David Hansen
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Think Of The Children! No, really.
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 15:03:32 GMT someone who may be Sniper8052
<
[email protected]> wrote this:-
> Guy has explained his referance and I have accepted his
> interpretaion which is what discussion is ment to be. Or do you disagree
> with that too?
> My point is quite simple. The Department of/for Transport has for
> decades been part of the road "safety" lobby, which has driven
> "vulnerable users" off the roads in order to speed up car users.
> They are responsible for road "safety" and also are the ones who
> produce the official figures on "safety". Thus one must take their
> figures with a pinch of salt. They are not going to produce figures
> that show they are doing the wrong things. This is actually a very
> important point.
> That is why I asked the question about the figures for children.
> Does this mean the children are safer, or that they have been driven
> off the roads.
The figures quoted were figures which had no conclusion drawn from them in
the text as published by DFT. Therefore they could not be anything but
impartial indicators of the totals, unless you are saying that the figures
are a lie in themselves, it does not matter who produced them.
Again an opinion offered such as "Ah, the road lobby's figures" does
nothing to inform me of your opinion regarding how those figures relate to
the topic under discussion and suggests I am in someway trying to decieve
the reader by quoting a deliberately false representation of the numbers
involved in said topic.
>> A definition according to law is the correct definition of that term in
>> referance to any discussion around that subject.
> Incorrect.
> It may or may not be the correct definition in relation to a legal
> discussion round the subject, but we are not having a legal
> discussion.
Sorry, I thought we were having a discussion about the use of roads and
the relative disproportion of rights given to one party over another. It
would appear to me that as a number of different views regarding the
definition of a road had been offered a correct and legal definition would
be appropriate to the discussion. If those parties involved in a
discussion do not, at the very least, have sight of the others hymn sheet
how can they hope to agree on a mutual definition later on?
>> your response again shows
>> the lack of regard you have for any but your own voice in this matter
> You appear to believe that you can read my mind. However, you
> cannot. This is a common mistake amongst some people and it tells us
> a lot about the people who appear to believe they are mind readers.
<Snip>
> Assuming you are correct, so what?
That sounds fairly like 'I don't care if your right or not'.
> The fact that I advocate an argument does not mean that I have no
> regard for anyone else's argument. However, just because someone
> makes an argument does not mean that I accept it. Listening to and
> accepting an argument are two distinct things.
Making a reasoned discussion and arguing are two seperate things also. I
have presented you with reasoned and evidenced answers to at points one
worded rebuttles of facts and definitions. You have not had the grace to
accept that.
<Snip to Follow through point below>
> The law is a rough approximation of the views of the powerful in
> society. That does not >mean that it is right, quite the reverse. At one
> time the law had no objections to slavery, >that does not mean that the
> law was right.
>> Your opinion.
> Of course. That is not a startling insight.
Please don't be blatently rude you demean yourself and your discourse.
Your opinion is that the law was wrong, yes it was wrong I and almost
everyone here would agree from this point in time that the laws
surrounding slavery were wholly wrong. However that does not mean that
every law is wrong and if you wish to challenge the definition held in law
you will need to evidence that with discussion which expresses why you
hold a view which contradicts said afore mentioned definition.
I said in answer to that question that the Law was right for the people
and society which framed it. Once that law was challenged by discussion
and action it was changed. I agree it took a long time for what is now
regarded as an unjustifiable law to be overturned but it illustrates that
the Law is not a fixed body of statutes and changes with time in response
to the demands of society.
>> The law was right for the society that framed it and was altered by
>> that society as it >>evolved and changed its opinions on the
>> correctness of its behavior.
<Snip to Follow through point below>
>> The Law is a set of rules built up over time and custom describing the
>> behavior of the >>persons creating the society in which it is founded
>> and laying down provisions for the >>punishment of those persons who
>> fail to abide by those rules.
> Assuming that is a good summary then it tells us about the past.
It also tells us about the future when read in conjunction with the
previous paragraph.
> What is more important is the future and that may involve changing the
> law.
By discussion it may be that the laws and customs which have evolved
around road usage will be changed as may many laws, I look forward to the
point when the law says I can stop a person with no insurance and no
drivers licence from driving his car on a road and gives me a power to
arrest him if he tries to do so after I have warned him not to.
>>> The law is a very minor thing.
>
>> No it isn't. The Law is everything.
> While that may be your opinion it is not mine. At one time is was
> illegal in parts of the >USA to assist runaway slaves. I think those
> that broke the law were right to do so.
I agree that they were right to do so. I agree that some laws are wrong
and need to be challenged. I disagree that we should throw the baby out
with the bath water.
>> Without The Law anyone may dowhatever they like and the powerfull or
>> stronger can take, >>steal, punnish, rape,kill,speed,jump red lights or
>> whatever without fear of any
>> concequence.
> I look forward to the law dealing with Mr Liar for mounting anillegal
> war. However, I'm not holding my breath.
I am not even going there
Sniper8052
This post has been composited from UK Rec Cycling as it has not appeared
in my newsreader any errors included are therefore because of this and not
intentional misquotes intended to confuse.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client:
http://www.opera.com/m2/
