M1 mess at night

[Cyclone 10]

46 minutes ago, Shunter said:

 

I think not, but seeing as some think  slavery, the nazis and homosexuality are relevant replies then it's pretty clear standards have dropped further than previously thought.

What's quite clear is that you're not capable of debating the assertions you've made like an adult.

[Resident 1,185]

2 hours ago, Shunter said:

The law may not always be correct in the eyes of some, but one thing is for certain is that laws need to be upheld until any change is made. It's not for us to decide which laws we do or do not adhere to. What's staggering is the perception that olde laws are used as yardsticks for current laws, and that so many people are stating categorically that they ignore them because they don't like them. I'm just wondering without the anonymity of a username forum, would these very same people put their names to blatantly breaking the law? 

I think not, but seeing as some think  slavery, the nazis and homosexuality are relevant replies then it's pretty clear standards have dropped further than previously thought.

Old laws and their subsequent repeal ARE relevant and nothing to do with a drop in standards as you say. They set precedence for the law to be incorrect and changed when challenged by the "common man".

 

Oh btw I mentioned nothing about Nazis, bringing them in to the equation just shows how weak your position is. As is the norm when someone isn't able to argue their point because it's been invalidated. It even had a name, look up Godwin's law...

 

[Shunter 0]

1 hour ago, Cyclone said:

No, I didn't mention how "good" they thought they were.

You're arguing that the law is always correct and that it should always be obeyed.  I'm giving you clear examples where the law was downright immoral and wrong.  Hardly strange.  All you keep doing is repeating an assertion that the law should be obeyed in all cases, you've put forwards no justification or argument for this statement, you just keep saying it.  You've also said that you weren't going to discuss it anymore, despite you being the one who started the discussion.  But here we are, still discussing and you're still just making an assertion without any attempt to show why it's the case.

We all know that speed doesn't kill, that's a meaningless slogan.  Speed does many things, including increasing the risk and severity of incidents, but it doesn't kill.

 

Now, rather than prophesying terrible things for me based on a few very flimsy assumptions, how about you justify your statements about why the law is always correct and should never be disobeyed?

I would challenge you to link where I've said the law is always correct, because I haven't. I have said numerously that the law is an ass, but is still the law. Funny how you didn't repeat that in your speech. 

What I did say is that law should be obeyed until change is made. 

Following the rule of law needs no justification as you well know. Appealing against a law is a legitimate move forward whereas just ignoring it willy nilly is not right, and you know this. 

To prove this point, why not film yourself doing 80mph on the M1, and take the footage into the police and show them, then tell them you are glad you did it because you don't accept that particular law.

Do you honestly think they will praise you for this and say "Well Done Cyclone.... It's about time people stood up against the law."

 

I won't insult you about not being adult, but I'm pretty sure you wouldn't do it.

 

1 hour ago, Cyclone said:

What's quite clear is that you're not capable of debating the assertions you've made like an adult.

Really? That is quite funny.

[Shunter 0]

4 minutes ago, Resident said:

Old laws and their subsequent repeal ARE relevant and nothing to do with a drop in standards as you say. They set precedence for the law to be incorrect and changed when challenged by the "common man".

 

Oh btw I mentioned nothing about Nazis, bringing them in to the equation just shows how weak your position is. As is the norm when someone isn't able to argue their point because it's been invalidated. It even had a name, look up Godwin's law...

 

It's not a weak position resident, and the references I said were not all at your door.

Have a read at what I replied to Cyclone and tell me you would gladly do the same?

 

[Cyclone 10]

12 hours ago, Shunter said:

I would challenge you to link where I've said the law is always correct, because I haven't. I have said numerously that the law is an ass, but is still the law. Funny how you didn't repeat that in your speech. 

What I did say is that law should be obeyed until change is made. 

Following the rule of law needs no justification as you well know. Appealing against a law is a legitimate move forward whereas just ignoring it willy nilly is not right, and you know this. 

