If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing not about highway safety
(Carole Allen) wrote:
proffsl wrote: I know full well what Locomotion means. Locomotion is the act of removing one's self from one place to another according to their own inclination. The court case in Williams vs. Fears defines the act of Locomotion as "to remove from one place to another according to inclination". Meriam-Websters defines Locomotion as: "an act or the power of moving from place to place" That's what feet are for. Along with numerous other methods of Locomotion, including the Automobile. And, what are highways for? Packard v. Banton says: "The streets belong to the public and are primarily for the use of the public in the ordinary way." -- Packard v. Banton, 264 U.S. 140 (1924) - http://laws.findlaw.com/us/264/140.html#144 What is the Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel on our public highways these days? |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing not about highway safety
On Sep 23, 5:03 pm, proffsl wrote:
(Carole Allen) wrote: proffsl wrote: I know full well what Locomotion means. Locomotion is the act of removing one's self from one place to another according to their own inclination. The court case in Williams vs. Fears defines the act of Locomotion as "to remove from one place to another according to inclination". Meriam-Websters defines Locomotion as: "an act or the power of moving from place to place" That's what feet are for. Along with numerous other methods of Locomotion, including the Automobile. And, what are highways for? Packard v. Banton says: "The streets belong to the public and are primarily for the use of the public in the ordinary way." -- Packard v. Banton, 264 U.S. 140 (1924) -http://laws.findlaw.com/us/264/140.html#144 What is the Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel on our public highways these days? Why, that would be by automobile driven by a properly and legally licensed operator, as courts have repeatedly determined. If anyone cares about proffsl's repeated egregious errors in fact and reasoning... and how he continually misuses the case he just cited despite having been properly informed of its content and meaning, which had nothing to do with licensing, but about a requirement for commercial automotive liability insurance on the part of a Manhattan taxi cab company in the 1920s, and how he completely fabricated a court case out of thin air and tried to pass it off as supporting him, and how all of the cases he has cited actually *uphold* the right of the people to require licensing, and how one case he cited as supporting a right to drive with no license actually held *the exact opposite* -- it upheld licensing law -- then you can read through the 1,700-plus post thread in which he was completely demolished logically, factually and truthfully. http://tinyurl.com/3bvqsr Otherwise, nothing to see here. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing not about highway safety
On Sep 22, 7:32 pm, Dave Smith wrote:
proffsl wrote: That article is a crock. Driver licensing does ensure that drivers have completed written and road tests to demonstrate that they understand the traffic laws in their state or province and that they are capable of handling a motor vehicle safely. Well, of course they do. Just as being requited to take a test to see if you can hold your breath for more than a minute will ensure that you have demonstrated that you can hold your breath for more than a minute. But, what you claim Driver Licensing tests do isn't what I stated that Driver Licenses fail to do. My statement was that Driver Licensing does NOTHING for highway safety that laws against endangerment didn't already serve. I already stated that driver licence testing ensures that people can demonstrate knowledge of traffic law and the ability to drive safely. Virtually everybody over the age of 12 CAN drive safely. You might be surprised at the number of people who cannot drive safely. That is cannot, as opposed to do not or will not. The question isn't if they CAN drive safely, but rather if they WILL drive safely. More than 98% of all highway accidents are due to WILFULL acts of negligence, not due to an inability to drive safely. Not having a driver licenses doesn't mean you're driving dangerously. And, having a driver licenses doesn't mean you're driving safely. Is that 90% a figure that you can provide a source for or just one that you pulled out of the air? I will assume the later because I doubt that you will find a reliable source that deals with an oxymoron like wilful negligence. Something can be done wilfully or out of negligence, but the two are mutually exclusive. Your instinct is correct; proffsl pulled it out of thin air. He misused the same statistic in spring 2006 in a mega-thread regurgitating the same lies, mistakes, faulty logic and in one case, his outright complete fabrication of a phony court case. In this case, he completely misread a statistical study on driver distraction and accidents. The study was not of *all* accidents but only of those caused by driver distraction, which was a small subset of the whole. It was pointed out to him, but he is apparently intent on spamming usenet with proven lies. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing not about highway safety
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 17:32:18 -0700, wrote:
If anyone cares about proffsl's repeated egregious errors in fact and reasoning... Why are you all responding to the twit? I admit the diatribe was hilarious first time 'round but as a running gag it's worn a bit thin. He has to be either a troll or a weirdo with a cause. Neither is capable of reasoned debate. Cheers, Alan, Australia -- http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/ latest: Slovenia http://loraltraveloz.blogspot.com/ latest: Mossman Gorge in the Daintree Rainforest |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing not about highway safety
On Sep 23, 7:21 pm, Alan S wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 17:32:18 -0700, wrote: If anyone cares about proffsl's repeated egregious errors in fact and reasoning... Why are you all responding to the twit? I admit the diatribe was hilarious first time 'round but as a running gag it's worn a bit thin. For the same reason one goes to a Three Stooges festival. It's fun to watch the fool when we have idle time. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing not about highway safety
And, and then come the professional disrupters, who will do anything
