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 |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing is the best thing that ever happened for highway safety
On Sep 28, 7:39 am, Dave Smith wrote:
proffsl wrote: Dave Smith wrote: proffsl wrote: Why do you continue to behave like a child? The same might be sad of you. I see you'd rather take part in an Ad Hominem instead of addressing the issue. Yep, if you don't like the message, attack the messenger. Typical behavior by those who can not defend their position. Yes. That was an Ad Hominem, and what a moron you are to use whine about that, considering that I was responding to your comment about another poster's childishness....an ad Hominem. Logic or consistency are not hallmarks of proffsl's postings. |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing not about highway safety
Dave Smith wrote:
proffsl wrote: Dave Smith wrote: proffsl wrote: Why do you continue to behave like a child? The same might be sad of you. I see you'd rather take part in an Ad Hominem instead of addressing the issue. Yep, if you don't like the message, attack the messenger. Typical behavior by those who can not defend their position. Yes. That was an Ad Hominem You said that you use to give driver licensing exams. One does wonder why you are so offensive toward my message. I only did it for a few weeks. It was a horrible way to make a living. Every 20 minutes you have to get into a car and go for a ride with someone who probably doesn't know how to drive. I spent close to 20 years working in commercial vehcile enforcement and used to catch a lot of people without driver licences. One no longer wonders why you are so offensive toward the messenger of truth. It is clear you never were interested in the truth. |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing is the best thing since sliced bread
On Sep 28, 9:04 am, proffsl wrote:
Dave Smith wrote: proffsl wrote: Dave Smith wrote: proffsl wrote: Why do you continue to behave like a child? The same might be sad of you. I see you'd rather take part in an Ad Hominem instead of addressing the issue. Yep, if you don't like the message, attack the messenger. Typical behavior by those who can not defend their position. Yes. That was an Ad Hominem You said that you use to give driver licensing exams. One does wonder why you are so offensive toward my message. I only did it for a few weeks. It was a horrible way to make a living. Every 20 minutes you have to get into a car and go for a ride with someone who probably doesn't know how to drive. I spent close to 20 years working in commercial vehcile enforcement and used to catch a lot of people without driver licences. One no longer wonders why you are so offensive toward the messenger of truth. It is clear you never were interested in the truth. How would you know truth? Between your outright fabrications and your fully exposed misinterpretations and misuses even in the face of proof positive that you have misused them, you continue to post them knowing they are false. |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing is ESSENTIAL for highway safety
- wrote:
proffsl wrote: - wrote: proffsl wrote: The moment one exhibits any behavior that endangers others, they can be stopped at that point, BEFORE they actually cause any harm. False. So, you're saying that if somebody is driving in a dangerous fashon, there is nothing that can be done about it? I don't know how to read or reason. Yes, I know that, but you could try anyway. Where do you make the 180-degree leap from my saying it is false when you claim that at the precise moment anyone shows *any behavior* that endangers others, that at *that very moment* they can be stopped BEFORE they cause actual harm? I don't know how to form a rational thought either. Yes, I know you don't, but you could try. The moment one exhibits any behavior that endangers others, they can be stopped at that point, BEFORE they actually cause any harm. Did you not read what I said and try to forget that it's only gibberish? Yes, I read it, and re-read it, but still it was only gibberish. How do you make the magic logical leap to thinking that I would say that nothing can ever be done about behavior that is endangering? Well, that logical leap was made when I stated the fact that: "The moment one exhibits any behavior that endangers others, they can be stopped at that point, BEFORE they actually cause any harm." and you responded "False". Clearly, you are claiming that we can't stop people who exhibit behavior that endangers others BEFORE they actually cause any harm. Holy cow, I'm an idiot. Yes, yes. And, not much I can do about that. Sorry. no wonder I can't get through to you with gibberish, stupidity, and personal attacks. You appear to be operating on the basis logic and reasoning, and you are impervious to my idiocy. At least you know you're an idiot. Only you can fix your problem. Here, let me spell it out for you: Your claim does not suggest that every single member of society will have his/her very own personal police officer next to them at all moments of their lives, but that won't prevent me from saying it does anyway. I realize that. What's your point? So, if that's NOT the case, explain to me how at the very moment that a driver speeds through a light that has just turned red and his bumper is a half-inch from my toddler's back at 45 mph - tell me how your magic system immediately stops that two-ton piece of metal and arrests this guy for endangerment before he hits and kills my child? Assuming he has a driver license, explain to me how that license is going to jump out of his pocket and slam on the breaks stopping the vehicle before he kills your child? Assuming he has no driver license, explain to me how the absence of that license is going to stop his vehicle before he kills your child? The fact still remains: The moment someone exhibits behavior that endangers others, they can be stopped before they harm anyone. But, if someone has already pulled the trigger (so to speak), and the projectile is already in route, their act has gone beyond mere endangerment, and has crossed over into the realm of impending harm. Take your time answering, because I know I have applied a maximum amount of twisting and wriggling, in order to fabricate this misrepresentation of what you actually said. No problem. Wow. And *I'm* the one who complains about your logical and cogent discussion!!! One does wonder why. In fact, originally, this excuse was not even used for the enactment of this police power. The average number of years between a state initiating the requirement for a Driver License and the year when that state actually began the practice of Driver License examinations is 8.34 years. That does establish a