Page 3 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >
Topic Options
#145754 - 02/16/06 07:44 PM Re: Quick question... [Re: DataLore]
JayLucif Offline

CoS Member

Registered: 11/09/02
Posts: 1705
Loc: Helheim
... and there should be death to those who are just too stupid otherwise, but as society spits out protective laws. Charges are usually just a slap on the wrist which 90 percent of drunk drivers are habitual violators of law and will never pay up to begin with, and then on their way the drunkard goes getting behind a wheel drunk again. First convicted violation your legs should be cut off I say, if they survive the accident, and if you kill someone while you are drunk and driving a vehicle you should die on the spot no trial no ruling. A 35 cent bullet compared to thousands in wasted tax money in court fees and other useless bullshit that never corrects these habits this would be fine by me. "Stupidity should be painful."
_________________________
------------------------------------------------------------

Freedom, baby is never having to say you're sorry. Guilt is like a bag of fuckin' bricks. All ya gotta do is set it down. John Milton - The Devil's Advocate!

I'm gonna pull the whole thing down. I'm gonna bring the whole fuckin' diseased, corrupt temple down on your head. It's gonna be biblical. Clyde Shelton - Law Abiding Citizen!


------------------------------------------------------------

Top
#145755 - 02/16/06 07:49 PM Re: Quick question... [Re: DataLore]
Obolisk Offline


Registered: 02/10/06
Posts: 30
Quote:

I only agree with this if it is nature which causes the accident. The drivers involved in the accident would not be liable then.


Even if they aren't liable, there is still the expense of the injured people and damaged property. Mandatory insurance covers that.

Quote:

Not if one is required by law to purchase insurance after they are a liability. My point which I have been trying to stress.


Then we have 200 million accidents to absorb. Everyone gets their into first accident without insurance under that system. Then once a "liability" they have to carry it. That also penalizes them for accidents that aren't their fault b/c fewer insureds means higher premiums to cover the exact same number of accidents and if it wasn't your fault, too bad you are still a liability now.

I agree with the minority report cars. I would love one that drove itself. Oh the extra stuff I could get done!

Top
#145756 - 02/16/06 08:16 PM Re: Quick question... [Re: Inquisitor]
JayLucif Offline

CoS Member

Registered: 11/09/02
Posts: 1705
Loc: Helheim
I personally avoid dealing with 95% of the people in the outside world on a friend personal level, I would be lucky to name 5 people who I truly trust. Useless it is a very dangerous crime that may endanger many innocent civilians, I avoid most people like the fucking plague. The only three people I truly need is ME, Myself and I. Everyone else can truly fucking die for all I care. May sound like a harsh outlook, but my early teenage life has taught me that one can only truly trust oneself. Everyone else in this world probable has their own agenda and it probable does not include the best outcome for YOU. Under all that superficial goody good guy badge crap, self survival is the highest law and most people will sell someone else out to save their sorry ass excuse as a Human, while pretending to be a law abiding decent Human being. "Long Live Death", and it can not come too soon enough for some of these wasted parasites on this ball of dirt. Do I sit around looking for reasons to call 911 no, but I do not run from that option when a situation warrantes it. Society today is filled with so damn many laws, many that are usually created by self righteous narrowed mind criminal-politicians, when many options can be narrowed down to basic individual decisions. I spend my time focused on my actions and what I am doing, I do not have enough time in this life to deal with other peoples panthetic dramas and their slave mentalities. Why deal with slaves when you can deal with your own liberation from the common society, and truly be free? Truly be free cut off the people and situations that may truly only hold you back, otherwise sit back and slowly watch the shackle and chain snap around your leg. Your choice be free or be a slave, there is no middle road on this opinion.
_________________________
------------------------------------------------------------

Freedom, baby is never having to say you're sorry. Guilt is like a bag of fuckin' bricks. All ya gotta do is set it down. John Milton - The Devil's Advocate!

I'm gonna pull the whole thing down. I'm gonna bring the whole fuckin' diseased, corrupt temple down on your head. It's gonna be biblical. Clyde Shelton - Law Abiding Citizen!


------------------------------------------------------------

Top
#145757 - 02/16/06 08:39 PM Re: Quick question... [Re: JayLucif]
DataLore Offline


Registered: 11/22/05
Posts: 441
Loc: Holodeck 3
I like the way this gentalman thinks.


Top
#145758 - 02/16/06 09:14 PM Re: Quick question... [Re: JayLucif]
Lust Offline


Registered: 11/02/05
Posts: 4214


Edited by tier_instinct (02/18/06 08:52 AM)
_________________________
�Love is one of the most intense feelings felt by man; another is hate. Forcing yourself to feel indiscriminate love is very unnatural. If you try to love everyone you only lessen your feelings for those who deserve your love. Repressed hatred can lead to many physical and emotional aliments. By learning to release your hatred towards those who deserve it, you cleanse yourself of these malignant emotions and need not take your pent-up hatred out on your loved ones.�
Anton Szandor LaVey, The Satanic Bible

Top
#145759 - 02/16/06 09:18 PM Re: Quick question... [Re: JayLucif]
uncleherpe Offline


Registered: 03/22/05
Posts: 499
when I see something bad happen, I usually alert the proper authorities. Ive seen people get assaulted and such, and I called the police- its their job and they would want to know about it. Getting dangerous assholes put in jail is good for everyone, not just the person who got hurt initially.


edit: since drugs were brought up- eh. I dont really care if others want to ruin their lives. I wouldnt call the cops if I saw some stoners smoking a joint, they are pretty damn harmless.


