OT: Speed Cams

[Alan Dayley]

Please stop this thread.  Yes, it is appropriately marked "OT" for
off-topic.  Yes, many on this list enjoy law/politics/ethics/etc.
discussions.  However, every time in recent history that we have had
an off topic thread go to long, people leave this list and the group.
I know several high-caliber people that will not come back to the list
because they want Linux discussions.

Take it off list please.

Alan

On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Josef Lowder <joe at actionline.com> wrote:
> On 4/2/09, Joshua A. Andler <scislac at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 10:55 -0700, Josef Lowder wrote:
>>  > There is no sensible basis for opposing photo radar speed limit enforcement.
>>
>> Give me a break... if the people don't want it, and the government is
>>  supposed to work for the people, that is a sensible basis.
>
> That is absurd.  It is not, by any logic or reason, sensible to oppose
> enforcement of laws that exist to protect human life.  If any given
> law is improper or needs to be modified in some way, then it is
> reasonable for "the people" to seek to change the law.  However,
> unless and until any given law is changed, it is certainly not
> "sensible" to oppose enforcement of any laws that have been
> established to protect human life and safety.
>
> The bottom line in this matter is simply whether (A) there should be
> enforcement of established laws or whether (B) blatant disregard for
> established laws should be tolerated.
>
> Your premise seems to be "B," that if "the people" do not want
> enforcement of any given established law, then it is "sensible" for
> them to just ignore, disregard, and/or disobey it at will.
>
> My premise is "A" that all laws that have been established by
> governing authorities in a civilized society should be enforced.
>
> Which is sensible, and which is clearly not sensible?
>
>>  > Opposition to photo radar is tantamount to advocating legalization of
>>  > murder and/or manslaughter in any form by any means.
>>
>> Wow... that is probably the most absurd oversimplification I've seen on
>>  this list so far. Murder and Manslaughter have very different
>>  definitions and legal implications.
>
> I agree that murder and manslaughter have very different definitions
> and legal implications.
>
> However, the fact that they have different definitions and legal
> implications does not in any way make the underlying premise
> incorrect.  That foundational premise is that for anyone to cause the
> death of another person by reckless driving (including exceeding
> posted speed limits) is manslaughter.  And part two of this premise is
> that if anyone knowingly and intentionally facilitates the commision
> of a fatal act such as manslaughter, that can be shown to be murder in
> the second or third degree.
>
> Therefore, it is most assuredly *not* either "absurd" or an
> "oversimplification" to point out that failure to maintain and
> vigorously enforce established safety laws by all means possible is
> tantamount to advocating legalization of murder and/or manslaughter.
>
> Those who argue against enforcing established laws clearly do not have
> any reasonable, sensible, or justifiable basis for their arguments.
> ---------------------------------------------------
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss at lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>