portion of your point. Yes, it does. Astonshingly, the first state to require Driver Licensing was Missouri in 1903 and it is also the last state to require an examination in 1952. (source:http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/summary95/dl23.pdf ) As I said, does establish your point. For the most part, yes. Testing is not the only manner in which licensing can be a tool in ensuring public welfare and safety on the roads. Licensing does nothing for highway safety that laws against endangerment didn't already serve. I can't charge you with "endangerment" if I don't know who you are. Hog Wash! Even if someone didn't know who they them self were, and neither did anybody else, and they took a baseball bat and began to swing it so near your head as to constitute endangerment, you can still charge their criminal ass with endangerment, and they can be prosecuted for such by Due Process of Law in our courts. Uh.... Earth to proffsl.... You cannot charge someone you don't know. Hog wash. John Does are arrested all the time. The person HAS NOT BEEN ARRESTED. You don't know who he is... he has left the friggin' scene and you DON'T KNOW WHO HE IS. You don't know WHO TO ARREST. If you DON'T KNOW WHO HE IS, and he has ALREADY LEFT THE FRIGGIN' SCENE, do you actually believe his License is going to jump out of his pocket and start bearing witness? Bwahaahaaaaa!!! I am advocating a society in which every person has their own personal cop assigned to follow them at all times. I'm sure you are. They commit a crime, they carry no ID, they refuse to identify themself, they have no record, but still, they are arrested, even charged in the courts, and serve their sentence. And, all the time, nobody knows "who they are", other than the fact that they are the one who committed a crime. Let me demonstrate to you just how dense I am. If someone has no License, THEY WILL BE ALLOWED TO MERELY LEAVE THE SCENE OF THE CRIME, THE PERP WILL BE GONE, and NOBODY WILL BE ALLOWED TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO ARREST THEM. This is done in order to fabricate an excuse to require them to have a License. You didn't have to demonstrate, but I appreciate the effort. They fled likely because with no plates, their incentive is to FLEE THE SCENE. Wow. Holy cow. DO you GET IT now? k_flynn, I know with your past behavior this is going to be a difficult request of you. But, none the less, I request that you think rationally for just one moment. LICENSING, and even REGISTRATION, is not the only way to determine who committed a crime. Often times, crimes are committed by drivers where no witness was able to read the license plate (much less ask the driver to show their driver license), yet using the make, model, year, color, and other physical evidence, the perpetrator is still caught. Although, I do understand your concerns that this is not always enough. But, I've never seen you to respond to any of my posts in a rational (much less polite) enough state for me to even bother with reasoning with you. None the less, I will try. I would have no problem if automobile manufacturers were to permanently stamp unique and far more easily read identification numbers into the front and rear of every vehicle they manufacture. The red light runner who hit my kid and drove off... whom do we charge? The one where there were no witnesses? No, there are 100 witnesses. No there weren't. You carelessly allowed your four year old child to roam lonely streets at night while you sit at home sucking on a bottle of whisky and behaving like a child yourself on newsgroups. I trust my foolishness has been adequately exposed so that even you can recognize it? Long long ago, k_flynn. According to you, you can't arrest someone for a crime unless they have a Driver License. No one can possibly be as consistently dense and illogical as my posts indicate I am. Great accomplishment, k_flynn. I'm sure your child will forgive,,,,, No, on second thought I dout that. Makes one wonder how they ever managed to arrest criminals before 1903. I don't bother my pea-brain with such logical questions and would rather fabricate false delemma scenarios. I've noticed. Everyone knows I'm an idiot. Including me, k_flynn. |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing not about highway safety & K_FLYNN is a Moron
- wrote:
proffsl wrote: - wrote: proffsl wrote: The moment one exhibits any behavior that endangers others, they can be stopped at that point, BEFORE they actually cause any harm. False. So, you're saying that if somebody is driving in a dangerous fashon, there is nothing that can be done about it? I don't know how to read or reason. Yes, I know that, but you could try anyway. Where do you make the 180-degree leap from my saying it is false when you claim that at the precise moment anyone shows *any behavior* that endangers others, that at *that very moment* they can be stopped BEFORE they cause actual harm? I don't know how to form a rational thought either. Yes, I know you don't, but you could try. The moment one exhibits any behavior that endangers others, they can be stopped at that point, BEFORE they actually cause any harm. Did you not read what I said and try to forget that it's only gibberish? Yes, I read it, and re-read it, but still it was only gibberish. How do you make the magic logical leap to thinking that I would say that nothing can ever be done about behavior that is endangering? Well, that logical leap was made when I stated the fact that: "The moment one exhibits any behavior that endangers others, they can be stopped at that point, BEFORE they actually cause any harm." and you responded "False". Clearly, you are claiming that we can't stop people who exhibit behavior that endangers others BEFORE they actually cause any harm. Holy cow, I'm an idiot. Yes, yes. And, not much I can do about that. Sorry. no wonder I can't get through to you with gibberish, stupidity, and personal attacks. You appear to be operating on the basis logic and reasoning, and you are impervious to my idiocy. At least you know you're an idiot. Only you can fix your problem. Here, let me spell it out for you: Your claim does not suggest that every single member of society will have his/her very own personal police officer next to them at all moments of their lives, but that won't prevent me from saying it does anyway. I realize that. What's your point? So, if that's NOT the case, explain to me how at the very moment that a driver speeds through a light that has just turned red and his bumper is a half-inch from my toddler's back at 45 mph - tell me how your magic system immediately stops that two-ton piece of metal and arrests this guy for endangerment before he hits and kills my child? Assuming he has a driver license, explain