* I hope you have learned from the experience.
* Your memory serves you correctly.
* Also correct.
* Indeed.
Avoiding the question I see . Would your purposely put your kids in danger?* Well I usually buy a car once a week so I can crash it into not only parked cars, but also groups of pedestrians and also brick walls to test my theories. So far I have survived ploughing into thirty elderly people at a bus stop at 40 ks. Seventeen oldies went feet-up, and I didn't fly through the windscreen.
*.
mael, why are you so angry?
Thank you for your insightfull post.. >.<
I can really see your debating skills..
You either honestly don't see the point or do not want to see it and make an effort to mock other writers.
I return to my initial impression. What's the point in this "debate"..
That sarcasm of yours is rubbing off on me.
@mael
I migh say you are quite an interesting character too though at times your style might get a bit provocative.
It just made me wonder, what you were after. Discussion or just wordfight and senseless debate..
(this thread really hasn't filled the standards for a dialog in o' so many ways..)
There can be opposing points of view, but sarcasm really isn't a part of a true dialog and good debate..
I am sorry if I have misinterpreted you but.. Well. Your remarks..
What have you learned?
And please, give an answer to this one without any sarcasm!
Good laws do give some push for things to get better. Like with the seatbelts finally getting installed in the busses here. I didn't see many seatbelts in busses in Japan during my time there so maybe it is time to make a law for it.
Anyway, sometimes even good laws get twisted in a manner that they don't really fulfill their purpore. Like the meaningless helmet law!
Ps. I usually am a quite optimistic guy but I also do drive much and see everyday the kind of attitude on the road that makes me very pessimistic sometimes.
Some people just take driving too damn personally and think that they are entitled to the right to pick which rules they like to follow!
For some reason the rudest ones aren't the teenagers with their first cars, but the ones with the big expensive cars. the more expensive car you get, the dummer you get on the road, I might say..
Now does that sound pessimistic?
Now I'm tired and wanna go to sleep..
Do I sense the fact that mael can't answer my post?
Instead again a bunch of sarcastic answers that avoid the the main point of questioning. But don't fear, you already have proven that you are not really concerned with this debate at all, instead you are a troll who is baiting.
Avoiding the question I see . Would your purposely put your kids in danger?
On the contrary ,I have neither conceded or given up , I have come to the conclusion that you are not serious in this discussion at all. You talk about common sense and that you enforce the wearing of seat belts, but yet you failed to do so and consiqently was pulled over by the police. You struggle to grasp the concept that by not wearing a seat belt can have an effect on others besides the wearer which brings us to the point that you have no right to decide whether that person should be put in unecessary danger or not. You have failed to acknowledge this fact due to what you call biased data ,but you can't ignore the laws of physics and momentum. Common sense also says if you are in a crash and not straped in you keep going but the car does not.* Your diminishing sorority is responding in unison that the answer is whatever you say boss!
* I accept your capitulation. However I will mention that you were not very gracious about conceding.
See ,all your comments make a mockery of just about every valid point given to you by many different posters and its b/c you have no basis at all to disput or rebutt it. And that is why I did not and still don't take you seriously ,it is a simply as that.ie- still slinging the insults in a personal way.
* My ""bait"" is something which is off the menu to you. You prefer the pre-chewed stuff.
Fine , would you deliberately put your childs life in danger? It is a simple question anyone can answer it if asked to them, yes or no will do fine.* Put it into a meaningful context and I'll give you my considered opinion. K?
I think Pachipro has just summed up the entire thread with one simple statement which holds true, can't deny this.I can understand both sides of the argument as one should have the RIGHT to do as one pleases if it doesn't endanger the lives of others. However, what I have not read (or maybe I missed it) is that driving is a privilege granted by the state to the individual and NOT AN OUTRIGHT RIGHT of the individual in Japan or anywhere.
I can understand both sides of the argument as one should have the RIGHT to do as one pleases if it doesn't endanger the lives of others. However, what I have not read (or maybe I missed it) is that driving is a privilege granted by the state to the individual and NOT AN OUTRIGHT RIGHT of the individual in Japan or anywhere.
If it was a god-given right then the law could be condemned and fought. However, since a license is granted to the individual than I believe one must abide by the laws handed down from the state and, if one does not agree with them then they should refuse to drive in protest if they disagree with the law. If that means wearing a seatbelt or helmet, then so be it.
But your own mother-in-law doesn't have that common sense, and if the very first post of this thread is correct, then she has endangered your own children. The law was there to protect them from her lack of common sense. Besides, you have not shown why they provide no additional safety, whereas I have shown that they do.Commonsense advises little reason for wearing a seat belt when they would provide no additional safety.
