wrote in message
...
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 15:45:43 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
news
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 18:06:42 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:01:16 -0600, wrote:

On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 12:44:43 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/11...y.aspx?ref=rss


NY just passed a new law to protect kids. Now it is a felon, to drive
DWI/DUI with children 15 years of age or less on board.

That ought to help save lives!

George Orwell just wasn't too far off...

Not that you asked, but my opinion is that anybody driving DUI with a
passenger should be prosecuted as a felon.

I realize that many share that view, and it may be a consensus view. I
don't. IMHO, persons who injure another out of their own
irresponsible actions should be subject to equitable and severe
penalties meted out by the justice system. I think that legislated
behavioral controls are Orwellian and rob the individual of his or her
personal autonomy.


Ummm... laws are not a form of behavioral control?

To state the case generically does not do the topic justice. There is
a distinction here between retributive justice and preventive
sanctions. The question is which application respects an individual's
personal autonomy and responsibility. Preventive sanctions presume
that the individual must be compelled by legislation to be civically,
morally, and ethically responsible. In this sense, the individual's
autonomy must necessarily be reduced for what is considered the social
good. IMO, this stands in contrast to the deference given to personal
autonomy and liberty by the earliest lawmakers in this country. We've
become to conditioned over time, as a society, to accept the utility
of preventive sanctions at the cost of personal liberty, and this to
the point that a perspective such as mine is considered savagely
extreme. I don't think my perspective would have seemed extreme in
this country's youth. Retributive justice does not presuppose that
the individual must be necessarily be constrained for the good of
society.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access


Hate to break it to you, but we live in this century, not the 1700s. Get
with the program. The conditions and situations are vastly different.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message news
On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:30:43 -0600, wrote:

On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 15:18:45 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 12:44:43 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/11...y.aspx?ref=rss


NY just passed a new law to protect kids. Now it is a felon, to drive
DWI/DUI with children 15 years of age or less on board.

That ought to help save lives!

George Orwell just wasn't too far off...

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access


You object to having a legal requirement to drive sober??

Yes.

Why?


Good question!!

--
Nom=de=Plume

"Tim" wrote in message
...
On Dec 9, 6:43 pm, "Steve B" wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message

...

http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/11...wi-bill-compou...

NY just passed a new law to protect kids. Now it is a felon, to drive
DWI/DUI with children 15 years of age or less on board.

That ought to help save lives!

Not sure if that last sentence is a statement or a snide comment.

a snide comment.

Drunks don't care about anything, even passengers.

And if more laws reduced deaths and DUIs, we would have evidence of this
already, as we have increased the laws.

There is not correlation between increasing laws and people lessening
their
criminal acts. Look at Prohibition.

Steve

And above the basics, it applies to gun laws too.


The Brady Bill was implemented in February of 1994. In 1997, the number of
violent crimes committed with firearms had fallen 25% since 1994, while the
overall number of violent crimes had declined 14%.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 16:58:43 -0500, I am Tosk
wrote:

Why do you s'pose they didn't just make it a felony to drive with any
passenger in the car?

Many bad ideas are sold as ' for the children '

Casady

On Dec 9, 10:54*pm, jps wrote:
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 20:30:10 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:



On Dec 9, 10:06*pm, jps wrote:
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 19:39:26 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

On Dec 9, 9:35 pm, Tim wrote:
On Dec 9, 9:28 pm, jps wrote:

On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 18:59:57 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

On Dec 9, 8:53 pm, "Don White" wrote:
wrote in message

. ..

On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 15:18:45 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 12:44:43 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/11...wi-bill-compou...

NY just passed a new law to protect kids. Now it is a felon, to drive
DWI/DUI with children 15 years of age or less on board.

That ought to help save lives!

George Orwell just wasn't too far off...

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

You object to having a legal requirement to drive sober??

Yes.

--

Boy..if this is you Waylon...you're really out to lunch here.
Maybe you should volunteer some time in a major trauma center in Atlanta.

Don. I'll vouch for him, II know this guy. he lives in an adjacent
county of mine. only about 40 mi. away. I guarantee you, he's not
Waylon.

I think I know what his point is, but I won't go into it. it's no
biggie.

