Driver Licensing not about 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.

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.

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.

- 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.

- 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.

- 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.

- 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.

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.

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.

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.