Driver Licensing not about highway safety

On Sep 28, 10:48 am, proffsl wrote:
- 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.

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.

Good advice, k_flynn.

Correct, moron! You should have TAKEN it!

You aren't worth the effort.

Then that must explain your complete lack of effort, judging from the
completely proven worthlessness of everything you've tried to post!

Buwahaahaaaaa!

wrote:

"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.

K_flynn, you have created a scenario where one is behaving in a manner
which exceeds mere endangerment, and in fact poses an impending and
unavoidable harm.

You say: "Up until now, he has not exhibited ANY endangering
behavior." So, it is clear that your precious driver licensing
wouldn't have prevented this scenario from raising it's ugly head,
much less it having any ability to turn back the nature of physics and
avert this impending and unavoidable harm.

Now, if you wish to change your scenario, such that this person has
exhibited dangerous behavior before this impending and unavoidable
harm, then of course, as I have said all along, driver licensing would
serve no purpose that laws against endangerment didn't already serve.

Got that, you ignorant ****ing MORON?


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?

No one here has made the claim the having a license prevents
accidents.

In fact, they have. You yourself keep changing the subject from
"licensing not about safety" to "licensing all about safety".
Regardless, good to see you finally realize that driver licensing
serves no purpose to highway safety that laws against endangerment
didn't already serve.


The fact still remains: The moment someone exhibits behavior that
endangers others, they can be stopped before they harm anyone.

How did you stop that 45 mph SUV from hitting my kid?

I never claimed an impending and unavoidable harm could be stopped.
Damn you're a dense bone head.


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?

No, you ignorant bone headed lying asshole. I recognize the fact that
impending and unavoidable harm can't be stopped. But, I never claimed
it could be stopped. So, quit pretending you've proved a damn thing
other than the fact that you are indeed an ignorant lying bone headed
asshole.


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?

You have done away with LICENSE PLATES!!!

We are talking about DRIVERS LICENSES you flaming moron.


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.

Once again, you demonstrate your lying tendancies, as my next
paragraph proves.


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.

You utterly disgust me K_flynn. You have no problem with state
control over Individual Rights, even converting them into permissions,
but then you turn around and throw a **** fit when I suggest we have a
state control over commercial concerns. Then, you accuse ME of being
the fascist? You are a disgusting lying sleaze ball, k_flynn.

wrote:

"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.

K_flynn, you have created a scenario where one is behaving in a manner
which exceeds mere endangerment, and in fact poses an impending and
unavoidable harm.

You say: "Up until now, he has not exhibited ANY endangering
behavior." So, it is clear that your precious driver licensing
wouldn't have prevented this scenario from raising it's ugly head,
much less it having any ability to turn back the nature of physics and
avert this impending and unavoidable harm.

Now, if you wish to change your scenario, such that this person has
exhibited dangerous behavior before this impending and unavoidable
harm, then of course, as I have said all along, driver licensing would
serve no purpose that laws against endangerment didn't already serve.

Got that, you ignorant ****ing MORON?


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?

No one here has made the claim the having a license prevents
accidents.

In fact, they have. You yourself keep changing the subject from
"licensing not about safety" to "licensing all about safety".
Regardless, good to see you finally realize that driver licensing
serves no purpose to highway safety that laws against endangerment
didn't already serve.


The fact still remains: The moment someone exhibits behavior that
endangers others, they can be stopped before they harm anyone.

How did you stop that 45 mph SUV from hitting my kid?

I never claimed an impending and unavoidable harm could be stopped.
Damn you're a dense bone head.


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?

No, you ignorant bone headed lying asshole. I recognize the fact that
impending and unavoidable harm can't be stopped. But, I never claimed
it could be stopped. So, quit pretending you've proved a damn thing
other than the fact that you are indeed an ignorant lying bone headed
asshole.


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?

You have done away with LICENSE PLATES!!!

We are talking about DRIVERS LICENSES you flaming moron.


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.

Once again, you demonstrate your lying tendancies, as my next
paragraph proves.


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.

You utterly disgust me K_flynn. You have no problem with state
control over Individual Rights, even converting them into permissions,
but then you turn around and throw a **** fit when I suggest we have a
state control over commercial concerns. Then, you accuse ME of being
the fascist? You are a disgusting lying sleaze ball, k_flynn.

proffsl wrote:
wrote:

"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.

