Honest lawyer?

[Stripe]

Who employs public defenders? The state.

Right. But you were advocating a free-market system.

:nono: Kindly quote me saying so

You asked:

Accused rapists, murderers, etc are not usually very popular. Would you 'speak for' someone accused of a heinous crime?

My answer was: If they were innocent.

You then created the insane notion that I could not determine that without a trial, presumably one using your system.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Arthur Brain]

Good judges working with good evidence to serve justice.

Oh, well, that's just brilliant Stripe. Do tell, how does this come about exactly? Where does the "good evidence" come from? Two or three witnesses? Where do these "good judges" come from as well? Are most of the current ones corrupt who just accept any ole garbage as evidence before passing sentence?

:doh:

 

[ok doser]

It's inevitable that wrongful convictions could only go up under "his" system ....

because reasons

 

[fool]

Which turns the system into cash for the result you want. We prefer justice.

You misread me. I'm suggesting that since the government is paying to prosecute you the government should pay to defend you with equal resources.

 

[ok doser]

You misread me. I'm suggesting that since the government is paying to prosecute you the government should pay to defend you with equal resources.

Dingdingdingdingding

We have a winner!

 

[Stripe]

You misread me. I'm suggesting that since the government is paying to prosecute you the government should pay to defend you with equal resources.

Oh.

You want two muppets on a government salary deciding your fate.

Ouch.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[JudgeRightly]

Here's a thought.

Uh oh, Fool is thinking....

In Criminal Justice both sides should be Tax payer funded.

Or, better yet, don't waste people's tax dollars on criminals.

Use a system that doesn't require or even need lawyers, so that those tax dollars can go to things that are actually important, such as infrastructure and capturing criminals so they can be brought to justice.

You could bring private lawyers to help but just like there's a prosecutor assigned to your case there's a Public defender with the same resources.

Or, just simplify the law so that lawyers are not needed to understand it, then everyone will be able to defend themselves.

Why do you have to be poor to get a PD?

Why are PD's necessary at all? Because the law is too complex.

You paid your taxes and you're paying to prosecute yourself where's the other side of the coin?

I pay taxes so that the infrastructure of this country can be improved and so that criminals are caught and punished. It's not my desire that the government use my tax dollars to defend criminals.

So there's no speed limits in this world of yours?

Why would there be? Lower speed limits result in longer trips, which only increases the risk of someone falling asleep at the wheel.

Having no arbitrary speed limits, but instead having signage on roads that indicate what is ahead (eg recommended safe speed around a curve, or intersection ahead) allows people who are capable of driving at higher speeds safely to do so, while deterring those who think they can but end up damaging property, injuring or even killing someone, by punishing them appropriately for restitution, paying medical and salary, or in the case of causing death, execution for deadly negligence.

The highways, which are capable of supporting such speeds (barring weather, of course) could actually be used for high speed traffic.

Do people drive safe now?

Now? No, of course not. But their standard of driving has been dropped pretty low. The above would raise the bar back to where it should be.

Death is already on the table for people going 100 mph but they still do it.

Because it's unenforceable.

Speeding tickets are just paid passes to speed.

It lets the rich get on with their lives while causing the poor to suffer having to go slower because they can't afford the fines, if they don't ignore them entirely.

We can't punish them until they wreck (if they survive)?

Punish them IF they cause damage, injury, or death.

But who is going to figure out the tax?
Even the simplest tax code involves tons of accounting. How does that work for a place like GM?

All people do their own taxes. (Though, if someone wants to pay someone else to do their taxes for them (again, a 5% personal increase tax isn't very complex) that's the benefit of a free market.

People go to prison for not paying tax now.

Prisons would be obsolete.

Flogging would seem easier than 20 years.

Tax evasion is theft. The injured party is America. Convicted tax evaders pay normal restitution of twice the amount owed, and are flogged to deter them from committing the crime again.

Why anyone would want to pay twice the amount they are taxed and be flogged instead of just paying the normal 5% tax is beyond me...

Sure, everyone would drive under the designated speed limit

There wouldn't be speed limits.

and there'd be no cases of anyone breaking it

Nothing to break...

or driving under the influence whatsoever...

Which is a different crime entirely.

Yeah, there'd be no tax evasion at all.

I never said there wouldn't be. I just said it would be deterred by paying restitution of twice the amount owed, plus flogging to intensify deterrence.

There's a real world of people out there outside of the theoretical one you seem to have convinced yourself of.

When talking about hypothetical situations, we try to imagine what MIGHT BE, instead of what IS. You don't seem to have caught onto that yet.

Oh, well, that's just brilliant Stripe. Do tell, how does this come about exactly? Where does the "good evidence" come from?

A well funded police force (and military, for international matters). Duh...

Two or three witnesses?

That's God's standard, yes...

Where do these "good judges" come from as well?

The king would appoint up to ten people to be judges who know right from wrong, who would appoint people under themselves to be judges, on down until every 10 households are covered by one judge of 10 (currently, two, at most three would be necessary under the king (120 million households, two judges of 60 million, 10 judges under each of those two of 10 million, and so on down until you reach judges of 100, where each judge has two judges of 50, and a judge of ten under those judges of 50)).