to me how that license is going to jump out of his pocket and slam on the breaks stopping the vehicle before he kills your child? Assuming he has no driver license, explain to me how the absence of that license is going to stop his vehicle before he kills your child? The fact still remains: The moment someone exhibits behavior that endangers others, they can be stopped before they harm anyone. But, if someone has already pulled the trigger (so to speak), and the projectile is already in route, their act has gone beyond mere endangerment, and has crossed over into the realm of impending harm. Take your time answering, because I know I have applied a maximum amount of twisting and wriggling, in order to fabricate this misrepresentation of what you actually said. No problem. Wow. And *I'm* the one who complains about your logical and cogent discussion!!! One does wonder why. In fact, originally, this excuse was not even used for the enactment of this police power. The average number of years between a state initiating the requirement for a Driver License and the year when that state actually began the practice of Driver License examinations is 8.34 years. That does establish a portion of your point. Yes, it does. Astonshingly, the first state to require Driver Licensing was Missouri in 1903 and it is also the last state to require an examination in 1952. (source:http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/summary95/dl23.pdf ) As I said, does establish your point. For the most part, yes. Testing is not the only manner in which licensing can be a tool in ensuring public welfare and safety on the roads. Licensing does nothing for highway safety that laws against endangerment didn't already serve. I can't charge you with "endangerment" if I don't know who you are. Hog Wash! Even if someone didn't know who they them self were, and neither did anybody else, and they took a baseball bat and began to swing it so near your head as to constitute endangerment, you can still charge their criminal ass with endangerment, and they can be prosecuted for such by Due Process of Law in our courts. Uh.... Earth to proffsl.... You cannot charge someone you don't know. Hog wash. John Does are arrested all the time. The person HAS NOT BEEN ARRESTED. You don't know who he is... he has left the friggin' scene and you DON'T KNOW WHO HE IS. You don't know WHO TO ARREST. If you DON'T KNOW WHO HE IS, and he has ALREADY LEFT THE FRIGGIN' SCENE, do you actually believe his License is going to jump out of his pocket and start bearing witness? Bwahaahaaaaa!!! I am advocating a society in which every person has their own personal cop assigned to follow them at all times. I'm sure you are. They commit a crime, they carry no ID, they refuse to identify themself, they have no record, but still, they are arrested, even charged in the courts, and serve their sentence. And, all the time, nobody knows "who they are", other than the fact that they are the one who committed a crime. Let me demonstrate to you just how dense I am. If someone has no License, THEY WILL BE ALLOWED TO MERELY LEAVE THE SCENE OF THE CRIME, THE PERP WILL BE GONE, and NOBODY WILL BE ALLOWED TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO ARREST THEM. This is done in order to fabricate an excuse to require them to have a License. You didn't have to demonstrate, but I appreciate the effort. They fled likely because with no plates, their incentive is to FLEE THE SCENE. Wow. Holy cow. DO you GET IT now? k_flynn, I know with your past behavior this is going to be a difficult request of you. But, none the less, I request that you think rationally for just one moment. LICENSING, and even REGISTRATION, is not the only way to determine who committed a crime. Often times, crimes are committed by drivers where no witness was able to read the license plate (much less ask the driver to show their driver license), yet using the make, model, year, color, and other physical evidence, the perpetrator is still caught. Although, I do understand your concerns that this is not always enough. But, I've never seen you to respond to any of my posts in a rational (much less polite) enough state for me to even bother with reasoning with you. None the less, I will try. I would have no problem if automobile manufacturers were to permanently stamp unique and far more easily read identification numbers into the front and rear of every vehicle they manufacture. The red light runner who hit my kid and drove off... whom do we charge? The one where there were no witnesses? No, there are 100 witnesses. No there weren't. You carelessly allowed your four year old child to roam lonely streets at night while you sit at home sucking on a bottle of whisky and behaving like a child yourself on newsgroups. I trust my foolishness has been adequately exposed so that even you can recognize it? Long long ago, k_flynn. According to you, you can't arrest someone for a crime unless they have a Driver License. No one can possibly be as consistently dense and illogical as my posts indicate I am. Great accomplishment, k_flynn. I'm sure your child will forgive,,,,, No, on second thought I dout that. Makes one wonder how they ever managed to arrest criminals before 1903. I don't bother my pea-brain with such logical questions and would rather fabricate false delemma scenarios. I've noticed. Everyone knows I'm an idiot. Including me, k_flynn. |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Driver Licensing not about highway safety & K_FLYNN is a Moron
- wrote:
proffsl wrote: - wrote: proffsl wrote: The moment one exhibits any behavior that endangers others, they can be stopped at that point, BEFORE they actually cause any harm. False. So, you're saying that if somebody is driving in a dangerous fashon, there is nothing that can be done about it? I don't know how to read or reason. Yes, I know that, but you could try anyway. Where do you make the 180-degree leap from my saying it is false when you claim that at the precise moment anyone shows *any behavior* that endangers others, that at *that very moment* they can be stopped BEFORE they cause actual harm? I don't know how to form a rational thought either. Yes, I know you don't, but you could try. The moment one exhibits any behavior that endangers others, they can be stopped at that point, BEFORE they actually cause any harm. Did you not read what I said and try to forget that it's only gibberish? Yes, I read it, and re-read it, but still it was only gibberish. How do you make the magic logical leap to thinking that I would say that nothing can ever be done about behavior that is endangering? Well, that logical leap was made when I stated the fact that: "The moment one exhibits any behavior that endangers others, they