Originally Posted by
vkalia
I hear what you are saying. However, a flip way to look at it is, if you focus only on the few big things and let lots of your smaller rights get eroded, then you have set many dangerous precedents. I think we can both agree that it shouldnt be a zero sum game - one at the expense of the other.
Incorrect. Standard slippery slope fallacy. Most times it is the big huge harry stuff that really F^&Ks you.
Originally Posted by
vkalia
My point wasnt about privacy (although I wholeheartedly support that as well). It is about the assumption of guilt. You catch a vehicle speeding and want to fine the owner for it, thats fair enough. But you cannot dock him points on his license without *proving* that he was the driver - assuming his guilt and requiring the owner to prove his innocence is against the way the legal system works.
Incorrect, you aren't presumed more guilty that getting a parking ticket. All due process options still exist. Officers, meter maids or cameras cannot assign guilt under our legal system, judged and juries do. You can still go to court and argue your case as with any ticket.
Originally Posted by
vkalia
I am not so bothered by lack of privacy as I am by governments of any nation, hue or political spectrum meddling in my right to live the way I want. Too often, people want the government/public bodies to sort out their sh*t for them - kids are getting fat? Ban fastfood. People get their feelings hurt when they dont win a sport? Give medals for participation (somewhere, Lombardi is turning in his grave). Blah blah blah. It is the pu$$ification of the world that is going on these days.
Huh?
Originally Posted by
vkalia
And when the government puts in rules which violate the basic tenet of the justice system (presumption of innocence), some of us tend to excuse it b/c hey, it is for a cause we agree with. Well, what happens when that same precedent is applies to a cause you dont agree with? It is not about ticketing or red lights - it is about the government respecting the limitations that were imposed on it by a few far-sighted individuals.
I think you need to brush up on your knowledge of the traffic code and legal system. Because something makes sense to you doesn't make it a fact.
Originally Posted by
vkalia
I call strawman. It is either that or you've again missed the point.
Questioning the motivation of your argument is valid. The real straw man is saying that there is a constitutional violation in order to misdirect attention away from one's own personal transgressions of the law. Last I checked no one argued that exceeding the speed limit or running reds was legal. So if anything I am calling you out on your straw man.
Originally Posted by
vkalia
And let's not even get into the fact that the way most speed limits are enforced is NOT the best way to reduce speeding - it is the best way to maximize revenue from tickets. So let's not get into "they are doing it to keep our children safe" routine (not saying that you are, but it is a common theme I come across when it comes to traffic).
Incorrect again, speed and red light cameras have been proven effective in numerous traffic safety studies. Disliking the facts doesn't make them untrue.
Originally Posted by
vkalia
Anyhow, I think we are straying dangerously into being shunted into the political forum.
V.
Agreed, though I like to live on the edge.