To prove this point, why not film yourself doing 80mph on the M1, and take the footage into the police and show them, then tell them you are glad you did it because you don't accept that particular law.

Do you honestly think they will praise you for this and say "Well Done Cyclone.... It's about time people stood up against the law."

 

I won't insult you about not being adult, but I'm pretty sure you wouldn't do it.

 

Really? That is quite funny.

Of course it needs justification.  It's a moral abdication to do something just because the law says to (or not do it because it says not to).  Perhaps you won't justify it because you can't justify it?

 

I don't think that speeding or not speeding has any great moral imperative behind it, but the high % of people who speed on the motorway suggests that it's a very unpopular law, which IMO makes it rather suspect.

 

You say it's quite funny when I accuse you of failing to debate, but look back at your posts, you're aggressive, argumentative and refuse to actually provide a justification for the key statement you keep repeating.  That's not debate, you're trying to just shout me down.

On 09/02/2019 at 12:41, Shunter said:

As much as the law may seem an ass sometimes, you and I and every other decent law abiding citizen has a duty to accept it, so your suggestion that the law is wrong is neither here nor there.

You didn't to be clear, say that the law "is an ass" you said "may seem an ass".  But you went on to say that everyone has a duty to obey it anyway.  You can't or won't explain why that duty exists though.

And you refuse to engage with the numerous examples where not only was the law an ass, but it was downright immoral.  So, did people have a duty to obey when the law said homosexuality was illegal?  Did they have a duty to obey when slavery was legal, or when women couldn't vote, or couldn't be raped by their husbands?

On 09/02/2019 at 12:41, Shunter said:

As much as the law may seem an ass sometimes, you and I and every other decent law abiding citizen has a duty to accept it, so your suggestion that the law is wrong is neither here nor there.

You didn't to be clear, say that the law "is an ass" you said "may seem an ass".  But you went on to say that everyone has a duty to obey it anyway.  You can't or won't explain why that duty exists though.

And you refuse to engage with the numerous examples where not only was the law an ass, but it was downright immoral.  So, did people have a duty to obey when the law said homosexuality was illegal?  Did they have a duty to obey when slavery was legal, or when women couldn't vote, or couldn't be raped by their husbands?

[Cyclone 10]

12 hours ago, Shunter said:

It's not a weak position resident, and the references I said were not all at your door.

Have a read at what I replied to Cyclone and tell me you would gladly do the same?

 

It's an entirely failed position.

It's trivially easy to throw out examples of the law being downright wrong, immoral and harmful.  So how can you then say that we have an absolute duty to obey the law without deviation or applying our own moral judgement to it.  You've made no case for the basis for this duty, you just keep repeating that it exists, I've made a case that it does not, and that we have a duty to behave as we believe to be moral.

Here's an interesting abstract;

 

First, there is the view that there is an absolute legal obligation to obey the law, one which holds that we ought always to obey the law no matter what because the law is the law and it ought always to be obeyed. This naïve legalistic notion of the duty to obey the law has few, if any, takers. But a legalistic view that has proponents is the one that states that there is aprima facie legal obligation to obey the law because the law is the law and it ought to be obeyed except in circumstances where the law permits disobedience. In either case, it is a legal duty to obey political authority that we have. A position equally extreme to that of the naïve legalistic one is the skeptical legalistic position that denies that there could ever be a legal obligation to obey the law. One reason why this position is problematic, if not nonsensical, is that it seems to hold that no legal system or body of law would bind citizens to it by way of obedience. Yet it appears that most, if not all, legal systems do precisely that.

 

You're advocating the position that they describe as naeve.  I'm not taking the other extreme though.

 

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-010-0039-0_2

[rudds1 102]

On 04/01/2019 at 09:51, swfc2001 said:

having travelled up and down the M1 around 10 around Meadowhall and Nottingham please can someone tell me when the road works ill stop . what's the point of having  a motorway when you can't travel at motorway speeds . last night I travelled on the road at around 10 down to one lane but no signs to say 50miles speed limit . I travelled at 50 but cars were speeding past at 70 and the over head cameras were going off.!!!!!!!! 

