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

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


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.
Reply
Old 19th October 2019, 03:01 PM   #161
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,626
Originally Posted by Pterodactyl View Post
It amazes me that some people are so willing to just give away independence.
To me, it doesn't matter so much philosophically whether it's to the government or some machine, but it's rather the principle yet another restriction on our ability move and act freely. It should not be a vehicle's choice to allow me to drive.

Next my microwave will refuse to heat up another meal after I've reached my 2000 calorie limit.
On the other hand, some people donít consider getting drunk and driving a car to be an element of their independence. And if one person makes a choice to overeat thereís no risk that they might randomly kill an entire family because of it.
johnny karate 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 19th October 2019, 03:13 PM   #162
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 45,094
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
On the other hand, some people donít consider getting drunk and driving a car to be an element of their independence.
Some seem to imply that drunk driving is not a problem as fewer people are dying.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking 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 19th October 2019, 03:23 PM   #163
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,989
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
No you can't.


Of course I can. I am only limited insofar as the State has a compelling interest limit me and as long as I donít infringe on the rights of others. This should be uncontroversial in the USA.

Even killing someone...I have the fundamental right to do that but the State regulates under what circumstances I can kill due to the rights of others and the compelling interests in maintaining order and public safety.

I really donít understand why so many people are willing to abdicate their fundamental rights to the State. Yes, we have to have limits on our rights but the rights still exist.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 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 19th October 2019, 03:39 PM   #164
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,936
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Of course I can. I am only limited insofar as the State has a compelling interest limit me and as long as I don’t infringe on the rights of others. This should be uncontroversial in the USA.

Even killing someone...I have the fundamental right to do that but the State regulates under what circumstances I can kill due to the rights of others and the compelling interests in maintaining order and public safety.
....
What legislators define and the courts support as a "compelling interest" is broad, high and deep. The federal tax code alone is almost 3,000 pages. Every law, regulation and municipal ordinance passed that has not been overturned by the courts is presumed to be Constitutional and enforceable. The next time a cop writes you a ticket, go to court and demand that the judge prove the state's compelling interest in your driving skills.

And here's a lawyer who claims you commit three felonies a day. Good luck if somebody gets mad at you.
https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonie.../dp/1594035229

And if you think you have a right to kill people, I hope everybody around you knows it.

Last edited by Bob001; 19th October 2019 at 03:41 PM.
Bob001 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 19th October 2019, 04:12 PM   #165
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,626
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
I really don’t understand why so many people are willing to abdicate their fundamental rights to the State. Yes, we have to have limits on our rights but the rights still exist.
Driving a car isn’t a right, so there’s nothing for the State to abdicate.
johnny karate 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 19th October 2019, 04:33 PM   #166
Metullus
Forum ĺ-Wit Pro Tem
 
Metullus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,108
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Yeah, that must be it, nobody could hold a position out of principle. For your information I don't drink and drive. I barely drink at all: I have maybe three beers a year, on separate occasions, when I am not driving. Which is precisely why I shouldn't be subjected to being treated like a criminal.
This! Emphatically this.
__________________
I have met Tim at TAM. He is of sufficient height to piss on your leg. - Doubt 10/7/2005 - I'll miss Tim.

Aristotle taught that the brain exists merely to cool the blood and is not involved in the process of thinking. This is true only of certain persons. - Will Cuppy
Metullus 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 19th October 2019, 04:33 PM   #167
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,989
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
What legislators define and the courts support as a "compelling interest" is broad, high and deep. The federal tax code alone is almost 3,000 pages. Every law, regulation and municipal ordinance passed that has not been overturned by the courts is presumed to be Constitutional and enforceable. The next time a cop writes you a ticket, go to court and demand that the judge prove the state's compelling interest in your driving skills.

And here's a lawyer who claims you commit three felonies a day. Good luck if somebody gets mad at you.
https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonie.../dp/1594035229

And if you think you have a right to kill people, I hope everybody around you knows it.


I donít have a problem with this analysis. It doesnít contradict anything I said re: rights vs privileges. I wouldnít challenge being given a ticket for speeding because I accept that the Stateís interest is compelling, the law is narrowly tailored and thereís no other way to meet the interest.

As for killing people, no one around me needs to worry because I recognize and respect their rights. An intruder in my home, on the other hand, does have reason to worry...
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 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 19th October 2019, 04:35 PM   #168
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,626
Originally Posted by Metullus View Post
This! Emphatically this.
No one would be treating you like a criminal.

Itís merely a device that prevents your car from starting if youíre intoxicated.
johnny karate 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 19th October 2019, 04:45 PM   #169
Metullus
Forum ĺ-Wit Pro Tem
 
Metullus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,108
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
No one would be treating you like a criminal.

