FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Amazing new laws in the US ....





deanhills
Just found this article listing some amazing new laws in the US. Considering the cost of legislation, it boggles the mind that a law would be needed for example requiring public schools in Oklahoma to include lessons about the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing in their curriculum.

Quote:
In Minnesota, minors can no longer get tattoos or pierced genitals, regardless of whether they have a parent's permission.

Quote:
Georgia will allow members of the armed services and veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder to have the diagnosis noted on their driver's license.
Quote:
Florida is outlawing the sale of various types of pipes or "bongs" that can be used to smoke illegal, as well as legal, substances, except at stores that mostly sell tobacco.


I like this law in Florida, a good one:
Quote:
One Florida law adds more math and science requirements for high school graduation,
HalfBloodPrince
I agree with the last one. American students need more math and science. A LOT more math and science.
ocalhoun
HalfBloodPrince wrote:
I agree with the last one. American students need more math and science. A LOT more math and science.

And it needs to be less repetitive...

When I went through school -- in Florida no less -- I 'learned' how to add and subtract fractions... every year*, again and again, each time introduced as a brand new concept. Each year we did little other than repeat the lessons from last year, perhaps only adding a few weeks worth of new material each year. Everything could have been thoroughly taught in two years if it weren't for the incessant review of already mastered material.

*From about 4th grade to graduation. -There was one exception, a year when the normal math class was supplanted by geometry, and actually introduced a host of new concepts. The following year was back to the grind of learning the same simple things over and over again though.

That wasn't as bad as English/writing/reading/grammar classes though, where the entire curriculum was indistinguishable between years, except that in the later years, we focused more on essays (in order to prepare for the standardized test- and we were only taught how to write the specific type of essay that would be required on that test).
In two consecutive years, the English class actually used the same textbook over again.

Science now, it at least avoided the repetition, but sometimes was woefully poorly taught, and even out of date... The textbooks I used once (in1998) claimed there were only 8 planets... Not because Pluto had been demoted, but because it hadn't been discovered yet at the time the book was printed.
Afaceinthematrix
These laws aren't too bad. I have seen worse.

Quote:
In Minnesota, minors can no longer get tattoos or pierced genitals, regardless of whether they have a parent's permission.


You wouldn't want minors with negligent parents to let them make decisions that they aren't mature enough to handle and will regret the rest of their lives... At least make them be an adult to consent.

Quote:
Georgia will allow members of the armed services and veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder to have the diagnosis noted on their driver's license.


This will help members of the armed forces prove that they're in the service when they're purchasing items. Many stores/restaurants give military discounts to people in the service and you're required to show some sort of proof. It must be annoying to carry both your driver's license AND military ID when you're just going to pick up food at a restaurant...

And the disorder may help paramedics and/or police officers if the situation occurs...

Quote:
Florida is outlawing the sale of various types of pipes or "bongs" that can be used to smoke illegal, as well as legal, substances, except at stores that mostly sell tobacco.


This one I do not agree with... But then again, I think all drugs should be legal.

Quote:
One Florida law adds more math and science requirements for high school graduation,


Sure. Hardly a wasted law...

Quote:

PostPosted: Thu Jul 01, 2010 5:43 am Post subject:
HalfBloodPrince wrote:
I agree with the last one. American students need more math and science. A LOT more math and science.

And it needs to be less repetitive...

When I went through school -- in Florida no less -- I 'learned' how to add and subtract fractions... every year*, again and again, each time introduced as a brand new concept. Each year we did little other than repeat the lessons from last year, perhaps only adding a few weeks worth of new material each year. Everything could have been thoroughly taught in two years if it weren't for the incessant review of already mastered material.

*From about 4th grade to graduation. -There was one exception, a year when the normal math class was supplanted by geometry, and actually introduced a host of new concepts. The following year was back to the grind of learning the same simple things over and over again though.

That wasn't as bad as English/writing/reading/grammar classes though, where the entire curriculum was indistinguishable between years, except that in the later years, we focused more on essays (in order to prepare for the standardized test- and we were only taught how to write the specific type of essay that would be required on that test).
In two consecutive years, the English class actually used the same textbook over again.

Science now, it at least avoided the repetition, but sometimes was woefully poorly taught, and even out of date... The textbooks I used once (in1998) claimed there were only 8 planets... Not because Pluto had been demoted, but because it hadn't been discovered yet at the time the book was printed.


Then you sort of had a crappy high school experience. With a few exceptions, I learned something different each year.