to destroy the message they dare not hear, or allow to be heard. It is their task to heckle, lie, personally attack, and generally cause such a disruption in the thread, that the message of the thread becomes obscured in the racket they make. They want you to ignore me, but is it they who should be ignored, as they are the one's who are completely off topic. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing not about highway safety
wrote:
proffsl wrote: (Carole Allen) wrote: proffsl wrote: I know full well what Locomotion means. Locomotion is the act of removing one's self from one place to another according to their own inclination. The court case in Williams vs. Fears defines the act of Locomotion as "to remove from one place to another according to inclination". Meriam-Websters defines Locomotion as: "an act or the power of moving from place to place" That's what feet are for. Along with numerous other methods of Locomotion, including the Automobile. And, what are highways for? Packard v. Banton says: "The streets belong to the public and are primarily for the use of the public in the ordinary way." -- Packard v. Banton, 264 U.S. 140 (1924) -http://laws.findlaw.com/us/264/140.html#144 What is the Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel on our public highways these days? Why, that would be by automobile driven by a properly and legally licensed operator, as courts have repeatedly determined. Once again, as he has done in many other threads, k_flynn introduces his often repeated combination of circular reasoning in support of an oxymoron. The circular reasoning in his argument is that: "It should be the law because it is the law", and the oxymoron his circular reasoning is supposed to support is: "A Right is only a Right when one is given permission." This same sort of intellectual dishonesty and trickery might be used to support any other conversion of our Rights into permissions by the state. If the state began to License Liberty, or Speech for example, presuming to convert them into not Rights, but permissions, k_flynn would be there with the same circular reasoning combined with an oxymoron in their support. He must resort to this form of intellectual dishonesty and trickery, because he is confronted with a truth and subsequent question he dare not answer honestly. The truth is: We have the Right of Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel on our public highways. The question is: What is the Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel on our public highways these days? |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing not about highway safety
proffsl wrote:
Do you presume that you can somehow punish people for driving without a license BEFORE they actually drive without a license? No, you sitll have to wait until they actually commit the act before you can punish them. I don't know if you're doing this deliberately, or merely due to brainwash programming, but you are attempting to employ baffling bull****. Have you misled yourself into thinking this is the type of question rational human asks? You're avoiding the question with a question. Do you presume that you can showhow punish people for driving without a license BEFORE they actually drive without a license? Get a clue. It was a [polite way of saying that you are too stupid to waste my time on. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing not about highway safety
On Sep 24, 3:54 am, proffsl wrote:
wrote: proffsl wrote: (Carole Allen) wrote: proffsl wrote: I know full well what Locomotion means. Locomotion is the act of removing one's self from one place to another according to their own inclination. The court case in Williams vs. Fears defines the act of Locomotion as "to remove from one place to another according to inclination". Meriam-Websters defines Locomotion as: "an act or the power of moving from place to place" That's what feet are for. Along with numerous other methods of Locomotion, including the Automobile. And, what are highways for? Packard v. Banton says: "The streets belong to the public and are primarily for the use of the public in the ordinary way." -- Packard v. Banton, 264 U.S. 140 (1924) -http://laws.findlaw.com/us/264/140.html#144 What is the Locomotion ordinarily used for personal travel on our public highways these days? Why, that would be by automobile driven by a properly and legally licensed operator, as courts have repeatedly determined. Once again, as he has done in many other threads, k_flynn introduces his often repeated combination of completely factual and logical evidence that completely proves me wrong. I must apologize for trying to resurrect my completely baseless and utterly disproven positions. I fixed your post. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing not about highway safety
On Sep 24, 3:17 am, proffsl wrote:
And, and then come the highly informed and educated responders, who will do anything to correct my knowingly repeated erros of fact and logic and expose me for the fabrications I havre tried to pass by you all in the past. Even though I try to pretend that he is not allowing me to be heard, despite the obvious fact that I am still posting my utter bull****, the message of the thread could not be any more clear: My positions are baseless and k_flynn has completely dismantled them several times over the past year; he has exposed my fabrication of a court case, which I tried to foist on the usenet community. They want you to ignore me, and tha is good advice, for my positions have all been proven to be wrong factually and logically. I have utterly failed to read my own cites, which actually supported k_flynn's resounding proof of my wrongness. I should be ignored. There, I fixed your post again so that it is accurate. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Driver Licensing serves no purpose for highway safety | proffsl | USA & Canada | 0 | September 17th, 2007 09:50 AM |
Become an Activist for Better Health! Join Bio Pro's Company to promote the Safety Wireless Initiative! safety for Cell Phones & Bio Pro Technology! research Its a WIN WIN! | [email protected] | Asia | 0 | July 27th, 2007 03:41 AM |
Safety for Cell Phones-Mobile Hazards-Cell Phone Safety-Bio Pro Universal Cell Chip, Purchase from a Bio Pro Consultant, Destress EMF Radiation in Australia, South Africa, United States, New Zealand, and Canada!! | [email protected] | Europe | 0 | June 6th, 2007 03:47 AM |
Smart Card BIO PRO, Purchase products from Bio Pro Consultant,Australia,New Zealand,South Africa,Canada,A New Generation of wellness and safety, Safety for Electronics with Bio Pro | [email protected] | Europe | 0 | May 6th, 2007 06:07 PM |
Licensing tellys | [email protected] | Europe | 2 | October 12th, 2004 03:23 AM |