It’s merely a device that prevents your car from starting if you’re intoxicated.
1. I do not want such a device on any car I drive.
2. Such a device would serve no purpose whatsoever on a car I drive.
3. There is no reason for such a device to be installed on a car I drive.
4. It is possible, I think, to object to such a proposal on principle alone.
5. The very existence of such a device on my car would suggest that it has a legitimate function and purpose. In my case it would not.
__________________
I have met Tim at TAM. He is of sufficient height to piss on your leg. - Doubt 10/7/2005 - I'll miss Tim.

Aristotle taught that the brain exists merely to cool the blood and is not involved in the process of thinking. This is true only of certain persons. - Will Cuppy
Metullus 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 19th October 2019, 04:45 PM   #170
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,626
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
I donít have a problem with this analysis. It doesnít contradict anything I said re: rights vs privileges. I wouldnít challenge being given a ticket for speeding because I accept that the Stateís interest is compelling, the law is narrowly tailored and thereís no other way to meet the interest.
Hereís a fun experiment for you: Next time youíre driving and you see a cop, do something to make him think youíre drunk. When he pulls you over and asks you to take a sobriety test, refuse. As he is confiscating your driverís license and informing you that it is now suspended, ask what the compelling interest is in taking away your right to drive a car without due process.

Report back here with the results.
johnny karate 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 19th October 2019, 04:46 PM   #171
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,626
Originally Posted by Metullus View Post
1. I do not want such a device on any car I drive.
2. Such a device would serve no purpose whatsoever on a car I drive.
3. There is no reason for such a device to be installed on a car I drive.
4. It is possible, I think, to object to such a proposal on principle alone.
5. The very existence of such a device on my car would suggest that it has a legitimate function and purpose. In my case it would not.
Cool.

It still doesnít mean that anyone is treating you like a criminal.
johnny karate 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 19th October 2019, 05:27 PM   #172
mgidm86
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,976
Like I said, the rest of us already pay enough so that the stupid people can do stupid things. We pay with our money and through restrictions like the device suggested here.

People have fought for decades to legalize weed. The alcohol makers fought it the entire time as did a lot of drinkers who think pot is evil, or maybe just "bad".

But who does all the wife beating, the stabbings at baseball games. Who starts ALL the fights at bars and practically everywhere else? It isn't the stoners, it's the drunks.

You want your booze then YOU figure it out and YOU pay for it. You the drinkers, you the bar owners, or you the alcohol manufacturers - but not me.

I will not spend one dime for such a device on my car. YOU pay for it. I don't care if it's a tax on booze or what it is but I am gawddam tired of paying for other people's bullcrap.

Alcohol is not some universal good in life that we all must make room for. Those who drink are the problem. Period.

And I'm tired of being inconvenienced by these same people, so YOU figure out how to do this without a device on MY car.

Seriously? You want me to put something on my car because some people can't be responsible when they drink booze? Sounds like the problem is THE BOOZE.

"Hmmm we can't stop people from enjoying booze and driving, I guess we'll have to dump the problem on everyone else!"

No, keep thinking, I'm sure a better answer will come. You want your booze then you figure it out.

Maybe booze should be outlawed like crack and heroin? I'll bet it kills more people then all the other drugs combined!

See there's a solution that doesn't affect people who aren't drunk idiots! But ya I know, good luck taking people's booze away right? Booze is just too damned important!

Violence.
Unwanted pregnancies.
Death on the roads.
Liver disease, cancer of the everything, domestic abuse...

Wait...this crap's legal?
__________________
Franklin understands certain kickbacks you obtain unfairly are legal liabilities; however, a risky deed's almost never detrimental despite extra external pressures.
mgidm86 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 19th October 2019, 06:56 PM   #173
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,626
Good news. You don’t have to pay for other people’s crap.

But you do have to pay for any and all mandatory safety features on a dangerous machine to be granted the privilege of operating it.

Last edited by johnny karate; 19th October 2019 at 06:58 PM.
johnny karate 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 19th October 2019, 07:06 PM   #174
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,989
Alcohol Detectors in Cars

Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Driving a car isnít a right, so thereís nothing for the State to abdicate.


Of course itís a right. After doing some reading on how courts have interpreted rights, maybe you could argue that itís not a fundamental right; courts often rule that some things we have a right to do are not fundamental rights. They are still rights, though. How we know this is that the State canít revoke a license without Due Process. If driving is not ruled to be a fundamental right, Due Process still applies but with much lower standards. In that case, maybe strict scrutiny would not apply but there would still have to be a rational basis for the law. I concede that under such a standard, mandatory alcohol interlocks might pass muster.