can be stopped at that point, BEFORE they actually cause any harm." and you responded "False". Clearly, you are claiming that we can't stop people who exhibit behavior that endangers others BEFORE they actually cause any harm. Holy cow, I'm an idiot. Yes, yes. And, not much I can do about that. Sorry. no wonder I can't get through to you with gibberish, stupidity, and personal attacks. You appear to be operating on the basis logic and reasoning, and you are impervious to my idiocy. At least you know you're an idiot. Only you can fix your problem. Here, let me spell it out for you: Your claim does not suggest that every single member of society will have his/her very own personal police officer next to them at all moments of their lives, but that won't prevent me from saying it does anyway. I realize that. What's your point? So, if that's NOT the case, explain to me how at the very moment that a driver speeds through a light that has just turned red and his bumper is a half-inch from my toddler's back at 45 mph - tell me how your magic system immediately stops that two-ton piece of metal and arrests this guy for endangerment before he hits and kills my child? Assuming he has a driver license, explain to me how that license is going to jump out of his pocket and slam on the breaks stopping the vehicle before he kills your child? Assuming he has no driver license, explain to me how the absence of that license is going to stop his vehicle before he kills your child? The fact still remains: The moment someone exhibits behavior that endangers others, they can be stopped before they harm anyone. But, if someone has already pulled the trigger (so to speak), and the projectile is already in route, their act has gone beyond mere endangerment, and has crossed over into the realm of impending harm. Take your time answering, because I know I have applied a maximum amount of twisting and wriggling, in order to fabricate this misrepresentation of what you actually said. No problem. Wow. And *I'm* the one who complains about your logical and cogent discussion!!! One does wonder why. In fact, originally, this excuse was not even used for the enactment of this police power. The average number of years between a state initiating the requirement for a Driver License and the year when that state actually began the practice of Driver License examinations is 8.34 years. That does establish a portion of your point. Yes, it does. Astonshingly, the first state to require Driver Licensing was Missouri in 1903 and it is also the last state to require an examination in 1952. (source:http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/summary95/dl23.pdf ) As I said, does establish your point. For the most part, yes. Testing is not the only manner in which licensing can be a tool in ensuring public welfare and safety on the roads. Licensing does nothing for highway safety that laws against endangerment didn't already serve. I can't charge you with "endangerment" if I don't know who you are. Hog Wash! Even if someone didn't know who they them self were, and neither did anybody else, and they took a baseball bat and began to swing it so near your head as to constitute endangerment, you can still charge their criminal ass with endangerment, and they can be prosecuted for such by Due Process of Law in our courts. Uh.... Earth to proffsl.... You cannot charge someone you don't know. Hog wash. John Does are arrested all the time. The person HAS NOT BEEN ARRESTED. You don't know who he is... he has left the friggin' scene and you DON'T KNOW WHO HE IS. You don't know WHO TO ARREST. If you DON'T KNOW WHO HE IS, and he has ALREADY LEFT THE FRIGGIN' SCENE, do you actually believe his License is going to jump out of his pocket and start bearing witness? Bwahaahaaaaa!!! I am advocating a society in which every person has their own personal cop assigned to follow them at all times. I'm sure you are. They commit a crime, they carry no ID, they refuse to identify themself, they have no record, but still, they are arrested, even charged in the courts, and serve their sentence. And, all the time, nobody knows "who they are", other than the fact that they are the one who committed a crime. Let me demonstrate to you just how dense I am. If someone has no License, THEY WILL BE ALLOWED TO MERELY LEAVE THE SCENE OF THE CRIME, THE PERP WILL BE GONE, and NOBODY WILL BE ALLOWED TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO ARREST THEM. This is done in order to fabricate an excuse to require them to have a License. You didn't have to demonstrate, but I appreciate the effort. They fled likely because with no plates, their incentive is to FLEE THE SCENE. Wow. Holy cow. DO you GET IT now? k_flynn, I know with your past behavior this is going to be a difficult request of you. But, none the less, I request that you think rationally for just one moment. LICENSING, and even REGISTRATION, is not the only way to determine who committed a crime. Often times, crimes are committed by drivers where no witness was able to read the license plate (much less ask the driver to show their driver license), yet using the make, model, year, color, and other physical evidence, the perpetrator is still caught. Although, I do understand your concerns that this is not always enough. But, I've never seen you to respond to any of my posts in a rational (much less polite) enough state for me to even bother with reasoning with you. None the less, I will try. I would have no problem if automobile manufacturers were to permanently stamp unique and far more easily read identification numbers into the front and rear of every vehicle they manufacture. The red light runner who hit my kid and drove off... whom do we charge? The one where there were no witnesses? No, there are 100 witnesses. No there weren't. You carelessly allowed your four year old child to roam lonely streets at night while you sit at home sucking on a bottle of whisky and behaving like a child yourself on newsgroups. I trust my foolishness has been adequately exposed so that even you can recognize it? Long long ago, k_flynn. According to you, you can't arrest someone for a crime unless they have a Driver License. No one can possibly be as consistently dense and illogical as my posts indicate I am. Great accomplishment, k_flynn. I'm sure your child will forgive,,,,, No, on second thought I dout that. Makes one wonder how they ever managed to arrest criminals before 1903. I don't bother my pea-brain with such logical questions and would rather fabricate false delemma scenarios. I've noticed. Everyone knows I'm an idiot. Including me, k_flynn. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
I, K_flynn, admit that I am a buffoon, and that Driver licensing is not about highway safety.
