23 Nov 08
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI will not allow you to control me on the basis that you're saving the retarded people in the process!
If people acted rationally, this would be a good policy. However, since most people tend to be retarded, some protection of the individual against himself is required and people cannot and should not always be expected to act responsibly. Examples are mandatory safety belts in cars, helmets on construction sites, etc.
24 Nov 08
Originally posted by FMFShould cars have been made illegal years ago, too? ;-)
Someone has died using a web cam. Is it time to make their use illegal?
http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/5165276/dad-shocked-audience-sons-suicide/
and
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/7743835.stm
And should cameras in mobile phones be outlawed too?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/7744345.stm
And what about "live TV"? Is enough enough?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/7743842.stm
24 Nov 08
2 edits
Originally posted by FMF1/ Slippery slope. Not that this law would be placing a foot on the slippery slope, we're already there and starting to pick up speed.
This raises an interesting point. Or, possibilities, rather...
Should there be a law that says that the police will not investigate a crime caused by, or made possible by, a car being unlocked?
Or should the owners of an unlocked car be liable to being charged - with wasting police time, perhaps - if they report a crime in which the unlockedness of their c el makes sense. But which of the above options (or other option you suggest) fits in with it?
2/ The number of unlocked cars interfered with by opportunistic theives prior to the new law versus the number of people now turned into law breakers because they forgot or simply choose not to lock their cars for their own reasons. So as far as "wasting police time" this regulation will be a greater time waster, but it could be a nice little earner if they dish out instant fines ;^).
3/ Making a new regulation is like telling a lie, you start with one but you soon need another ten to cover the first one. For example will a person be ticketed if they are only ten feet from their unlocked car? twenty feet? Would there be a certain time limit? Will this be policed in all areas? It may sound petty but these things need to be defined if people are going to be punished.
4/ There are places where it would be silly to leave your car for a period of time even if it is locked and alarmed. Will it be illegal to leave your car in these areas at certain times. Or should the police not investigate your lose if you do.
This regulation fits squarely in the "trying to protect people from themselves catergory" and is therefore not a crime and people should not be punished for it. Leaving your car unlocked or locked but in a high risk area does not "cause" it to be interfered with, so yes, the police should investigate. Having had two locked cars stolen in New Zealand I can tell you the investigation amounts to a 5 minute phone call to take down details. The police have finite resources which they allocate according to criteria, dumbasses leaving their car unlocked are a fair way down the list of priorities, I imagine that they're even lower than those that have had their locked car stolen. An immense amount of resource would be freed up to investigate legitimate property crimes if so much time wasn't wasted on this, and other victimless crimes.
...and that's a crime.
24 Nov 08
Originally posted by WajomaInteresting, wishy washy, honest, evasive, sincere answer.
1/ Slippery slope. Not that this law would be placing a foot on the slippery slope, we're already there and starting to pick up speed.
2/ The number of unlocked cars interfered with by opportunistic theives prior to the new law versus the number of people now turned into law breakers because they forgot or simply choose not to lock their cars for their own ...[text shortened]... ch time wasn't wasted on this, and other victimless crimes.
...and that's a crime.
But what option would you choose?
Should there be a law that says that the police will not investigate a crime caused by, or made possible by, a car being unlocked?
Or should the owners of an unlocked car be liable to being charged - with wasting police time, perhaps - if they report a crime in which the unlockedness of their car was deemed to have caused, or made possible, the crime?
Or should crimes caused by, or made possible by, a car being unlocked simply be investigated like any other crime?
Or is the most efficient way of avoiding a waste of so called 'tax payers' money' to simply ticket drivers for leaving their car unlocked so that most cars end up being locked and fewer crimes are committed, fewer crimes are reported, and fewer crimes need to be investigated?
24 Nov 08
Originally posted by FMFFrom Wajoma: "......it to be interfered with, so yes, the police should investigate."
Interesting, wishy washy, honest, evasive, sincere answer.
But what option would you choose?
[b]Should there be a law that says that the police will not investigate a crime caused by, or made possible by, a car being unlocked?
Or should the owners of an unlocked car be liable to being charged - with wasting police time, perhaps - if they report a crime ...[text shortened]... rimes are committed, fewer crimes are reported, and fewer crimes need to be investigated?[/b]
That would make the answer to this:
"Or should crimes caused by, or made possible by, a car being unlocked simply be investigated like any other crime?"
YES, you'll see that word in the above quote.
With the correction:
...leaving your car unlocked or locked but in a high risk area does not "cause" it to be interfered with.
And the clarification that all crimes are not treated the same;
"The police have finite resources which they allocate according to criteria, dumbasses leaving their car unlocked are a fair way down the list of priorities, I imagine that they're even lower than those that have had their locked car stolen.
You gave multi-choice A,B or C answers, but with none of them correct, it was not possible to give a catergorical "yes" to any one of them.
Its like saying "Do you beat your wife with a piece of 2x4 or a length of electrical cable?
When you say "I don't beat my wife."
I say "Hey you're being evasive." Then ask the same questions again making the same limitations on the choice of answer.
24 Nov 08
Originally posted by FMFI agree.
Someone has died using a web cam. Is it time to make their use illegal?
http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/5165276/dad-shocked-audience-sons-suicide/
and
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/7743835.stm
And should cameras in mobile phones be outlawed too?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/7744345.stm
And what about "live TV"? Is enough enough?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/7743842.stm
Those stupid teenagers and the things they do with webcams is just getting out of control.
25 Nov 08
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe main issue I have with this idea is when it comes to drugs that make a person more likely to behave violently towards others, or harm others in some other way e.g. emotionally abusing their children over time due to an addiction. Now, I realise that alcohol has this potential but it can also be used safely in moderation. I'm not entirely sure about where the best place to draw the line is.
So you think all drugs should be legalized?
It's hard to imagine a drug so bad that there wouldn't be a case to be made for at least having it legal in licensed cafes where you can go and try it once and not leave the controlled premises before it's out of your system.
01 Feb 09
http://www.freerepublic.com/%5Ehttp://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/01/31/national/a094947S39.DTL
Televangelism Empire In Chaos Over Family Split
Perhaps we could debate this. Is it time to think about outlawing televangelism? Schuller’s Crystal Cathedral started out as a drive-in ministry at a closed Drive-In Theater. People then, and up till the last time I looked (in a very limited capacity way in the parking lot), could stay in their car and listen to the audio using a provided Drive-In speaker. But is it time to say enough is enough?
01 Feb 09
Originally posted by WajomaI thought they were simply mitigating the increased risk to insurance companies that this form of carefree abandonment of property ownership caused to the system. Far from policing people from themselves, they are simply attempting to reduce the risk exposure felt by insurance providers, who in concert provide the bedrock of stability to a modern financial system. So while the police would appear to be proactively sourcing a neat little income stream for themselves, and while they may be in fact encouraging people to greater levels of vigilance in the protection of their property, these outcomes are bby and large unintended consequences. The real winners are the insurance companies who get to improve their investment in your risk.
Police in parts of North Queensland Aus will be ticketing drivers for leaving their car unlocked.
Who would have thought Police would have been protecting someone else's money and making some for themselves at the same time eh?
01 Feb 09
Originally posted by FMFArrak ? Is that you ? .. )
Someone has died using a web cam. Is it time to make their use illegal?
http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/5165276/dad-shocked-audience-sons-suicide/
and
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/7743835.stm
And should cameras in mobile phones be outlawed too?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/7744345.stm
And what about "live TV"? Is enough enough?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/7743842.stm