76 year old man *SHOCKED* that 'street racer' law used against him

In article >, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Feb 12, 5:58*am, (Brent P)
> wrote:
>> In article >, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>> > On Feb 11, 10:21 pm, (Brent P)
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> My statement is correct, logical, and universal.
>>
>> > It is actually none of the three.
>>
>> > But you go ahead and think so if it makes you happy.
>>
>> -> >> Because all cops apply selective enforcement.
>> ->
>> -> > We couldn't afford to have it any other way. *There aren't enough cops
>> -> > on the road for everyone to get a citation in every instance.
>>
>> -> That's what happens when reasonable behavior is defined as a violation of
>> -> the law.
>>
>> Logical, correct, and universal.

> Wrong.
> Theft happens all the time. It is not reasonable behavior. Yet, to
> police it would require an impossible number of policement, in nearly
> every location that has anything of value. Of any value.
> Thus, illogical, incorrect, and by this example, not universal.

*sigh* You got it ass backwards. You need to name an example of a law
against a reasonable behavior that is enforcable without some
unreasonable number of cops. My statement doesn't say anything about
there being some unreasonable behavior that can't be easily enforced.
Duh. For someone who moans about logic so much one would think that you
would at least be able to figure that out. But I see you throw those
rules out when it suits you.

My statement doesn't say there aren't laws agianst unreasonable behavior
that aren't enforcable only that you can't ever have enough cops to
enforce a law against reasonable behavior. Namely because a large
percentage of the population will not change their behavior. You'd have
an easier time stopping theft by several magnitudes than stopping say
stopping 'speeding'.

> Making wide declarative statements based on emotions pulled directly
> out of your ass are no better than speed limits set arbitrarily
> because someone wanted traffic to be "slower".

That's not the case, and you know it. Just admit you ****ed up. Mr. bored
with this thread branch who wasn't going to post in it any more like a
half dozen posts ago.

> But hey, like I said before - go right ahead and believe anything you
> want. It doesn't mean anything to me.

Keep being delusional Ed.

In article >, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Feb 12, 5:53*am, (Brent P)
> wrote:
>> In article >, Ed Pirrero wrote:
>>
>> > A conclusion that cannot be reached in this case. *Nor can this case
>> > be an example of that, without further information.
>>
>> Again, you made a generic statement about there not being enough cops, I
>> replied in a generic fashion.

> Your generic reply was incorrect, even in the narrow confines of
> traffic law. As it applies more generically to all laws, ridiculously
> incorrect. Your specific replies have been specious.

Yet you can't argue it at all, you just declare it.

> Your quip about searching for an argument in USENET is hilariously
> ironic.

Babbling nonsense again....

> I'm not sure exactly who you are trying to convince, and of what you
> are trying to convince them.

What are you trying to convince me of Ed? Oh yeah, that you weren't wrong
when you babbled about selective enforcement.

> And why you stay up to 2AM Eastern arguing about it. Pathetic,
> really.

Ed, who when he ****s up moves into nonsenical personal attack as usual
to mask his screw up. Figure out what double means yet?

In article >, Harry K wrote:

>> generically a 'street racer' or 'hoon driving' law. Geebus stop being a
>> semantic nit picker
>
> Says the one who has a PHD in nit picking.

Find an example in the last 5 years.

On Feb 12, 8:50 pm, (Brent P)
wrote:

> > Your generic reply was incorrect, even in the narrow confines of
> > traffic law. As it applies more generically to all laws, ridiculously
> > incorrect. Your specific replies have been specious.
>
> Yet you can't argue it at all, you just declare it.

Already argued it. Not going to repeat it in every subthread.

E.P.

On Feb 12, 8:46 pm, (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article >, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > On Feb 12, 5:58 am, (Brent P)
> >> Logical, correct, and universal.
> > Wrong.
> > Theft happens all the time. It is not reasonable behavior. Yet, to
> > police it would require an impossible number of policemen, in nearly
> > every location that has anything of value. Of any value.
> > Thus, illogical, incorrect, and by this example, not universal.
>
> *sigh* You got it ass backwards.

No, I have refuted your argument handily.

Your universal declaration fails on a single counter-example.

E.P.

In article >, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> On Feb 12, 8:50 pm, (Brent P)
> wrote:
>
>> > Your generic reply was incorrect, even in the narrow confines of
>> > traffic law. As it applies more generically to all laws, ridiculously
>> > incorrect. Your specific replies have been specious.
>>
>> Yet you can't argue it at all, you just declare it.
>
> Already argued it. Not going to repeat it in every subthread.

Only failed attempts.