- wrote:
proffsl wrote: Dave Smith wrote: proffsl wrote: Dave Smith wrote: proffsl wrote: Why do you continue to behave like a child? The same might be sad of you. I see you'd rather take part in an Ad Hominem instead of addressing the issue. Yep, if you don't like the message, attack the messenger. Typical behavior by those who can not defend their position. Yes. That was an Ad Hominem You said that you use to give driver licensing exams. One does wonder why you are so offensive toward my message. I only did it for a few weeks. It was a horrible way to make a living. Every 20 minutes you have to get into a car and go for a ride with someone who probably doesn't know how to drive. I spent close to 20 years working in commercial vehcile enforcement and used to catch a lot of people without driver licences. One no longer wonders why you are so offensive toward the messenger of truth. It is clear you never were interested in the truth. I'm not interested in the truth either. That is why I champion others like myself who would turn a blind eye and mind on the truth, such as Dave. I'm a low life peice of crap, and I will never be worthy of any attention you show my posts. You might as well stop responding to me, and simply allow me to behave as the buffoon I am. Good advice, k_flynn. You aren't worth the effort. |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Proffy Woffy implodes in drug-induced blather
On Sep 28, 10:39 am, proffsl wrote:
Utter nonsense confirming that he has become entirely bankrupt from the standpoint of this discussion. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, it is said. But in this case, your poor imitation of my humorous approach merely confirms that you were completely backed into a corner by my response to your utterly ridiculous scenarios. Let's examine just of few of your latest idiotic assertions: The moment one exhibits any behavior that endangers others, they can be stopped at that point, BEFORE they actually cause any harm. Notice here, birdbrain, that you completely avoided the question. "The moment" was when the driver violated his very first red light, going 45 mph through the stop indication. Up until now, he has not exhibited ANY endangering behavior. My child has the walk light, and has stepped out from the curb. YOUR theory is that 3 billion cops are positioned right next to the world's other 3 billion people to arrest them immediately, so this driver will instantly be under arrest. However, the physics problem still remains. It is impossible for this cop, while cuffing the first-time offender, to also stop the vehicle that is hurtling inexorably toward my child. Now, you say it IS possible to stop the harm from being caused. YET... You have not said how. Please do favor us with your explanation. snicker How do you make the magic logical leap to thinking that I would say that nothing can ever be done about behavior that is endangering? Well, that logical leap was made when I stated the fact that: "The moment one exhibits any behavior that endangers others, they can be stopped at that point, BEFORE they actually cause any harm." and you responded "False". Clearly, you are claiming that we can't stop people who exhibit behavior that endangers others BEFORE they actually cause any harm. Yeah.... Go on..... Oh, you were done? OK. Well, you haven't explained how such a leap in logic is possible. You were completely wrong, as I outlined above. How does the fact that SOME events are not possible to prevent lead you to conclude that ALL events are not possible to prevent? Besides, YOU "think" that ALL bad events are possible to prevent, anyway. What kind of kook logic are you dealing in, fuzznuts? (Note for future reference: You have initiated personal insults several posts ago and I refrained and admonished you not to continue, yet you did. As before, a year ago, I will not be entertaining you to cite back to this post at some future date when you begin to "deny" that you started it, so do please bookmark it, ok, jizzlips?) Assuming he has a driver license, explain to me how that license is going to jump out of his pocket and slam on the breaks stopping the vehicle before he kills your child? Assuming he has no driver license, explain to me how the absence of that license is going to stop his vehicle before he kills your child? Uh, earth to idiot: No one here has made the claim the having a license prevents accidents. Go give a blow job to your own straw man, I am having enough enjoyment thoroughly skewering your drug-induce gibberish all on my own. The fact still remains: The moment someone exhibits behavior that endangers others, they can be stopped before they harm anyone. Then why are you having such a problem showing that? Tell us: How did you stop that 45 mph SUV from hitting my kid? Huh? Huh? But, if someone has already pulled the trigger (so to speak), and the projectile is already in route, their act has gone beyond mere endangerment, and has crossed over into the realm of impending harm. So you admit you're a lying asshole? Thank you, but what took you so long! Licensing surely improves the prospect for highway safety. Uh, we KNOW that, Proffy. Try to keep up. The person HAS NOT BEEN ARRESTED. You don't know who he is... he has left the friggin' scene and you DON'T KNOW WHO HE IS. You don't know WHO TO ARREST. If you DON'T KNOW WHO HE IS, and he has ALREADY LEFT THE FRIGGIN' SCENE, do you actually believe his License is going to jump out of his pocket and start bearing witness? Buwahahaaahaaaa!! Moron! You have done away with LICENSE PLATES!!! marijuana smoke begins to clear around Proffy's head That thing with the numbers on the back of the car that until Proffyland was declared, used to grace the backs of our vehicles? That thing that allowed us to ID vehicles an owners fleeing the scene of the mayhem that YOU wish for them to be able to escape. Proffy advocates a society in which every person has their own personal cop