"Unidentified Flying Objector" arrested

[shanek]

Where can we see this data?

Linked to above. Several different sources.

So, if the fatality rate on the speedlimit roads actually went down (and I still wonder where you got that number) doesn't that refute your contention that the fatalities did not change on the loss of speed limit roads?

That isn't what happened, and I never claimed that.

If the fatality rate dropped on all of the other roads then you've got a serious problem.

But apparently it didn't. In any event, I haven't made any claims about what happened on the other roads and consider that to be irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[Thanz]

"Those who would give up their essential liberty in order to obtain safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." —Benjamin Franklin

Okay, pet peeve time. Yes, this quote is rather pithy and all, but it is really not an argument. It is a statement, and it proves nothing. If you have an argument to make that giving up liberty to gain safety is not worth the price, then make it. The quote, Ben Franklin or no, is not an argument. Remember, he is also quoted as saying "Wine is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." - but I don't see that popping up as an argument in the religion section.

In light of Darat's recent request, I do NOT intend this as an attack on shanek at all. Shanek and I have our differences, but I think we both try to argue rationally with each other. Shanek is not the only one who uses this quote - just the most recent.

Oh, and you can quote me on this as well: "Those who would give up half of their hot dog for some ice cream deserve neither hot dogs nor ice cream."

 

[Darat]

See my above response.

But in principle you are OK with companies entering the sort of agreement I was suggesting?

 

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Oh, and you can quote me on this as well: "Those who would give up half of their hot dog for some ice cream deserve neither hot dogs nor ice cream."

That's the funniest thing I've seen all week. Thanks.

P.S. Franklin's authorship of the quote is questionable.

I also purchased the 10 volume Collected Works of Franklin edited by Jared Sparks, published in 1840. In volume VII there is a letter that Franklin wrote to his friend David Hume 27 September, 1760, in which he says, in response to Hume's praise of the Historical Review, that it was "not written by me, nor any part of it," except for one small section and some of the text attributed to the Assembly when he was serving there. Sparks adds a page long footnote detailing who supported the contention that Franklin was the author, and concludes that it was published under Franklin's direction and with his approval. In his autobiography, Franklin says that he was the publisher. It is now believed that Richard Jackson was the author, with Franklin doing some tweaking.

Source

 

[varwoche]

we'd all live in a paradise where the grass was always green, the sky was always blue, the lamps where always frolicking and where there were no cartels, but only perfect competition as far as the eye could see.

Ah yes, Libertopia!

Take a left on the Cherry Coke Tollway and you're halfway there.

 

[shanek]

But in principle you are OK with companies entering the sort of agreement I was suggesting?

In principle I believe that market forces effectively prevent that type of misbehavior. All government does is support it.

 

[Kerberos]

That's the funniest thing I've seen all week. Thanks.

P.S. Franklin's authorship of the quote is questionable. Source

ARGH! I was going to steal that line fo rmy sig.

 

[Darat]

In principle I believe that market forces effectively prevent that type of misbehavior. All government does is support it.

That doesn't really answer my question. From what you've posted so far it would seem you are saying there is something that would prevent airline companies co-operating to introduce an "industry standard" and I understand your point. However I was asking you from a point of principle whether that type of agreement should be allowed or not.

 

[shanek]

That doesn't really answer my question.

Yes, it does, once you realize that your question contained an invalid assumption: that not wanting the government to be active in preventing something is the equivalent of being "OK with it."

 

[Darat]

Yes, it does, once you realize that your question contained an invalid assumption: that not wanting the government to be active in preventing something is the equivalent of being "OK with it."

But I'm not asking anything at all about a government, I am asking about what in principle you believe companies should be allowed to do.

 

[shanek]

But I'm not asking anything at all about a government, I am asking about what in principle you believe companies should be allowed to do.

But that's just the problem—you say in one clause that it's nothing "at all about a government," and in the next ask what they "should be allowed to do." "Allowed" by whom?

 

[Darat]

But that's just the problem—you say in one clause that it's nothing "at all about a government," and in the next ask what they "should be allowed to do." "Allowed" by whom?

That's just clumsy wording, I am exploring the principles you seem to be putting forward in some of your reponses.

I'm trying to understand if you think it is right in principle (which means that even if you don’t consider it could happen in the real-world) that airline companies could enter into agreements with one another that would make anyone wanting to take a flight submit to a contact body search and provide a certain type of proof of ID?

 

[shanek]

That's just clumsy wording, I am exploring the principles you seem to be putting forward in some of your reponses.

I'm trying to understand if you think it is right in principle (which means that even if you don’t consider it could happen in the real-world) that airline companies could enter into agreements with one another that would make anyone wanting to take a flight submit to a contact body search and provide a certain type of proof of ID?

As long as no one is forced into this agreement, and as long as nothing prevents someone else from creating a competing airline outside of this agreement, then in principle it should be "allowed" (although I'm really straining to understand who exactly it is that would prohibit it if not the government).

 

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

ARGH! I was going to steal that line fo rmy sig.

I don't post here all that often, so if you used it in your sig people would just assume I was copying you. Besides, so many people use the "Franklin" quote, I think we need to give this new version as much exposure as possible.

 

[Kerberos]

I don't post here all that often, so if you used it in your sig people would just assume I was copying you. Besides, so many people use the "Franklin" quote, I think we need to give this new version as much exposure as possible.

What do you mean by assume. Copycat!

 

[DragonLady]

Shane,

It appears to me that this guy did, in fact, grandstand. If he was there to make a point he surely lost it when he plead guilty. So, net, the guy hopped about, disturbed the Wa of other passengers, predictably got arrested and then folded. He proved what again?

Have you ever considered the possibility that your raising the Constitution to the status of inviolate holy book might be flawed?

Excuse me...coming through...watch the tail....

I just had to decloak for a moment to comment on this.

The constitution is not a pie-in-the-sky. It is not an "ideal". It is not a really good idea. It's not a the work of a few great teachers we should really listen to or the Boy Scout handbook of American living. It is the law. As such, it is inviolate. And it is the absolute bottom line.

It IS the holy book governing the behavior of all our citizens and of the officials who represent us in any and every capacity.

 

[Leif Roar]

The constitution is not a pie-in-the-sky. It is not an "ideal". It is not a really good idea. It's not a the work of a few great teachers we should really listen to or the Boy Scout handbook of American living. It is the law.

That, however, doesn't mean it is necessarily right.

Referring to the constitution to support an argument is an argument from authority. If the issue being discussed is one of legality, it is a valid argument from authority; but if it is a matter of ethics or of what the laws should be (rather than what they are) then the constitution is not a valid authority.

 

[Thanz]

I don't post here all that often, so if you used it in your sig people would just assume I was copying you. Besides, so many people use the "Franklin" quote, I think we need to give this new version as much exposure as possible.

Thank you thank you, I'm glad you like it.

Now, as much exposure as possible... Hmmm....

If only there were some sort of award here at the forums that spotlights pithy writing and the like... hmmm.....





What? Pardon? No, as a matter of fact, I don't have any shame....

 

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

If only there were some sort of award here at the forums that spotlights pithy writing and the like... hmmm.....

Yeah, somebody should start up something like that--in the meantime I nominated you for the Language Award. I don't care what the vote totals are: you win.

edited to delete typo

 

[Thanz]

Yeah, somebody should start up something like that--in the meantime I nominated you for the Language Award. I don't care what the vote totals are: you win.

Thank you for your kind words, and for the completely unprompted nomination.

You, sir, definitely deserve both hot dogs and ice cream.