If there is no traffic then nothing bad can happen by not stopping. Stopping at that point is just a useless formality.Yep, you've just made your point. Derp de der.
Do you believe the gov. should have the right to impose seat belt laws?
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
You are much better at rationalizing than I am. However rational thought seems to escape you sometimes.
In both instances the individual has a group of busy bodies making their choices for them under threat of punishment for failure to acquiesce. In both instances freedom to self determine has been shat upon.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Hello Prohibitionist. Have you shifted the basis of your stupid law proposal from, "the BEST way is legal to grow, but illegal to sell"
to
"the FASTEST way to legalization, is legal to grow and illegal to sell".
Are you disavowing your idea now or making an adjustment to it?
see4
Well-Known Member
I can concede that there are "busy bodies" making decisions for the "rest of us". But these "busy bodies" as you put it, are elected representatives who represent the democratic makeup of all individuals in a given area. Ya know.. voting and all. So it's not as if these "busy bodies" are making up rules as they go. Wait, I take that last part back, they do. And in the instances where they make rules that do not follow the consensus of individuals in a given area, I think is wrong and is why I dislike my government.
But trying to stay on point here, marijuana laws are just plain stupid. Those laws were enacted not because of general consensus of the public but as a means to police a specific demographic. Which I completely disagree with whole heartedly. But, seat belt laws were enacted as a response to general consensus of the public to protect the public safety, not police individuals. Again, two different concepts.
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
Which is why you play with a lighter while soaked in gasoline,....nothing will happen unless.....Sometimes you can`t see if traffic is coming past your stop sign,...What then,...risk it ?
We shall all live that way.....
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
Ya kidding ,..Right ? Not a decade ago, my car would go the first 60ft with no steering and me praying it don`t go to the bumper,...But diving irresponsibly in the public streets full of travelers and commuters,....that`s not risk,...it`s stupid, dumb, disrespectful and I wont do that.
Apparently you still do not understand what NO TRAFFIC means. I stop at stop signs when there is traffic, when there is no traffic for miles and miles in every direction, I don't stop. There is no need to.
Why do you interpret "no traffic" as the equivalent of "public streets full of travelers and commuters"? Are you stupid or something?
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
I guess it`s because I live where you can`t see around the corner or more than 100ft at a time.
But out in the plains or sticks,...I guess no harm no fowl can apply.
Yeah when I come down the section line on my southern acreage, I have to cross a paved county road so they put a stop sign there. This county road sees about 10-20 vehicles a day and I can see down either side about 4 or 5 miles. I never stop there. There is very little risk, in fact there is a greater risk of something falling out of the air and hitting me than something from the road since I never look up in the air when driving in order to minimize collisions, but certainly do look down the road.
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
In the city, we call that a dollar sign, cuz that`s all it`s there for, city dollars......
In many ways you are right. Cities found they can fund their own unnecessary bureaucratic positions to a degree with fines from traffic infractions and parking enforcement. Hence you will never be rid of meter maids and traffic cops as long as there is money to be made from fines for breaking rules.