According to a person I’ve spoke to at the highways agency the m1 should be totally transformed in to a smart motorway by 2030 

[Resident 1,185]

1 hour ago, rudds1 said:

According to a person I’ve spoke to at the highways agency the m1 should be totally transformed in to a smart motorway by 2030 

And we'll get there and then they'll start work to convert back because it's realised that all the major safety concerns that were ignored have cost people their lives through unnecessary collisions and delays to emergency services.

 

Unfortunately a "smart" motorway is only as smart as those manning the control room and from what I've witnessed, the average potato could outwit every single one of them. 

[rudds1 102]

9 minutes ago, Resident said:

And we'll get there and then they'll start work to convert back because it's realised that all the major safety concerns that were ignored have cost people their lives through unnecessary collisions and delays to emergency services.

 

Unfortunately a "smart" motorway is only as smart as those manning the control room and from what I've witnessed, the average potato could outwit every single one of them. 

I once broke down in a 55 foot artic on m1in one of these smart zones and the highways could not see me on their cameras ,it took a passing traffic cop to sort it 

[Shunter 0]

2 hours ago, Cyclone said:

Of course it needs justification.  It's a moral abdication to do something just because the law says to (or not do it because it says not to).  Perhaps you won't justify it because you can't justify it?

 

I don't think that speeding or not speeding has any great moral imperative behind it, but the high % of people who speed on the motorway suggests that it's a very unpopular law, which IMO makes it rather suspect.

 

You say it's quite funny when I accuse you of failing to debate, but look back at your posts, you're aggressive, argumentative and refuse to actually provide a justification for the key statement you keep repeating.  That's not debate, you're trying to just shout me down.

You didn't to be clear, say that the law "is an ass" you said "may seem an ass".  But you went on to say that everyone has a duty to obey it anyway.  You can't or won't explain why that duty exists though.

And you refuse to engage with the numerous examples where not only was the law an ass, but it was downright immoral.  So, did people have a duty to obey when the law said homosexuality was illegal?  Did they have a duty to obey when slavery was legal, or when women couldn't vote, or couldn't be raped by their husbands?

You didn't to be clear, say that the law "is an ass" you said "may seem an ass".  But you went on to say that everyone has a duty to obey it anyway.  You can't or won't explain why that duty exists though.

And you refuse to engage with the numerous examples where not only was the law an ass, but it was downright immoral.  So, did people have a duty to obey when the law said homosexuality was illegal?  Did they have a duty to obey when slavery was legal, or when women couldn't vote, or couldn't be raped by their husbands?

Nice touch to post it twice. 

Nice touch to post it twice......

There is something fundamentally wrong here, and I'm pretty sure you are baiting now, with your constant banging on about rapists and homosexuals. Utterly and totally pointless. 

Whatever crap you spew out regarding this is absolutely irrelevant in relation to the subject. I said we have a duty to obey the laws of the land, and you chucked your toys out of the pram saying we shouldn't, and that you were more than happy to break them when it suited you. You also keep banging on about me justifying why it's right to obey laws, which is really just a way of online baiting yet again, as we both know that the law will always tower above a citizens right to break it, although you've made it perfectly clear that you do not understand that your actions based on your moral beliefs will get you a conviction, no matter how many times you scream "mommy, mommy.....the nasty policeman is gonna fine me for breaking a law I didn't agree with"

Well that is fine and dandy and I'm so impressed with your fine knowledge of which laws are right or wrong, in your interpretation of course. 

Now how about cutting out all the rubbish point scoring demands for me to explain justification of, well..... the law, and you tell me and the rest of the planet that you would absolutely prove and confess your speeding antics to a police officer, purely based on your belief that the law is wrong? 

 

[Resident 1,185]

4 hours ago, Shunter said:

Nice touch to post it twice. 