Edited by uncleherpe (02/16/06 09:30 PM)
_________________________
One stupid post too many.

Top
#145760 - 02/16/06 09:34 PM Re: Quick question... [Re: JayLucif]
Leviathan_Rising Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 02/05/06
Posts: 81
Quote:

I personally avoid dealing with 95% of the people in the outside world on a friend personal level, I would be lucky to name 5 people who I truly trust. Useless it is a very dangerous crime that may endanger many innocent civilians, I avoid most people like the fucking plague.



I tend to be the same way. In my mind, friendship is like a very sharp blade; you only offer it to those that you trust implicitly.

Quote:

Your choice be free or be a slave, there is no middle road on this opinion.



There is no one more pitiable than the one who believes he is free while remaining a slave. This seems to be the category into which most of the population falls.

The discussion at hand brings to mind a little Nietzsche, Freedom is the will to be responsible to ourselves.
_________________________
From the Deep,
~LR
==============================================================
"Ethical axioms are found and tested not very differently from the axioms of science. Truth is what stands the test of experience." -Einstein

"Nothing astonishes men so much as common sense and plain dealing. " -Emerson

"The freethinking of one age is the common sense of the next." -M. Arnold

Citizen

Top
#145761 - 02/16/06 09:47 PM Re: Quick question... [Re: Obolisk]
DataLore Offline


Registered: 11/22/05
Posts: 441
Loc: Holodeck 3

Quote:

Quote:

I only agree with this if it is nature which causes the accident. The drivers involved in the accident would not be liable then.


Even if they aren't liable, there is still the expense of the injured people and damaged property. Mandatory insurance covers that.

Quote:

Not if one is required by law to purchase insurance after they are a liability. My point which I have been trying to stress.


Then we have 200 million accidents to absorb. Everyone gets their into first accident without insurance under that system. Then once a "liability" they have to carry it. That also penalizes them for accidents that aren't their fault b/c fewer insureds means higher premiums to cover the exact same number of accidents and if it wasn't your fault, too bad you are still a liability now.




Isn't it better than being a liability by default? Wouldn't you agree that it's quite ironic and funny that court settlements from auto accidents have since vanished? We have all been made inherently "guilty" by default to pay settlements for an accident we have not been in, or have not yet been involved in if we are even to be involved in an accident in the first place.
Couldn't it be that this law is put into effect due to the government's irresponsibility to its people to accommodate the appropriate amount of judicial facilities and personnel?

Conditioning to injustice is an important tool of suppression.

Top
#145762 - 02/16/06 09:48 PM Re: Quick question... [Re: crackergirl]
Barb Offline

CoS Member

Registered: 04/09/05
Posts: 587
Quote:

The police are planning a little spring break bash for him. They're going to bust him after the drug run to Cali he's got planned for next month so they can really fuck him on the charges. I might have let a little info on that slip out during dinner the other night with one of my boys in blue. I'm kind of evil like that.



Hell yea, that's a GREAT plan!
_________________________
"... it is much more gratifying to change your own world than the whole world." ~Magistra Ygraine

"Life is the great indulgence-death the great abstinence. Therefore, make the most of life-here and now!" ~Anton Szandor LaVey

"The true test of anyone's worth as a living creature is how much he can utilize what he has." ~Anton Szandor LaVey

"Twenty percent of your priorities will give you 80 percent of your production, IF you spend your time, energy, money, and personnel on the top 20 percent of your priorities." ~The Pareto Principle, as stated by John C. Maxwell

Top
#145763 - 02/17/06 01:25 PM Re: Quick question... [Re: DataLore]
Obolisk Offline


Registered: 02/10/06
Posts: 30
Quote:

Isn't it better than being a liability by default?


I don't see it as liability by default. A state system that taxed everyone including non-drivers would be liability by default. I see it as defraying the expense across all participants in an activity.

Quote:

Wouldn't you agree that it's quite ironic and funny that court settlements from auto accidents have since vanished?


Since when? There is still tons of litigation and entire practices devoted to driving and liability insurance. Arbitration and settlement are the biggest tools of that sector.

Quote:

We have all been made inherently "guilty" by default to pay settlements for an accident we have not been in, or have not yet been involved in if we are even to be involved in an accident in the first place.


Not all, only participants in the activity, namely drivers. It is a form of strict liability, just like worker's comp insurance, product manufactuing, or wild animal handlers. To engage in the activity, you must be prepared to cover the expenses of injury. Most states have an opt out to carrying insurance by sufficient showing of alternate expense coverage means, such as a depository account or trust for driver liability.