Slam dunk? I think not Glenski, what I choose to do or have people do within the confines of MY car is my choice.1. You both would require people to buckle in your own cars. But that forced action infringes on other people's rights, too.
2. You both feel you have the sense to do this important thing, but you admit that others do not. You admit this because your own relatives don't do it, or simply because you say that you would require it, which in itself implies that others don't have the sense.
So, since you both feel buckling is important enough to require it in your own vehicles, and that there are people who would otherwise not do it, it just makes sense to have a law out there to reinforce your own beliefs. It is not infringing on anyone's rights that you wouldn't have infringed upon anyway. Slam dunk.
Really? If that's the case then there should be no laws pertaining to age when it comes to allowing someone the priviledge to drive. Wrong of course.However, what I have not read (or maybe I missed it) is that driving is a privilege granted by the state to the individual and NOT AN OUTRIGHT RIGHT of the individual in Japan or anywhere.
Let me state for the record here.........I couldn't have said this better myself!
As I wrote in the past. People tend to call out for their right's but like to dismiss their oblications. Abiding by the rules is a responsibility that comes with the privilege.
I think others haven't addressed this side of it very much though. I'm not sure though.. Maybe it just hasn't been said clearly enough before.
My main problem with this kind of "it is my RIGHT" -attitude is that I feel it provokes irresponsible behaviour.
First you don't want to wear seatbelts, soon you don't need to signal anymore, then you start ignoring the stopsigns, etc, etc.
Soon you know better than anyone else because you have been driving for so-and-so many years, and just can't see that you have only become a menace on the road.
With great power, comes great responsibility.
I fail to see the connection between democracy and unbounded personal freedoms. Are you sure you know what the word "democracy" means?What "right" does any government anywhere have to tell me what I can and can not do within the confines of my own property? This isnt North Korea, this is supposedly a democratic country.
KirinMan said:Really? If that's the case then there should be no laws pertaining to age when it comes to allowing someone the priviledge to drive. Wrong of course.Glenski said:However, what I have not read (or maybe I missed it) is that driving is a privilege granted by the state to the individual and NOT AN OUTRIGHT RIGHT of the individual in Japan or anywhere.
However the government through it's representation of the citizens have decided that upon turning a certain age one is granted the right to attempt to take an exam that will allow the individual the right to drive on roads here.
Really? If that's the case then there should be no laws pertaining to age when it comes to allowing someone the priviledge to drive. Wrong of course.
I would like to hear the reasoning behind this too..
If I am understanding you correctly here, and correct me if I am wrong please, are you saying then that the government has the "right" to enact any laws as it deems fit for the supposed protection and safety of it's citizens?If you have the right to use authority within the confinds of your car, how come the democratically elected government should not have the right to use same kind of authority in the same kind of questions within the confinds of the country?
Driving is not a right. It is a privilege. It can be granted and it can be taken away. Residents have the right to attempt to gain that privilege, and can gain it and keep it if they abide by the rules.
And the government has every prerogative to deem that someone who has so little regard for their own safety as to not wear a seatbelt and to allow their children to go unbelted cannot be trusted to practice other safe driving behaviors, and take action as appropriate.
Did you and Jimmy happen to read the last three words of the sentence you are quoting?
Official or legal permission to do or own a specified thing.
If I am understanding you correctly here, and correct me if I am wrong please, are you saying then that the government has the "right" to enact any laws as it deems fit for the supposed protection and safety of it's citizens?
Yes. I did. And I still would like to hear the reasoning as to why driving being a right granted to an individual who meets certain qualities (sufficient age being one of them) would result in that there should not be laws concerning the age in which one can get the drivers license.
Btw. I found the dictionary definition for the word "license" interesting:
Is a legal permission a right?
SPECIAL POLICE OFFICER BULLETIN
U.S. COURT DECISIONS CONFIRM "DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE" IS A
CITIZENS RIGHT AND NOT A GOVERNMENT GRANTED PRIVILEGE.
For many years Professionals within the criminal justice System have acted upon the belief that traveling by motor vehicle upon the roadway was a privilege that was gained by a citizen only after approval by their respective state government in the form of the issuance of a permit or license to that Particular individual. Legislators, police officers and court officials are becoming aware that there are now court decisions that prove the fallacy of the legal opinion that" driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval, i.e. a license".
Some of these cases are:
Case # 1 - "Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. - Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago 169 NE 22
("Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, signs, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission i.e.- licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc.)