Are most of the current ones corrupt . . .

Yes. They know the law, sure, but they do not know right from wrong.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Who employs public defenders?

The state.


:nono: Kindly quote me saying so

Where does the need to employ public defenders come from?

A complex legal system that inherently necessitates someone skilled in the law to read it.

If we simplify the law, lawyers (including public defenders) become unnecessary.

 

[Arthur Brain]

There wouldn't be speed limits.



Nothing to break...

Then you are just nuts. There's reasons why we have speed limits and not just on motorways either. If you did away with them and people could drive at whatever rate they wanted then the accident rate would skyrocket. In built up and rural areas the speed limit is slow for good reason. So that pedestrians and children aren't likely to be hit by speeding and potentially out of control traffic (which would be inevitable without any limit) and that they'd by far more likely to survive in the cases of being hit by drivers driving on or under said limit. Added to which the nightmare it would be for the police who would be powerless to do anything about drivers racing through the streets and the sky high accident and fatality rate. They would regard your position as the height of irresponsibility and stupidity and they'd be right in doing so.

Which is a different crime entirely.

That still happens even though there's laws against it. There'd be plenty more cases if the laws were done away with as you propose with speed limits and just as irresponsible.

I never said there wouldn't be. I just said it would be deterred by paying restitution of twice the amount owed, plus flogging to intensify deterrence.

Uh huh.

When talking about hypothetical situations, we try to imagine what MIGHT BE, instead of what IS. You don't seem to have caught onto that yet.

You don't seem to have cottoned on to the fact that it's possible to criticize an imaginary position. For example, there'd be no way speed limits would be done away with for reasons already outlined but I can point out just how asinine, irresponsible and downright stupid such a position is.

A well funded police force (and military, for international matters). Duh...

That's just soundbite and didn't answer the question.

That's God's standard, yes...

In the OT. Don't forget about how abhorrent it is when innocent blood is shed.

The king would appoint up to ten people to be judges who know right from wrong, who would appoint people under themselves to be judges, on down until every 10 households are covered by one judge of 10 (currently, two, at most three would be necessary under the king (120 million households, two judges of 60 million, 10 judges under each of those two of 10 million, and so on down until you reach judges of 100, where each judge has two judges of 50, and a judge of ten under those judges of 50)).

How is their "knowing right from wrong" ascertained or gauged?

Yes. They know the law, sure, but they do not know right from wrong.

Sez who? You?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Then you are just nuts.

Appeal to the stone is not a valid argument.

There's reasons why we have speed limits and not just on motorways either.

Which, if you had paid attention, were addressed by requiring something else.

If you did away with them and people could drive at whatever rate they wanted then

People would get to their destinations quicker, and wouldn't be at such a high risk of falling asleep behind the wheel. The rate of such incidents would plummet.

the accident rate would skyrocket.

Why, because you say so?

If people were able to go how fast they wanted to, and if the law says that if you damage someone's property, you pay restitution, if you harm or injure someone, you pay medical fees and wages lost, or are maimed if the victim of your actions was permanently injured, or if you killed someone you would be put to death, people would weigh those factors against how fast they want to drive, and would then regulate their own speed.

In built up and rural areas the speed limit is slow for good reason.

Accounted for in the paragraph above. No speed limit required.

So that pedestrians and children aren't likely to be hit by speeding and potentially out of control traffic (which would be inevitable without any limit) and that they'd by far more likely to survive in the cases of being hit by drivers driving on or under said limit.

Trying to prevent crime doesn't work.

Deterrence can and does work.

Added to which the nightmare it would be for the police who would be powerless to do anything about drivers racing through the streets and the sky high accident and fatality rate.

Contrary to the things you've been told...

https://www.motorists.org/press/montana-no-speed-limit-safety-paradox/

They would regard your position as the height of irresponsibility and stupidity and they'd be right in doing so.

Look, I'm all for safety.

I'm all for getting from point A to point B as quickly and as safely as possible. If I had purchased a fast car, I would want to drive it as fast and as safe as I can (if I wreck it, it's money out of my pocket, and might hurt someone else). But some arbitrary number set by a politician who has probably never driven on the road I want to drive fast on, backed by a fine that anyone with any money can pay, is what prevents me from enjoying a vehicle I purchased with the sole intention of driving fast in.

Does that sound reasonable to you?

That still happens even though there's laws against it.

Most people ignore the speed limit. I'm all for safe driving, but forcing people to slow down because if they don't they'll be fined for not obeying some arbitrary number just isn't a good idea.

Restitution, corporal punishment, and the death penalty, all are sufficient deterrents to people driving recklessly.

There'd be plenty more cases if the laws were done away with as you propose with speed limits and just as irresponsible.

See the article I linked to above.

Uh huh.

:noid:

You don't seem to have cottoned on to the fact that it's possible to criticize an imaginary position.