assigned to follow them at all times. Yes, because I have previously stated that I wish to kill them, and that would make it easier. Oh, OK. Have you begun toking already his early in the day? Here is how you "rewrote" my thorough and devastating attack on your "logic:" If someone has no License, THEY WILL BE ALLOWED TO MERELY LEAVE THE SCENE OF THE CRIME, THE PERP WILL BE GONE, and NOBODY WILL BE ALLOWED TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO ARREST THEM. This is done in order to fabricate an excuse to require them to have a License. You blithering idiot. THEY HAVE NOT BEEN STOPPED. They continued going. No one knows who it was because President Proffy has made license plate illegal. So, who do you charge with the crime? kLICENSING, and even REGISTRATION, is not the only way to determine who committed a crime. Wow. You must have scraped up a few nickels to buy a clue. I could have helped you: No one, not I certainly, ever claimed that having a license and registration is the only way to determine who committed a crime. BUT... Take them away and you have hamstrung the authorities. They are PART of the tools in the box for enforcing highway safety. They are not the ONLY ones, baboon. Often times, crimes are committed by drivers where no witness was able to read the license plate (much less ask the driver to show their driver license), yet using the make, model, year, color, and other physical evidence, the perpetrator is still caught. Good. That's how it should be. But that is an exception and your way makes it necessary that this would be the ONLY way. You want that to be the case ALL THE TIME. You want it to be ALL THE TIME that people have to say "It was a silver something, 2000 to 2006, dang all cars look alike, and it was a man, or an ugly woman, or whatever." Society has said "No." And courts have ruled that this is legal and constitutional. In other words, you LOSE again. Although, I do understand your concerns that this is not always enough. But, I've never seen you to respond to any of my posts in a rational (much less polite) enough state for me to even bother with reasoning with you. None the less, I will try. You have it backward already. I have *always* been the rational one and the polite one here. I turn impolite when you initiate insults, as you did last year. If you want it to stop, show it by refraining from engaging in it further, and if so, then I will too. I would have no problem if automobile manufacturers were to permanently stamp unique and far more easily read identification numbers into the front and rear of every vehicle they manufacture. I would. I want no such thing. It entails state control of private enterprise, sounds like you advocate fascism now. At the least it requires anti-trust collusion. The red light runner who hit my kid and drove off... whom do we charge? The one where there were no witnesses? No, there are 100 witnesses. No there weren't. Yes there were. It's my example, I can include anything I want. You were the one who pretended there were *none.* You carelessly allowed your four year old child to roam lonely streets at night while you sit at home sucking on a bottle of whisky and behaving like a child yourself on newsgroups. Proffy, this is not YOUR kid we're talking about. It's daylight, he has the walk light, has looked both ways, but yo mama comes tearing around the bend in her Hummer. Your utter failure to adequately respond to the true points reveals the complete worhlessness of all your "points." Except the one that defines the apex of your chromedomus. |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Proffy Woffy is so doped up he reposts the same reply and loses the argument
On Sep 28, 10:39 am, proffsl wrote:
Utter nonsense confirming that he has become entirely bankrupt from the standpoint of this discussion. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, it is said. But in this case, your poor imitation of my humorous approach merely confirms that you were completely backed into a corner by my response to your utterly ridiculous scenarios. Let's examine just of few of your latest idiotic assertions: The moment one exhibits any behavior that endangers others, they can be stopped at that point, BEFORE they actually cause any harm. Notice here, birdbrain, that you completely avoided the question. "The moment" was when the driver violated his very first red light, going 45 mph through the stop indication. Up until now, he has not exhibited ANY endangering behavior. My child has the walk light, and has stepped out from the curb. YOUR theory is that 3 billion cops are positioned right next to the world's other 3 billion people to arrest them immediately, so this driver will instantly be under arrest. However, the physics problem still remains. It is impossible for this cop, while cuffing the first-time offender, to also stop the vehicle that is hurtling inexorably toward my child. Now, you say it IS possible to stop the harm from being caused. YET... You have not said how. Please do favor us with your explanation. snicker How do you make the magic logical leap to thinking that I would say that nothing can ever be done about behavior that is endangering? Well, that logical leap was made when I stated the fact that: "The moment one exhibits any behavior that endangers others, they can be stopped at that point, BEFORE they actually cause any harm." and you responded "False". Clearly, you are claiming that we can't stop people who exhibit behavior that endangers others BEFORE they actually cause any harm. Yeah.... Go on..... Oh, you were done? OK. Well, you haven't explained how such a leap in logic is possible. You were completely wrong, as I outlined above. How does the fact that SOME events are not possible to prevent lead you to conclude that ALL events are not possible to prevent? Besides, YOU "think" that ALL bad events are possible to prevent, anyway. What kind of kook logic are you dealing