Three more who liSStened

Mister Paul · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by bad company

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul
What's wrong with having both?

This'll be interesting, because it is exactly the point where the cretin fell down.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

1.- Because having so many indiscriminate revenue raising cameras only serve to alienate otherwise law abiding drivers and raise money.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Including your opinionated language only serves as proof that your argument is not objective.

But anyway. Is a shoplifter otherwise law abiding?

That's just a nonsense. A law is a law. Break it and you have no right to complain about the punishment nor the detection.

You're coming from the argument from someone who doesn't think speeding should be an offence. So you pretend that it isn't, and base your argument and responses around this.

But it is an offence. Nothing you can say will change that fact. So you're starting off on an incorrect basis, and everything you say after that is flawed.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by bad company

2.- As far as I can see Cretin has posted on this thread[?]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
And?...

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

bad company · June 2007

Mr P - It's very simple really. When so many people break a law we can assume that it is a bad law. I'm not saying we should not have limits (although I did enjoy the autobahn last week) just that some are being set too low and enforced for profit not safety.

I AM THE STIG - HONEST

Mister Paul · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by bad company

Mr P - It's very simple really. When so many people break a law we can assume that it is a bad law.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Really???

Why?

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

Jaded · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by bad company

Mr P - It's very simple really. When so many people break a law we can assume that it is a bad law. I'm not saying we should not have limits (although I did enjoy the autobahn last week) just that some are being set too low and enforced for profit not safety.

I AM THE STIG - HONEST
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

No, we can't assume that.

--
[Warning] This post may contain a baby elephant or traces of one

rothbook · June 2007

As many people break the laws on drugs as speeding laws. Want to legalise heroin?

Cunobelin · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I am not saying that swopping points is right. I am saying that IMO the law is an ass in regard to their too many revenue cameras and this is leading to this problem.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

SO Jonathan Aitken and Jeffrey Archer wern't really guilty - it was the system of law that forced them into it?

He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.
(Unattributed Trad.)

bad company · June 2007

So Mr P and Jaded are advocating blind faith. The outstanding example of obedience of bad laws led to the rise of the Nazi's in Germany.

I AM THE STIG - HONEST

rothbook · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> The outstanding example of obedience of bad laws led to the rise of the Nazi's in Germany.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Most people support speed cameras.

Comparing road safety measures with Nazis is silly, offensive and beneath contempt.

Mister Paul · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by bad company

So Mr P and Jaded are advocating blind faith. The outstanding example of obedience of bad laws led to the rise of the Nazi's in Germany.

I AM THE STIG - HONEST
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

If you're wanting to come up with a good argument for getting rid of safety cameras, you're not doing a very good job.

1) Please answer my question.

2) You've assumed that you are right in saying that speed limits are bad laws, and then gone on from there. You need to justify your claim first.

3) Please show me where I have ever said anything about putting blind faith in speed limits. Claiming that everyone who agrees with limits does this just removes more credibility from your argument.

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

Mister Paul · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by bad company

Mr P - It's very simple really. When so many people break a law we can assume that it is a bad law.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Really???

Why?

edit: you seem to have missed the question.

bad company · June 2007

Come on Mr P You have been banging on about speed limits and 'speedophiles' for ages without ever justifying anything.

Do you really need me to explain why I believe that if so many people break a law it is a bad law?

Your tactics consistently involve ending your posts with a question - in theory you could win any argument that way.

The is round - Oh really, why?

It just is, everybody knows that - Do they?

I could go on but I'm going to take a work break.

I AM THE STIG - HONEST

rothbook · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> Do you really need me to explain why I believe that if so many people break a law it is a bad law? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Well, four people have asked you to do so. It's up to you, natch, but your position is not enhanced by your refusal to explain it!

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by bad company

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul
What's wrong with having both?

This'll be interesting, because it is exactly the point where the cretin fell down.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

1.- Because having so many indiscriminate revenue raising cameras only serve to alienate otherwise law abiding drivers and raise money.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Including your opinionated language only serves as proof that your argument is not objective.

But anyway. Is a shoplifter otherwise law abiding?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Possibly, but as I keep pointint out, you can't equate it to shoplifting because there's a victim involved in shoplifting - the shop actually loses out.

<hr noshade size="1">
CyclingIsPermittedAlongThisFootpath GenericPath

Zenwavemaster · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by bad company

So Mr P and Jaded are advocating blind faith. The outstanding example of obedience of bad laws led to the rise of the Nazi's in Germany.

I AM THE STIG - HONEST
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Godwin's Law has been invoked. Finito.

