|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 06/04/2007 : 21:49:44 [Permalink]
|
Sorry Dave not false
Driving Under the Influence (DUI)
DUI applies to a person having a blood alcohol concentration of .07 percent or lower. Under DC Code, a driver can be charged with a DUI offense if, in addition to a BAC reading, the officer has other signs of impairment from a structured field sobriety test and from observations of the suspect's driving behavior.
http://tinyurl.com/2tf3dk
Would you also like some Washington Post articles about people being arrested for one glass of wine?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2007 : 22:04:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Sorry Dave not false
Driving Under the Influence (DUI)
DUI applies to a person having a blood alcohol concentration of .07 percent or lower. Under DC Code, a driver can be charged with a DUI offense if, in addition to a BAC reading, the officer has other signs of impairment from a structured field sobriety test and from observations of the suspect's driving behavior.
http://tinyurl.com/2tf3dk |
According to your own source, having a BAC less than 0.07 requires another piece of corroborating evidence that the person really is DUI. Otherwise, according to a naive and technical reading of the law, since 0.00 is less than 0.07, then completely sober, t-totalling drivers could be charged with DUI and thrown in jail. Your assertion that one drink means jail time if you're caught is shown to be false by your own cited source.
The one-glass-of-wine-equals-imprisonment is political fear-mongering, designed to do exactly what you claim global warming is intended to do: turn the people into sheep all running scared in one direction. Except the DUI argument is much easier to demonstrate to be nothing but dogmatic manipulation because the issue is much easier to study and report on. The Libertarians don't shy away from rhetorical abuses, it seems.| Would you also like some Washington Post articles about people being arrested for one glass of wine? |
To use your bizarre logic, such articles wouldn't be of value unless all people who drive after a single glass of wine are arrested. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2007 : 22:14:35 [Permalink]
|
Dave, I stated "The law in D.C. is any alcohol, which means a glass of wine with dinner at a restaurant will get you locked up."
So, yes Dave any alcohol will get you locked up, if the officer decides to to so. If you cross the yellow line and had nothing to drink, you can not be locked up. If the exact same thing happens and you have had one drink, you can, and people in D.C. are locked up for one drink. The only defining factor from a minor ticket and a DUI is that one drink.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2007 : 22:16:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
If I have possession before and after the death of my housemate, what right (outside of law) would anyone else have claim? |
Are you naively saying that only people who have a right to a claim would make a claim? What's the point of having rights if nobody in your sunshine-and-puppy-dogs world violates them?
Seriously, if I tell the state that your housemate gave me some item, and you stole it from me upon your housemate's death, how will the state know to not investigate? And if you are unable to provide evidence of your continued possession of said item, and I give them fraudulent documents saying the right to possession should be mine, then what recourse would you have? Will the state find some real psychics to figure all this out, or will they be forced to rely upon sworn testimony and evidence, just like they do now?| If one chooses to make a will and leave some or all possessions to anyone not the member of the household, I see nothing wrong with that. The problems occur when those outside of the household lay legal claim to the possession within the household. |
And that's the way things are now. How does the right of possession change anything? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2007 : 22:23:03 [Permalink]
|
Dave said "And that's the way things are now. How does the right of possession change anything?"
If that were the way it is now there would be not need to adjudicate in court the right of possession.
I am saying that no one has a right to claim property he does not possess unless that property was explicitly given or it was taken under duress or fraud.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2007 : 23:53:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
So, yes Dave any alcohol will get you locked up, if the officer decides to to so. |
That's true no matter what limits are set, and whether you've had anything to drink or not. Trumped-up charges and outright falsification of evidence happen all the time. Maybe they don't in your dreamer's universe, but really you've just shot your argument in the foot.| If you cross the yellow line and had nothing to drink, you can not be locked up. |
The law states that if you have a BAC under 0.07 but still cannot pass a field test, you can be jailed for DUI. This might be the case if, for example, you are driving under the influence of PCP. If that were all you were doing, your BAC would be zero. So it is utterly untrue that you can't get locked up if you've had nothing to drink and do something as relatively minor as crossing the double yellow.| If the exact same thing happens and you have had one drink, you can, and people in D.C. are locked up for one drink. The only defining factor from a minor ticket and a DUI is that one drink. |
No, it isn't. Your own sources prove that your statement is not true. Your political dogma requires it to be true, however, so you continue to parrot the falsehood, oblivious to reality. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2007 : 00:00:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Dave said "And that's the way things are now. How does the right of possession change anything?"
If that were the way it is now there would be not need to adjudicate in court the right of possession. |
You said, "The problems occur when those outside of the household lay legal claim to the possession within the household," which is what is true now, without the right of possession. Yet you're now claiming that if "The problems occur when those outside of the household lay legal claim to the possession within the household" is true already, then there is no need for the courts. The courts are the ones who attempt to correct the problems, though. What was your BAC when you posted that? Are you guilty of PUI?| I am saying that no one has a right to claim property he does not possess unless that property was explicitly given or it was taken under duress or fraud. |
People who claim property under duress have a right to that property? I was correct, then, in saying earlier that in your system, might makes right (force determines legal ownership). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2007 : 05:23:45 [Permalink]
|
Wait just a moment.
Shouldn't this be called "same gender marriage"? Otherwise, it sounds too much like just the same old boring rounds of missionary sex that most marriages devolve into.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2007 : 05:34:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Galit78
I guess some people aren't ready for a change yet. Things should and will change. It's the same like things that used to be illegal in the past and now are legal. Perception. I think that same sex people should get married and have kids.
|
Hi, Galit78. You're right-- we can speak of change in a number of areas when it comes to societal norms (and eventually laws) in the States (and elsewhere). However, we can also see the reverse-- drugs and alcohol might be examples. In this case, it certainly seems like they're moving in the direction you'd like, but we'll see!
