Jump to content

Recommended Posts

You shouldn't  worry about that these days. You are free to express your tendencies and I salute you for that,  but your preferences are nothing to do with this topic. Breaking the law is just how it sounds, and we have a duty to respect it. We are free to protest just like the poll tax saga, but blatantly breaking the law based on not agreeing with it is just not acceptable and those who do it deserve nothing more than a conviction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You misunderstand, on purpose I expect.  It's just a clear demonstration that the law is not always moral or right.

Breaking the law is just how it sounds I agree, we all have a duty to do so when the law is wrong.

You are obviously free to keep holding your opinion but so far you've shown no moral argument to explain why obeying the law is always the right thing to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not clear at all. The law is the law full stop. And there is absolutely no moral argument or explanation needed to be in agreement with it. But there is certainly a moral issue in believing that you are exempt from it. Unless you have your face on a coin or a stamp, then I'm afraid you have no justification to denounce the law when it suits. You obviously know this but for some reason you can't quite grasp it. No point in debating it with you, as you seem to be in denial, but good luck with it, as with that attitude you're certainly going to need it!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Cyclone said:

Yes, imagine all the people that were convicted of having homosexual relationships and how that criminal record shadowed them.

 

If you think that it being the law automatically makes it correct then I think you need to have a look in the mirror and have a good long talk with yourself.

People don’t have a choice about their sexuality. People do have a choice whether to speed or not. 

 

 Completely spurious analogy, of the sort you’d usually call somebody out on. You are sounding very much like an online troll. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, not spurious, it's a very good example of the law not being right.  I already gave a bunch of others, recently repealed law against blasphemy, going further back slavery was illegal.

I don't think that speeding laws are equivalent to these of course, but the general principle is well proven, just because it's legal doesn't make it right, just because it's illegal doesn't make it wrong.

How about mass civil disobedience against the laws of trespass which resulted in the right to roam being established and ultimately the national parks.

9 hours ago, Shunter said:

It's not clear at all. The law is the law full stop. And there is absolutely no moral argument or explanation needed to be in agreement with it. But there is certainly a moral issue in believing that you are exempt from it. Unless you have your face on a coin or a stamp, then I'm afraid you have no justification to denounce the law when it suits. You obviously know this but for some reason you can't quite grasp it. No point in debating it with you, as you seem to be in denial, but good luck with it, as with that attitude you're certainly going to need it!!

Well, at risk of invoking Godwins law, think about nazi germany and what the law said.

Morality is not defined by the law, you can't quite seem to grasp this, despite the many examples I've now given you.  You seem to be in denial about the fact that the law doesn't make something right or wrong, it only makes it legal or illegal.

There's no point in debating this with you, at least if you're not going to try.  That's up to you.  I don't need wishes of luck and I don't need you to refine your understanding of morality, both are irrelevant to me.

Edited by Cyclone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what kind of human being would find it necessary to use the comparisons that you choose to publish. Pretty strange TBH.

The speed limits were introduced in 1965 and made law two years later, so that's given the general public nearly 55 years to "protest" about it. To date, there hasn't been one single successful protest published to have the limits increased, saying  the limits are still acceptable today. More so really with the sheer amount of vehicles on the roads throughout the day, not just at peak times. If anything, speeding is now taken more seriously than ever by the courts, with motorway speeding fines reaching £2500.

Whilst its unlikely that speeding will attract a custodial sentence it by no means makes the offence any more appealing as speed kills and living with someone's death on your conscience is the worst sentence of all.

Of course you are free to do as your mind tells you, but with your attitude it's very clear that the consequences of your actions may one day bite you right in the bottom, and if you cannot find any sense in this, I can honestly say that in your case, it would be so well deserved. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/02/2019 at 11:33, Jonmatt said:

Appears to confirm that there is somewhat (note the word) of an urban myth growing around the camera's flashing when no speed restrictions are in force. By the way 83 is pushing it a bit!

i have seen the camera's flash many cars when there is no restrictions in place  more than a few times 

 

and they wasnt going anywhere near 80

Edited by grand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shunter said:

I'm not sure what kind of human being would find it necessary to use the comparisons that you choose to publish. Pretty strange TBH.

The speed limits were introduced in 1965 and made law two years later, so that's given the general public nearly 55 years to "protest" about it. To date, there hasn't been one single successful protest published to have the limits increased, saying  the limits are still acceptable today. More so really with the sheer amount of vehicles on the roads throughout the day, not just at peak times. If anything, speeding is now taken more seriously than ever by the courts, with motorway speeding fines reaching £2500.

Whilst its unlikely that speeding will attract a custodial sentence it by no means makes the offence any more appealing as speed kills and living with someone's death on your conscience is the worst sentence of all.

Of course you are free to do as your mind tells you, but with your attitude it's very clear that the consequences of your actions may one day bite you right in the bottom, and if you cannot find any sense in this, I can honestly say that in your case, it would be so well deserved. 

So the law is always correct then? In disregard for ever changing circumstances? 

 

So we should still trade slaves, deny women voting and imprison homosexuals? 

 

I mean these were laws previously & since you think laws shouldn't be challenged whether by an individual or as a movement of people they should be reinstated as they were only repealed because of the people challenging them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/02/2019 at 07:29, Cyclone said:

the 90% of motorists who speed on the motorway (figure entirely made up, I don't have time to google it).  Perhaps the law should actually be adjusted to suit the desires of the majority of the population instead of the reverse?  

About half of all cars on the motorways exceed the speed limit at some point but approx 90% keep it below 80mph.

 

So just to clarify you think the law should be adjusted to how good people think they are at driving? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, the fonz said:

About half of all cars on the motorways exceed the speed limit at some point but approx 90% keep it below 80mph.

 

So just to clarify you think the law should be adjusted to how good people think they are at driving? 

 

 

When do you lot travel? I'm hard pressed to reach 70 in the outside lane because traffic is so heavy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Resident said:

So the law is always correct then? In disregard for ever changing circumstances? 

 

So we should still trade slaves, deny women voting and imprison homosexuals? 

 

I mean these were laws previously & since you think laws shouldn't be challenged whether by an individual or as a movement of people they should be reinstated as they were only repealed because of the people challenging them. 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, the fonz said:

About half of all cars on the motorways exceed the speed limit at some point but approx 90% keep it below 80mph.

 

So just to clarify you think the law should be adjusted to how good people think they are at driving? 

 

 

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

9 hours ago, Shunter said:

I'm not sure what kind of human being would find it necessary to use the comparisons that you choose to publish. Pretty strange TBH.

The speed limits were introduced in 1965 and made law two years later, so that's given the general public nearly 55 years to "protest" about it. To date, there hasn't been one single successful protest published to have the limits increased, saying  the limits are still acceptable today. More so really with the sheer amount of vehicles on the roads throughout the day, not just at peak times. If anything, speeding is now taken more seriously than ever by the courts, with motorway speeding fines reaching £2500.

Whilst its unlikely that speeding will attract a custodial sentence it by no means makes the offence any more appealing as speed kills and living with someone's death on your conscience is the worst sentence of all.

Of course you are free to do as your mind tells you, but with your attitude it's very clear that the consequences of your actions may one day bite you right in the bottom, and if you cannot find any sense in this, I can honestly say that in your case, it would be so well deserved. 

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.