To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
By changing "stopped at a red light" to "operating" you have set up a strawman because you are ignoring the whole stopped part.
I didn't "change" shit; the legal definition, at least in my state, of "operating a motor vehicle," is thus:
The Missouri Court of Appeals and Supreme Court have provided clarity on this subject in recent cases. Recently, the Missouri Court of Appeals has confirmed that if the keys are in the ignition and the car is running, you are deemed to be “operating a motor vehicle.”
So, you see, you're not actually arguing with me, you're arguing with the legal system.
Most people would not consider "stopped" to be a form of "operating" and it is definitely not "driving".
The law doesn't give one tiny fuck what YOU consider a word to mean, nor should it.
So you see I do know what a strawman is. Hopefully now you do as well.
One would think, considering that your argument is pretty much a field of them, scattered with an utter lack of understanding in regards to how the US legal system operates.
Doesn't matter - the law is against texting while operating a motor vehicle, and 'operating a motor vehicle' is defined in most states as "sitting behind the wheel, with the key in the ignition and the engine running."
Argue semantics all you want, a judge is going to convict you because you broke the letter of the law.
If they were pulling over speeders, or drunks, or people texting while actually driving, sure. But these are higway robbers when they do this:
- Set needless "no right turn on red" signs then wait for people who do. - Set quota or reward systems for any of this, including speed traps.
I agree with those two points; however, on your other one:
- Wait for people who are stuck in traffic under a light that turns red.
I'd like to point out that (in MO, at least) if you're sitting in the middle of the intersection when a light turns red, you're actually breaking 2 laws: running the red light (you're not allowed to enter an intersection w/o being able to immediately and safely exit said intersection), and obstructing the flow of traffic (on the street perpendicular to the one you're travelling on).
Best bet: if traffic is backing up enough that you *might* get stuck in the intersection after the light changes, don't enter the intersection.
Did they bring the big glass-lined suitcase filled with different kinds of drugs, what their names were, and how the effected you to your class? That was always my favorite part; the big crack spoon in the middle was hilarious.
Full disclosure: I grew up in an extremely rural community, where cocaine was practically unheard of, let alone in crack form. Meth, on the other hand...
Bonus points to you for arguing an actual, reasonable rationale, instead of being one of those idiots who just get pissed because I pointed out that they're breaking the law and deserve to be ticketed.
In the United States, unless it is on a city street, it is not generally legal to stop on the side of the road except for emergency purposes, though usually they won't hassle you about it.
Correct; at most, they might stop to make sure you're not having car trouble, but I've never known anyone to be ticketed for pulling to the shoulder and answering their phone. Seems unlikely, considering the alternative.
Have I mentioned previously that all of our technology-related traffic laws are designed to make us less safe, not more safe?
that would be giving them the benefit ou the doubt.
"Giving the benefit of the doubt" is not a police officer's job - citing people for known violations is.
I don't necessarily agree with the law or practice (C&I seems to cover texting as well as pretty much every other bad behavior behind the wheel), but this seems like a pretty easy ticket to avoid: don't dick with your phone while operating a vehicle on a public street.
There are parking lots everywhere - use them, and take the power away from dickhead cops, instead of breaking the law and bitching when you get cited.
I do know a guy who got out of such a ticket by immediately chucking his keys into the neighbors lawn (out of reach), before the cops got on scene. Boy, were they pissed!
No you don't.
Yea, actually, I do. Granted, this was several years ago, when I was still in college, but I know it happened because I watched it happen.
You're welcome to not believe me, since I don't have any evidence to back it up with, but posting a full paragraph rant calling me a liar seems like a bit of overkill. Don't you have something better to do with your time?
Anytime a contemporary work is called art with the emphasis on art you pretty much know that the creation is not something that anyone outside of the art community is currently interested in.
Calling it crap is kind of pointless when you're not in the target audience for it. I shrug and call it art.
