flyingferret

Most muppets I know are on TV, but someone has to know them personally right? Despite my differences with you kallend, you are educated, so it does not surprise you associate with educated people. Unfortunately, you cannot make the same assessment in general about conservatives or liberals. Educated people are educated, QED. A more interesting question might be what is their source of information. It has been postulated in Sci-fi novels before that fooling the white collar citizens would be easy, just present it in a respected journal. Blue collars citizens would rather trust their senses. I am not arguing for either, just commenting that both have their own version of 'faith' in knowledge. While aggiedave and a few others know it, I am nor surprised that in a thread about outlawing a flag, few people know the various meanings of the swastika. I am not sure any of them know the various meanings of the flag in reference. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

Semantics killed that cat. Base jumping is not illegal by default, even if we refer to it that way. Activities without a permit are in certain parks. By performing one without a permit, you acted illegally, but not exclusively because of BASE jumping. I would imagine you would face the same charges for lighting a fire without a permit in a certain spot. I dont think it is apples and oranges. You can base jump on private land and not be subject to NPS, just like you can jump at a non USPA dropzone and not be subject to BSRs. Yes it is, they are at the bottom, not the top. If a decision made it can be challenged, and pretty easily. If the legislature or a supreme court makes a decision it is a bit more binding. As for the jacket...it has words on it. I am familiar, the flipside would be the deCSS code incident with Jon Johansen, where it was rules that source code printed on a t shirt was covered under free speech. I was referring to the comparison of symbols, I did not intend to ad written text to that, as neither the flag or cross symbols have any. I have no idea on the cross really, my point was just that it was referenced as this nifty relegious parallel to this argument, and I thought cross burning is racial motivated. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

If that happened (it never would) then majority rules. Obvious caveats would be representative house of federal government vs popular majority. Of course federally, it would never be supported because it is a symbol of succesion. But not supporting it is totally different than legislatively banning it. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

Go for it, states rights.....was a pretty big issue in the choice of a representative republic government type as I recall. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

Well I think the real issue is should you legislate based insults. BUT...there are plenty of people that would be offended. Skinheads would not like Malcolm X symbolism Aethists would not like Jewish or Christian symbolism etc, etc. The exponential problem is that if you allow offense to determine it, who draws the line as to whose offense is reasonable, and how does that not offend someone? I have always that the problem with the argument of tolerance is that by definition it is intolerant of people who are intolerant. Due to just plain human nature we are all subjective and intolerant to a degree. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

I dont know if I should be amazed at your logic as a lawyer or expect it. What you describe with BASE jumping is called a loophole or semantics or legal vaguery, take your pick. BUT...it is not illegal. Illegal by definition is against the law. Now we all, including myself refer to it as illegal in passing speech sometimes for convenience. But in a discussion like this, semantic differences can be quite important. NPS governs parks, so in addition you have jurisdiction involved, and whole system of legislation in the USA. SO on a larger scale you could argue about that, but the point remains that in many many cases smaller organization, municipal, private and otherwise make guidelines that accomplish the same effect as a law, when in fact it would be near impossible to actually legislate against. Of course people challenge these and then we have heirarchical courts and lawyers have jobs. I suppose you could argue similar points about BSRs, USPA group membership, etc. and certain things that are in practicality ''illegal" due to risks incurred, etc. But in the legal sense of the term, they are by definition not illegal. As for the state schools, that is a very interesting quandary. First....if you think the state is actively involved with a state school, you may not have gone to one. The state are involved in the most annoying ways, namely money and course approval....the latter prevent rapid content adoption and the former ties all kinds of string to policies. But they are far from involved in the daily policy decisions. Typically someone locally oversteps a boundary, someone challenges it, and then the outcome determines what stays. SO...simply to say that public universities make rules is far from saying the state government endorses them, at least until challenged. In addition to this, you have the tenuous issue of publicity, money, tenured professors rights, etc. If you look you can find examples of professors at various public school championing or bludgeoning various causes relegious, political, and otherwise. Of course, depending on the action taken, the leaning of the person acted against, etc, etc, the next thing you know you are knee deep in a censorship lawsuit because someone made a comment about God, illegal immigrants, women, etc, etc. And often times it seems like the PC crowd is most willing to fight, and of course arguing against "sensitivity and tolerance" is a slippery issue in a public relations obsessed litiguous society. So...yeah, it gets complex. Once again, since shorts is not a good example. I can be fired by derogatory speech, because of the impact in a workplace. I could probably even be expelled from a university depending on the offense situation. I cannot however be censored or lose citizen's rights over it. Of course I could face large consequences because of my viewpoint, but that is quite different from censorship. I am not familiar with the Aguilar case, but will comment that it is the apparently the California Supreme Court, which is neither surprising or the end of the appeals process. Anyway....all of that said. The thread started over outlawing a symbol. You could argue that my clothing was a symbol if you really wanted to I suppose, but seems like a reach. As for your cross analogy...I thought burning a cross was racially motivated? Could be wrong, that was my preception. Additionally, is burning a cross illegal? -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

