ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags FOTL , Freeman on the Land , Rob Menard

Reply
Old 2nd March 2013, 11:35 AM   #241
RPMcMurphy38
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 54
Quote:
Is your implication that societies years, decades and centuries ago did not issue penalties for "victimless crimes"?
I think I explicitly said that "I understand laws have to evolve as society changes " however without being around centuries ago I'd have to guess things were a bit worse back then in that respect

I've commented on the seatbelt / rifle danger contrast above

I'll dig out a link to the John Harris thing for you ... be interested in anyone's feedback on it as it does highlight a key question here 2 ticks
RPMcMurphy38 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2013, 11:37 AM   #242
jargon buster
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,773
Quote:
Good point arayder the difference, as I see it, with my setbelt question is one of who will *ever* be the victim apart from anyone stupid enough not to wear one

It was about the principle of a fiscal punishment for doing something which wasn't previously "punishable" and which was extremely unlikely to ever cause anyone else harm
I thought you would answer it that way.
You say that no one apart from the victim will likely to come to harm.

Define "victim" and "harm" please?

Last edited by jargon buster; 2nd March 2013 at 11:40 AM.
jargon buster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2013, 11:42 AM   #243
arayder
Graduate Poster
 
arayder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,742
Originally Posted by RPMcMurphy38 View Post
I think I explicitly said that "I understand laws have to evolve as society changes " however without being around centuries ago I'd have to guess things were a bit worse back then in that respect
There's plenty of history books around. I don't have to guess that even in the "common law days" societies punished so called victimless crimes.

Originally Posted by RPMcMurphy38 View Post
I've commented on the seatbelt / rifle danger contrast above

I'll dig out a link to the John Harris thing for you ... be interested in anyone's feedback on it as it does highlight a key question here 2 ticks
I await your correspondence.
arayder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2013, 11:43 AM   #244
jargon buster
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,773
Quote:
Should we always have to wait for a victim or is there a case for preventative legislation?
Im seriously interested in your response to this.
And don't forget that specific question RP.
jargon buster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2013, 11:44 AM   #245
RPMcMurphy38
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 54
Quote:
Oh? So the obstinate uncle who tells his nephew the seat belt law is BS, which we all can ignore, is not responsible when the unbelted child ends up in wheel chair after a mere fender bender?
Nope you're focusing on specific examples not the principle ... I'm not even commenting on whether we should ignore it or that it is BS ... I said above that it *IS* common sense to wear seatbelts *AND* responsible

If you want to focus on a specific assume the driver is the only person in the car ... and how is it OK one day and the day after legislation you can be financially punished for non compliance?

Also I said earlier I am in the UK and we don't have the right to carry firearms and I'm pretty pleased about that ... we don't have Moose to shoot either ... maybe some deer in Scotland :P

It just smacks of adults being treated like children to me and the rules being changed at will. Obviously teenagers with guns isnt a good idea or is your implication that adults should be treated like teenagers who get drunk?
RPMcMurphy38 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2013, 11:48 AM   #246
RPMcMurphy38
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 54
Wow this place is mad busy

Quote:
And don't forget that specific question RP.
I responded earlier JB ... re prevention vs. cure - a few posts back and to the quick learner comment. I'm working my way backwards or in order of people appearing online
RPMcMurphy38 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2013, 11:51 AM   #247
jargon buster
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,773
Quote:
If you want to focus on a specific assume the driver is the only person in the car ... and how is it OK one day and the day after legislation you can be financially punished for non compliance?
Because thats how new legislation works.
Quote:
we don't have Moose to shoot either
Or Moose Head beer to drink.
Quote:
It just smacks of adults being treated like children to me and the rules being changed at will.
Thats exactly what it is, its because some adults act like children and other adults need protecting from their stupidity.
jargon buster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2013, 11:51 AM   #248
arayder
Graduate Poster
 
arayder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,742
Originally Posted by RPMcMurphy38 View Post
Good point arayder the difference, as I see it, with my setbelt question is one of who will *ever* be the victim apart from anyone stupid enough not to wear one

It was about the principle of a fiscal punishment for doing something which wasn't previously "punishable" and which was extremely unlikely to ever cause anyone else harm

Obviously the old adage prevention is better than cure holds in topics ranging from medicine to law ... maybe it's a bad example but it certainly ticks the boxes for recent, victimless and punishment change :-/
Originally Posted by arayder View Post
Oh? So the obstinate uncle who tells his nephew the seat belt law is BS, which we all can ignore, is not responsible when the unbelted child ends up in wheel chair after a mere fender bender?