Uh oh. You belong to a church group together or do your kids play
baseball against one another?

Both.

Actually, not really. we attend separate churches, however we share
close to the same beliefs.

if by chance J. *had kids the same age as mine who were active in
sports, then they probably did compete with each other

Uh oh, spilled the beans and feeling like you overstepped?

No.

He'd have done well as a church official during the crusades. *Don't
know what he's like live but he sure comes off as the true heir to
William F. Buckley, minus the intellect.

you're probably right.

Yes, I thought so.

Lets refresh my origional post, shall we?

"in you're eyes you're probably right. But you see only what you wish.
"

nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 15:45:43 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
news On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 18:06:42 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:01:16 -0600, wrote:

On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 12:44:43 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/11...y.aspx?ref=rss


NY just passed a new law to protect kids. Now it is a felon, to drive
DWI/DUI with children 15 years of age or less on board.

That ought to help save lives!
George Orwell just wasn't too far off...
Not that you asked, but my opinion is that anybody driving DUI with a
passenger should be prosecuted as a felon.
I realize that many share that view, and it may be a consensus view. I
don't. IMHO, persons who injure another out of their own
irresponsible actions should be subject to equitable and severe
penalties meted out by the justice system. I think that legislated
behavioral controls are Orwellian and rob the individual of his or her
personal autonomy.

Ummm... laws are not a form of behavioral control?
To state the case generically does not do the topic justice. There is
a distinction here between retributive justice and preventive
sanctions. The question is which application respects an individual's
personal autonomy and responsibility. Preventive sanctions presume
that the individual must be compelled by legislation to be civically,
morally, and ethically responsible. In this sense, the individual's
autonomy must necessarily be reduced for what is considered the social
good. IMO, this stands in contrast to the deference given to personal
autonomy and liberty by the earliest lawmakers in this country. We've
become to conditioned over time, as a society, to accept the utility
of preventive sanctions at the cost of personal liberty, and this to
the point that a perspective such as mine is considered savagely
extreme. I don't think my perspective would have seemed extreme in
this country's youth. Retributive justice does not presuppose that
the individual must be necessarily be constrained for the good of
society.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access


Hate to break it to you, but we live in this century, not the 1700s. Get
with the program. The conditions and situations are vastly different.

The program?

--


Imagine being such a worthless p.o.s. that you post on usenet using
someone else's ID

nom=de=plume wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message
...
On Dec 9, 6:43 pm, "Steve B" wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message

...

http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/11...wi-bill-compou...
NY just passed a new law to protect kids. Now it is a felon, to drive
DWI/DUI with children 15 years of age or less on board.
That ought to help save lives!
Not sure if that last sentence is a statement or a snide comment.

a snide comment.

Drunks don't care about anything, even passengers.

And if more laws reduced deaths and DUIs, we would have evidence of this
already, as we have increased the laws.

There is not correlation between increasing laws and people lessening
their
criminal acts. Look at Prohibition.

Steve

And above the basics, it applies to gun laws too.


The Brady Bill was implemented in February of 1994. In 1997, the number of
violent crimes committed with firearms had fallen 25% since 1994, while the
overall number of violent crimes had declined 14%.


Not enough credit is given to the peacemaker, as a tool to keep crime down.


-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_Peacemaker


Imagine being such a worthless p.o.s. that you post on usenet using
someone else's ID

On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 22:07:19 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 15:45:43 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
news On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 18:06:42 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:01:16 -0600, wrote:

On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 12:44:43 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/11...y.aspx?ref=rss


NY just passed a new law to protect kids. Now it is a felon, to drive
DWI/DUI with children 15 years of age or less on board.

That ought to help save lives!

George Orwell just wasn't too far off...

Not that you asked, but my opinion is that anybody driving DUI with a
passenger should be prosecuted as a felon.

I realize that many share that view, and it may be a consensus view. I
don't. IMHO, persons who injure another out of their own
irresponsible actions should be subject to equitable and severe
penalties meted out by the justice system. I think that legislated
behavioral controls are Orwellian and rob the individual of his or her
personal autonomy.


Ummm... laws are not a form of behavioral control?