My argument is that you're arguing against my hypothetical situation and not accounting for the hypothetical parameters, instead applying the parameters from reality.

Of course my position is going to seem odd, but that's not my fault, it's yours for not trying to grasp the big picture of what I'm saying.

For example, there'd be no way speed limits would be done away with for reasons already outlined but I can point out just how asinine, irresponsible and downright stupid such a position is.

More appeal to the stone.

Do you ever have any valid arguments?

That's just soundbite and didn't answer the question.

Sure it does.

Saying it doesn't does not make it so.

In the OT.

And the New.

Don't forget about how abhorrent it is when innocent blood is shed.

:AMR:

How is their "knowing right from wrong" ascertained or gauged?

By comparing what they promote to God's law.

Sez who? You?

:AMR:

 

[ok doser]

Do you ever have any valid arguments

Not when he's been drinking

When he's been drinking, all he has is emotion and abuse

 

[Stripe]

:rotfl:

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Arthur Brain]

Appeal to the stone is not a valid argument.

What you advocate is plainly nuts to anyone with a smattering of common sense and who doesn't have a rock in place of a brain.

Which, if you had paid attention, were addressed by requiring something else.

Um, no. There is no good reason whatsoever to do away with speed limits.

People would get to their destinations quicker, and wouldn't be at such a high risk of falling asleep behind the wheel. The rate of such incidents would plummet.

If people are allowed to drive at 150 mph plus then the incidents would not "plummet", they would go through the roof. You allow folk to drive without any sort of speed restriction then high speed collisions and pile ups would be absolutely inevitable. The chaos would be unthinkable. That's why we have these laws, do you think they were just made on a whim? Most car crashes don't occur because people fall asleep behind the wheel JR but plenty are caused by irresponsible driving and pushing the speed limits. Seriously, if you can't get to your destination quick enough without driving like Lewis Hamilton then plan your route and time it better.

Why, because you say so?

No, because basic common sense says so.

If people were able to go how fast they wanted to, and if the law says that if you damage someone's property, you pay restitution, if you harm or injure someone, you pay medical fees and wages lost, or are maimed if the victim of your actions was permanently injured, or if you killed someone you would be put to death, people would weigh those factors against how fast they want to drive, and would then regulate their own speed.

Oh, spare me your rambling rhetoric about restitution and bonkers garbage about being repaid in maiming et al. You take away speed limits then you invite the inevitable ensuing carnage. Show me one policeman who would advocate the same as you cos there's none that I can think of over here, quite the opposite. Driving safety campaigns are the norm and no copper would go along with what you propose as it's shown time and again what happens when people ignore speed limits.

Accounted for in the paragraph above. No speed limit required.

No, it wasn't. One of the reasons why the speed limit is as low as twenty mph in urban areas is because a child has a much better chance of surviving being hit at that speed as opposed to thirty. Under your irresponsible crackpot theory, people can drive at whatever speed they like and hang the inevitable consequences. Just make the driver pay restitution or some crap.

Trying to prevent crime doesn't work.

Deterrence can and does work.

Speed limits are there for safety, including the driver.

Contrary to the things you've been told...

https://www.motorists.org/press/montana-no-speed-limit-safety-paradox/

Oh wow, well that just settles it then doesn't it?

:doh:

Hey, let's get rid of any speed limit at all and hope that when kids are leaving school there isn't some guy tearing down the road at a hundred miles an hour cos he needs to get to his destination before falling asleep and ploughs into a bunch while losing control of the car...

lain:

Look, I'm all for safety.

No, you aren't.

I'm all for getting from point A to point B as quickly and as safely as possible. If I had purchased a fast car, I would want to drive it as fast and as safe as I can (if I wreck it, it's money out of my pocket, and might hurt someone else). But some arbitrary number set by a politician who has probably never driven on the road I want to drive fast on, backed by a fine that anyone with any money can pay, is what prevents me from enjoying a vehicle I purchased with the sole intention of driving fast in.

Does that sound reasonable to you?

No, it sounds like some half baked drivel written by a kid who hasn't got the faintest idea of what he's talking about and just wants some excuse to drive irresponsibly fast. As I pointed out above, they are not arbitrary figures, that's why the speed restriction has been reduced to twenty mph in urban areas over here.

Most people ignore the speed limit. I'm all for safe driving, but forcing people to slow down because if they don't they'll be fined for not obeying some arbitrary number just isn't a good idea.

Oh, I think it's a fair bet that most people have gone faster than the designated speed limit on occasion but not to the point where they just fly down the roads like Vin Diesel. Your ignorance is astounding.

Restitution, corporal punishment, and the death penalty, all are sufficient deterrents to people driving recklessly.

Allowing people to drive at whatever speed they like is reckless in itself and would be condemned all ends up by the police. Do you watch too much "Fast & Furious" or something?

See the article I linked to above.

See why we have speed limits. Google is your friend.

My argument is that you're arguing against my hypothetical situation and not accounting for the hypothetical parameters, instead applying the parameters from reality.