It's my experience that giving your opinion to others is generally pointless, whether you're their target audience or not.
Everyone's a critic, and a god in their own minds.
The point is that SOME performance art is amazing.
That seems to be a matter of opinion.
Personally, I'd much rather stare at inanimate etchings in a gallery than see some douchebag with a stupid haircut, covered in pig's blood and reciting his latest awful, Poe-esque poetry in the city park.
At this point in time (the first GTA came out in what, '97?), anyone who doesn't know the general theme of the Grand Theft Auto series only has themselves to blame.
If any teacher in the California public school system has even an ounce of self-respect, they will refuse to teach such skewed bullshit to their students.
Skewed how, you might ask? from TFA:
[The Internet Keep Safe Coalition's] president, Marsali Hancock, says fair use is not a part of the teaching material because K-6 graders don’t have the ability to grasp it.
Slashdot Mirror
To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
Straw man
By changing "stopped at a red light" to "operating" you have set up a strawman because you are ignoring the whole stopped part.
I didn't "change" shit; the legal definition, at least in my state, of "operating a motor vehicle," is thus:
So, you see, you're not actually arguing with me, you're arguing with the legal system.
Most people would not consider "stopped" to be a form of "operating" and it is definitely not "driving".
The law doesn't give one tiny fuck what YOU consider a word to mean, nor should it.
So you see I do know what a strawman is. Hopefully now you do as well.
One would think, considering that your argument is pretty much a field of them, scattered with an utter lack of understanding in regards to how the US legal system operates.
http://www.stlcriminaldefense.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=112:what-constitutes-operating-a-vehicle-in-a-missouri-dwi-case&catid=7:stlouiscriminaldefenseblog-&Itemid=5
Looks like your Bullshit-ometer could afford a little recalibration.
Doesn't matter - the law is against texting while operating a motor vehicle, and 'operating a motor vehicle' is defined in most states as "sitting behind the wheel, with the key in the ignition and the engine running."
Argue semantics all you want, a judge is going to convict you because you broke the letter of the law.
I would never take MADD as a reputable source of statistics.
Yea, just look at the difference between their stat and the official numbers from the NHTSA:
In 2010, more than 10,000 people died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes - one every 51 minutes.
Jackass.
If they were pulling over speeders, or drunks, or people texting while actually driving, sure. But these are higway robbers when they do this:
- Set needless "no right turn on red" signs then wait for people who do.
- Set quota or reward systems for any of this, including speed traps.
I agree with those two points; however, on your other one:
- Wait for people who are stuck in traffic under a light that turns red.
I'd like to point out that (in MO, at least) if you're sitting in the middle of the intersection when a light turns red, you're actually breaking 2 laws: running the red light (you're not allowed to enter an intersection w/o being able to immediately and safely exit said intersection), and obstructing the flow of traffic (on the street perpendicular to the one you're travelling on).
Best bet: if traffic is backing up enough that you *might* get stuck in the intersection after the light changes, don't enter the intersection.
we've been handing out driver's licences like crackerjack toys for decades, so we've got complete and total morons behind the wheels of cars.
Sure, but if you're going to make it harder to get a license you also need to give people other options for getting around.
Rufus: "Back in the old days with J.C., we used to walk everywhere; you ever hear of a fat apostle?"
I saw one of those videos once; it was a '56 Bel Air and a mid-2000's Lexus, I think.
Of course, the people making the video didn't mention how seatbelts weren't standard GM equipment in 1956.
Had they used, say, a 1955 Fairlane instead, which came with factory-installed belts, I bet the result would have been markedly different.
It's that or send them to the cafeteria and make soup out of them.
Are we still talking about marketing people? 'Cuz I could really go for some lizard soup right now, myself...
They are no more operating a motor vehicle than if they are stopped in a parking lot.
Yea, good luck using that defense in court.
Give it up with the strawmen.
I don't think that means what you think it means.