To state the case generically does not do the topic justice. There is
a distinction here between retributive justice and preventive
sanctions. The question is which application respects an individual's
personal autonomy and responsibility. Preventive sanctions presume
that the individual must be compelled by legislation to be civically,
morally, and ethically responsible. In this sense, the individual's
autonomy must necessarily be reduced for what is considered the social
good. IMO, this stands in contrast to the deference given to personal
autonomy and liberty by the earliest lawmakers in this country. We've
become to conditioned over time, as a society, to accept the utility
of preventive sanctions at the cost of personal liberty, and this to
the point that a perspective such as mine is considered savagely
extreme. I don't think my perspective would have seemed extreme in
this country's youth. Retributive justice does not presuppose that
the individual must be necessarily be constrained for the good of
society.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access


Hate to break it to you, but we live in this century, not the 1700s. Get
with the program. The conditions and situations are vastly different.

That is a specious argument. We're talking about legal philosophies
that transcend technologicial and sociological advances (if there is
such a thing). Your same argument is used to deprecate the
Constitution. The document necessarily transcends the passage of
time.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 03:34:23 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

On Dec 9, 10:54*pm, jps wrote:
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 20:30:10 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:



On Dec 9, 10:06*pm, jps wrote:
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 19:39:26 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

On Dec 9, 9:35 pm, Tim wrote:
On Dec 9, 9:28 pm, jps wrote:

On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 18:59:57 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

On Dec 9, 8:53 pm, "Don White" wrote:
wrote in message

. ..

On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 15:18:45 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 12:44:43 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/11...wi-bill-compou...

NY just passed a new law to protect kids. Now it is a felon, to drive
DWI/DUI with children 15 years of age or less on board.

That ought to help save lives!

George Orwell just wasn't too far off...

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

You object to having a legal requirement to drive sober??

Yes.

--

Boy..if this is you Waylon...you're really out to lunch here.
Maybe you should volunteer some time in a major trauma center in Atlanta.

Don. I'll vouch for him, II know this guy. he lives in an adjacent
county of mine. only about 40 mi. away. I guarantee you, he's not
Waylon.

I think I know what his point is, but I won't go into it. it's no
biggie.

Uh oh. You belong to a church group together or do your kids play
baseball against one another?

Both.

Actually, not really. we attend separate churches, however we share
close to the same beliefs.

if by chance J. *had kids the same age as mine who were active in
sports, then they probably did compete with each other

Uh oh, spilled the beans and feeling like you overstepped?

No.

He'd have done well as a church official during the crusades. *Don't
know what he's like live but he sure comes off as the true heir to
William F. Buckley, minus the intellect.

you're probably right.

Yes, I thought so.

Lets refresh my origional post, shall we?

"in you're eyes you're probably right. But you see only what you wish.
"

I wouldn't bother, Tim. You're arguing with a sophist.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 22:45:46 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:30:43 -0600, wrote:

On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 15:18:45 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 12:44:43 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:

http://blog.simplejustice.us/2009/11...y.aspx?ref=rss


NY just passed a new law to protect kids. Now it is a felon, to drive
DWI/DUI with children 15 years of age or less on board.

That ought to help save lives!

George Orwell just wasn't too far off...

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access


You object to having a legal requirement to drive sober??

Yes.

Why?

I'm too short of time this morning to speak to this adequately. For
the time being, I'll repost what I posted in another thread. I think
it spells out my position somewhat;

To state the case generically does not do the topic justice. There is
a distinction here between retributive justice and preventive
sanctions. The question is which application respects an individual's
personal autonomy and responsibility. Preventive sanctions presume
that the individual must be compelled by legislation to be civically,
morally, and ethically responsible. In this sense, the individual's
autonomy must necessarily be reduced for what is considered the social
good. IMO, this stands in contrast to the deference given to personal
autonomy and liberty by the earliest lawmakers in this country. We've
become to conditioned over time, as a society, to accept the utility
of preventive sanctions at the cost of personal liberty, and this to
the point that a perspective such as mine is considered savagely
extreme. I don't think my perspective would have seemed extreme in
this country's youth. Retributive justice does not presuppose that
the individual must be necessarily be constrained for the good of
society.

If I have time this evening, I'll return to this.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access