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?

"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

On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 22:08:16 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"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
m...
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!!

Crickets...

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

wrote in message
...
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
m...
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.

--

Bottom line... some people just have to have someone try to control their
anti-social or violent behavior.
It's great to say they will suffer the consequences of their own actions
after the fact, but I'm more concerned with their innocent victims who want
no part of it.

Don White wrote:
wrote in message
...
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.

--

Bottom line... some people just have to have someone try to control their
anti-social or violent behavior.
It's great to say they will suffer the consequences of their own actions
after the fact, but I'm more concerned with their innocent victims who want
no part of it.


Absolutely correct. You are speaking from first hand experience, no
doubt. Keep up the good work.

--


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

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 07:47:54 -0600, wrote:

To state the case generically does not do the topic justice. There is
a distinction here between retributive justice and preventive
sanctions.

Ok - the first is criminal and the second is misnamed - I believe you
meant to say civil sanctions as a means to prevent disorder.

The question is which application respects an individual's
personal autonomy and responsibility.

Neither do.

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.

I don't understand the difference as you state it. Both are considered
deterrants to further criminal or uncivil behavior. One is based in
criminal law (in fact, it is the original codification of social
behavior as presented in the Law of Moses and/or the Code of
Hammurabi) and the other is simply an extention of criminal sanctions
into the civil arena.

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 wouldn't say "extreme" - I would say misguided. 18th century
jurisprudence stayed firmly entrenched in the arena of retributive
justice - hence debtors prisons, lack of women's rights, cororeal
punishment for minor infractions and such. Most issues considered as
civil matters in today's society were dealt with as criminal in the
18th century with the corresponding "justice". The entire
Constitution and Bill of Rights is nothing more than an experiment in
socially engineering an entirely new legal and governance construct.
You'd really have to explain that a little more because I don't
understand your thesis.

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.

Huh? That's the whole point of retributive justice if I remember my,
admittedly minor, education in civil law.

If you do get the time, I'll be very interested in what you have to
say.

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 20:49:52 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

If you do get the time, I'll be very interested in what you have to
say.

Hello?

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 05:56:43 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 20:49:52 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

If you do get the time, I'll be very interested in what you have to
say.

Hello?

You'll have to forgive me, Tom. I hope to get back to this sometime
soon. I'm in the Medicare Advantage open enrollment period, and I'm
overwhelmed with appointments. I may have time tomorrow if I can
finish up at a local mall early enough. A thousand pardons, Effendi.
:)

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

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 08:11:09 -0600, wrote:

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 05:56:43 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 20:49:52 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:

If you do get the time, I'll be very interested in what you have to
say.

Hello?

You'll have to forgive me, Tom. I hope to get back to this sometime
soon. I'm in the Medicare Advantage open enrollment period, and I'm
overwhelmed with appointments. I may have time tomorrow if I can
finish up at a local mall early enough. A thousand pardons, Effendi.
:)

10-4. No problem.