Mister Paul · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by bad company

Come on Mr P You have been banging on about speed limits and 'speedophiles' for ages without ever justifying anything.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You're going to have to show me where I have provided no justification. This'll be interesting.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by bad company

Do you really need me to explain why I believe that if so many people break a law it is a bad law?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Er, yes. That's why I jeep asking you.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by bad company

Your tactics consistently involve ending your posts with a question - in theory you could win any argument that way.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
My tactic involves questioning your position. Instead of providing any substance, you're following in the footsteps of Smithy and cretin by ignoring the questions and posting flannel instead.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by bad company

The is round - Oh really, why?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Nonsense.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by bad company

It just is, everybody knows that - Do they?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
So you're saying that speed limits are wrong because everyone knows that they are wrong? Well, that's me convinced then. Thanks.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by bad company

I could go on but I'm going to take a work break.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
You mean you aren't going to answer the question, and provide the reasoning behind your opinion? Well how unusual.

All you have said so far is that it is a bad law because people break it, and people break it because it is a bad law. Which is nonsense.

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by bad company

Mr P - It's very simple really. When so many people break a law we can assume that it is a bad law.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Really???

Why?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Because when that happens it would appear that the general consensus of the public, or large swathes of it, feel that that law is unnecessary, or wrong. We live in a democracy, so therefore it should be up to the public to set the laws. Unfortunately though, ALL politicians are greedy and as such it's impossible to vote in a set that don't put moneymaking first.

<hr noshade size="1">
CyclingIsPermittedAlongThisFootpath GenericPath

Mister Paul · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

Possibly, but as I keep pointint out, you can't equate it to shoplifting because there's a victim involved in shoplifting - the shop actually loses out.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

We've been here before bonjy. Several times. And each time you were shown how this claim is wrong.

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

You're going to have to show me where I have provided no justification. This'll be interesting.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
That's attempting to prove a negative though, and as such is nigh on impossible... unless you were going to show ALL the instances where you could have possibly provided justification, which would be tedious.
Prove that I haven't provided justification sounds odd, and doesn't make any practical sense.
Maybe you should prove that you have provided justification, maybe that would be easier?

<hr noshade size="1">
CyclingIsPermittedAlongThisFootpath GenericPath

Mister Paul · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by bad company

Mr P - It's very simple really. When so many people break a law we can assume that it is a bad law.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Really???

Why?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Because when that happens it would appear that the general consensus of the public, or large swathes of it, feel that that law is unnecessary, or wrong. We live in a democracy, so therefore it should be up to the public to set the laws. Unfortunately though, ALL politicians are greedy and as such it's impossible to vote in a set that don't put moneymaking first.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

All that it would appear is that there need to be some behavioural changes in order to improve road safety. And the facts -that second convictions for speeding are on the decrease- show that this is working.

Of course some people are going to kick against it but, as Rothbok has pointed out, the majority of the population are in favour of safety cameras.

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

Mister Paul · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

You're going to have to show me where I have provided no justification. This'll be interesting.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
That's attempting to prove a negative though, and as such is nigh on impossible... unless you were going to show ALL the instances where you could have possibly provided justification, which would be tedious.
Prove that I haven't provided justification sounds odd, and doesn't make any practical sense.
Maybe you should prove that you have provided justification, maybe that would be easier?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Stop talking rubbish bonj. He's only got to give an example. Then I can show the justification.

I can prove that you didn't have knowledge of the blue badge system yesterday. That's proving a negative, and is very simple. You kept blathering on about orange badges, which haven't been around for years, and you had no idea of the criteria for being given a blue badge. See? Proved a negative, in one sentence.

I suggest you go and have a play on the swings. You'll like it there.

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

The Bosscp · June 2007

The basic tactic of rothbook and Mister Paul, and the keystone of what their argument hinges on, is that just because it is a law, it MUST be good, and it MUST therefore be gospel. Hence every post against them seems to be responded with a glib analogy along the lines of "so if it's ok to speed is it ok to shoplift/murder/be Jeffrey Archer/etc ??"

You seem to have taken the stance that the law MUST be gospel just because it is the law. Maybe you could go into more depth on why this stance is valid? And it's no good coming out with "well if we didn't have laws the world would descend into anarchism and chaos", because the fact that people don't e.g. commit murder is not because it's against the law, but because it's not a very nice thing to do, and because there's a victim.