Of course my position is going to seem odd, but that's not my fault, it's yours for not trying to grasp the big picture of what I'm saying.

You presume that your "bigger picture" hasn't already been taken into account. Wrong.

More appeal to the stone.

Do you ever have any valid arguments?

Sure, supplied in abundance on speed limits as it is. Your position is not only nuts, it's the height of irresponsibility and would be roundly condemned by any police authority. You know this already don't you?

Sure it does.

Saying it doesn't does not make it so.

No, it doesn't. How would this automatically result in "good evidence"?

And the New.

:AMR:

What's tripping you up? If you advocate a system where innocent people would inevitably be caught up in it and put to death without any sort of appeal process then you do the math.

By comparing what they promote to God's law.

More like yours and Enyart's...

lain:

:AMR:

Confused a lot aren't you?

 

[ok doser]

What you advocate is plainly nuts to anyone with a smattering of common sense and who doesn't have a rock in place of a brain.

emotion and abuse

started drinking early today?

 

[john w]

Is not the title of your thread a contradiction in terms?

 

[JudgeRightly]

What you advocate is plainly nuts to anyone with a smattering of common sense and who doesn't have a rock in place of a brain.

:baby:

Appeal to the stone is not a valid argument.

Um, no. There is no good reason whatsoever to do away with speed limits.

There's no good reason to keep them in the face of punishments for injury, damage, or deadly negligence.

If people are allowed to drive at 150 mph plus then the incidents would not "plummet", they would go through the roof. You allow folk to drive without any sort of speed restriction then high speed collisions and pile ups would be absolutely inevitable. The chaos would be unthinkable. That's why we have these laws, do you think they were just made on a whim? Most car crashes don't occur because people fall asleep behind the wheel JR but plenty are caused by irresponsible driving and pushing the speed limits. Seriously, if you can't get to your destination quick enough without driving like Lewis Hamilton then plan your route and time it better.

I think you need to read up on the Autobahn

No, because basic common sense says so.

Boy, you are full of fallacies today!

Appeal to common sense is a more specific form of "alleged certainty."

Care to put forward an actual argument?

Oh, spare me your rambling rhetoric about restitution and bonkers garbage

Appeal to ridicule...

about being repaid in maiming et al. You take away speed limits then you invite the inevitable ensuing carnage.

You cannot dismiss a portion of my argument through ridicule and then assert that the rest of my position is invalid, especially when the portion you dismissed is what balances out my position.

Show me one policeman who would advocate the same as you cos there's none that I can think of over here, quite the opposite.

This is an appeal to incredulity.

Man, you're going ham on the fallacies today, aren't ya!?

Driving safety campaigns are the norm

And yet drivers out on the roads are getting worse and worse. Those "safety" programs are not helping, or if they are, it's not enough.

and no copper would go along with what you propose

Asserting a negative.

Burden of proof is on you to show that no police officer would.

as it's shown time and again what happens when people ignore speed limits.

Alleged certainty.

No, it wasn't. One of the reasons why the speed limit is as low as twenty mph in urban areas is because a child has a much better chance of surviving being hit at that speed as opposed to thirty. Under your irresponsible crackpot theory, people can drive at whatever speed they like and hang the inevitable consequences. Just make the driver pay restitution or some crap.

Causing injury would result in corporal punishment and paying medical fees (and if applicable, salary lost due to injuries). Killing someone with a vehicle because the driver lost control is deadly negligence (or murder if intentional) and results in execution. Damages to property would result in restitution.

Why you think those are not enough of a deterrent for one to drive safely while driving fast is beyond me...

Speed limits are there for safety, including the driver.

So tell me how safe it is for some vehicles to be governed at 55 (by a speed limit, not electronically limited) while all other traffic is doing 70-75, and even 80.

Oh wow, well that just settles it then doesn't it?

:doh:

Hey, let's get rid of any speed limit at all and hope that when kids are leaving school there isn't some guy tearing down the road at a hundred miles an hour cos he needs to get to his destination before falling asleep and ploughs into a bunch while losing control of the car...

lain:

This is a straw man.

No, you aren't.

Yes, I am.

:noid:

No, it sounds like some half baked drivel written by a kid who hasn't got the faintest idea of what he's talking about and just wants some excuse to drive irresponsibly fast. As I pointed out above, they are not arbitrary figures, that's why the speed restriction has been reduced to twenty mph in urban areas over here.

You keep telling yourself that.

Oh, I think it's a fair bet that most people have gone faster than the designated speed limit on occasion

"On occasion?"

Try almost ALL THE TIME.

I'm an OTR truck driver.

I see it all day every day, people going 5, 10, 15, even 20 mph over the speed limit. Heck, I do it myself where possible (governed at 63mph), because staying with the flow of traffic is much safer than having someone rear-end me because I'm doing the speed limit.

but not to the point where they just fly down the roads like Vin Diesel. Your ignorance is astounding.

You clearly don't drive enough, then.

People do not obey speed limits (unless their elderly, new drivers, or sticklers for rules.)