And how is that different from giving the kid a .22 and a Moose Head?
Originally Posted by jargon buster View Post
I thought you would answer it that way.
You say that no one apart from the victim will likely to come to harm.

Define "victim" and "harm" please?
Kind of unfair of me. RP has probably never had a child in his care.

But the question still stands.
arayder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2013, 11:57 AM   #249
jargon buster
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,773
Quote:
I responded earlier JB ... re prevention vs. cure - a few posts back and to the quick learner comment. I'm working my way backwards or in order of people appearing online
No you didnt you dodged it.
Try again, do you think there is ever a place for preventative legislation?

Last edited by jargon buster; 2nd March 2013 at 11:58 AM.
jargon buster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2013, 11:58 AM   #250
RPMcMurphy38
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 54
Quote:
Define "victim" and "harm" please?
In the example I gave A above a driver over here is liable for a fine if alone in the vehicle (hence no possibility of a victim)

So my answer would be

Victim: Someone who suffers a loss or injury due to another person's negligence or deliberate wrong doing

And harm in this case would be actual physical bodily harm

Of course that's *my* definition and for this particular case (a lone driver in a car)

In fact on a TV show over here someone actually suggested putting a spike in the middle of a steering wheel near the drivers throat would make people slow down as opposed to the feeling of safety of a seatbelt making people actually drive faster

Don't shoot the messenger it's not my analogy :P
RPMcMurphy38 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2013, 12:00 PM   #251
Paul
Illuminator
 
Paul's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 3,070
Originally Posted by RPMcMurphy38 View Post
I said above that it *IS* common sense to wear seatbelts *AND* responsible
OK, you just don't want stupid irresponsible people to be penalised...


Quote:
and how is it OK one day and the day after legislation you can be financially punished for non compliance?
You seem to be deliberately confusing right with legal; by your logic, discrimination is fine because people did it before it was legislated against.


Quote:
Also I said earlier I am in the UK and we don't have the right to carry firearms and I'm pretty pleased about that
But we can keep rifles and shotguns.


Quote:
It just smacks of adults being treated like children to me
Only the ones who behave like children.


Quote:
and the rules being changed at will.
If by at will you mean following all required procedures for enacting new legislation.


Quote:
Obviously teenagers with guns isnt a good idea
That seems like a pretty draconian and sweeping statement.


Quote:
is your implication that adults should be treated like teenagers who get drunk?
Depends, are they behaving like inebriated adolescents?
Paul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2013, 12:01 PM   #252
jargon buster
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,773
Quote:
Victim: Someone who suffers a loss or injury due to another person's negligence or deliberate wrong doing
And harm in this case would be actual physical bodily harm
So is it OK for me to play a drum kit outside your elderly mothers bedroom window all night, after all Im not causing her any physical harm am I?
jargon buster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2013, 12:04 PM   #253
Paul
Illuminator
 
Paul's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 3,070
Originally Posted by jargon buster View Post
So is it OK for me to play a drum kit outside your elderly mothers bedroom window all night, after all Im not causing her any physical harm am I?
Of course, because with fotl, other types of harm don't exist until someone points them out and they have to invent a new definition.
Paul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2013, 12:20 PM   #254
RPMcMurphy38
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 54
Arayder ... this is the video I watched

watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=oYJzXkcJgEU#t=95 5s

You have to put YouTube in front of it as it won't let me post URL's

It's a bit "UK specific" but that was my original question

To say we seem to have gone "off topic" is something of an understatement

I wish I'd never mentioned seatbelts ... it just seemed like a good inocuous example :-S
RPMcMurphy38 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2013, 12:22 PM   #255
jargon buster
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,773
That video is 53 minutes long, would you like to tell us exactly what he said of what point you want to make?

Quote:
I wish I'd never mentioned seatbelts ... it just seemed like a good inocuous example :-S
Maybe it would be better if you thought a bit more about the freeman ideas before you post, your first example fell apart instantly.

Oh and dont forget this
Quote:
do you think there is ever a place for preventative legislation?

Last edited by jargon buster; 2nd March 2013 at 12:23 PM.
jargon buster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2013, 12:23 PM   #256
RPMcMurphy38
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 54
JB this was my reply re prevention above ...