in, fuzznuts? (Note for future reference: You have initiated personal insults several posts ago and I refrained and admonished you not to continue, yet you did. As before, a year ago, I will not be entertaining you to cite back to this post at some future date when you begin to "deny" that you started it, so do please bookmark it, ok, jizzlips?) Assuming he has a driver license, explain to me how that license is going to jump out of his pocket and slam on the breaks stopping the vehicle before he kills your child? Assuming he has no driver license, explain to me how the absence of that license is going to stop his vehicle before he kills your child? Uh, earth to idiot: No one here has made the claim the having a license prevents accidents. Go give a blow job to your own straw man, I am having enough enjoyment thoroughly skewering your drug-induce gibberish all on my own. The fact still remains: The moment someone exhibits behavior that endangers others, they can be stopped before they harm anyone. Then why are you having such a problem showing that? Tell us: How did you stop that 45 mph SUV from hitting my kid? Huh? Huh? But, if someone has already pulled the trigger (so to speak), and the projectile is already in route, their act has gone beyond mere endangerment, and has crossed over into the realm of impending harm. So you admit you're a lying asshole? Thank you, but what took you so long! Licensing surely improves the prospect for highway safety. Uh, we KNOW that, Proffy. Try to keep up. The person HAS NOT BEEN ARRESTED. You don't know who he is... he has left the friggin' scene and you DON'T KNOW WHO HE IS. You don't know WHO TO ARREST. If you DON'T KNOW WHO HE IS, and he has ALREADY LEFT THE FRIGGIN' SCENE, do you actually believe his License is going to jump out of his pocket and start bearing witness? Buwahahaaahaaaa!! Moron! You have done away with LICENSE PLATES!!! marijuana smoke begins to clear around Proffy's head That thing with the numbers on the back of the car that until Proffyland was declared, used to grace the backs of our vehicles? That thing that allowed us to ID vehicles an owners fleeing the scene of the mayhem that YOU wish for them to be able to escape. Proffy advocates a society in which every person has their own personal cop assigned to follow them at all times. Yes, because I have previously stated that I wish to kill them, and that would make it easier. Oh, OK. Have you begun toking already his early in the day? Here is how you "rewrote" my thorough and devastating attack on your "logic:" If someone has no License, THEY WILL BE ALLOWED TO MERELY LEAVE THE SCENE OF THE CRIME, THE PERP WILL BE GONE, and NOBODY WILL BE ALLOWED TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO ARREST THEM. This is done in order to fabricate an excuse to require them to have a License. You blithering idiot. THEY HAVE NOT BEEN STOPPED. They continued going. No one knows who it was because President Proffy has made license plate illegal. So, who do you charge with the crime? kLICENSING, and even REGISTRATION, is not the only way to determine who committed a crime. Wow. You must have scraped up a few nickels to buy a clue. I could have helped you: No one, not I certainly, ever claimed that having a license and registration is the only way to determine who committed a crime. BUT... Take them away and you have hamstrung the authorities. They are PART of the tools in the box for enforcing highway safety. They are not the ONLY ones, baboon. Often times, crimes are committed by drivers where no witness was able to read the license plate (much less ask the driver to show their driver license), yet using the make, model, year, color, and other physical evidence, the perpetrator is still caught. Good. That's how it should be. But that is an exception and your way makes it necessary that this would be the ONLY way. You want that to be the case ALL THE TIME. You want it to be ALL THE TIME that people have to say "It was a silver something, 2000 to 2006, dang all cars look alike, and it was a man, or an ugly woman, or whatever." Society has said "No." And courts have ruled that this is legal and constitutional. In other words, you LOSE again. Although, I do understand your concerns that this is not always enough. But, I've never seen you to respond to any of my posts in a rational (much less polite) enough state for me to even bother with reasoning with you. None the less, I will try. You have it backward already. I have *always* been the rational one and the polite one here. I turn impolite when you initiate insults, as you did last year. If you want it to stop, show it by refraining from engaging in it further, and if so, then I will too. I would have no problem if automobile manufacturers were to permanently stamp unique and far more easily read identification numbers into the front and rear of every vehicle they manufacture. I would. I want no such thing. It entails state control of private enterprise, sounds like you advocate fascism now. At the least it requires anti-trust collusion. The red light runner who hit my kid and drove off... whom do we charge? The one where there were no witnesses? No, there are 100 witnesses. No there weren't. Yes there were. It's my example, I can include anything I want. You were the one who pretended there were *none.* You carelessly allowed your four year old child to roam lonely streets at night while you sit at home sucking on a bottle of whisky and behaving like a child yourself on newsgroups. Proffy, this is not YOUR kid we're talking about. It's daylight, he has the walk light, has looked both ways, but yo mama comes tearing around the bend in her Hummer. Your utter failure to adequately respond to the true points reveals the complete worhlessness of all your "points." Except the one that defines the apex of your chromedomus. |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Enter and witness the ugliness of Proffy's KOOK MELTDOWN!