Allowing people to drive at whatever speed they like is reckless in itself

By itself, yes, I agree. But you keep leaving out the other half of my argument, Arthur. It's extremely dishonest of you.

and would be condemned all ends up by the police. Do you watch too much "Fast & Furious" or something?

I haven't even seen 6-8, iirc...

See why we have speed limits. Google is your friend.

Uh, what?

The article says the exact opposite of your position.

Did you bother to read it? Apparently not.

It said that when Montana added speed limits and had high enforcement, there were more accidents than when there were no speed limits.

:think:

That seems to support my position, not yours.

You haven't exactly provided us with any relevant data on the topic, either.

You presume that your "bigger picture" hasn't already been taken into account. Wrong.

And yet you still, just above, leave out the deterrent from driving too fast in my position.

Sure, supplied in abundance on speed limits as it is.

Not that I've seen.

Most of your arguments so far have been fallacies.

Your position is not only nuts,

Here's another one... Appeal to the stone..

it's the height of irresponsibility

And another, appeal to ridicule.

and would be roundly condemned by any police authority.

Idk, the article I linked to above seems to show that taking away speed limits has the effect of lowering accident rates, and I'm pretty sure that any police officer would be fine with that.

You know this already don't you?

Loaded question.

No, it doesn't.

Yes, it would.

:noid:

How would this automatically result in "good evidence"?

Evidence is evidence. It will show one thing or another. If enough evidence is found, one can make a determination on reality.

[QUOTEWhat's tripping you up? If you advocate a system where innocent people would inevitably be caught up in it and put to death without any sort of appeal process then you do the math.[/QUOTE]

Let's do the math.

The system you advocate/defend, that allows a criminal to appeal, has juries, lawyers, public defenders, cannot even fathom keeping up with the amount of crime committed. If it could, we would see a steady progress of fewer and fewer crimes, until eventually there are hardly any crimes left.

Over the past century, while there has been a decrease in the past few years, the number of crimes (overall) have gone up, significantly, and there's no guarantee that this downhill trend will continue.

So far, your system is not doing too well.

Compare that with a system that is designed to decrease the number of crimes, while also minimizing the stress on the judiciary.

I've spent the past hour or so trying to do the math (and there's probably some formula I'm not aware of that would make my goal much easier), but currently, America has 3,294 judges. That's for a population of about 120 million households.

There's no way that those few number of people can even hope to process all the crime that is committed, let alone decrease it.

Using the system described in Exodus 18 (what I've been trying to figure out), there would be around 15.7 million people who would be judges, who would all be appointed by the judges over them, the first two judges being appointed by the king.

I believe TH brought up stress in the last discussion we had on this. What stress would there be when there are 15.7 million judges able to take the case?

And that's just the judiciary. Let's not forget the law and the punishments for breaking it, which would deter criminals from even thinking about committing the crime, let alone acting out their desires.

So, deterrence from punishments and fewer errors from judges due to light workload due to division of labor, all of that leads to almost no errors being made, which means more criminals are punished, which results in less crime overall, which leads to less stress on the judges, which leads to fewer errors... A feedback loop.

A side feedback loop has it also leading to more resources being made available for each case, which leads to better convictions due to stronger evidence, which leads to the truth, which leads to more criminals being justly convicted AND fewer innocent people being wrongly convicted, which leads to less crime and more respect for the justice system, which leads to less stress for the judges... etc.

So, done the math, my system is still better, even though it has the possibility of error.

More like yours and Enyart's...

lain:

Straw man. And here I didn't think you could fit another one into your post.

No, God's law.

Pastor Enyart and I (and others) only advocate God's law. We don't claim it as our own.

Confused a lot aren't you?

Says the one who thinks logical fallacies are good arguments.

:dunce:

 

[Arthur Brain]

:baby:

Appeal to the stone is not a valid argument.



There's no good reason to keep them in the face of punishments for injury, damage, or deadly negligence.



I think you need to read up on the Autobahn



Boy, you are full of fallacies today!

Appeal to common sense is a more specific form of "alleged certainty."

Care to put forward an actual argument?



Appeal to ridicule...



You cannot dismiss a portion of my argument through ridicule and then assert that the rest of my position is invalid, especially when the portion you dismissed is what balances out my position.



This is an appeal to incredulity.

Man, you're going ham on the fallacies today, aren't ya!?



And yet drivers out on the roads are getting worse and worse. Those "safety" programs are not helping, or if they are, it's not enough.



Asserting a negative.

Burden of proof is on you to show that no police officer would.



Alleged certainty.



Causing injury would result in corporal punishment and paying medical fees (and if applicable, salary lost due to injuries). Killing someone with a vehicle because the driver lost control is deadly negligence (or murder if intentional) and results in execution. Damages to property would result in restitution.

Why you think those are not enough of a deterrent for one to drive safely while driving fast is beyond me...



So tell me how safe it is for some vehicles to be governed at 55 (by a speed limit, not electronically limited) while all other traffic is doing 70-75, and even 80.



This is a straw man.



Yes, I am.