Math
Ninth Grade: Geometry
Tenth: Algebra
Eleventh: Pre-Calc (which was mostly trigonometry, but they called it pre-calculus)
Twelfth: Calculus

Science
Ninth: Geology
Tenth: Biology (evolution included, so I had a good experience)
Eleventh: Chemistry
Twelfth: Physics

English
Ninth: A wide variety of introductory works including Greek mythology and some Shakespeare
Tenth: A continuation of tenth grade but with different books.
Eleventh: American literature (including Native American as well as US)
Twelfth: World Literature (Dickens, more Shakespeare, and a bunch of other stuff I don't remember)

History
Ninth: World History
Tenth: Advance Placement World History (we covered completely different topics, the two teachers talked to each other ahead of time and planned on teaching different stuff each year)
Eleventh: United States History
Twelfth: Economics and US Government

So nothing was repetitive in my core subjects. The only subjects that were repetitive were my PE classes (duh, weight training and football do not change) and my music classes (I played in various jazz bands since I was eleven and I have played in stringed orchestras...)

I am sorry that your experience wasn't up to standard... Maybe I got extremely lucky or maybe California has a better educational system than Florida...
deanhills
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
These laws aren't too bad. I have seen worse.

Quote:
In Minnesota, minors can no longer get tattoos or pierced genitals, regardless of whether they have a parent's permission.


You wouldn't want minors with negligent parents to let them make decisions that they aren't mature enough to handle and will regret the rest of their lives... At least make them be an adult to consent.
There are many things that you want adults to consent to to protect their children. But why legislate all of that? Would that then mean that in the end teenagers would have to have their parents' permission wherever they go? If they are camping in remote areas, they have to have the permission of their parents? If they go to night clubs they have to have their parents' permission.

Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Quote:
Georgia will allow members of the armed services and veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder to have the diagnosis noted on their driver's license.


This will help members of the armed forces prove that they're in the service when they're purchasing items. Many stores/restaurants give military discounts to people in the service and you're required to show some sort of proof. It must be annoying to carry both your driver's license AND military ID when you're just going to pick up food at a restaurant...

And the disorder may help paramedics and/or police officers if the situation occurs...
OK, I did not get this before. The drivers license is used more than a drivers license, but as a form of an ID. I was just wondering how safe it would be for someone to drive who has a post traumatic stress disorder? I did not realize it was meant for purposes other than driving. Thanks for the info.

Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Quote:
One Florida law adds more math and science requirements for high school graduation,


Sure. Hardly a wasted law...
I think I did say that was a good law. Out of all the laws that I skimmed through. But yes, you probably are lucky that you were educated in California. Wonder what the standard would be in Mississippi?
adri
Afaceinthematrix wrote:

Math
Ninth Grade: Geometry
Tenth: Algebra
Eleventh: Pre-Calc (which was mostly trigonometry, but they called it pre-calculus)
Twelfth: Calculus

In Belgium this is quite different (actually everything is different), we see every year more or less every subject, for example in twelfth grade (which is the last year in secundary school in Belgium) I saw
1 book of differentials,
1 book of integrals,
1 book of 'space geometry' (translated from Dutch but it covers things like this:
1 book of statistics
1 book of stochastic (Poisson, Binomal, Rule of Bayes,...)
1 book of algebraic geometry

Afaceinthematrix wrote:

Science
Ninth: Geology
Tenth: Biology (evolution included, so I had a good experience)
Eleventh: Chemistry
Twelfth: Physics

We get geology, biology (including evolution although I went to a Catholic school), chemistry and physics every year (but every year just 1 part)

Afaceinthematrix wrote:

English
Ninth: A wide variety of introductory works including Greek mythology and some Shakespeare
Tenth: A continuation of tenth grade but with different books.
Eleventh: American literature (including Native American as well as US)
Twelfth: World Literature (Dickens, more Shakespeare, and a bunch of other stuff I don't remember)

Most students in Belgium get english, french and dutch courses, the first years (seventh, eight, ninth grade) is more grammar and vocabular but then we start exploring the culture, but still with a lot of vocabular and grammar.

Afaceinthematrix wrote:

History
Ninth: World History
Tenth: Advance Placement World History (we covered completely different topics, the two teachers talked to each other ahead of time and planned on teaching different stuff each year)
Eleventh: United States History
Twelfth: Economics and US Government

We go from the prehistory in seventh grade to the nineteenth and twentiest century in the twelfth grade.

Afaceinthematrix wrote:

So nothing was repetitive in my core subjects. The only subjects that were repetitive were my PE classes (duh, weight training and football do not change) and my music classes (I played in various jazz bands since I was eleven and I have played in stringed orchestras...)

We get all kinds of sport on my school, every month another subject (this is probably different for every school in Belgium), we get football, handball, volleyball, basketball, 'horizontal bar', 'plinth',...


At the end of the year two students (of every study(direction) and of every year and in every school) have to give all their notes, tests and someone of the ministry of government comes and checks if the school has covered everything. So the quality of school in Belgium is quite high but very different from school in the 'States'.
ocalhoun
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
These laws aren't too bad. I have seen worse.

Quote:
In Minnesota, minors can no longer get tattoos or pierced genitals, regardless of whether they have a parent's permission.