I think itís dangerous to liberty to conceptualize privileges as distinct from rights-that the government has to give us permission to do certain things rather than we have rights that the government has to have at the very least, some rational basis in order to infringe them.
__________________
Hello.

Last edited by xjx388; 19th October 2019 at 07:29 PM.
xjx388 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 19th October 2019, 07:26 PM   #175
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,989
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Hereís a fun experiment for you: Next time youíre driving and you see a cop, do something to make him think youíre drunk. When he pulls you over and asks you to take a sobriety test, refuse. As he is confiscating your driverís license and informing you that it is now suspended, ask what the compelling interest is in taking away your right to drive a car without due process.



Report back here with the results.


In Texas, I donít have to submit to field sobriety tests or pre-arrest chemical tests. Indeed I have done so. My license was not suspended and I was let go because there was no basis for probable cause -I wasnít drunk. I donít even know why I was pulled over.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 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 19th October 2019, 07:41 PM   #176
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 16,201
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
In the UK we do check that someone has the cognitive ability to drive before we allow them to drive on their own. It is a criminal offence to drive whilst under the influence of many medically prescribed drugs that can affect your ability to drive safely never mind illegal drugs. We check that you are physically able to meet the requirements to drive, eye sight as an example.

Driving is simply not a right.

The UK, unlike the US, actually has a functional and useful public transportation system.
__________________
When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won.
luchog 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 19th October 2019, 07:48 PM   #177
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 16,201
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
I think that the insistence of certain posters that a significant number of people would remain committed to drunk driving says more about the lifestyle choices of those posters than those of the general population.

The insistence of certain posters that a significant number of people would remain committed to drunk driving says more about their extensive knowledge of human nature, backed by reams of documentary evidence.
__________________
When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won.
luchog 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 19th October 2019, 07:51 PM   #178
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 16,201
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
You keep saying things that have no basis in fact. The privilege of driving on the public roads is licensed and regulated by the states. As long as regulations are applied equally to everybody and are not arbitrary and discriminatory, the Constitution has nothing to do with it.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/su...s-unnecessary/

Continue to refer to it as a "privilege" is a dodge, it's hiding in a technicality and ignoring the reality that it's a practical necessity for the overwhelming majority of people in the US, in order to remain employed and to function in society.
__________________
When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won.
luchog 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 19th October 2019, 08:18 PM   #179
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 19,861
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
I get that it could be good, for the driver and the public. But I am with the Monkey on this. Nanny State monitoring is no bueno, in principle and practicality. Giving up liberty for security and all that. If you care, the mitigation is available now, and cheap. If you don't, there is always, but always a workaround. A new market for little 'clean breath' canisters to shoot in the device, $20 to a junkie or kid. Yes, it would certainly stop the occasional nice guy or gal who had one too many. But the majority would be unaffected.

I have been known to imbibe on occasion. To excess, I hear. So I have a simple workaround: no drinky if drivey. Not one. It doesn't require the State to monitor me, even. Really not sure why the whole drinking and driving thing is such a conundrum. Just don't, if you give a flying ****.

But I'd prefer not to discuss public intoxication.
Thieves have been hot-wiring cars since there were cars. Lately, the whole key encoding thing happened. That was supposed to stop thieves. But thieves worked around it.

Inevitably, a black market will arise to circumvent ant such drink-locks.

My current car is keyless, but it is trivial to circumvent that and crank it up.

Drink locks will suffer the same inevitable fate. They will be circumvented. Easily.

Tat being the case, the notion of breathalisers in cars has a very different motivation. It is just another method of control.

Now, I am in no way an advocate for drunk driving, but the creeping control gives me pause for thought. As things are progressing, it seems to me that we are heading for a world where everything is controlled all of the time. Do we really want to establish a world that obviates our humanity? Do we really want to create a society where everyone is in lock step? Must all failings be banned? Must we all be subservient the mere rules?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon 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 19th October 2019, 08:37 PM   #180
Max_mang
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 376
How will the device work? What will be the process when you go to drive with this in place?
Max_mang 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 19th October 2019, 08:46 PM   #181
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 16,201
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
I don't think there are too many places in the U.S., even small towns, where you couldn't find people who don't own cars or even have licenses and yet hold jobs and live their lives.

A pointless truism. People in those circumstances are a very, very small minority (like children and stay-at-home moms), and are either supported by family members who do, in fact, own cars and drive; or they move somewhere where they don't need cars.