:noid:



You keep telling yourself that.



"On occasion?"

Try almost ALL THE TIME.

I'm an OTR truck driver.

I see it all day every day, people going 5, 10, 15, even 20 mph over the speed limit. Heck, I do it myself where possible (governed at 63mph), because staying with the flow of traffic is much safer than having someone rear-end me because I'm doing the speed limit.



You clearly don't drive enough, then.

People do not obey speed limits (unless their elderly, new drivers, or sticklers for rules.)



By itself, yes, I agree. But you keep leaving out the other half of my argument, Arthur. It's extremely dishonest of you.



I haven't even seen 6-8, iirc...



Uh, what?

The article says the exact opposite of your position.

Did you bother to read it? Apparently not.

It said that when Montana added speed limits and had high enforcement, there were more accidents than when there were no speed limits.

:think:

That seems to support my position, not yours.

You haven't exactly provided us with any relevant data on the topic, either.



And yet you still, just above, leave out the deterrent from driving too fast in my position.



Not that I've seen.

Most of your arguments so far have been fallacies.



Here's another one... Appeal to the stone..



And another, appeal to ridicule.



Idk, the article I linked to above seems to show that taking away speed limits has the effect of lowering accident rates, and I'm pretty sure that any police officer would be fine with that.



Loaded question.



Yes, it would.

:noid:



Evidence is evidence. It will show one thing or another. If enough evidence is found, one can make a determination on reality.

What's tripping you up? If you advocate a system where innocent people would inevitably be caught up in it and put to death without any sort of appeal process then you do the math.

Let's do the math.

The system you advocate/defend, that allows a criminal to appeal, has juries, lawyers, public defenders, cannot even fathom keeping up with the amount of crime committed. If it could, we would see a steady progress of fewer and fewer crimes, until eventually there are hardly any crimes left.

Over the past century, while there has been a decrease in the past few years, the number of crimes (overall) have gone up, significantly, and there's no guarantee that this downhill trend will continue.

So far, your system is not doing too well.

Compare that with a system that is designed to decrease the number of crimes, while also minimizing the stress on the judiciary.

I've spent the past hour or so trying to do the math (and there's probably some formula I'm not aware of that would make my goal much easier), but currently, America has 3,294 judges. That's for a population of about 120 million households.

There's no way that those few number of people can even hope to process all the crime that is committed, let alone decrease it.

Using the system described in Exodus 18 (what I've been trying to figure out), there would be around 15.7 million people who would be judges, who would all be appointed by the judges over them, the first two judges being appointed by the king.

I believe TH brought up stress in the last discussion we had on this. What stress would there be when there are 15.7 million judges able to take the case?

And that's just the judiciary. Let's not forget the law and the punishments for breaking it, which would deter criminals from even thinking about committing the crime, let alone acting out their desires.

So, deterrence from punishments and fewer errors from judges due to light workload due to division of labor, all of that leads to almost no errors being made, which means more criminals are punished, which results in less crime overall, which leads to less stress on the judges, which leads to fewer errors... A feedback loop.

A side feedback loop has it also leading to more resources being made available for each case, which leads to better convictions due to stronger evidence, which leads to the truth, which leads to more criminals being justly convicted AND fewer innocent people being wrongly convicted, which leads to less crime and more respect for the justice system, which leads to less stress for the judges... etc.

So, done the math, my system is still better, even though it has the possibility of error.



Straw man. And here I didn't think you could fit another one into your post.

No, God's law.

Pastor Enyart and I (and others) only advocate God's law. We don't claim it as our own.



Says the one who thinks logical fallacies are good arguments.

There is just no "reasoning" with folk like you. That you can't see how a retraction of speed limits would result in so much death and injury speaks volumes in itself. Your position is entirely open to ridicule because nobody in the police would have a bar of it for all of the afore mentioned reasons already and others to boot. The reasons for them are obvious and why they are in place as law. You would have no speed limit in urban areas and if a child got splattered across a road then hey, just kill the driver who didn't drive too responsibly or "pay restitution" or some such. The lowering of speed in urban areas has been explained already. It cuts the likelihood of fatal injury for those hit at reduced speed but you're not really interested in any of that are you? There is no fallacy about that. If you allow no speed restrictions in such areas then you know fine well there'd be multiple fatalities as a result but hey, you can just reel off appropriate penalties et al.

Your "system" has the inevitability of error with no recourse. There's no appealing to a stone here but I might as well try and reason with one.

 

[ok doser]

There is just no "reasoning" with folk like you.

and so you're not going to bother trying, right?

That you can't see how a retraction of speed limits would result in so much death and injury speaks volumes in itself. Your position is entirely open to ridicule because nobody in the police would have a bar of it for all of the afore mentioned reasons already and others to boot. The reasons for them are obvious and why they are in place as law. You would have no speed limit in urban areas and if a child got splattered across a road then hey, just kill the driver who didn't drive too responsibly or "pay restitution" or some such. The lowering of speed in urban areas has been explained already. It cuts the likelihood of fatal injury for those hit at reduced speed but you're not really interested in any of that are you? There is no fallacy about that. If you allow no speed restrictions in such areas then you know fine well there'd be multiple fatalities as a result but hey, you can just reel off appropriate penalties et al.