K_flynn, you have created a scenario where one is behaving in a manner
which exceeds mere endangerment, and in fact poses an impending and
unavoidable harm.

Idiot: The very first time the person creates an endangerment is the
running of the red light. Your theory is that we must have 3 billion
cops to accompany each other person on the-planet in order to arrest
them post-haste.

As the psychiatrist said to the man who walked in for his appointment
wearing Saran wrap underwear: "I can clearly see you're nuts!"

You say: "Up until now, he has not exhibited ANY endangering
behavior." So, it is clear that your precious driver licensing
wouldn't have prevented this scenario from raising it's ugly head,
much less it having any ability to turn back the nature of physics and
avert this impending and unavoidable harm.

Hmmm. And just where did I ever say that licensing would prevent this?
Blow your own straw man. Licensing and registration are part of the
enforcement of public welfare and safety as opposed to Proffyland
where the criminal escapes unscathed by just driving off and not
stopping.

Do try to understand, knuckle-dragger. chuckle

Now, if you wish to change your scenario, such that this person has
exhibited dangerous behavior before this impending and unavoidable
harm...

Screw you. No, I do not wish to change my scenario into something so
limited that it might squeeze into your example. You do like to limit
debate only to that which fits your theories, how nice for you. But
there is this thing called the real world that you might get to
experience if you put down the bong and walk outside.

then of course, as I have said all along, driver licensing would
serve no purpose that laws against endangerment didn't already serve.

False again. You presume that the person WAS in fact caught and
prosecuted when previously showing such behavior. Maybe your mommy let
you off and didn't report it.

Got that, you ignorant ****ing MORON?

My my, KOOK MELTDOWN continues.

Yeah, I got it. I got it that you're a stark raving lunatic whose
statements are so easily proven false you get angry and abusive.

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?

No one here has made the claim the having a license prevents
accidents.

In fact, they have.

No they haven't

You yourself keep changing the subject from
"licensing not about safety" to "licensing all about safety".
Regardless, good to see you finally realize that driver licensing
serves no purpose to highway safety that laws against endangerment
didn't already serve.

Idiot: There is a range of possible outcomes between "all about
safety" and "serves no purpose." Listen, fuzznuts, the fact is
licensing is all about safety but safety isn't all about licensing.
Have a grown up explain what I just said to you, because believe me,
it blows you out of the water.

The fact still remains: The moment someone exhibits behavior that
endangers others, they can be stopped before they harm anyone.

How did you stop that 45 mph SUV from hitting my kid?

I never claimed an impending and unavoidable harm could be stopped.
Damn you're a finely educated scholar of the first order who has cleaned
my clock in this discussion.

Yes you did. You claimed we could stop people from doing harm before
they do it; Now you have utterly failed to back that up. Your semantic
game of shifting your own private little definitions at the last
minute won't save you from drowning in your own drug-enhanced
gibberish.

His blowing through the red light is behavior that is endangering. The
fact that the harm is a split second away doesn't change that.

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?

No, you well-educated and truthful gentleman. I recognize the fact that
impending and unavoidable harm can't be stopped.

But wait, you said it could!! You said we could stop all harm just by
immediately incarcerating anyone anywhere in the world AT THE VERY
MOMENT that they first display the slightest endangering behavior.

You really did say this.

So OK, the previously spotless driver goes through the red light. Stop
him, assclown.

Yeesh, you are a moron.

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?

You have done away with LICENSE PLATES!!!

We are talking about DRIVERS LICENSES you fine person.

Registration and licensing work together. You could be driving a car
that belongs to someone else. I understand your pea-sized brain
wouldn't think of that, but hey, I am here to serve the cause of
truth.

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.

Once again, you demonstrate your truthful tendancies, as my next
paragraph proves.

Thank you!

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.

You utterly disgust me K_flynn.

That sick feeling is probably withdrawal from your drug abuse.

You have no problem with state
control over Individual Rights, even converting them into permissions,
but then you turn around and throw a **** fit when I suggest we have a
state control over commercial concerns. Then, you accuse ME of being
the fascist?

That's what that would make you so, yes. It's accurate too since you
now admit it.

You are a disgusting lying sleaze ball, k_flynn.

Hmmm. It appears you didn't heed my admonition to avoid using personal
attacks that you habitually initiate when you lose an argument. Pity.

proffsl wrote:
wrote:

"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.