Nice touch to post it twice......

There is something fundamentally wrong here, and I'm pretty sure you are baiting now, with your constant banging on about rapists and homosexuals. Utterly and totally pointless. 

Whatever crap you spew out regarding this is absolutely irrelevant in relation to the subject. I said we have a duty to obey the laws of the land, and you chucked your toys out of the pram saying we shouldn't, and that you were more than happy to break them when it suited you. You also keep banging on about me justifying why it's right to obey laws, which is really just a way of online baiting yet again, as we both know that the law will always tower above a citizens right to break it, although you've made it perfectly clear that you do not understand that your actions based on your moral beliefs will get you a conviction, no matter how many times you scream "mommy, mommy.....the nasty policeman is gonna fine me for breaking a law I didn't agree with"

Well that is fine and dandy and I'm so impressed with your fine knowledge of which laws are right or wrong, in your interpretation of course. 

Now how about cutting out all the rubbish point scoring demands for me to explain justification of, well..... the law, and you tell me and the rest of the planet that you would absolutely prove and confess your speeding antics to a police officer, purely based on your belief that the law is wrong? 

 

I think the image of Chris Evans from the ad below when I posted this was an apt response 

 

So I screenshot it for you. 

 

[Cyclone 10]

6 hours ago, Shunter said:

Nice touch to post it twice. 

Nice touch to post it twice......

There is something fundamentally wrong here, and I'm pretty sure you are baiting now, with your constant banging on about rapists and homosexuals. Utterly and totally pointless. 

Whatever crap you spew out regarding this is absolutely irrelevant in relation to the subject. I said we have a duty to obey the laws of the land, and you chucked your toys out of the pram saying we shouldn't, and that you were more than happy to break them when it suited you. You also keep banging on about me justifying why it's right to obey laws, which is really just a way of online baiting yet again, as we both know that the law will always tower above a citizens right to break it, although you've made it perfectly clear that you do not understand that your actions based on your moral beliefs will get you a conviction, no matter how many times you scream "mommy, mommy.....the nasty policeman is gonna fine me for breaking a law I didn't agree with"

Well that is fine and dandy and I'm so impressed with your fine knowledge of which laws are right or wrong, in your interpretation of course. 

Now how about cutting out all the rubbish point scoring demands for me to explain justification of, well..... the law, and you tell me and the rest of the planet that you would absolutely prove and confess your speeding antics to a police officer, purely based on your belief that the law is wrong? 

 

The thing that is wrong is that you can't or won't attempt to support the position you keep advocating and refuse to consider any evidence that contradicts your opinion.

I can't make you consider it though, so... Here we are.  You get increasingly aggressive in refuting the evidence, you repeat what you've said and apparently when I explain why you're wrong you think I'm doing something with "my toys".

I'm not baiting you, I've no idea what part of it you think is baiting.

We both know that there is a moral imperative and a duty to break unjust laws, you refuse to acknowledge it though.

You're obviously mistaken, we haven't talked about convictions and I certainly haven't said that I would be able to avoid one using this argument.  Nobody is appealing to mummy, well, perhaps you feel like calling her, I'm perfectly comfortable though.  At the moment you're flailing around, chucking out ad homs, desperately refusing to actually engage in debate.  I don't know why, perhaps I've challenged some deep seated belief you hold and cognitive dissonance is in full effect.

 

I didn't ask you to explain the law, we both know that.  I asked you to explain why you think there's a duty to obey the law.  Something you've so far refused to do.

 

It's interesting that you want me to confess, to your authority figure no less.  Perhaps you've seen some senior politicians though confess to breaking drug laws?  Were they immediately arrested?  If I walk up to a police officer and tell him I did 80 on the motorway, what do you imagine will actually happen?  Do you think that he'll have me in cuffs and off to the station?  I can imagine that most likely I'll get a bewildered look and either a sarcastic statement "well done", or possibly a "well don't do it again".