Speeding cameras

[pyroman1]

not true

There are plenty of ways to get in without doing any damage

Are you aware of the definition of stealing?

[The_Jarhead]

you aren't answering the question


Never mind it's pointless........

[pyroman1]

I have taken many philosophy classes. Also, I said that I agree with you tha those thigns are bad and should be considered crimes.



I was not doing it to be a dick. I was showing that you are trying to justify your personal beliefs by using the very thing you are arguing against. OPINIONS on what laws should be.

Find someone who disagrees, then ask them if it is OK to do those very same things they disagree should be crimes to them. It is basic to the fundamental right in this country to life, liberty, and the pusuit of happiness. Harming the person or property of another, be it physically or financially, denies those fundamental rights established in our Declaration of Independence.

If you want to discredit the statement, it would be better not to agree. I'm not interested in proving myself wrong because it would be extremely difficult to accomplish. I'll leave that to you.

I never said that I think laws are put in place to prevent crimes. You are now assuming things to make your argument sound better. I asked you a question that I wanted to know your opinion on. I may have worded what I said in a way that confused you and I apologize for that. I agree that only a crime can be committed if someone breaks the law. But what I was tring to ask was, Do you believe that there should be no laws preventing the injuring of a person or the damaging of someone else's property (the things you said should be crimes) before it actually takes place? That is what I was trying to say when I said laws to prevent crimes before they happen. Or do you think that the government should wait for it to happen and then punish the person after it happens. So in a nutshell, I'm asking if you think that there should be no preventative measures to prevent crime (your definition of crime).



My response to this part is the same as the red portion above.

OK, how the hell do you have a law that prevents the injury of a person or damaging a person's property BEFORE the event occurs? Please, enlighten me.

Your scenario doesn't make sense, so there is no answer other than what I've already provided.

Are you suggesting that laws against harming another person or their property isn't sufficient to prevent people from doing so in the first place?

[pyroman1]

you aren't answering the question


Never mind it's pointless........

I answered the question, but you want to trick me. The answer is clear. If you enter someone's home without their permission you have taken possession of their property which is stealing. Just because it can't be moved and has only been temporarily borrowed (think stealing a car and saying it was just borrowed) doesn't mean it was not stolen. If you take possession of something, anything, without the owners permission you have stolen that item. That deprives that person of their property which is financial harm.

[The_Jarhead]

I answered the question, but you want to trick me. The answer is clear. If you enter someone's home without their permission you have taken possession of their property which is stealing. Just because it can't be moved and has only been temporarily borrowed (think stealing a car and saying it was just borrowed) doesn't mean it was not stolen. If you take possession of something, anything, without the owners permission you have stolen that item. That deprives that person of their property which is financial harm.

No you didn't answer it.

I never said anything about taking possession of anything.
Your counter example of stealing a car not only does one take possession but also harms it (wear and tear)

but that's fine.........

[pyroman1]

No you didn't answer it.

I never said anything about taking possession of anything.
Your counter example of stealing a car not only does one take possession but also harms it (wear and tear)

but that's fine.........

Explain how someone is going to enter a locked home and what precisely they are going to do while in the home that isn't going to cause any financial harm.

Then also explain how they haven't taken possession, even for a short time, if they are in someone else's home without permission.

Maybe that will make it easier to answer because for the life of me I can't think of how they haven't taken possession.

[Stricken]

I'm staying out of this one! But I will say I'm against speed cameras because I do tend to speed. And as you all know I'm for red light cameras cause I don't run red lights. Yep I said it! If it only punishes me I'm against it.

[pyroman1]

I'm staying out of this one! But I will say I'm against speed cameras because I do tend to speed. And as you all know I'm for red light cameras cause I don't run red lights. Yep I said it! If it only punishes me I'm against it.

At least you admit you are being a hypocrite. Bravo.

[RickyNo]

when this shit hits florida, im moving to canada. fuck it...