K_flynn, you have created a scenario where one is behaving in a manner
which exceeds mere endangerment, and in fact poses an impending and
unavoidable harm.

Idiot: The very first time the person creates an endangerment is the
running of the red light. Your theory is that we must have 3 billion
cops to accompany each other person on the-planet in order to arrest
them post-haste.

As the psychiatrist said to the man who walked in for his appointment
wearing Saran wrap underwear: "I can clearly see you're nuts!"

You say: "Up until now, he has not exhibited ANY endangering
behavior." So, it is clear that your precious driver licensing
wouldn't have prevented this scenario from raising it's ugly head,
much less it having any ability to turn back the nature of physics and
avert this impending and unavoidable harm.

Hmmm. And just where did I ever say that licensing would prevent this?
Blow your own straw man. Licensing and registration are part of the
enforcement of public welfare and safety as opposed to Proffyland
where the criminal escapes unscathed by just driving off and not
stopping.

Do try to understand, knuckle-dragger. chuckle

Now, if you wish to change your scenario, such that this person has
exhibited dangerous behavior before this impending and unavoidable
harm...

Screw you. No, I do not wish to change my scenario into something so
limited that it might squeeze into your example. You do like to limit
debate only to that which fits your theories, how nice for you. But
there is this thing called the real world that you might get to
experience if you put down the bong and walk outside.

then of course, as I have said all along, driver licensing would
serve no purpose that laws against endangerment didn't already serve.

False again. You presume that the person WAS in fact caught and
prosecuted when previously showing such behavior. Maybe your mommy let
you off and didn't report it.

Got that, you ignorant ****ing MORON?

My my, KOOK MELTDOWN continues.

Yeah, I got it. I got it that you're a stark raving lunatic whose
statements are so easily proven false you get angry and abusive.

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?

No one here has made the claim the having a license prevents
accidents.

In fact, they have.

No they haven't

You yourself keep changing the subject from
"licensing not about safety" to "licensing all about safety".
Regardless, good to see you finally realize that driver licensing
serves no purpose to highway safety that laws against endangerment
didn't already serve.

Idiot: There is a range of possible outcomes between "all about
safety" and "serves no purpose." Listen, fuzznuts, the fact is
licensing is all about safety but safety isn't all about licensing.
Have a grown up explain what I just said to you, because believe me,
it blows you out of the water.

The fact still remains: The moment someone exhibits behavior that
endangers others, they can be stopped before they harm anyone.

How did you stop that 45 mph SUV from hitting my kid?

I never claimed an impending and unavoidable harm could be stopped.
Damn you're a finely educated scholar of the first order who has cleaned
my clock in this discussion.

Yes you did. You claimed we could stop people from doing harm before
they do it; Now you have utterly failed to back that up. Your semantic
game of shifting your own private little definitions at the last
minute won't save you from drowning in your own drug-enhanced
gibberish.

His blowing through the red light is behavior that is endangering. The
fact that the harm is a split second away doesn't change that.

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?

No, you well-educated and truthful gentleman. I recognize the fact that
impending and unavoidable harm can't be stopped.

But wait, you said it could!! You said we could stop all harm just by
immediately incarcerating anyone anywhere in the world AT THE VERY
MOMENT that they first display the slightest endangering behavior.

You really did say this.

So OK, the previously spotless driver goes through the red light. Stop
him, assclown.

Yeesh, you are a moron.

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?

You have done away with LICENSE PLATES!!!

We are talking about DRIVERS LICENSES you fine person.

Registration and licensing work together. You could be driving a car
that belongs to someone else. I understand your pea-sized brain
wouldn't think of that, but hey, I am here to serve the cause of
truth.

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.

Once again, you demonstrate your truthful tendancies, as my next
paragraph proves.

Thank you!

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.

You utterly disgust me K_flynn.

That sick feeling is probably withdrawal from your drug abuse.

You have no problem with state
control over Individual Rights, even converting them into permissions,
but then you turn around and throw a **** fit when I suggest we have a
state control over commercial concerns. Then, you accuse ME of being
the fascist?

That's what that would make you so, yes. It's accurate too since you
now admit it.

You are a disgusting lying sleaze ball, k_flynn.

Hmmm. It appears you didn't heed my admonition to avoid using personal
attacks that you habitually initiate when you lose an argument. Pity.

wrote:
proffsl wrote:
wrote:

"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.