Quote:
People take public transportation, they carpool, they rely on friends and relatives, they pay for cabs, they walk or ride bicycles.

Some places do not have public transportation, carpools, or even cabs; and many people do not have convenient friends and relatives. They live too far from work to walk or even bicycle, and the climate a large part of the year makes doing so prohibitively difficult; or they're too old, unhealthy, or otherwise physically incapable.

I lived in a place like that for pretty much all of my 20s, and had no one else I could reliably depend on for transportation. I was far from the only one. A great deal of the US is built like that. I hate driving, did from the time I was a teen, but didn't have any choice but learn to drive if I wanted to be employable.

Right now, I live near by, not in, a big city. Near enough that I have access to the employers in the city (a commute of about 22 miles), far enough out that there's no useful public transportation within walking distance.

Oh, and public transportation does not run late at night, so screw anyone who has a swing or graveyard shift job. Daily use of cabs or ride-hailing services are prohibitively expensive over that distance for anyone who isn't getting paid a whole lot more than I am, and the latter are quite unreliable.

One can develop quite the self-righteous attitude against drivers if one lives in big cities one's whole life, and has access to all the amenities and conveniences available therein. Lots of trust fund hippies and tech bro hipsters I know certainly have. As do many hypocritical conservative jackasses who have the money to not care about anyone else.

Quote:
Some people can't drive because of a medical issue. They don't roll over and die.

Disabled people have access to social programs that provide limited transportation and personal assistance. A lot of that is predicated on moving them to a major urban center where it's easy to provide said services. Even so, an unfortunately high number do, in fact, end up effectively crawling in a hole and dying because they don't have adequate support. Another unfortunately high number end up living in shelters, flop-houses, or on the street in urban centers. That's one of the big travesties of social care in this country.

Guess how I know this.

Quote:
When a driver loses his license, he doesn't crawl into a hole.

Want to take a guess how many end up being forced to move to urban centers, giving up houses and a great deal of their possessions to afford a small but expensive living space? Want to guess how many end up not in a hole, but living homeless on the street?

Quote:
It might well be that this interlock gadget is a bad idea.

The idea isn't necessarily bad, the current state of technology, the assumptions made, and the proposed method of implementation of the idea by proponents are bad.

Quote:
But to claim that owning a car is a necessity to live and that driving is a right is a rejection of plain facts.

No, it's an observation of plain facts. You're simply engaging in self-serving denialism.

Quote:
Adopting such a philosophy would challenge the whole concept of licensing and traffic enforcement:

No, it challenges the concept of a country which is unwilling to provide adequate public transportation and disability assistance, because it's obsessed with the automobile as a symbol.

Quote:
Can you license a necessity?

Food and drug purity regulations and licensing of production facilities, housing development legislation and building codes, healthcare regulation and medical practitioner licensing, waste disposal and processing regulations, and so on.

So yeah, looks like you can.

Quote:
Can you punish someone for exercising a basic right?

Do I really need to educate you on the entire history of the USA with regard to Jim Crow and Sundown laws; ongoing racist and homophobic policing; COINTELPRO; voter suppression laws; abortion legislation; assaults and murders of peaceful protesters by police and National Guard troops; ongoing discrimination against ethnic, religious, sexual, and other minorities; and so on, and so on...

So yeah, looks like you can.

Quote:
Can you take away something that's essential for survival?

Another of the great travesties in this country. Millions of people in the USA have died from hypothermia or other easily avoidable causes because they are homeless and live on the streets or unheated and unhealthy squats, have died of starvation or malnutrition because they cannot afford adequate food, have died because they cannot afford even the most basic healthcare, and so on.

So yeah, looks like you can.

Quote:
If you want to eliminate driver licensing and vehicle registration you should say so, because that's the argument you're making.

The straw men you're surrounding yourself with are highly flammable, maybe you should have an interlock to prevent you from handling open flames if you've been drinking.
__________________
When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won.

Last edited by luchog; 19th October 2019 at 08:56 PM.
luchog 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 20th October 2019, 12:55 AM   #182
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 90,505
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
The UK, unlike the US, actually has a functional and useful public transportation system.
Only in a few major metropolitan areas, outside of those areas it is appalling.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 20th October 2019, 01:15 AM   #183
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 19,418
Originally Posted by Metullus View Post
1. I do not want such a device on any car I drive.
Some people don't want catalytic converters, exhausts baffles, seat belts, bumpers (fenders), and a hundred other things on their car. Do they get to choose too?

Quote:
2. Such a device would serve no purpose whatsoever on a car I drive.
So do the seat belts and crumple zones, you'd hope.