Case # 2 - "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."- Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579.
I realize you underlined the word any.You are not. Please, read my message again.
I would really like to have your answer to my question
On the contrary ,I have neither conceded or given up , I have come to the conclusion that you are not serious in this discussion at all.
You talk about common sense and that you enforce the wearing of seat belts, but yet you failed to do so and consiqently was pulled over by the police.
You struggle to grasp the concept that by not wearing a seat belt can have an effect on others besides the wearer
which brings us to the point that you have no right to decide whether that person should be put in unecessary danger or not.
You have failed to acknowledge this fact due to what you call biased data ,but you can't ignore the laws of physics and momentum.
Common sense also says if you are in a crash and not straped in you keep going but the car does not.
See ,all your comments make a mockery of just about every valid point given to you by many different posters and its b/c you have no basis at all to disput or rebutt it.
And that is why I did not and still don't take you seriously ,it is a simply as that.
Fine , would you deliberately put your childs life in danger? It is a simple question anyone can answer it if asked to them, yes or no will do fine.
I think Pachipro has just summed up the entire thread with one simple statement which holds true, can't deny this.
I realize you underlined the word any.
So what is it you are saying?
I couldn't have said this better myself!
As I wrote in the past. People tend to call out for their right's but like to dismiss their oblications. Abiding by the rules is a responsibility that comes with the privilege.
I think others haven't addressed this side of it very much though. I'm not sure though.. Maybe it just hasn't been said clearly enough before.
My main problem with this kind of "it is my RIGHT" -attitude is that I feel it provokes irresponsible behaviour.
First you don't want to wear seatbelts, soon you don't need to signal anymore, then you start ignoring the stopsigns, etc, etc.
Soon you know better than anyone else because you have been driving for so-and-so many years, and just can't see that you have only become a menace on the road.
With great power, comes great responsibility.
So Atlantin you are saying you aren't up to the task of acting responsibly?
No I dont, I dont think the democratically elected government should be telling me or anyone how I should or should not act within the confines of my "private space" which includes the inside of my vehicle.I am asking if - while thinking that you have right to require people in your car to buckle up because it is your car - you think that the democratically elected government should not have the right to make the same requirement within the confinds of the country witch it is elected to lead?
And if so, why is it different?
It is very specific question. No generalizations here.
This should have been clear in my previous post. I'm sorry if it wasn't.
I am asking this because the impression I get from your posts is that this is what you think and see a clear contradiction.
I just want it to be cleared out.
mael,
You said KirinMan dealt adequately with the fact that other people are in danger from unbelted passengers. No he has not, and neither have you. Get off this. You and he are wrong.
You really don't seem to be making sense, either of you. You both seem to agree that the belting of everyone is important. You even admit you would require such things of your own passengers. However, you both seem to be against the law itself as a sort of infringement of human rights. Sorry, this doesn't wash.
1. You both would require people to buckle in your own cars. But that forced action infringes on other people's rights, too.
2. You both feel you have the sense to do this important thing, but you admit that others do not. You admit this because your own relatives don't do it, or simply because you say that you would require it, which in itself implies that others don't have the sense.
So, since you both feel buckling is important enough to require it in your own vehicles, and that there are people who would otherwise not do it, it just makes sense to have a law out there to reinforce your own beliefs. It is not infringing on anyone's rights that you wouldn't have infringed upon anyway. Slam dunk.
Your sarcasm against hidden police officers is pathetic.
If they want to catch offenders, they will not stand out in the open, now will they?
That's the nature of things. Stop poking fun at the law when you were the one at fault. (You didn't start to buckle your belt until the car was in motion. Never mind how slow/fast it was going. Buckling is like fumbling for a cell phone in that it causes distractions, which could lead to accidents. YOU should have buckled before moving the car!)
You talk about power going out (hence a loss of traffic signals) or about overweight passengers (people who are not "normal" size), but these are all exceptions to normal conditions. Laws cannot be made to protect all situations, even though they try. If you stop trying to word things so cutely, you will not look so juvenile.
But your own mother-in-law doesn't have that common sense, and if the very first post of this thread is correct, then she has endangered your own children.
The law was there to protect them from her lack of common sense.
besides, you have not shown why they provide no additional safety, whereas I have shown that they do.
No I dont, I dont think the democratically elected government should be telling me or anyone how I should or should not act within the confines of my "private space" which includes the inside of my vehicle.
What I think you are missing is the point that I do not believe that the government should be dictating to me what I should or should not do.