K_flynn, you have created a scenario where one is behaving in a
manner which exceeds mere endangerment, and in fact poses an
impending and unavoidable harm.

Idiot: The very first time the person creates an endangerment is the
running of the red light.

Listen up, you friggin ass moron. The scenario you posed was one that
went well beyond mere endangerment, and in fact was a scenario of
impending and unavoidable harm, where the gun was pointed at flesh,
the trigger had been pulled, and the projectile was already on it's
path, beyond the control of anyone. I never made any claim that such
an impending and unavoidable harm could be diverted by any means. You
prove absolutely nothing with this impossible to avert scenario except
that you are a bull headed moron who will resort to anything to avoid
admit your wrong.


Your theory is that we must have 3 billion cops to accompany each
other person on the-planet in order to arrest them post-haste.

On top of being a friggin ass moron, you are also a bald face liar.


You say: "Up until now, he has not exhibited ANY endangering
behavior." So, it is clear that your precious driver licensing
wouldn't have prevented this scenario from raising it's ugly head,
much less it having any ability to turn back the nature of physics
and avert this impending and unavoidable harm.

Hmmm. And just where did I ever say that licensing would prevent
this? Licensing and registration are part of the enforcement of public
welfare and safety

So, you're claiming that Licensing would enforce safety by
circumventing the laws of physics and cause that big bad vehicle to
simply evaporate into thin air? You're the one who cooked up the
scenario, so let's see you eat it.


Now, if you wish to change your scenario, such that this person has
exhibited dangerous behavior before this impending and unavoidable
harm...

Screw you.

No, screw yourself, dumb ass.


No, I do not wish to change my scenario into something so
limited that it might squeeze into your example.

Of course you wouldn't wish to change your scenario to fit my example.


You do like to limit debate only to that which fits your theories,
how nice for you.

You like to extend debate to encompase scenarios outside the limits of
the discussion.


But there is this thing called the real world

If only you knew how to reach the real world. In this real world I
live in, there are situations where people exhibit behavior warning of
possible harm before such harm becomes impending, and there are
situations where harm becomes impending without any exhibition of
behavioral warning beforehand. And, Licensing serves no purpose to
improve either of these situations that laws against endangerment
didn't already serve.


then of course, as I have said all along, driver licensing would
serve no purpose that laws against endangerment didn't already
serve.

False again. You presume that the person WAS in fact caught and
prosecuted when previously showing such behavior.

I made no such presumption, you bone headed asshole. I only stated the
fact that Licensing serves no purpose to improve this situtation that
laws against endangerment didn't already serve. Let's get back to the
real world in which I live. In this real world, when people exhibit
behavior warning of possible harm before such harm becomes impending,
this exhibition can either be witnessed, or not. In either case,
Licensing serves no purpose to safety that laws against endangerment
didn't already serve.


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?

No one here has made the claim the having a license prevents
accidents.

In fact, they have.

No they haven't

Yes, they have. Regardless, you now admit that licensing does not
prevent accidents? As I said, licensing does nothing for highway
safety that laws against endangerment didn't already serve.


You have no problem with state control over Individual Rights, even
converting them into permissions, but then you turn around and
throw a **** fit when I suggest we have a state control over
commercial concerns. Then, you accuse ME of being the fascist?

That's what that would make you so, yes. It's accurate too since you
now admit it.

So then, you object to automobile manufacturers being required by
government to put unique serial numbers on each vehicle? No? Then,
surely you object to automobile manufacturers being required by
government to install seat belts in each vehicle? No? Well then,
surely you object to any manufacturer being required by government to
be truthful in all labeling of their products? No? Damn k_flynn.
Just what do you object to? Oh! I remember, you object to citizens
being allowed to exercise their Rights without permission from the
fascist regime.

proffsl wrote:
wrote:
proffsl wrote:
wrote:

"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.

K_flynn, you have created a scenario where one is behaving in a
manner which exceeds mere endangerment, and in fact poses an
impending and unavoidable harm.

Idiot: The very first time the person creates an endangerment is the
running of the red light.

Listen up, you friggin ass moron....

No, YOU listen up, assclown. I told you to stop the personal attacks.
You didn't.

Your theories have all been disproven; your pathetic flailing is
obviously the result of drug-enhanced sleepless nights; you can't
string two coherent words together at a time...

