test won't catch them, as it can only determine if > they CAN drive safely, and fact is virtually everybody over the age of > 14 CAN drive safely, and only their behavior on the highways will > catch them. > > > > > > 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". > > > > You're not required to answer anything. > > I am not required or obligated to do anything, so long as I do not > trespass upon the Rights of others. > > "[The Individual] owes nothing to the public so long as he does not > trespass upon their rights." -- Hale vs. Hinkel, 201 US 43, 74-75 - > http://laws.findlaw.com/us/201/43.html#74 > > If someone is driving safely, who's Rights are they trespassing upon? But you'd have it so that we can't do anything about it until someone is killed or injured by unsafe driving. Then, and only then, you think we should be able to go after the person. > > In fact, I wish you'd stop and just go away. > > Hahahahahahaha!!!!! I really wish you'd go away. > > > 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 I don't need a license to drive, but I need a > > license to respond to you? Absurd! > > I didn't say: "respond to". I said: "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". Without my having > answered the question as to how I THINK, their claim that I THINK > either one way or the other is in fact Bearing False Witness against > me, and without my having given them a LICENSE to do so via my > PERMISSION, such is a trespass upon my Rights. So sue us. Or shut up. Just stop whining about the "trespass on your rights." > Strange that you appear to think we don't have a Right to do one thing > which does not trespass upon the Rights of any others, but that we do > have a Right to do another thing which does trespass upon the Rights > of others. Why is this strange? > I've noticed a couple other posters in spicific who think in the same > way. It is "specific," you fool, as I have pointed out to you before. |