Quote:

Couldn't it be that this law is put into effect due to the government's irresponsibility to its people to accommodate the appropriate amount of judicial facilities and personnel?


That is just another way of externalizing the cost to people who aren't involved in the activity. We could also take a share of the income tax and make a federal driver liability plan to match worker's comp and have the gov't insure everyone. There are lots of options, this particular one simply assigns it to the participants in the activity.

What isn't going to change are the number of accidents and injuries, the only thing being decided here is how large a pool to spread the expense across and how to determine who is in that pool.

Top
#145764 - 02/17/06 02:50 PM Re: Quick question... [Re: Obolisk]
DataLore Offline


Registered: 11/22/05
Posts: 441
Loc: Holodeck 3
Quote:

I don't see it as liability by default. A state system that taxed everyone including non-drivers would be liability by default. I see it as defraying the expense across all participants in an activity.




I see what you mean. If only there were better determining factors of how well one participates in the activity, before slapping them with monthly rates.

Quote:

Since when? There is still tons of litigation and entire practices devoted to driving and liability insurance. Arbitration and settlement are the biggest tools of that sector.




I went a little overboard in emphasis. From my observations most "courtroom" battle is done between insurance companies, excluding the individual. It seems to make individuals less acountable for their actions, when handing over the acountability to others to pay out of pocket with rate increases.

Quote:

Not all, only participants in the activity, namely drivers. It is a form of strict liability, just like worker's comp insurance, product manufactuing, or wild animal handlers. To engage in the activity, you must be prepared to cover the expenses of injury. Most states have an opt out to carrying insurance by sufficient showing of alternate expense coverage means, such as a depository account or trust for driver liability.



These coverages are electable aren't they? Giving one the choice...?

Quote:

That is just another way of externalizing the cost to people who aren't involved in the activity. We could also take a share of the income tax and make a federal driver liability plan to match worker's comp and have the gov't insure everyone. There are lots of options, this particular one simply assigns it to the participants in the activity.



The soultion would be to take participants out of the activity. A solution which doesn't appear to be in developement for another century.

*sigh*

Is there a S.I.G. for this project?


How did it get here from the origional topic? *laughs*

Top
#145765 - 02/17/06 04:40 PM Re: Quick question... [Re: DataLore]
RandomStranger Offline
CoS Warlock

Registered: 03/09/05
Posts: 2770
Loc: Here.
Quote:

Quote:

If you don't know the difference between having auto insurance and
drugs, I sure hope you aren't driving.

Your arguement is absurd.




I never stated that I was without insurance.
But, I have questioned what the reasons for both of these laws.

There is a big difference. Drug enforcement restricts the possession of such, liability laws require the possession such.
Being required by law to pay for liability insurance when one is not proven liable/irresponsible the law is unnecessary. Being forced by law to buy the "product" of a business makes one think of the term "free enterprise". Prepaying the penalties of ones own actions which have not occurred and will not occur is absurd.

One harms nothing but business profits(others gains) by not purchasing insurance.

Soon we will be required to purchase psychological damage and racial/discriminative slur liability insurance incase we hurt somebody's feelings.




If one follows the laws, the "gray area" is gone.

Again, your arguements are more than teetering on the edge of absurd.
_________________________




Top
#145766 - 02/17/06 04:47 PM Re: Quick question... [Re: RandomStranger]
DataLore Offline


Registered: 11/22/05
Posts: 441
Loc: Holodeck 3
Quote:



If one follows the laws, the "gray area" is gone.

Again, your arguements are more than teetering on the edge of absurd.




Thus when one follows the law which comes before the law of self preservation. The gray area becomes permanantly black.

Top
#145767 - 02/17/06 04:50 PM Re: Quick question... [Re: DataLore]
RandomStranger Offline
CoS Warlock

Registered: 03/09/05
Posts: 2770
Loc: Here.
Quote:

Quote:



If one follows the laws, the "gray area" is gone.

Again, your arguements are more than teetering on the edge of absurd.




Thus when one follows the law which comes before the law of self preservation. The gray area becomes permanantly black.




Line up all of the bottles of your medication. If you see their names mentioned more than once, it is most likely because of contraindication warnings.

Stop taking them. Call your doctor immediately!!!
_________________________




Top
#145768 - 02/17/06 05:03 PM Re: Quick question... [Re: DataLore]
Poetaster Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 01/20/06
Posts: 2336
Loc: East Coast, USA.
Quote:

Thus when one follows the law which comes before the law of self preservation. The gray area becomes permanantly black.




Could you provide me with an example of a law which goes against self-preservation?

I think it's time you reexamine your methods of living if that's the case.

I've personally been able to live comfortably and peacefully without ever entertaining the notion of breaking the law on grounds of violated "self-preservation."
_________________________






Top
Page 3 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >


Forum Stats
12255 Members
73 Forums
44035 Topics
406363 Posts

Max Online: 197 @ 10/04/11 06:49 AM
Advertisements