Get lost and don't reply until you get a civil tongue in your head and
are ready to engage at my level of discourse on the thorough and
devastating refutation of all you've said. You wanna debate, then keep
it civil.

wrote:
proffsl wrote:
wrote:
proffsl wrote:
wrote:

"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.

K_flynn, you have created a scenario where one is behaving in a
manner which exceeds mere endangerment, and in fact poses an
impending and unavoidable harm.

Idiot: The very first time the person creates an endangerment is the
running of the red light.

Listen up, you friggin ass moron....

No, YOU listen up, assclown. I told you to stop the personal attacks.
You didn't.

Hahahahahaha!!! The Pot blows a gasket while trying to accuse the
kettle of being black. Bwahahahahahahaha!!!!


Get lost and don't reply until you get a civil tongue in your head and
are ready to engage at my level of discourse on the thorough and
devastating refutation of all you've said. You wanna debate, then
keep it civil.

Shove it up your ass,,,, clown.


Your theories have all been disproven;

Yadda yadda yadda...


The scenario you posed was one that went well beyond mere
endangerment, and in fact was a scenario of impending and
unavoidable harm, where the gun was pointed at flesh, the
trigger had been pulled, and the projectile was already on it's
path, beyond the control of anyone. I never made any claim that
such an impending and unavoidable harm could be diverted by
any means. You prove absolutely nothing with this impossible
to avert scenario except that you are a bull headed moron who
will resort to anything to avoid admit your wrong.

[k_flynn silently admits to this]



You say: "Up until now, he has not exhibited ANY
endangering behavior." So, it is clear that your precious
driver licensing wouldn't have prevented this scenario from
raising it's ugly head, much less it having any ability to turn
back the nature of physics and avert this impending and
unavoidable harm.

Licensing and registration are part of the enforcement of
public welfare and safety

So, you're claiming that Licensing would enforce safety by
circumventing the laws of physics and cause that big bad vehicle
to simply evaporate into thin air? You're the one who cooked up
the scenario, so let's see you eat it.

[k_flynn chokes on his own cooking]


Now, if you wish to change your scenario, such that this person has
exhibited dangerous behavior before this impending and unavoidable
harm...

Screw you.

No, screw yourself, dumb ass.

[k_flynn is speechless while his head is up his ass]


No, I do not wish to change my scenario into something so
limited that it might squeeze into your example.

Of course you wouldn't wish to change your scenario to fit my
example.

You do like to limit debate only to that which fits your theories,
how nice for you.

You like to extend debate to encompase scenarios outside the limits of
the discussion.

[k_flynn is having difficulty pulling his head out of his ass]


But there is this thing called the real world

If only you knew how to reach the real world. In this real world I
live in, there are situations where people exhibit behavior warning
of possible harm before such harm becomes impending, and there
are situations where harm becomes impending without any exhibition
of behavioral warning beforehand. And, Licensing serves no purpose
to improve either of these situations that laws against endangerment
didn't already serve.

[k_flynn finally pulled his head out of his ass just long enough to see this]
[then promptly sticks his head back up his ass]


then of course, as I have said all along, driver licensing would
serve no purpose that laws against endangerment didn't already
serve.

False again. You presume that the person WAS in fact caught and
prosecuted when previously showing such behavior.

I made no such presumption, you bone headed asshole. I only stated
the fact that Licensing serves no purpose to improve this situtation that
laws against endangerment didn't already serve. Let's get back to the
real world in which I live. In this real world, when people exhibit
behavior warning of possible harm before such harm becomes
impending, this exhibition can either be witnessed, or not. In either
case, Licensing serves no purpose to safety that laws against
endangerment didn't already serve.

[k_flynn is wishing he could pull his head out of his ass so that he]
[could get a breath of something other than his own ass methane]


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?

No one here has made the claim the having a license prevents
accidents.

In fact, they have.

No they haven't

Yes, they have. Regardless, you now admit that licensing does
not prevent accidents? As I said, licensing does nothing for highway
safety that laws against endangerment didn't already serve.

[k_flynn has passed out from a lack of oxygen, but]
[didn't pull his head out of his ass before he passed out]


You have no problem with state control over Individual Rights, even
converting them into permissions, but then you turn around and
throw a **** fit when I suggest we have a state control over
commercial concerns. Then, you accuse ME of being the fascist?

That's what that would make you so, yes. It's accurate too since you
now admit it.