<hr noshade size="1">
CyclingIsPermittedAlongThisFootpath GenericPath

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

Possibly, but as I keep pointint out, you can't equate it to shoplifting because there's a victim involved in shoplifting - the shop actually loses out.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

We've been here before bonjy. Several times. And each time you were shown how this claim is wrong.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
No, you've shown me how you think it's wrong. If I stay within the speed limit, no-one would have used the road who wouldn't have done before, no-one is unable to cross the road that otherwise would be able to, no-one suffers. There is no victim.

<hr noshade size="1">
CyclingIsPermittedAlongThisFootpath GenericPath

bad company · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul
All you have said so far is that it is a bad law because people break it, and people break it because it is a bad law. Which is nonsense.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"> Really why???

I AM THE STIG - HONEST

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

Stop talking rubbish bonj. He's only got to give an example. Then I can show the justification.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Ah right, you mean so you can invent it where it didn't exist before....

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

I can prove that you didn't have knowledge of the blue badge system yesterday.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
yes, that's an exception because it was only yesterday and you can still find the post where I said I didn't know they'd changed from orange to blue. Big deal.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

That's proving a negative, and is very simple. You kept blathering on about orange badges, which haven't been around for years, and you had no idea of the criteria for being given a blue badge. See? Proved a negative, in one sentence.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
No, you've stated it.
OK, if you're so good at it, I'll give you another negative to prove.
Prove that I WOULDN'T qualify for a blue badge. In an interview. Since you used to work on the interview panel for disabled badges you should know the questions pretty well.

<hr noshade size="1">
CyclingIsPermittedAlongThisFootpath GenericPath

rothbook · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> Really why??? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Because you pre-assume the position that it's a bad law. The majority of people disagree with you so your position is based on a fallacy. You also remain ignorant of the siting criteria despite it being explained to you.

Mister Paul · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by bad company

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul
All you have said so far is that it is a bad law because people break it, and people break it because it is a bad law. Which is nonsense.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"> Really why???

I AM THE STIG - HONEST
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Because the reason is the justification for the reason for the justification for the.......and so on.

It doesn't explain why you think it is a bad law. 'because people break it' is not a reason. You're going to have to do better than that.

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

Mister Paul · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

[<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

I can prove that you didn't have knowledge of the blue badge system yesterday.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
yes, that's an exception because it was only yesterday and you can still find the post where I said I didn't know they'd changed from orange to blue. Big deal.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

No. An example is not an exception. It is an example. I proved a negative. You said it was impossible. Whether or not the post is still there is irrelevant. You still displayed your ignorance yesterday.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

That's proving a negative, and is very simple. You kept blathering on about orange badges, which haven't been around for years, and you had no idea of the criteria for being given a blue badge. See? Proved a negative, in one sentence.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
No, you've stated it.
OK, if you're so good at it, I'll give you another negative to prove.
Prove that I WOULDN'T qualify for a blue badge. In an interview. Since you used to work on the interview panel for disabled badges you should know the questions pretty well.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Because you don't meet any of the necessary criteria. There you go.

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan

CometGirl · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul
Because you don't meet any of the necessary criteria. There you go.

__________________________________________________________
What we need is a new, national White Bicycle Plan
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Is terminal stupidity not among the criteria?

CometGirl · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by bad company

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul
All you have said so far is that it is a bad law because people break it, and people break it because it is a bad law. Which is nonsense.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"> Really why???

I AM THE STIG - HONEST
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

It's nonsense because it's a circular argument.

But it's also legally nonsense. As someone else has said - drugs are a good example. Laws which are "routinely" broken are possession of cannabis, handling stolen goods, speeding, drunk and disorderly, common assault.

But the public like getting stoned, necking fifteen vodka shots, puking on the floor, falling over, urinating in the street and starting a fight. They like it so much that many of them spend all Friday and Saturday night devoted to that very cause. There's no "victim" as long as they're only playfighting among themselves. Some people might find it antisocial, but it's not doing any harm. Why not legalise it?

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mister Paul

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Prove that I WOULDN'T qualify for a blue badge. In an interview. Since you used to work on the interview panel for disabled badges you should know the questions pretty well.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Because you don't meet any of the necessary criteria. There you go.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Well you're not a very good interviewer - you can't have been very good at that job, how many genuinely disabled people did you turn away? How many people are hobbling around birmingham for miles trying to find their car because YOU wouldn't listen to them when they applied for a disabled badge?
You haven't even asked me any questions, before you presume the right to declare that I'm not disabled! If I was the boss of the disabled badge scheme interview panel, I'd sack you straight away.

<hr noshade size="1">
CyclingIsPermittedAlongThisFootpath GenericPath

Three more who liSStened

Comments

Categories