It's called "sleight of hand"
All the same spying equipment is still in use, except now Google has them stuffed up their sleeves instead of in their hands.
Did they bring the big glass-lined suitcase filled with different kinds of drugs, what their names were, and how the effected you to your class? That was always my favorite part; the big crack spoon in the middle was hilarious.
Full disclosure: I grew up in an extremely rural community, where cocaine was practically unheard of, let alone in crack form. Meth, on the other hand...
Bonus points to you for arguing an actual, reasonable rationale, instead of being one of those idiots who just get pissed because I pointed out that they're breaking the law and deserve to be ticketed.
In the United States, unless it is on a city street, it is not generally legal to stop on the side of the road except for emergency purposes, though usually they won't hassle you about it.
Correct; at most, they might stop to make sure you're not having car trouble, but I've never known anyone to be ticketed for pulling to the shoulder and answering their phone. Seems unlikely, considering the alternative.
Have I mentioned previously that all of our technology-related traffic laws are designed to make us less safe, not more safe?
No, but it's completely valid, because
they really are—revenue über alles and all that.
that would be giving them the benefit ou the doubt.
"Giving the benefit of the doubt" is not a police officer's job - citing people for known violations is.
I don't necessarily agree with the law or practice (C&I seems to cover texting as well as pretty much every other bad behavior behind the wheel), but this seems like a pretty easy ticket to avoid: don't dick with your phone while operating a vehicle on a public street.
There are parking lots everywhere - use them, and take the power away from dickhead cops, instead of breaking the law and bitching when you get cited.
I do know a guy who got out of such a ticket by immediately chucking his keys into the neighbors lawn (out of reach), before the cops got on scene. Boy, were they pissed!
No you don't.
Yea, actually, I do. Granted, this was several years ago, when I was still in college, but I know it happened because I watched it happen.
You're welcome to not believe me, since I don't have any evidence to back it up with, but posting a full paragraph rant calling me a liar seems like a bit of overkill. Don't you have something better to do with your time?
Or, you know.. you could start being more concerned about safety than giving fines.
Selfish assholes distracting themselves while operating a motor vehicle very much is a safety issue.
" they could just not text while behind the wheel."
Unfortunately, our high stress real-time communication lives don't allow for that anymore.
Then be prepared to pay a lot of fines.
Anytime a contemporary work is called art with the emphasis on art you pretty much know that the creation is not something that anyone outside of the art community is currently interested in.
Calling it crap is kind of pointless when you're not in the target audience for it. I shrug and call it art.
It's my experience that giving your opinion to others is generally pointless, whether you're their target audience or not.
Everyone's a critic, and a god in their own minds.
The point is that SOME performance art is amazing.
That seems to be a matter of opinion.
Personally, I'd much rather stare at inanimate etchings in a gallery than see some douchebag with a stupid haircut, covered in pig's blood and reciting his latest awful, Poe-esque poetry in the city park.
To each his artistic own, I guess.
At this point in time (the first GTA came out in what, '97?), anyone who doesn't know the general theme of the Grand Theft Auto series only has themselves to blame.
IMO, anytime the word "art" is prefaced with the word "performance," it's pretty much a given that said "art" is, in reality, total crap.
All depends on the judge.
If any teacher in the California public school system has even an ounce of self-respect, they will refuse to teach such skewed bullshit to their students.
Skewed how, you might ask? from TFA:
[The Internet Keep Safe Coalition's] president, Marsali Hancock, says fair use is not a part of the teaching material because K-6 graders don’t have the ability to grasp it.
That's not teaching.
It's not a copy, it's a derivative work!
Prove it in court, bitch.
-- the MAFIAA
Only me and my sect
My sect and I.
That's right, I'm gonna derail a religious debate with Grammar-Nazi-ism! Take that, cur!
Fair enough... I wasn't thinking of DARE... It's a great program...
Hell yea it is; without DARE, I might have never known about any of those cool-ass drugs I did in college!