[vrod]

What makes people here so special they can choose which laws to break when they want, yet want others to follow all the laws all the time?

[pyroman1]

when this shit hits florida, im moving to canada. fuck it...

Don't move to AB. I've been to Calgary frequently lately and they do use speed cameras there.

[pyroman1]

What makes people here so special they can choose which laws to break when they want, yet want others to follow all the laws all the time?

I'm fairly certain that was not directed at me. However, feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

[chickenhauke]

OK, how the hell do you have a law that prevents the injury of a person or damaging a person's property BEFORE the event occurs? Please, enlighten me.

Your scenario doesn't make sense, so there is no answer other than what I've already provided.

Are you suggesting that laws against harming another person or their property isn't sufficient to prevent people from doing so in the first place?

Laws against drugs, speeding and running red lights. Technically they don't hurt any one, but eventually they will. So we have laws against them.

Sent from EVO on Sprint using tapatalk.

[Stricken]

No Pyro I'm not. I don't go through life with tunnel vision, which is what you seem to do. Look speed in
and of it's self does not kill, if it did there would be more dead people in Germany. Running a red light without a doubt can kill someone.
I figured out the ban red light thread it's all about you as an engineer being snubed. They have put the hand up and telling you to be quiet and you just have a thorn up your butt about it. Say what ya want that's what the whole thing is all about. Not money, safety, illegal or not it's about them telling an engineer to stfu. So until you really say why the red light camera are so "horrible" I'm not gonna read another thread from you about it.

[pyroman1]

Laws against drugs, speeding and running red lights. Technically they don't hurt any one, but eventually they will. So we have laws against them.

Sent from EVO on Sprint using tapatalk.

Really? You mean people don't run red lights, use drugs, or speed because there is a law against it and it therefore prevents people from being harmed? Or do you mean that those three things always cause someone to be harmed?

[pyroman1]

That's an interesting take. Especially considering I've said the same fucking thing repeatedly about 24/7 monitoring all the time for any violation. I guess it is easier to ignore the truth when one wishes to be a hypocrite.

P.S. I didn't post this thread. I only posted one about red light cameras and I tried to keep the topic of them in that thread.

[pyroman1]

What makes people here so special they can choose which laws to break when they want, yet want others to follow all the laws all the time?

Actually, because I completely agree with vrod on this one. I'm just going to re-quote what he said.

[Stricken]

Really? You mean people don't run red lights, use drugs, or speed because there is a law against it and it therefore prevents people from being harmed? Or do you mean that those three things always cause someone to be harmed?

Well it's not like you would ever admit it. So I guess I should believe it's not personal and you are just looking out for the avg Joe right?

How many threads have you mentioned an engineer should do it? This is in reference to the delayed yellow. And if I remember right they don't want an engineer correct? You are an engineer correct? Not to hard to figure out.

[pyroman1]

Well it's not like you would ever admit it. So I guess I should believe it's not personal and you are just looking out for the avg Joe right?

How many threads have you mentioned an engineer should do it? This is in reference to the delayed yellow. And if I remember right they don't want an engineer correct? You are an engineer correct? Not to hard to figure out.

Pretty sure it is just one thread. But feel free to attempt to prove me wrong.

What I am looking out for is our rights. That and to be consistent in my positions. You clearly stated that you don't like speed cameras because you speed. You like red light cameras because you don't run red lights. Well, answer vrod's question. What makes you so special that you get to pick and choose which laws you can abide by but expect everyone else to abide by all the laws?

I don't think anyone, myself included, should have to succumb to laws against victimless crimes. That is called consistency.

[Stricken]

I don't pick and choose! Where that came from I have no idea. Who the fuck doesn't exceed the speed limit? Me doing 70 in a 55 isn't going to kill someone, however if I get caught I pay the ticket. I don't lawyer up and try and buy my way out of something, I own upto it.
I don't blow red lights so it's not a concern for me. If I did I'd hate the cameras cause it's slowing my ass down. It's a non-issue.