On Sep 28, 10:39 am, proffsl wrote:
Utter nonsense confirming that he has become entirely bankrupt from the standpoint of this discussion. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, it is said. But in this case, your poor imitation of my humorous approach merely confirms that you were completely backed into a corner by my response to your utterly ridiculous scenarios. Let's examine just of few of your latest idiotic assertions: The moment one exhibits any behavior that endangers others, they can be stopped at that point, BEFORE they actually cause any harm. Notice here, birdbrain, that you completely avoided the question. "The moment" was when the driver violated his very first red light, going 45 mph through the stop indication. Up until now, he has not exhibited ANY endangering behavior. My child has the walk light, and has stepped out from the curb. YOUR theory is that 3 billion cops are positioned right next to the world's other 3 billion people to arrest them immediately, so this driver will instantly be under arrest. However, the physics problem still remains. It is impossible for this cop, while cuffing the first-time offender, to also stop the vehicle that is hurtling inexorably toward my child. Now, you say it IS possible to stop the harm from being caused. YET... You have not said how. Please do favor us with your explanation. snicker How do you make the magic logical leap to thinking that I would say that nothing can ever be done about behavior that is endangering? Well, that logical leap was made when I stated the fact that: "The moment one exhibits any behavior that endangers others, they can be stopped at that point, BEFORE they actually cause any harm." and you responded "False". Clearly, you are claiming that we can't stop people who exhibit behavior that endangers others BEFORE they actually cause any harm. Yeah.... Go on..... Oh, you were done? OK. Well, you haven't explained how such a leap in logic is possible. You were completely wrong, as I outlined above. How does the fact that SOME events are not possible to prevent lead you to conclude that ALL events are not possible to prevent? Besides, YOU "think" that ALL bad events are possible to prevent, anyway. What kind of kook logic are you dealing in, fuzznuts? (Note for future reference: You have initiated personal insults several posts ago and I refrained and admonished you not to continue, yet you did. As before, a year ago, I will not be entertaining you to cite back to this post at some future date when you begin to "deny" that you started it, so do please bookmark it, ok, jizzlips?) Assuming he has a driver license, explain to me how that license is going to jump out of his pocket and slam on the breaks stopping the vehicle before he kills your child? Assuming he has no driver license, explain to me how the absence of that license is going to stop his vehicle before he kills your child? Uh, earth to idiot: No one here has made the claim the having a license prevents accidents. Go give a blow job to your own straw man, I am having enough enjoyment thoroughly skewering your drug-induce gibberish all on my own. The fact still remains: The moment someone exhibits behavior that endangers others, they can be stopped before they harm anyone. Then why are you having such a problem showing that? Tell us: How did you stop that 45 mph SUV from hitting my kid? Huh? Huh? But, if someone has already pulled the trigger (so to speak), and the projectile is already in route, their act has gone beyond mere endangerment, and has crossed over into the realm of impending harm. So you admit you're a lying asshole? Thank you, but what took you so long! Licensing surely improves the prospect for highway safety. Uh, we KNOW that, Proffy. Try to keep up. The person HAS NOT BEEN ARRESTED. You don't know who he is... he has left the friggin' scene and you DON'T KNOW WHO HE IS. You don't know WHO TO ARREST. If you DON'T KNOW WHO HE IS, and he has ALREADY LEFT THE FRIGGIN' SCENE, do you actually believe his License is going to jump out of his pocket and start bearing witness? Buwahahaaahaaaa!! Moron! You have done away with LICENSE PLATES!!! marijuana smoke begins to clear around Proffy's head That thing with the numbers on the back of the car that until Proffyland was declared, used to grace the backs of our vehicles? That thing that allowed us to ID vehicles an owners fleeing the scene of the mayhem that YOU wish for them to be able to escape. Proffy advocates a society in which every person has their own personal cop assigned to follow them at all times. Yes, because I have previously stated that I wish to kill them, and that would make it easier. Oh, OK. Have you begun toking already his early in the day? Here is how you "rewrote" my thorough and devastating attack on your "logic:" If someone has no License, THEY WILL BE ALLOWED TO MERELY LEAVE THE SCENE OF THE CRIME, THE PERP WILL BE GONE, and NOBODY WILL BE ALLOWED TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO ARREST THEM. This is done in order to fabricate an excuse to require them to have a License. You blithering idiot. THEY HAVE NOT BEEN STOPPED. They continued going. No one knows who it was because President Proffy has made license plate illegal. So, who do you charge with the crime? kLICENSING, and even REGISTRATION, is not the only way to determine who committed a crime. Wow. You must have scraped up a few nickels to buy a clue. I could have helped you: No one, not I certainly, ever claimed that having a license and registration is the only way to determine who committed a crime. BUT... Take them away and you have hamstrung the authorities. They are PART of the tools in the box for enforcing highway safety. They are not the ONLY ones, baboon. Often times, crimes are committed by drivers where no witness was able to read the license plate (much less ask the driver to show their driver license), yet using the make, model, year, color, and other physical evidence, the perpetrator is still caught. Good. That's how it should be. But that is an exception and your way makes it necessary that this would be the ONLY way. You want that to be the case ALL THE TIME. You want it to be ALL THE TIME that people have to say "It was a silver something, 2000 to 2006, dang all cars look alike, and it was a man, or an ugly woman, or whatever." Society has said "No." And courts have ruled that this is legal and constitutional. In other words, you LOSE again. Although, I do understand your concerns that this is not always enough. But, I've never seen you to respond to any of my posts in a rational (much less polite) enough state for me to even bother with reasoning with you. None the less, I will try. You have it backward already. I have *always* been the rational one and the polite one here. I turn impolite when you initiate insults, as you did last year. If you want it to stop, show it by refraining from engaging in it further, and if so, then I will too. I would have no problem if automobile manufacturers were to permanently stamp unique and far more easily read identification numbers into the front and rear of every vehicle they manufacture. I would. I want no such thing. It entails state control of private enterprise, sounds like you advocate fascism now. At the least it requires anti-trust collusion. The red light runner who hit my kid and drove off... whom do we charge? The one where there were no witnesses? No, there are 100 witnesses. No there weren't. Yes there were. It's my example, I can include anything I want. You were the one who pretended there were *none.* You carelessly allowed your four year old child to roam lonely streets at night while you sit at home sucking on a bottle of whisky and behaving like a child yourself on newsgroups. Proffy, this is not YOUR kid we're talking about. It's daylight, he has the walk light, has looked both ways, but yo mama comes tearing around the bend in her Hummer. Your utter failure to adequately respond to the true points reveals the complete worhlessness of all your "points." Except the one that defines the apex of your chromedomus. |
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 |