So then, you object to automobile manufacturers being required by
government to put unique serial numbers on each vehicle? No? Then,
surely you object to automobile manufacturers being required by
government to install seat belts in each vehicle? No? Well then,
surely you object to any manufacturer being required by government to
be truthful in all labeling of their products? No? Damn k_flynn.
Just what do you object to? Oh! I remember, you object to citizens
being allowed to exercise their Rights without permission from the
fascist regime.

[k_flynn is almost as dead as his arguments]

On Sep 28, 7:13 pm, proffsl wrote:
wrote:
proffsl wrote:
wrote:
proffsl wrote:
wrote:

"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.

K_flynn, you have created a scenario where one is behaving in a
manner which exceeds mere endangerment, and in fact poses an
impending and unavoidable harm.

Idiot: The very first time the person creates an endangerment is the
running of the red light.

Listen up, you friggin ass moron....

No, YOU listen up, assclown. I told you to stop the personal attacks.
You didn't.

Hahahahahaha!!! The Pot blows a gasket while trying to accuse the
kettle of being black. Bwahahahahahahaha!!!!

Wha??

This was my calmest post in the exchange, and this to you is "blowing
a gasket?" This explains your complete lack of comprehension and
logic, then. Thank you for providing yet one more example, as if we
needed one after your repeated self-contradictions and lies. Wow. You
must have had some powerful dope tonight. The Pot? I think you're
seeing me in the smoke swirls of your Panama Red, there, sport. I must
have really got to you with how I demolished your arguments.

But it appears that you are disappointed that I didn't give you
another lashing. So maybe I shall since it feeds your masochistic
frenzy to constantly be shown to be wrong and a vulgar jit-dog to
boot.

Get lost and don't reply until you get a civil tongue in your head and
are ready to engage at my level of discourse on the thorough and
devastating refutation of all you've said. You wanna debate, then
keep it civil.

Shove it up your ass,,,, clown.

Well, can't say I didn't try to reach you then, jizzlips. Your choice.
It just goes to show the utter lack of foundation and basis for your
"theories" that you once again, like last year, had to resort to
initiating personal "assults" as you called them.

Your theories have all been disproven;

Yes, they were, that's why I, Proffy, has to resort to vulgar and classless
insults of your superior thought processed and intellect; I had nothing else to
hang my hat on.

We knew that, Proffy Woffy, but thanks for stating it.

The scenario you posed was one that went well beyond mere
endangerment, and in fact was a scenario of impending and
unavoidable harm, where the gun was pointed at flesh, the
trigger had been pulled, and the projectile was already on it's
path, beyond the control of anyone. I never made any claim that
such an impending and unavoidable harm could be diverted by
any means. You prove absolutely nothing with this impossible
to avert scenario except that you are a bull headed moron who
will resort to anything to avoid admit your wrong.

[k_flynn silently admits to this]

No, I didn't. Anyone else masochistic enough to wade through your
utterly disproven bull**** has already seen the refutation earlier.

But just for you, since the dope has affected your short-term memory...

In my scenario, which was a natural outcome of your proposal that 3
billion cops accompany the other 3 billion people in the world at all
moments in time so as to instantly arrest them the very second they
start to show endangering behavior, the running of the red light is
the very first instance for this particular miscreant-to-be. He has
now engaged in his first endangering behavior, You seem to attach some
mythical significance to the fact that it is also a really really bad
instance of it and the child stepping out into the crosswalk is about
to be creamed.

You draw distinctions with no difference. You try to change
definitions to your private dope-induced dictionary. Sorry. You've
been busted. Won't work.
You say: "Up until now, he has not exhibited ANY
endangering behavior." So, it is clear that your precious
driver licensing wouldn't have prevented this scenario from
raising it's ugly head, much less it having any ability to turn
back the nature of physics and avert this impending and
unavoidable harm.

Licensing and registration are part of the enforcement of
public welfare and safety

So, you're claiming that Licensing would enforce safety by
circumventing the laws of physics and cause that big bad vehicle
to simply evaporate into thin air? You're the one who cooked up
the scenario, so let's see you eat it.

[k_flynn chokes on his own cooking]

Omigod, you really ARE as stupid as your posts indicate. I thought it
was ONLY the dope, but there are two dopes here - your stash and you.

You need to wrap what's left of your brain around the idea that no one
ever said licensing prevents accidents. YOU are the one who proposes
your magical physics-defying system of enforcement through worldwide
enforcement of total arrest at the first sign of any act of
endangerment by anyone, anywhere. You have said this would prevent
accidents.