Obviously the old adage prevention is better than cure holds in topics ranging from medicine to law ... maybe it's a bad example but it certainly ticks the boxes for recent, victimless and punishment change :-/

I posted it a few posts back ... how is that dodging the question
RPMcMurphy38 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2013, 12:24 PM   #257
jargon buster
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,773
Bye Bye Jimbob
jargon buster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2013, 12:26 PM   #258
jargon buster
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,773
Quote:
Obviously the old adage prevention is better than cure holds in topics ranging from medicine to law ... maybe it's a bad example but it certainly ticks the boxes for recent, victimless and punishment change :-/
So you agree that there is a place for preventative legislation.
My next question is why?
After all there is no victim.
jargon buster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2013, 12:26 PM   #259
RPMcMurphy38
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 54
JB the video link has a timestamp in it and takes you to the part Arayder was asking about

I see you've asked me the same question for the third time ... I answered ages ago

Obviously the old adage prevention is better than cure holds in topics ranging from medicine to law

So yes I think there is a place for preventative legislation :-/
RPMcMurphy38 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2013, 12:28 PM   #260
RPMcMurphy38
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 54
Am I missing something?

Yes I think there is a place for preventative legislation where there *may* be a victim but not when there is no possibility of a victim as it would be, by very definition, superfulous

:-/
RPMcMurphy38 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2013, 12:29 PM   #261
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 41,503
Originally Posted by RPMcMurphy38 View Post
I know it seems a bit nit picking ... the seatbelt thing ... but what I was getting at here was we're not talking Magna Carta timescale differences here, as someone else said, but a difference in, not only my lifetime, but my recent lifetime (i.e. since I learnt to drive)
Well, if things change, at some point it's a recent change.


Quote:
Of course I understand laws have to evolve as society changes but cars (or to be more precise) speed limits in the UK and indeed society hasn't changed much in the past 20 years
Society has changed quite a bit in the last 20 years or so. Attitudes on what risks are acceptable now are quite different, see smoking and drink-driving for two other examples.
Quote:
The seatbelt example was an off-the-top-of-my-head of a fairly recent change in the country I live and, obviously, not my be all and end all definition of a totalitarian government
Fairly recent? How old are you? Seat belt wearing first became compulsory in 1983 in the UK. Your profile says you're 45, but you can't have passed your driving test at age 15.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2013, 12:38 PM   #262
RPMcMurphy38
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 54
Zoot

Well, if things change, at some point it's a recent change.

Yep that's what I was saying

Society has changed quite a bit in the last 20 years or so. Attitudes on what risks are acceptable now are quite different, see smoking and drink-driving for two other examples.

Agreed and a good example although I think it's fairly well established smoking harms others ... Roy Castle a notable example

Fairly recent? How old are you? Seat belt wearing first became compulsory in 1983 in the UK. Your profile says you're 45, but you can't have passed your driving test at age 15.

At the risk of being branded a "freeman" I was driving aged 14 ... but to clarify fairly common practice on farms

On a serious note though I didn't realise it was 1983 I thought it was later than that but I am regretting the seatbelt question now ... it was just an example!
RPMcMurphy38 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2013, 12:42 PM   #263
RPMcMurphy38
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 54
JB re your drumming session. There's some fairly well established laws re public nuisance and sound levels ... and rightly so.

If, for example, my mother was unwell I probably wouldn't appreciate it. If she was shocked awake from her sleep and had a heart attack, say, then there would be a victim

What were you specifically asking?
RPMcMurphy38 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2013, 12:45 PM   #264
jargon buster
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,773
Quote:
There's some fairly well established laws re public nuisance and sound levels ... and rightly so.

If, for example, my mother was unwell I probably wouldn't appreciate it. If she was shocked awake from her sleep and had a heart attack, say, then there would be a victim

What were you specifically asking?
So you agree with legislation that you believe causes harm but not others that you dont?
Yep, you sound like a freeman all-right.
jargon buster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2013, 12:50 PM   #265
arayder
Graduate Poster
 
arayder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,742
Originally Posted by RPMcMurphy38 View Post
Nope you're focusing on specific examples not the principle ... I'm not even commenting on whether we should ignore it or that it is BS ... I said above that it *IS* common sense to wear seatbelts *AND* responsible

If you want to focus on a specific assume the driver is the only person in the car ... and how is it OK one day and the day after legislation you can be financially punished for non compliance?