On Feb 12, 8:37 pm, (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article >, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> > On Feb 12, 7:37 am, Harry K > wrote:
> >> On Feb 11, 9:25 pm, (Brent P)
> >> wrote:
>
> >> > In article >, Ed Pirrero wrote:
> >> > > OK, reworded for the idiotically pedantic: "Explain how 78 in a 48
> >> > > zone is reasonable."
> >> > > Make sure you know the zone in question, without bringing up
> >> > > irrelevant examples such as onramps and freeways.
>
> >> > All examples are irrelevant for you I guess as you move in and out from
> >> > 'it must match perfect to the story example' and 'in general'. I'll just
> >> > give you a picture of a road section with a 45mph speed limit that is
> >> > good for expressway speeds.
>
> >> >http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=e...+wheeling+IL&s...
> >> > Bob Nichols, a spokesman for the transportation ministry, said the legislation came into effect in September and has three categories for drivers: Driving contest, street racing and stunt driving. Harding falls into the latter.
> >> > Six lanes wide, limited access, straight.
>
> >> Assuming that that was the stretch of road in question you have a
> >> problem explaining how you think 78 in a 48 is reasonable on a _6
> >> lane_ highway. Any argument about having to accelerate that much to
> >> pass is out the window on such a highway. Still leaves the 'was it
> >> safe?" bit and by your description it probably was. That, however,
> >> has nothing to do with it.
>
> > Exactly. And Wheeling, IL and a six-lane has about as much to do with
> > it as aliens have to do with the price of milk.
>
> > HWY26 in WA has four speed limits along it's entire length. One of
> > those speed limits is 50mph. 50 and 48 are pretty close, so maybe
> > Brent can opine on the safety of passing at 80 in that 50 zone.
>
> > I'm sure Brent can tell us that it's perfectly safe and reasonable to
> > do so by googling any section of HWY26 and looking at the
> > surroundings. Because of course that will accurately inform him of
> > the conditions in the 50mph section of that road.
>
> Maybe Ed could admit his error instead of continuing to move into the
> specific.

I admit them when I make them. Unlike you. I will admit that using
the term "nearly double" was a tactical mistake because it allowed you
to be a pedantic asshole, instead of actually focusing on your
incorrect claim.

Other than that, you have utterly failed.

I notice you didn't bother to address what I wrote. And I know the
reason - because it supports my position, and damages yours.

And we all know that Brent is never wrong about anything.

Go ahead and declare how right you are. I'm laughing now.

E.P.

In article >, Ed Pirrero wrote:

> No, I have refuted your argument handily.

If you ignore logic.

> Your universal declaration fails on a single counter-example.

I didn't say anything about unreasonable behaviors (like theft) that are
illegal. Duh.

When you have an example of a reasonable behavior that has been made
illegal and complete enforcement is possible without impossibly large
numbers of law enforcement personel let me know.

In article >, Ed Pirrero wrote:

> I admit them when I make them. Unlike you. I will admit that using
> the term "nearly double" was a tactical mistake because it allowed you
> to be a pedantic asshole, instead of actually focusing on your
> incorrect claim.

You didn't write nearly double, you wrote double. Still refusing to admit
it.

My claim that you have to rely on selective enforcement when making
reasonable behavior illegal still stands you haven't done anything to
show it wrong.

> Other than that, you have utterly failed.

Nice projection.

> I notice you didn't bother to address what I wrote. And I know the
> reason - because it supports my position, and damages yours.

This coming from the guy who snips out everything I write that he doesn't
feel like addressing. Cuts out what supports my position as if it didn't
exist. If you addressed every or nearly every point I presented maybe
you'd have a valid complaint but since I address a far greater percentage
of what you spew forth in an exchange than what you do in return you have
nothing to complain about in this regard.

As far that content specificly, you didn't write anything worth
addressing _again_. You simply posted in an insulting tone arguments that
were already addressed. You wanted somewhere that one could do about 80
where there was about a 45-50mph speed limit. I gave you examples. Now
you say they aren't like the road in question... fine... I call up
images of the road in question and you complain that I cannot possibly
get a good idea of what it's like to drive that road from the images in the
same insulting tone. As if you or I have never driven a two lane road
out in the country before.

For crying out loud, I've driven roads like that where the speed of
traffic was damn near 70mph and I am sure you have done so more than I
have.

> And we all know that Brent is never wrong about anything.

And yet there are probably dozens of posts where I admit errors.

> Go ahead and declare how right you are. I'm laughing now.

Show me I'm not. You haven't. All you've done is fling insults.

Ed Pirrero wrote:

> OK, reworded for the idiotically pedantic: "Explain how 78 in a 48
> zone is reasonable."

Why make the presumption that 48 is reasonable and 78 isn't? Perhaps a
reasonable limit could be 70 and going 78 to pass is quite reasonable.
Given the tendency of governments to post 55 mph on roads where it's
reasonable to go 75 mph or 100 km/h where it's reasonable to go 130
km/h, your original presumption doesn't seem as strong as it might first
appear.