You have failed to show how, and then you have the stupor-driven
confusion to make believe that I made *your* claim about *my*
scenario. Buwahahaaaaahaaaa! Send me some of your dope, I'd like to
see what it feels like to be as stupid as you just once.

Now, if you wish to change your scenario, such that this person has
exhibited dangerous behavior before this impending and unavoidable
harm...

Screw you.

No, I will screw myself because I am Proffy Woffy, stoned jerk and dumb ass.

[k_flynn is speechless while Proffy displays his moronishness to the world]

No, you merely copied and pasted your false and disproven idiocy and
pretended it was cogent. Your idiocy laughs for itself. But if you
really enjoy me wiping the floor with you, I could repeat a few of my
devastating disproofs of your idiotic claims. Would that make you
happy?

No, I do not wish to change my scenario into something so
limited that it might squeeze into your example.

Of course you wouldn't wish to change your scenario to fit my
example.

Right, of course I wouldn't, because it is illogical. The real world
out here away from your smoke-filled opium den has a whole array of
possibilities and for you to suggest that my scenario should be
excluded, merely because it shows you up for the asswipe that you are,
is not logical.

You do like to limit debate only to that which fits your theories,
how nice for you.

You like to extend debate to encompase scenarios outside the limits of
the discussion.

[k_flynn is having believing I am so stupid that I just said an utterly ridiculous
thing]

No, Proffy Woffy, I didn't have any trouble at all believing how
stupid you are. But thanks for showing concern that I had spared you
yet another lash from my Whip of Truth.

I guess you like to cry "uncle."

But there is this thing called the real world

If only you knew how to reach the real world. In this real world I
live in, there are situations where people exhibit behavior warning
of possible harm before such harm becomes impending, and there
are situations where harm becomes impending without any exhibition
of behavioral warning beforehand. And, Licensing serves no purpose
to improve either of these situations that laws against endangerment
didn't already serve.

[k_flynn finally laughs so hard, his drink comes out of his nose and almost
busts a gut shortling at how stupid I can really be]

Yes, you're right. I had to mop up the mess from my spit-take. You
sure are good for a laugh, spunk-breath.

See, your statement above reinforces your completely idiotic proposal
for worldwide one-on-one police.

You seem to believe that every person's every act of any endangerment
is everywhere and always reported and acted upon so that we can do
away with the system we now have, licensing and registration, as tools
in this task of providing dfor highway safety.

I prefer reality to Proffyland. You see, on the way home tonight, I
saw dozens of poor driving examples that were endangering. Not a
single one of them got stopped or reported by anyone else.

Checkmate, you lose again. Next!

then of course, as I have said all along, driver licensing would
serve no purpose that laws against endangerment didn't already
serve.

False again. You presume that the person WAS in fact caught and
prosecuted when previously showing such behavior.

I made just such a presumption, you clear-thinking individual. I stated
the fact that Licensing is necessary to improve this situtation and that
laws against endangerment don't cut the muster. Let me get back to my
dope-filled room in which I live. In this room, when people exhibit
behavior warning of possible harm before such harm becomes
impending, this exhibition can either be witnessed, or not. It depends
on how stoned I am while dreaming of killing cops. Licensing is such a
good thing, I can't believe I ever thought otherwise!!! You are a god, k_flynn!!

[k_flynn is wishing he had said this before I did]

Well, not really, I was willing to let you sleep off your latest jag
with the bong, but since you've admitted all that, you must be waking
up!!

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?

No one here has made the claim the having a license prevents
accidents.

In fact, they have.

No they haven't

Yes, they have.

No, they haven't. (there, are you happy now?)

Regardless, you now admit that licensing does
not prevent accidents?

Uh, asswipe (your instances of really really stupid claims are now so
numerous, I am forced to start repeating insults as I am running
short), *I* never said it does. *You* are the moronic idiot who
claimed *your* magic worldwide system of universal cophood would
prevent accidents, and that was the foundation of your losing argument
that licensing and registration are unnecessary. That does not imply
that I join you in the moron bin and make a parallel claim for
licensing and registration. I never did, and don't.

Now, back to your bong, mouth-breathing assclown.

Hey, I made post 100. Do I get the stuffed teddy bear? Are you going
for 1,700 again? How many times must you be exposed as a fool?