Also I said earlier I am in the UK and we don't have the right to carry firearms and I'm pretty pleased about that ... we don't have Moose to shoot either ... maybe some deer in Scotland :P

It just smacks of adults being treated like children to me and the rules being changed at will. Obviously teenagers with guns isnt a good idea or is your implication that adults should be treated like teenagers who get drunk?
It being the case you have no seeming objection to statute law that criminalizes transporting unseat belted children in cars, trucks and buses, or giving teens guns and alcohol, can we assume you have rejected the freeman principle that statues are not law?
arayder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2013, 12:50 PM   #266
RPMcMurphy38
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 54
Quote:
Maybe it would be better if you thought a bit more about the freeman ideas before you post, your first example fell apart instantly
If you ask a question mate maybe you should at least read the reply

You asked the same question three times *AFTER* I answered it

You failed to read that I said I was new to the forum and then just assumed I meant I was new to the subject matter

You asked about a reply I was making to somebody else and then asked for a specific time in the 53 minute video when I had given a link to the precise time

If you slowed down on firing out questions perhaps you'd actually absorb what people were saying

The only reason I regret asking about the seatbelt example is because of all the questions I was working through

How exactly does the seatbelt question fall apart... maybe you can tell me why exactly it is a fair practice rather than just a blanket "because that's how legislation works"
RPMcMurphy38 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2013, 12:50 PM   #267
LordEd
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 409
Perhaps a better question is, "does it matter". There IS legislation (in various countries) that prohibit driving or traveling in a vehicle without wearing a seat belt and impose penalties.

Smoking was generally acceptable, but there have been recent laws here that pretty much prohibit it in most public places. Another example of something being legal one day and not the next.
LordEd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2013, 12:53 PM   #268
arayder
Graduate Poster
 
arayder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,742
Originally Posted by RPMcMurphy38 View Post
Arayder ... this is the video I watched

watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=oYJzXkcJgEU#t=95 5s

You have to put YouTube in front of it as it won't let me post URL's

It's a bit "UK specific" but that was my original question

To say we seem to have gone "off topic" is something of an understatement

I wish I'd never mentioned seatbelts ... it just seemed like a good inocuous example :-S
Thanks. I will listen to it.
arayder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2013, 12:54 PM   #269
jargon buster
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,773
Quote:
How exactly does the seatbelt question fall apart... maybe you can tell me why exactly it is a fair practice rather than just a blanket "because that's how legislation works"
It doesnt matter what you or I think about legislation, if you want to have a moralistic debate you are in the wrong place, this forum talks about what is or isnt.
Maybe you will find a better home on WFS or David Ickes.
We have seatbelt laws,which you actually agree with so I don't know why you brought them up.
jargon buster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2013, 01:12 PM   #270
jargon buster
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,773
Quote:
In the example I gave A above a driver over here is liable for a fine if alone in the vehicle (hence no possibility of a victim)

So my answer would be

Victim: Someone who suffers a loss or injury due to another person's negligence or deliberate wrong doing
No possibility of a victim?
Are you sure?
jargon buster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2013, 01:16 PM   #271
RPMcMurphy38
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 54
Quote:
if you want to have a moralistic debate you are in the wrong place, this forum talks about what is or isnt.
It's OK I'm not judging the forum purely on your replies

Quote:
Maybe you will find a better home on WFS or David Ickes.
I'd rather have my head set alight and have someone put out the fire with a sledge hammer. David Icke is a complete nut job

Quote:
We have seatbelt laws, which you actually agree with
No I don't agree with them ... I agree with some legislation that might prevent idiots hurting other people

:-/
RPMcMurphy38 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2013, 01:24 PM   #272
Ape of Good Hope
Graduate Poster
 
Ape of Good Hope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,485
Originally Posted by imJiMBob View Post
So, what do you think about Dean Clifford's release ?

I think it deserves its own thread.


This thread is about Robert Menard.
Ape of Good Hope is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2013, 01:26 PM   #273
imJiMBob
New Blood
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 7
Originally Posted by Ape of Good Hope View Post
I think it deserves its own thread.


This thread is about Robert Menard.

Lots of posts about Dean here. It's you guys that keep bringing him up.
imJiMBob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2013, 01:29 PM   #274
jargon buster
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,773
Quote:
No I don't agree with them ... I agree with some legislation that might prevent idiots hurting other people
So you don't agree with seatbelt laws.
Is it only OK to not have a requirement to wear a seatbelt when you are alone in the car and yet you must wear one when there are others in the car?

I think thats what your earlier analogy alluded to.
jargon buster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2013, 01:30 PM   #275
Ape of Good Hope
Graduate Poster
 
Ape of Good Hope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,485
Originally Posted by imJiMBob View Post
Lots of posts about Dean here. It's you guys that keep bringing him up.

And it's Dean that gets himself locked up

Last edited by Ape of Good Hope; 2nd March 2013 at 01:48 PM.
Ape of Good Hope is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2013, 01:31 PM   #276
RPMcMurphy38
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 54
Paul

Quote:
I said above that it *IS* common sense to wear seatbelts *AND* responsible

OK, you just don't want stupid irresponsible people to be penalised...
Nope I just don't want responsible people to be penalised

Quote:
But we can keep rifles and shotguns
True ... I was on about "open carry" or whatever they call it over there. Incidents in schools and malls rather than clay pigeon shooting ... I can't even remember who brought up guns :-/

Quote:
It just smacks of adults being treated like children to me

Only the ones who behave like children
Precisely!