not you silly girl I was talking about Ian for wanting us to call him a flaming troll monster like Vallerina. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

Ummm....organizations prohibiting usage is not the same as 'outlaw' which implies a law which criminalizes something. I am not allowed to show up for work in shorts. That however does not say anything about short being illegal, rather it says what my paying orgnaization deems appropriate in an environment. You see allowing people the choice to control their own business and residence is in fact based on the same principles that would choose not to outlaw certain things. That is the duality....that restricting something on a micro level can be an example of freedom on a macro level. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

I have not been engaged in the drama lately, so my post might be totally superfluous. Take with salt. I have always thought one of the most ironic things out there is people who vehemently demand free speech getting bent when people disagree with them. This has happened numerous times including the whole nastiness with the Dixie Chicks. Free speech has consequences. People responding do your viewpoint is not the same as demanding you silence it. The very right that allows you to say it, allows another person to counter it. Countering is not censorship. Censorship would prevent you from saying it. And really if there is not some strong counter rhetoric, was it really much of a free speech exercise? I think all the poeple running around saying, "Don't criticize me I am practicing free speech" need to read a little bit about it. Again, this is a totally random post, not directed at anyone or any event relating to the author, just thought it might fit in the discussion. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

Yeah, I think this is more rant than troll, mainly because I can't even figure out what the central point of his argument was. Besides I was on the plane with robert a handful of times this weekend, he is not a whiney little girl, so I am not calling him one in the interest of fairness alone. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

Descrating /= owning Maybe if I repeat it enough someone will think about it. And just for a small procedural point....to my knowledge the amedment is not passed yet. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

Just for the record destroying property publically is not quite the same as simply owning it. Much like public intoxication is not the same as owning alcohol. Becuase of the complexity of the issue, I am undecided on the flag descration issue, so I am not trying to argue for it. Simply suggesting that you are comparing apples to oranges, hence the 'double standard' -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

I respect your views and I respect Val's. But the question was succintly answered in a few posts. Not much food for thought. I could ask when we were gonna outlaw the n-word or chink, but I think it would be a fruitless conversation. I could ask when women were gonna start clinging to equal rights because some people find it offensive; equally fruitless. But because of the emotional stigma attached that make great flame bait. And based on Vallerina's post history....well....emotional posts are not exactly infrequent. Interestingly enough I recently tried to argue a point about outlawing cell phones during driving, compared to street racing, and from some of the same people in this thread, took a beating for even comparing the two. So, yeah I see some disparity in seeking nice little parrallels. Some posters have never been interested in views outside their own. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

Well good for you....a few of the rest of us think it is a trolling question. Besides, any meat in the question, even you answered in your first post, it will never be outlawed. And while I have no desire to debate it...the flag was for a country that attempted sovereignty. We gonna outlaw all of the flags of country that were beaten in wars because their view proved to be wrong/dangerous for the masses? -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

Well first you are making the assumption that owning property is the same as destroying it as a statement. I personally think they are very different. But...that aside, if for no other reason, you cannot just erase parts of history. And yes, yes, I know...the victors write the history. Be that as it may, if you start outlawing things where does it end? Who decides what is offensive and what isn't? The next thing you know, you are living in an Orwellian society: He who controls the past controls the future, he who controls the present controls the past. If you were to purge or distance yourself from symbols of history, what would be missing, what would people not see to avoid next time. Either way, regardless of all the theoretical thought, the idea that you can outlaw symbols is a very very dangerous one. Actions yes, symbols (particularly as private property) ? The fact that you even think it is likely or possible goes against everything I hope we still harbor under the auspices of Liberty. But....I am not really that surprised. EDIT: Oh yeah, my troll-o-meter is showing a troll too. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