Oh-- and welcome to SFN! |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2007 : 06:59:43 [Permalink]
|
Jerome wrote: | Marfknox, there have been many societies that embraced homosexuality and encouraged it such as Sparta, and Rome. |
Read a little more deeply about history (I suggest Homosexuality in History by Colin Spencer). The cultures of Sparta and Rome did not “embrace homosexuality”. A minority of upper classes embraced pederasty (men having relations with adolescent boys where the adult always takes the dominant sexual role). Among the Spartans, those soldier-lovers who fought side by side were also pederastic relationships, with the adult training the adolescent in military practices while also having a sexual relationship with him. What's more, the adult men typically had wives! This is not homosexuality, it is a culturally evolved form of initiation into adulthood that happens to involve sex, not unlike the use of sex in religious rituals. It bears no resemblance what-so-ever to modern day partnerships between same-sex adults.
| Common law in terms of right of possession; not the right of outsiders (biological family) to interfere with the property of a household based on death of a member of the household. |
You are confusing me. Do you think common law marriage should result in all the same legal rights and privileges of on-demand marriage? If so, how is it any different in terms of the state interfering with familial relationships?
| Your examples to my questions are anecdotal, and you knew that. |
Your questions required anecdotal answers!!! Here are your questions: | Ever been in a fender bender? Ever dealt with community associations? Ever seen anyone sue because they spilled coffee on themselves? Ever watch the "Peoples Court"? |
Exactly how do I answer them without giving anecdotes? If my anecdotes are not worth much in this discussion, your questions are worth even less.
| We did not come up with these laws. Those with ambition for political power came up with these laws, and made them sound reasonable so as to get "us" to agree. |
If that were true, we would have seen a steady decline of quality of human life as government became more formalized and certain social norms developed into formal laws. No such correlation exists. Do you have any evidence to back up this claim of yours?
| Do all drunks stop driving because they lost their license to drive? |
Not all, but some do, and that is an improvement. To judge whether a law is good or not, weight it against the harm that is done by the enforcement of the law. Clearly at least some good is done by the enforcement of anti-drunk driving laws (getting at least some of the drunks off the roads and into treatment which, if they are open to it, will help them improve their overall |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2007 : 07:51:37 [Permalink]
|
Dave said " Your political dogma requires it to be true, however, so you continue to parrot the falsehood, oblivious to reality."
So I guess the Washington Post is a libertarian newspaper, because this paper agrees with my "political dogma". I presented the law, and there is evidence that the law is used in the manner in which I claimed. What "falsehood" am I stating. Also, I have stated many times, I look at information, and form my own thoughts, I do not need others words put into my mouth to present my opinion.
Polly want a cracker?
 |
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2007 : 07:57:01 [Permalink]
|
Dave said "You said, "The problems occur when those outside of the household lay legal claim to the possession within the household," which is what is true now, without the right of possession. Yet you're now claiming that if "The problems occur when those outside of the household lay legal claim to the possession within the household" is true already, then there is no need for the courts. The courts are the ones who attempt to correct the problems, though."
Boy, oh, boy.
Dave, the law currently allows outsiders to lay claim on property currently in possession of another without any fraud or duress.
Were you reading under the influence? RUI
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2007 : 11:10:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
So I guess the Washington Post is a libertarian newspaper, because this paper agrees with my "political dogma". |
Irrelevant.| I presented the law, and there is evidence that the law is used in the manner in which I claimed. What "falsehood" am I stating. |
You repeated the falsehood that all it takes is one glass of wine to be busted for DUI. The law is clear, and the example you offered is clear. There needs to be other circumstances beside a single glass of wine before a person will get locked up, like erratic driving and/or a failed field sobriety test, because a breathalyzer test won't detect heroin.| Also, I have stated many times, I look at information, and form my own thoughts, I do not need others words put into my mouth to present my opinion. |
You may not need it, but if the end result is the same, what does it matter?See? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26034 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2007 : 11:15:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Dave, the law currently allows outsiders to lay claim on property currently in possession of another without any fraud or duress. |
How could someone else now claim possession of my car without fraud or duress? How would the right of possession prevent all people from laying claim to my stuff without fraud or duress?
We already know that people lay claim to stuff that isn't theirs by using fraud all the time, and that's a problem that the right of possession cannot solve. So I'll ask again: how is the right of possession any different from what we have now? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2007 : 17:21:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
So I guess the Washington Post is a libertarian newspaper, because this paper agrees with my "political dogma". |
Irrelevant.| I presented the law, and there is evidence that the law is used in the manner in which I claimed. What "falsehood" am I stating. |
You repeated the falsehood that all it takes is one glass of wine to be busted for DUI. The law is clear, and the example you offered is clear. There needs to be other circumstances beside a single glass of wine before a person will get locked up, like erratic driving and/or a failed field sobriety test, because a breathalyzer test won't detect heroin.| Also, I have stated many times, I look at information, and form my own thoughts, I do not need others words put into my mouth to present my opinion. |
You may not need it, but if the end result is the same, what does it matter?See?
|
To be completely fair to Jerome, the law he is referencing is well known by CDL holders because it is poorly written to apply to all CDL drivers if they are behind the wheel of a commercial vehicle above 8,000 lbs gvw or not.
It does not, however, apply to all license holders just CDL license holders. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Same-sex Marriage
Topic Locked