Your "system" has the inevitability of error with no recourse. There's no appealing to a stone here but I might as well try and reason with one.

:doh:

 

[JudgeRightly]

There is just no "reasoning" with folk like you.

I think the others would agree, I have tried to be reasonable, but you don't like what I say, yet have no argument against what I say, so you resort to logical fallacies to put down my position.

So who's really being unreasonable?

That you can't see how a retraction of speed limits would result in so much death and injury speaks volumes in itself.

This is a straw man.

My position is not ONLY to abolish speed limits.

My position is to BOTH abolish speed limits AND to impose a penalty for doing harm.

You keep ignoring that bit.

Your position is entirely open to ridicule

Appeal to ridicule is never a valid argument.

because nobody in the police would have a bar of it for all of the afore mentioned reasons already and others to boot.

Asserting a negative and alleged certainty are not valid arguments.

The reasons for them are obvious and why they are in place as law.

Alleged certainty.

Also, I've addressed already how to counter reckless driving.

You would have no speed limit in urban areas and if a child got splattered across a road then hey, just kill the driver who didn't drive too responsibly or "pay restitution" or some such.

Yet another straw man. We don't just "kill the guy" because he killed someone.

We put them on trial, and if convicted, then we punish them appropriately.

If a child (and this applies to people of all ages, not just children) was killed because someone was driving too fast in an area known to have children in it (for example, a neighborhood, and the child was injured, maimed, or killed, the person who was driving recklessly would be put on trial for negligence resulting in injury (or deadly negligence, if the child died).

If the child survived, and had no permanent injuries, the driver would be forced to pay all medical fees for the child's stay in the hospital.

If the child survived, but was permanently injured as a result of the drivers actions, the driver would pay all medical fees, and would be mutilated in similar manner to the child, fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth.

If the child did not survive, but died as a result of his injuries...

“When the Lord your God has cut off the nations whose land the Lord your God is giving you, and you dispossess them and dwell in their cities and in their houses,you shall separate three cities for yourself in the midst of your land which the Lord your God is giving you to possess.You shall prepare roads for yourself, and divide into three parts the territory of your land which the Lord your God is giving you to inherit, that any manslayer may flee there.“And this is the case of the manslayer who flees there, that he may live: Whoever kills his neighbor unintentionally, not having hated him in time past—as when a man goes to the woods with his neighbor to cut timber, and his hand swings a stroke with the ax to cut down the tree, and the head slips from the handle and strikes his neighbor so that he dies—he shall flee to one of these cities and live;lest the avenger of blood, while his anger is hot, pursue the manslayer and overtake him, because the way is long, and kill him, though he was not deserving of death, since he had not hated the victim in time past.Therefore I command you, saying, ‘You shall separate three cities for yourself.’“Now if the Lord your God enlarges your territory, as He swore to your fathers, and gives you the land which He promised to give to your fathers,and if you keep all these commandments and do them, which I command you today, to love the Lord your God and to walk always in His ways, then you shall add three more cities for yourself besides these three,lest innocent blood be shed in the midst of your land which the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, and thus guilt of bloodshed be upon you.“But if anyone hates his neighbor, lies in wait for him, rises against him and strikes him mortally, so that he dies, and he flees to one of these cities,then the elders of his city shall send and bring him from there, and deliver him over to the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die.Your eye shall not pity him, but you shall put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with you. - Deuteronomy 19:1-13 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy19:1-13&version=NKJV

“He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death.However, if he did not lie in wait, but God delivered him into his hand, then I will appoint for you a place where he may flee. - Exodus 21:12-13 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus21:12-13&version=NKJV

The lowering of speed in urban areas has been explained already. It cuts the likelihood of fatal injury for those hit at reduced speed but you're not really interested in any of that are you?

So let's just have everyone go 20mph everywhere, because that way no one will ever die as a result of a car crash. :mock:

https://www.motorists.org/press/montana-no-speed-limit-safety-paradox/

There is no fallacy about that.

I have no idea which fallacy you're referring to, because you didn't bother to specify...

If you allow no speed restrictions in such areas then

Again, ignoring half of my argument does not make my argument invalid.

you know fine well

Appeal to emotion, I believe.

there'd be multiple fatalities as a result

Asserting a position doesn't make it so. You have to show that it is so. You haven't done so at all.

but hey, you can just reel off appropriate penalties et al.

:blabla:

Your "system" has the inevitability of error with no recourse.

Your system has the same problem. But instead of it being just, it is unjust.

You can't give back the time a person loses in prison. There's no recourse for that. You can try to compensate for it, but you cannot give back to someone time lost.

With restitution or corporal punishment, the punishment is (usually) over and done with within days of the crime committed. With capital crimes, the punishment is over with, and people go back to their lives as best as they can before the crime was committed, sans the one who committed the capital crime.