Quote:
and the rules being changed at will

If by at will you mean following all required procedures for enacting new legislation.
Nope I'm mostly talking about the lack of transparency and tricks like "Early AM agendas" and other ***** they pull as outlined in the BBC Documentary "Ministry of Truth" ... Well worth a watch if you can find it

Quote:
Obviously teenagers with guns isnt a good idea

That seems like a pretty draconian and sweeping statement.
It wasn't sweeping it was specific to the example of teenagers with guns Arayder used

Quote:
is your implication that adults should be treated like teenagers who get drunk?

Depends, are they behaving like inebriated adolescents?
Again a reply to Arayder's post comparing preventing drunk teens with guns to a lone driver for being financially punished for not behaving sensibly about his own personal safety

Thanks for the feedback
RPMcMurphy38 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2013, 01:35 PM   #277
fromdownunder
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,026
Originally Posted by RPMcMurphy38 View Post
No I don't agree with them ... I agree with some legislation that might prevent idiots hurting other people
OK, here are your potential victims for somebody not wearing a seat belt:

If you have an accident while not wearing a seat belt (these things do happen), the first victims are police and ambulance officers. Believe it or not, these people do not like finding bodies splattered all over car windscreens and often suffer mental trauma when viewing such things.

Secondly, family and friends of potential victims who will be upset, even if you only suffer brain damage and a broken neck. And of course if you die, there are funeral costs to be met.

Thirdly, if you live, hospital and rehabilitation costs, where every tax payer in the country contributes to the victims rehabilitation, perhaps for the rest of that persons life if they finish up immobile.

Fourthly, if by some freak event you go through the windscreen and hit some innocent pedestrian and break their leg.

Maybe seat belts are less essential now with the development of air bags, but 30 years ago air bags did not exist and are still not in many cars which still travel on the road.

As an aside, in England, do you have laws relating to talking on cell phones while driving? We do in Australia, as quite a few deaths have started occurring due to idiots texting while driving. I wonder if you consider fines for texting while driving a victimless crime, and why no such laws existed 20 years ago?

Last edited by fromdownunder; 2nd March 2013 at 01:36 PM.
fromdownunder is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2013, 01:44 PM   #278
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by RPMcMurphy38 View Post
Nope you're focusing on specific examples not the principle ... I'm not even commenting on whether we should ignore it or that it is BS ... I said above that it *IS* common sense to wear seatbelts *AND* responsible

If you want to focus on a specific assume the driver is the only person in the car ... and how is it OK one day and the day after legislation you can be financially punished for non compliance?

Also I said earlier I am in the UK and we don't have the right to carry firearms and I'm pretty pleased about that ... we don't have Moose to shoot either ... maybe some deer in Scotland :P

It just smacks of adults being treated like children to me and the rules being changed at will. Obviously teenagers with guns isnt a good idea or is your implication that adults should be treated like teenagers who get drunk?
I'll take this slowly.

The...law....was...changed.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2013, 01:46 PM   #279
Aulus Agerius
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 161
Originally Posted by RPMcMurphy38 View Post
No I don't agree with them ... I agree with some legislation that might prevent idiots hurting other people
This, really, is the core problem with FMOTL. They to distinguish between "is" and "should be".

When FMOTL disagree with a law, they deny that it is law. They deny it on the basis that the law must follow the ideology in which they believe, which is generally libertarian or anarchistic. When normal people disagree with a law, they accept that it is the law, but say that it is wrong.

So, whether you agree with the law that requires you to wear a seatbelt is irrelevant to whether it is law.

To return to your original question there are many differences between US, Canadian and UK law, but none of them are relevant to the validity of FMOTL - it is nonsense everywhere. One reason it is particularly nonsensical in the UK is there: the UK determines the validity of legislation in a very simple way. With a single exception, if a statute in the UK has been passed by Parliament, it is law. The exception has to do with the UK's relationship with the European Union and isn't relevant to FMOTL arguments.
Aulus Agerius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd March 2013, 01:46 PM   #280
Stacey Grove
Graduate Poster
 
Stacey Grove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,041
Originally Posted by RPMcMurphy38 View Post
At the risk of being branded a "freeman" I was driving aged 14 ... but to clarify fairly common practice on farms
But, previously you wrote:

Quote:
When I passed my driving test we didn't need to wear seat belts ... now we do
Stacey Grove is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:49 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.