Quote:
3. There is no reason for such a device to be installed on a car I drive.
See above

Quote:
4. It is possible, I think, to object to such a proposal on principle alone.
5. The very existence of such a device on my car would suggest that it has a legitimate function and purpose. In my case it would not.
Then you'd barely notice it's existence.
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 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 20th October 2019, 01:18 AM   #184
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 9,916
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
No, it challenges the concept of a country which is unwilling to provide adequate public transportation and disability assistance, because it's obsessed with the automobile as a symbol.

I agree with the first part of your sentence, but not with the alleged cause of the unwillingness. I live in country without any automobile industry at all, which means that all cars have to be imported. The tariffs (deliberately) make cars very expensive, and lobbyists of the (non-existing) car industry don't influence politicians to make infrastructure more automobile friendly.
I never owned a car, and I don't even have a driver's license because I always lived in the city and never needed one. I get around in the city faster on a bike, nowadays maybe combined with the metro, than I would do with a car. (Recently, a friend of mine commented on this fact when he told me that he had seen me on the way to our meeting place when I overtook him, he was driving, I was biking.) But Copenhagen is built like that, and in recent years it has become even more bike friendly:
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

And again: We don't have a powerful automobile industry to prevent this development. For this reason, the car doesn't become the kind of (status) symbol that it is in the USA.

A funny story: Ten years ago, when my Cuban wife arrived in Copenhagen, she resented that the first thing I did was to buy her a bicycle. She only calmed down when she discovered that one of her (dancing) students, a medical doctor living in our part of town, didn't own a car and got around on a bike.
In Havana, too, a car is a status symbol (as is being an MD!), and bicycles are low status, mainly because the infrastructure doesn't make biking and public transportation appealing.

I.e. the symbol isn't the cause. The symbol is created by "a country which is unwilling to provide adequate public transportation" because it serves the automobile industry to make people depend on owning a car.

And by the way, bicycling under the influence is fined (DKR 1,500, approximately $200), but you don't lose your driver's license.
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann 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 20th October 2019, 07:47 AM   #185
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,626
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Of course itís a right.
No, itís not.

If you disagree, it shouldnít be too much trouble for you to provide a link to a law or court ruling explicitly stating that driving a car is a right.
johnny karate 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 20th October 2019, 07:54 AM   #186
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,626
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
In Texas, I donít have to submit to field sobriety tests or pre-arrest chemical tests. Indeed I have done so. My license was not suspended and I was let go because there was no basis for probable cause -I wasnít drunk. I donít even know why I was pulled over.
Then you got lucky.

Texas is more permissive than other states, but if the officer had decided to arrest you under suspicion of a DWI and you still refused the breathalyzer or blood test, you driverís license would have been taken away from you.

This would be unrelated to the DWI charge and done without anything resembling due process. The mere act of refusing the test is enough to have your driving privileges immediately revoked.

Can you think of an example of any other right that can be revoked without due process?
johnny karate 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 20th October 2019, 09:35 AM   #187
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,936
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
A pointless truism. People in those circumstances are a very, very small minority (like children and stay-at-home moms), and are either supported by family members who do, in fact, own cars and drive; or they move somewhere where they don't need cars.

Some places do not have public transportation, carpools, or even cabs; and many people do not have convenient friends and relatives. They live too far from work to walk or even bicycle, and the climate a large part of the year makes doing so prohibitively difficult; or they're too old, unhealthy, or otherwise physically incapable.

I lived in a place like that for pretty much all of my 20s, and had no one else I could reliably depend on for transportation. I was far from the only one. A great deal of the US is built like that. I hate driving, did from the time I was a teen, but didn't have any choice but learn to drive if I wanted to be employable.

Right now, I live near by, not in, a big city. Near enough that I have access to the employers in the city (a commute of about 22 miles), far enough out that there's no useful public transportation within walking distance.

Oh, and public transportation does not run late at night, so screw anyone who has a swing or graveyard shift job. Daily use of cabs or ride-hailing services are prohibitively expensive over that distance for anyone who isn't getting paid a whole lot more than I am, and the latter are quite unreliable.

One can develop quite the self-righteous attitude against drivers if one lives in big cities one's whole life, and has access to all the amenities and conveniences available therein. Lots of trust fund hippies and tech bro hipsters I know certainly have. As do many hypocritical conservative jackasses who have the money to not care about anyone else.

Disabled people have access to social programs that provide limited transportation and personal assistance. A lot of that is predicated on moving them to a major urban center where it's easy to provide said services. Even so, an unfortunately high number do, in fact, end up effectively crawling in a hole and dying because they don't have adequate support. Another unfortunately high number end up living in shelters, flop-houses, or on the street in urban centers. That's one of the big travesties of social care in this country.