Depends on how many and where. I am not sure if there is a max temp for one jump. But if you are going to pack and make more, anything over 100 will zap you after 2-3 jumps. Of course with you are in a fast turbine that helps a bit. Sitting in a 182 climbing in the heat is sometimes as bad as packing. As for too cold, I think that limit is easier to hit. I jumped when it was about 09 degrees on the ground, negative who knows what at altitude and wind. It was a fun sitfly jump, but afterwards I was unsure of my performance in event of a malfunction because my hands hurt so much. Any thicker gloves would have made it iffy as well, so called it a day. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

Seriously?! I don't have time for that, nor do I have anyway how to get immediate access to law enforcment figures. I accepted some numbers from a Harvard Risk Assessment study, I kinda figured they had more time and more knowledge on the subject than I do. Even if I could find 5, what does thta prove? Find me 5 actual accidents where street racing was the culprit? Then 10? At this point, I feel you are just being belligerent. The only point I had to start with in this thread was that other things are a bigger menace due to the people willingness to participate in a 'minor' driving distraction. I think you point of view has proved that rather nicely. You keep talking on your cell phone, and I hope that it never causes you a problem. If it does, I hope someone points out your words in this thread. I am done with this argument, the numbers are there, and legislators all over the country are talking about restricting cell phone usage while driving. That is enough for me. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

Hey at least I have been using numbers....you are just sitting there going "Nuh uh....I have a cell phone, it's never hurt noone." -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

Your response is completely sensational. From every best guess, even at the smallest range, cell phones cause more fatalities than street racing. Pretty hard to say you weren't street racing. For giggles, find a law enforcement officer and ask what they think about cell phones, or the legislatures that are outlawing it. Why would they think it was a problem? Yet in your mind because street racing is flashier it is more of a problem. Do you understand the concept that thousands of people practicing a minor indiscration can cause more carnage than hundreds of people practicing a major one? You have to multiply the participants by the probability of incident. For a gross exageration in an effort to make a point: Single murders are more common than mass murders. Yet because of a higher incidence rate, they cause more deaths. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

Actually, I don't you have any knowledge of how they arrived at the estimate. But if you want to call them, go for it. Even given the bottom end of their range (800) the problem is bigger ie more likely to encounter with fatal result than street racing. Factors of the WAG as you indicate I am sure include people not admitting cell phone usage. Perhaps in part because people like you are arguing that it is not THAT big a problem. I don't understand why this argument persists. I have indeed said street racing is irresponsible and a problem and in effect added "...but you know what else is big problem that people overlook?" And instead of conceding that more people kill other by driving with cell phones you continue to argue about exactly how many. Exactly how many people should the range or number include before you think it might be worth devoting at least as much attention to as street racers? -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

You are quite incorrect: http://www.hcra.harvard.edu/cellphones.html http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/12/02/MN93054.DTL All the while this is compared to that 135 people killed by street racers. Obviously speeding and alcohol are in 'lead' However, cell phones fatalities are way ahead of street racing. Additionally we are really just learning about this. Your common sense rhetoric sounds like most people's in the beginning of the investigation phase. Cell phones are too new to have any long term numbers, additionally their use has probably been exponentially growing in the last 5 years. What we do know is the numbers above....2600 fatalities, as opposed to 1000 two years ago. It would seem that cell phone usage is becoming a bigger threat. Street racing has long been illegal. We have yet to regulate cell phones usage in most places and the death toll is climbing. Regardless: 17000 fatalities - Alcohol and driving 2600 fatalities - cell phone and driving 135 fatalities - street racing While not related to the same number of participants (1.48 fatalities per 100 Million vehicle miles, 21.74 fatalities per 100,000 licensed drivers http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/) for comparison: 100 fatalities - personal watercraft (only about 1 million in use) 20 fatalities - unrestrained dog attacks (53 million dogs) 7 fatalities - killer bees (only in about 10 counties in the us) -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

