Your Right to Drive
in [Drive]
|
From: Larry on 13 Mar 2007 21:06 In article <1173737526.888841.146320(a)8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com>, "proffsl" <proffsl(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. He loses? In what world? He's wiped the floor with you!
From: proffsl on 15 Mar 2007 10:46 Larry <x...(a)y.com> wrote: > "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. > > He loses? In what world? He's wiped the floor with you! You and him are losers from the get go. You always have been, and always will be. LOSERS. Oh! You'll claim you won, but you lost. I've wiped the floor of every room in the house with you and k_flynn AKA k_fl. The two of you have lost at every turn. You never had a chance. You are the biggest liars that ever where, lying everywhere you go, and that is why you are LOSERS where ever you go. Stick a fork in the two of you, you're done. I've proved it beyond a doubt. It's a dead fly on your nose, and you refuse to acknowledge it. But, it's there, all squished and icky, with fly blood splattering all over your noses. LOSERS.
From: Larry on 15 Mar 2007 12:12 In article <1173969990.133811.208800(a)y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, "proffsl" <proffsl(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > Larry <x...(a)y.com> wrote: > > "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. > > > > He loses? In what world? He's wiped the floor with you! > > You and him are losers from the get go. You always have been, and > always will be. LOSERS. Oh! You'll claim you won, but you lost. Actually, the LAW says we won. Only the court case you FABRICATED has ever said we lost! Hahahahaha! > I've wiped the floor of every room in the house with you and k_flynn > AKA k_fl. Really? In what way? Who here agrees with you? Anyone? Anyone? > The two of you have lost at every turn. You never had a > chance. You are the biggest liars that ever where, lying everywhere > you go, and that is why you are LOSERS where ever you go. Stick a > fork in the two of you, you're done. I've proved it beyond a doubt. > It's a dead fly on your nose, and you refuse to acknowledge it. But, > it's there, all squished and icky, with fly blood splattering all over > your noses. LOSERS. You're fabricating this fly just like you fabricated a court case!
From: proffsl on 15 Mar 2007 12:56 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: > > > > 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. You just keep telling yourself that. I'm sure it comforts you. > > 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. I find the truth comforting. You find lies comforting. > > > > > 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. 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! For what purpose, other than to 'fix' the test so that people who CAN drive safely will fail the test anyway? Most people who fail the test now don't fail because they are unsafe drivers, but because the questions are designed to be quite ambiguous. There designed that way to give the appearance that they actually do something. A sample question from the California Department of Motor Vehicles: "To avoid last minute moves, you should be looking down the road to where your vehicle will be in about ______. A): 5 to 10 seconds B) 10 to 15 seconds C) 15 to 20 seconds " I suppose you could always make that question more ambiguous by asking: To avoid last minute moves, you should be looking down the road to where your vehicle will be in about _______ A) 5 to 7 seconds. B) 7 to 9 seconds. C) 9 to 12 seconds D) 12 to 15 seconds E) 15 to 18 seconds F) 18 to 20 seconds. Yea, that would cause a number of people, who always look ahead while driving anyway, to fail the test anyway. In that way, people like you could pretend the test actually accomplishes something more. And, as another example, what's this question got to do with driving safety? "You just sold your vehicle. You must notify the DMV within ___ days. A) 5 days B) 10 days C) 15 days." The test is useless. The definition of insanity is to keep doing more of the same thing and expecting different results. > > 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! That isn't what I was saying, but that of course will make no difference to you. You selectively see things that don't exist, and ignore things that do. > > 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 No buts about it. Obviously, when someone is driving safely, they are by definition not trespassing upon the Rights of others. > you'd have it so that we can't do anything about > it until someone is killed or injured by unsafe > driving. That is a false accusation used to dodge the obvious and redirect. Virtually everybody over the age of 14 CAN drive safely. Around 98% or more of all accidents are caused by drivers who CAN drive safely, but WON'T drive safely. Driver licensing tests CAN NOT determine if a driver WILL or WON'T drive safely. Driver licensing tests serve no purpose for highway safety that laws against Reckless Endangerment didn't already serve. The best deterrent to Reckless Endangerment is to enforce Reckless Endangerment laws. > Then, and only then, you think we should be > able to go after the person. You continue your false accusation. As soon as someone behaves in such a manner that they are recklessly endangering the Rights of others, ENFORCE the laws against Reckless Endangerment. No need to wait until somebody actually dies, or is even harmed. Your accusation is false, as you already knew it to be, but I'm sure that won't stop you from continuing to make it. > > > In fact, I wish you'd stop and just go away. > > > Hahahahahahaha!!!!! > > I really wish you'd go away. I know. Hahahahahahahaha!!! > > > > 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." This is just another attempt to avoid the obvious by the use of a redirection. Clearly, you can only Rightfully speak for others if those others have given you License via their Permission, otherwise you wrong them, thereby trespass upon their 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 just think your notion that it's wrong to do right, and right to do wrong is strange. Although, that isn't the only adjective I might apply to your notion.
From: k_flynn on 15 Mar 2007 14:24
proffsl wrote: > Larry <x...(a)y.com> wrote: > > You just keep telling yourself that. Just like you keep > > telling yourself there's a "right" to drive. > > I find the truth comforting. That must explain why you obviously are in such a lathered state about all this defeat you've been suffering. If you find truth comforting and haven't yet been able to grasp it, it completely explains your manic behavior. Try listening to us for once and learn the truth, then you may be comforted. > > > 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. HERE PROFFY FINALLY ADMITS HE WAS WRONG AND WE WERE CORRECT. Thank you, Proffy. You can stop now. Above, he admits that his objections began only because of the non- driving issues surrounding licensing - issues on which I generally find agreement with him even if he is a stoner cop-killer-wannabe. Above, he essentially admits that driver licensing in and of itself is NOT OBJECTIONABLE by him. He has completely contradicted his entire past 12 months of purpose in life. Good move, Ex-Lax! > > 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! > > That isn't what I was saying, but that of course will make no > difference to you. You selectively see things that don't exist, and > ignore things that do. Of course it's what you were saying. It's still visible above in this very post. > That is a false accusation used to dodge the obvious and redirect. > Virtually everybody over the age of 14 CAN drive safely. Around 98% > or more of all accidents are caused by drivers who CAN drive safely, > but WON'T drive safely. Driver licensing tests CAN NOT determine if a > driver WILL or WON'T drive safely. Driver licensing tests serve no > purpose for highway safety that laws against Reckless Endangerment > didn't already serve. The best deterrent to Reckless Endangerment is > to enforce Reckless Endangerment laws. We proved your misuse of these statistics over and above abundantly last year. You misread the study, remember? |