Guess how I know this.

Want to take a guess how many end up being forced to move to urban centers, giving up houses and a great deal of their possessions to afford a small but expensive living space? Want to guess how many end up not in a hole, but living homeless on the street?

The idea isn't necessarily bad, the current state of technology, the assumptions made, and the proposed method of implementation of the idea by proponents are bad.

No, it's an observation of plain facts. You're simply engaging in self-serving denialism.

No, it challenges the concept of a country which is unwilling to provide adequate public transportation and disability assistance, because it's obsessed with the automobile as a symbol.

Food and drug purity regulations and licensing of production facilities, housing development legislation and building codes, healthcare regulation and medical practitioner licensing, waste disposal and processing regulations, and so on.

So yeah, looks like you can.

Do I really need to educate you on the entire history of the USA with regard to Jim Crow and Sundown laws; ongoing racist and homophobic policing; COINTELPRO; voter suppression laws; abortion legislation; assaults and murders of peaceful protesters by police and National Guard troops; ongoing discrimination against ethnic, religious, sexual, and other minorities; and so on, and so on...

So yeah, looks like you can.

Another of the great travesties in this country. Millions of people in the USA have died from hypothermia or other easily avoidable causes because they are homeless and live on the streets or unheated and unhealthy squats, have died of starvation or malnutrition because they cannot afford adequate food, have died because they cannot afford even the most basic healthcare, and so on.

So yeah, looks like you can.

The straw men you're surrounding yourself with are highly flammable, maybe you should have an interlock to prevent you from handling open flames if you've been drinking.


So I guess we should put you down as a "no" on the interlocks?
Bob001 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 20th October 2019, 10:02 AM   #188
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,989
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
No, itís not.



If you disagree, it shouldnít be too much trouble for you to provide a link to a law or court ruling explicitly stating that driving a car is a right.


You wonít find such a law or ruling as the specific idea of driving as a right has never been so addressed.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 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 20th October 2019, 10:04 AM   #189
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,989
Alcohol Detectors in Cars

Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Then you got lucky.



Texas is more permissive than other states, but if the officer had decided to arrest you under suspicion of a DWI and you still refused the breathalyzer or blood test, you driverís license would have been taken away from you.



This would be unrelated to the DWI charge and done without anything resembling due process. The mere act of refusing the test is enough to have your driving privileges immediately revoked.



Can you think of an example of any other right that can be revoked without due process?


A license can only be temporarily revoked pending an administrative hearing that must happen quickly, thus satisfying due process.

And no, I canít think of any other right that can be revoked without due process. What are you thinking of?
__________________
Hello.

Last edited by xjx388; 20th October 2019 at 10:06 AM.
xjx388 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 20th October 2019, 11:20 AM   #190
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 42,913
Originally Posted by lionking View Post
You mean like this?







This is just like saying the average lifespan has been increasing, so why bother with curing cancer.



Try this line of argument on victims of drunk drivers.



As others have pointed out, there are plenty of things people are required to do as part of living in society. I have no problems with this being another one.
Illegally owned firearm are involved in a lot of death and injury. Can we search your property several times a month, just to make sure you don't pose any such risk? As part of what you're required to do to live in society?
theprestige 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 20th October 2019, 11:25 AM   #191
Ron Swanson
Illuminator
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,521
Originally Posted by Ranb View Post
That's only an option if the detectors are not required to be back fitted to all cars driven on public roads.
I can't think of any other similar vehicle safety device being backwards mandated.

Although this one would probably be the easiest to install, compared to say airbags or anti skid breaks, etc.
Ron Swanson 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 20th October 2019, 11:29 AM   #192
Ron Swanson
Illuminator
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,521
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
Collecting such data on someone who has been convicted of DWI makes sense.

Collecting and transmitting such data from a preemptive system is an extra, unnecessary expense. There's no reason such a feature would be included or optional.
The data on how your dive (when you break, your speed, air pressure in tires engine RPM etc) is ALL collected in the cars computer and used in accident investigation, there's no reason to think they would purposely write the software to specifically exclude the Breathalyzer results.
Ron Swanson 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 20th October 2019, 11:32 AM   #193
Ron Swanson
Illuminator
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,521
Originally Posted by dann View Post
The latter only if they are sober: Riding a Horse Under the Influence? (duicentral.com, Nov. 7, 2017)
Did not know that!!
Ron Swanson 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 20th October 2019, 11:38 AM   #194
Ron Swanson
Illuminator
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,521
Originally Posted by Max_mang View Post
How will the device work? What will be the process when you go to drive with this in place?
Presumably the same way they work now.
Ron Swanson 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 20th October 2019, 12:49 PM   #195
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 16,201
Originally Posted by dann View Post
I agree with the first part of your sentence, but not with the alleged cause of the unwillingness. I live in country without any automobile industry at all, which means that all cars have to be imported. The tariffs (deliberately) make cars very expensive, and lobbyists of the (non-existing) car industry don't influence politicians to make infrastructure more automobile friendly.
(...)
I.e. the symbol isn't the cause. The symbol is created by "a country which is unwilling to provide adequate public transportation" because it serves the automobile industry to make people depend on owning a car.