The bottom line typographically is point As mine are. I agree with some of your thoughts, but I still think you are putting your own template around this and somehow automagically deducing what people are thinking. I dont understand how you can say "But there's still a difference - he didn't think he'd be a danger to anyone" It doesn't matter if he thought....everyone thinks they can get away with the risk or they wouldn't take it. It is the bigger individuals that think "I may be a risk and therefore don't take the action" Thinking in advance that you might be a risk to yourself or others, does not change the fact that the action occured. You act like the intent is to cause an accident. It isn't. All you really have to do is avoid choosing not act. I seriously doubt the street racers conciously thought they would be a risk to others. Now before you respond, I seriously doubt they would have cared. My point it simply that thinking about it determines almost nothing. Good intentions do not change the consequences of bad judgement. Responsbility and maturity allow people to see past good intentions and realize that sometimes caution must take the place of good intentions. So, I still maintain on a philosophical scale, the decision is the commonality: The decision to put your own immediate desires (phone, speeding, etc) above the process of acting responsibly in the environment. If you get stopped for something illegal, intent will make little difference....all the officer really cares about was that you made the decision to ignore the law. Short of cell phone, most acts discussed are illegal, and even cell phone usage is in some places. So, again I don't see where intent has much to do with the statement of being irresponsible. If you were the first person to ever dirve drunk or use a cell phone, the mistake defense might have a point. But in this day and age it is your legal responsiblity to abide by the law, and to an implied extent to use judgement when driving. You agree to that through use of a state license and public roads. Ignoring that is irresponsible. While "Carnage makes the danger in-your-face apparent to where it cannot be denied." is very true. It makes muted offenses no less danger. In fact may be alleged that they are more dangerous because of the ability to be overlooked. So....not sure if there is any point of dicsussing differences for yet another iteration. We already have plenty of laws about traffic fatalities...I would think they could be applied to street racers as is, I don't see a need for a specific punishment clause for racers. What would like to see is tougher penalties on fatalities of all types, namely drunk driving because of the sheer majority of events. Likewise, if cell phone usage is restricted, I hope it is enforced to the fullest extent possible. The need to talk on a phone while holding it while driving, is absolutely non existant except in emergencies. There is no reason you cannot abstain or use a headset. Much like the arguments you hear about seatbelts, the arguments about cell phones are bullshit.....not using them increases safety. It simply ought be legislated and enforced, rather than everyone arguing about how the soccer mom did not mean any harm when she caused that 10 car pileup while talking on the phone. I digress....street racers are irresponsible and reckless. But not the most common or the most carnage inducing. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

I am slightly scared. That was a wee bit over the top. half funny, and half tacky. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

Wow...hey dave, I dont exist I am your imaginary friend. Or my bike is...I guess. Cause apparently me waving at all those people and particularly riding with you on your kawasaki is impossible. The only thing I have against everyone on the internet is that they are idoits and make generalizations. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

Thanks for the details. For the record, I never meant to insinuate that your friend was at all in the wrong, cell phone or otherwise. Obviously these racers were idiots and assholes as you put it. I don't think I have ever argued against it. I have simply tried to make the point that they are not the only or worst irresponsible assholes. Based on your description, the racing does not really matter much. The only possible excpetion may be the kinetic energy, which is still a pretty big gamble. In another scenario, a car driven by a non racing car could have run the stopsign, hit the truck, blown out a tire which initiated a loss of control with allowed entry to the other lane. There are hundreds and hundreds of variables. Last year in Texas, a father fell asleep at the wheel on an interstate highway, perfectly sober while returning from a trip and killed (I think 8 people) including his entire family) No racing, no phones, simply the choice to push yourself beyond the responsible limitations for the situation. Senior citizens have in recent years almost made a sport of driving into farmers markets injuring others. Still irresponsible by being too damn stubborn to admit you are past the point of driving age. These people who killed your friends were blatantly irresponsible. And because of the blatant nature and the proximity to you, they are filling your subjective vision right now. My only points ever were (1) that there are plenty of other acts of irresponsiblity more complicated and less blatant, and therefore we are more reluctant to sensationalize them, because we can see ourselves doing them. And (2) pulling the speeding event in from another thred served no point to the discussion at hand. And yep....I still say it all boils down to a decision to be irresponsible....speeding, racing, cell phone, sleep deprivation. You are citing the decision based on the carnage induced. Plenty of people race in a busy environment and get away with it. Plenty of people push the limits on the road and get away with it.....but guess what? They made the same decisions. On the reverse side, people like our rider forum member that exceeding 140mph on a straight isolated stretch did NOT make the same decision because of the controlled environment. And if you still don't like the logic behind it...look at if from a sheer math standpoint. IF someone how you went on a crusade and stopped all street racing, you would have 135 people in a year. IF you stopped even 10% of alcohol related fatalies, you would save 1700 people! http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/drving.htm Now tell me again how street racers are the biggest and most dangerous assholes and should get capital murder? Again...there are much more common and damaging irresponsiblities than street racing. But of course the average american sees themselves as more likely to 'accidentally' have a few drinks and drive or do something foolish while on a cell phone, but they would NEVER street racer....cause only punks with fast cars and death wishes do that. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.