There's no appealing to a stone here but I might as well try and reason with one.

And there's the ad hom. :banned:

 

[Arthur Brain]

I think the others would agree, I have tried to be reasonable, but you don't like what I say, yet have no argument against what I say, so you resort to logical fallacies to put down my position.

So who's really being unreasonable?

There is no reasoning with you, which there isn't. You've concocted a barmy "solution" to road problems by advocating something that could only make problems worse. No police force would consider your proposals for a solitary second and the reasons are flat out obvious. The laws in regards to speed limits are there for a reason, to ensure that roads are as safe as possible and that drivers don't put others and their own lives at risk by driving too fast. Speeding is taken very seriously as it's a common denominator in traffic accidents and fatalities each year. People who are caught excessively breaking the speed limit are prosecuted, find and banned from roads for reckless driving. Excuses such as "I needed to get somewhere quicker and the limit was too slow" aren't gonna fly as there's no reason why anybody can't get to their destination in time if they bother to plan it properly.

If the speed limits were taken away then the only result would be an escalation in accidents and fatalities, both for motorists and pedestrians. It would encourage irresponsible driving and your penalties wouldn't stop that. Those that break the limits don't get a slap on the wrist if their reckless driving results in injury or death. No police force or chief constable in the UK would give you the time of day for all the reasons I've outlined already and previous and probably plenty more but would you listen to them as to why it's essential to have speed limits? Somehow, I highly doubt it.

This is a straw man.

My position is not ONLY to abolish speed limits.

My position is to BOTH abolish speed limits AND to impose a penalty for doing harm.

You keep ignoring that bit.

Your position would only result in harm through the sheer irresponsibility of it. There's already penalties for people who cause harm by reckless driving.

Appeal to ridicule is never a valid argument.

Then stop making ridiculous arguments. Along with the police, there's no motoring organization that would endorse an eradication of speed limits. Now why do you suppose that is?

Asserting a negative and alleged certainty are not valid arguments.

It's obvious. The removal of laws that ensure most drivers stay within safe speed limits is a recipe for disaster and any traffic cop would tell you this else show me someone in law enforcement who proposes the same as you.

Alleged certainty.

Absolutely, it's obvious else again, quote someone in the police who advocates the same.

Also, I've addressed already how to counter reckless driving.

You encourage it by abolishing speed limits.

Yet another straw man. We don't just "kill the guy" because he killed someone.

We put them on trial, and if convicted, then we punish them appropriately.

If a child (and this applies to people of all ages, not just children) was killed because someone was driving too fast in an area known to have children in it (for example, a neighborhood, and the child was injured, maimed, or killed, the person who was driving recklessly would be put on trial for negligence resulting in injury (or deadly negligence, if the child died).

What do you mean "too fast"? There's no speed limits remember so that can't be right.

If the child survived, and had no permanent injuries, the driver would be forced to pay all medical fees for the child's stay in the hospital.

If the child survived, but was permanently injured as a result of the drivers actions, the driver would pay all medical fees, and would be mutilated in similar manner to the child, fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth.

If the child did not survive, but died as a result of his injuries...

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

I'd say that any person who was irresponsible enough to remove sensible laws in regards to speed limits should bear responsibility as well.

lain:

So let's just have everyone go 20mph everywhere, because that way no one will ever die as a result of a car crash. :mock:

Who said anything about everyone having to go 20mph everywhere? I sure didn't. :AMR:

Sensible in urban areas to stop drivers from going 50-60 or whatever as it would be completely unsafe for motorists and pedestrians alike. The speed limit is there for a reason.

Again, ignoring half of my argument does not make my argument invalid.

Then again, quote me just one single officer who has proposed the same as you.

Appeal to emotion, I believe.

More an appeal to common sense which is probably a waste of time...

Asserting a position doesn't make it so. You have to show that it is so. You haven't done so at all.

Yes, I have and the reasons are so obvious they shouldn't even have to be spelled out. I want to be able to go out of my house knowing that barring some nut, there aren't going to be motorists driving at 60mph in built up areas because someone thought it was a good idea to abolish all speed limits. Should we get rid of traffic lights as well?

:blabla:

Sums your position up. A lot of assertion and hot air. Meanwhile, in the land of sanity, speeding laws go on to protect the driver and the public. Hey, how about getting rid of seatbelts too?

Your system has the same problem. But instead of it being just, it is unjust.

You can't give back the time a person loses in prison. There's no recourse for that. You can try to compensate for it, but you cannot give back to someone time lost.

With restitution or corporal punishment, the punishment is (usually) over and done with within days of the crime committed. With capital crimes, the punishment is over with, and people go back to their lives as best as they can before the crime was committed, sans the one who committed the capital crime.

It doesn't have the problem of wrongfully killing innocent people whereas yours does and without even a chance to appeal. Sure, you can't replace the time lost to someone wrongfully incarcerated but you can compensate. Can't do that with a corpse and meaningfully compensate the loved ones of that corpse either.

And there's the ad hom. :banned:

It was more of an observation.