You can't apply the standards of your country's culture to American culture. In the US, the automobile has, since the 1950s, been very much a symbol of the American character. Unless you happen to live in a super-dense urban area like New York City, not owning and driving an automobile is still seen as weird, un-American, and other.

It's more than just industry propaganda. In the post-WWII USA, there was a confluence of circumstances that dramatically changed American culture and symbolism.

First, the industrial manufacturing boom of the war years continued, shifting from military equipment to civilian goods, most notably the automobile and new kitchen automation appliances. Employment rose, and pay was typically good enough to allow even working-class people to afford to buy their own houses and many luxuries. This meant that not only were automobiles far more readily available than before the war, but they were also far more affordable, and no longer the a luxury only the wealthy could afford.

American culture and values post-WWII became very materialistic. The high levels of prosperity, combined with the increasingly consumerist leanings of the culture, created an environment in which ownership of property and material goods defined one's social status. Further, it wasn't the ownership of heirloom goods that defined status as it did elsewhere in the world, but the ownership of new goods and "mod-cons" that defined and delineated social status.

Second, during the post-war years, there was an enormous exodus from the cities. The fact that so many workers could now afford to own their own homes, meant that there was a huge demand for housing, which resulted in a major boom in housing development. This led to the phenomenon of the suburbs, massive housing projects outside cities, which served as "bedroom communities". America being a country with a whole lot of open, undeveloped space, it was in an ideal environment for this phenomenon to not only develop, but flourish.

People left the cities in droves to move to the suburbs. And although the populations of these areas increased, the population density decreased thanks to the sprawling, space-consuming style of development; and the suburbs typically had no, or only rudimentary, public transportation available to them, compared to the cities they had left. (There was also a powerfully racist element to this exodus, but that's a discussion for another thread.)

So combining these two factors, along with several others, meant that automobiles because essential for post-war American life and culture, and very quickly became a symbol of American prosperity, and American freedom. The automobile defined American culture to a very large degree; and still does. Just look at the types of automobiles we drive compared to almost anywhere else in the world. By contrast, public transportation became something that was seen as characteristic of the lower classes, the poor and marginalized. As a result of American class-consciousness, this created a growing resistance to developing public transportation outside of major urban centers. The sprawling, open nature of the suburbs also created significant logistic hurdles and greatly increased the expense of implementing and running public transportation. So dependence on personal automobiles flourished.

I think the only country that even approaches the American obsession with automobiles is Australia, for similar but somewhat different reasons.
__________________
When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won.

Last edited by luchog; 20th October 2019 at 12:54 PM.
luchog 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 20th October 2019, 01:02 PM   #196
Max_mang
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 376
Originally Posted by Ron Swanson View Post
Presumably the same way they work now.
This article states that something other than a breathalyzer blow-in-a-tube method is being tested, but it does not say what the method is:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a9160161.html

I think the method is going to be about the most important part, as well as proven accuracy. And also cost.
Max_mang 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 20th October 2019, 01:44 PM   #197
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,989
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
You can't apply the standards of your country's culture to American culture. In the US, the automobile has, since the 1950s, been very much a symbol of the American character. Unless you happen to live in a super-dense urban area like New York City, not owning and driving an automobile is still seen as weird, un-American, and other.

It's more than just industry propaganda. In the post-WWII USA, there was a confluence of circumstances that dramatically changed American culture and symbolism.

First, the industrial manufacturing boom of the war years continued, shifting from military equipment to civilian goods, most notably the automobile and new kitchen automation appliances. Employment rose, and pay was typically good enough to allow even working-class people to afford to buy their own houses and many luxuries. This meant that not only were automobiles far more readily available than before the war, but they were also far more affordable, and no longer the a luxury only the wealthy could afford.

American culture and values post-WWII became very materialistic. The high levels of prosperity, combined with the increasingly consumerist leanings of the culture, created an environment in which ownership of property and material goods defined one's social status. Further, it wasn't the ownership of heirloom goods that defined status as it did elsewhere in the world, but the ownership of new goods and "mod-cons" that defined and delineated social status.

Second, during the post-war years, there was an enormous exodus from the cities. The fact that so many workers could now afford to own their own homes, meant that there was a huge demand for housing, which resulted in a major boom in housing development. This led to the phenomenon of the suburbs, massive housing projects outside cities, which served as "bedroom communities". America being a country with a whole lot of open, undeveloped space, it was in an ideal environment for this phenomenon to not only develop, but flourish.

People left the cities in droves to move to the suburbs. And although the populations of these areas increased, the population density decreased thanks to the sprawling, space-consuming style of development; and the suburbs typically had no, or only rudimentary, public transportation available to them, compared to the cities they had left. (There was also a powerfully racist element to this exodus, but that's a discussion for another thread.)

So combining these two factors, along with several others, meant that automobiles because essential for post-war American life and culture, and very quickly became a symbol of American prosperity, and American freedom. The automobile defined American culture to a very large degree; and still does. Just look at the types of automobiles we drive compared to almost anywhere else in the world. By contrast, public transportation became something that was seen as characteristic of the lower classes, the poor and marginalized. As a result of American class-consciousness, this created a growing resistance to developing public transportation outside of major urban centers. The sprawling, open nature of the suburbs also created significant logistic hurdles and greatly increased the expense of implementing and running public transportation. So dependence on personal automobiles flourished.

I think the only country that even approaches the American obsession with automobiles is Australia, for similar but somewhat different reasons.


Indeed. I live in a smallish town in South Texas. Taxi service and public transportation exist but they wouldnít help me much because the routes are limited and the taxi services are few and expensive. Several people have been killed riding bikes through the streets and we have very few dedicated bike lanes. Itís way too hot to walk most of the year. I need a vehicle to get to work and a ďright to travelĒ would be meaningless without access to my own vehicle.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 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 20th October 2019, 02:53 PM   #198
Metullus
Forum ĺ-Wit Pro Tem
 
Metullus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,108
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Cool.

It still doesnít mean that anyone is treating you like a criminal.
I would be presumed to be impaired until I blew into the little tube to prove that I was not. I am not interested in blowing into a little tube. I suppose that I could disable the device if I wanted to, but I'd bet that the default response of the authorities would be that I was trying to circumvent the law...
__________________
I have met Tim at TAM. He is of sufficient height to piss on your leg. - Doubt 10/7/2005 - I'll miss Tim.

Aristotle taught that the brain exists merely to cool the blood and is not involved in the process of thinking. This is true only of certain persons. - Will Cuppy
Metullus 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 20th October 2019, 02:53 PM   #199
TomB
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 658
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Only in a few major metropolitan areas, outside of those areas it is appalling.
So kind of like the US then?

The "urban" area of Illinois where I live has a population of about 100,000. It has a fairly decent public transportation system for its size, but certainly not anything like Chicago or even Peoria has. The bus routes have good coverage and frequency, so it's not hard to get to a bus stop and you don't have to wait long for a bus during the day, at least. However, the routes don't intersect a lot and each route is a loop running only one direction. The result is that for me to make the 5 miles to work by bus takes over an hour. It takes me about 10 minutes to drive or 20 minutes to bike.

When my daughter was in grade school, we lived too close to the school for the bus (about 6-7 blocks) and both of us worked. The school had an after school program, but you still had to pick them up by 5:30. (Possibly earlier, its been a long time.) If I got off work at 5 and took the shortest bus route starting with the bus stop right outside where I work, it is simply impossible to get there by 5:30.

So yeah, public transportation doesn't work where I live.

Public transportation is great where you have a population density that can support a dense and frequent network of routes. In smaller communities you don't have that. People DO get by without cars, but it's not easy.
TomB 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 20th October 2019, 03:09 PM   #200
TomB
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 658
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
You can't apply the standards of your country's culture to American culture. In the US, the automobile has, since the 1950s, been very much a symbol of the American character. Unless you happen to live in a super-dense urban area like New York City, not owning and driving an automobile is still seen as weird, un-American, and other.
I'm not sure about the "un-American" part, but yes, not having at least one car in a household is a little strange. Usually, there is one for each adult, but families with a single car aren't exactly rare.

Other than college students for whom there may not be parking on campus, the people I've known without cars either had physical or mental conditions which made them unable to drive or were in extemely dire financial straits. The parking lot in the local housing project is completely full, so I would say obtaining a vehicle is towards the top of people's list of necessities here.
TomB 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 » Social Issues & Current Events

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 09:01 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.