You wouldn't want minors with negligent parents to let them make decisions that they aren't mature enough to handle and will regret the rest of their lives... At least make them be an adult to consent.


Yet, to protect the few children of negligent parents, you hurt the larger group of caring, but permissive parents. (by absorbing their authority into the state, and overruling their decisions)

Precisely the kind of nanny-state law I hate the worst.
A nation has no business protecting people from themselves.
Afaceinthematrix
deanhills wrote:
There are many things that you want adults to consent to to protect their children. But why legislate all of that? Would that then mean that in the end teenagers would have to have their parents' permission wherever they go? If they are camping in remote areas, they have to have the permission of their parents? If they go to night clubs they have to have their parents' permission.


There IS legislation for those things already. I'm surprised you mentioned that... You should know what happens when parents let their kids go camping in remote areas (like the SEA) by themselves. After all, wasn't it you that started this topic?
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-109838.html

ocalhoun wrote:
Yet, to protect the few children of negligent parents, you hurt the larger group of caring, but permissive parents. (by absorbing their authority into the state, and overruling their decisions)

Precisely the kind of nanny-state law I hate the worst.
A nation has no business protecting people from themselves.


I am against most legislation that interferes in people's lives. I am against drug laws and I feel that all drugs should be legal. I am against pornography laws. Etc. I am very liberal...

However, to accept that children should have these rights with parental consent you must first accept two things that I do not accept:

1) Children are the property of the parents and that parents should have complete control over them
2) Children should have the full rights and privileges as adults

I do not accept that children are the full property of parents. For instance, if the parents turn out to be inadequate then society (and tax dollars) raise the kids. Since children do not have control over their circumstances, the government has a duty to insure that the children are raised properly. We do that with schooling and many social services (sporting groups, etc.) that help raise children. So if we're going to educate the children and use resources to raise them (as they do not pay taxes themselves), then the government has some sort of stake in their being raised.
ocalhoun
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
then the government has some sort of stake in their being raised.


'some sort of stake', however, doesn't automatically justify all control/interference.

Only when a child's life or future as a functioning member of society is in danger should the government consider interfering.
deanhills
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
deanhills wrote:
There are many things that you want adults to consent to to protect their children. But why legislate all of that? Would that then mean that in the end teenagers would have to have their parents' permission wherever they go? If they are camping in remote areas, they have to have the permission of their parents? If they go to night clubs they have to have their parents' permission.


There IS legislation for those things already. I'm surprised you mentioned that... You should know what happens when parents let their kids go camping in remote areas (like the SEA) by themselves. After all, wasn't it you that started this topic?
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-109838.html
Right, but that is not entirely the same situation however. I'm of the same opinion as Ocalhoun. The State interfering with parents who are raising their children. I am all in favour of those extreme situations where children may be abused, but getting to tattoos and similar "mild" protection measures, is going a bit far. Next thing we may get legislation where a young child is not allowed to cross a road unless accompanied by a parent? Or young children are not allowed to ride bikes until they have shown that they can ride bikes safely, i.e. licensing. They have to do tests in road safety first and demonstrate they can ride a bike safely. If I had a choice between the latter and tattoos however, I would go for the latter first before the tattoos. How many kids have died as a result of bike riding vs. kids who have died as a result of tattoos?
Bikerman
ocalhoun wrote:
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
These laws aren't too bad. I have seen worse.

Quote:
In Minnesota, minors can no longer get tattoos or pierced genitals, regardless of whether they have a parent's permission.


You wouldn't want minors with negligent parents to let them make decisions that they aren't mature enough to handle and will regret the rest of their lives... At least make them be an adult to consent.


Yet, to protect the few children of negligent parents, you hurt the larger group of caring, but permissive parents. (by absorbing their authority into the state, and overruling their decisions)

Precisely the kind of nanny-state law I hate the worst.
A nation has no business protecting people from themselves.
This is to do with protecting children deemed to be not able to make the decisions themselves. This sort of law is generally there as a 'backstop' for the rare occasions it will be needed. For example, if a mother of a 12 year old supports her daughters decision to get breast implants, then I believe the state has a role to play, viz refusing it unless there is some really overwhelming justification. Piercings and tattoos are more marginal, but I can certainly see why a ban on minors having their genitals pieced could be justified, and I would suggest that any parent allowing such a piercing is not doing their son/daughter any favours at all.
Afaceinthematrix
deanhills wrote:
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
deanhills wrote:
There are many things that you want adults to consent to to protect their children. But why legislate all of that? Would that then mean that in the end teenagers would have to have their parents' permission wherever they go? If they are camping in remote areas, they have to have the permission of their parents? If they go to night clubs they have to have their parents' permission.


There IS legislation for those things already. I'm surprised you mentioned that... You should know what happens when parents let their kids go camping in remote areas (like the SEA) by themselves. After all, wasn't it you that started this topic?
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-109838.html
Right, but that is not entirely the same situation however. I'm of the same opinion as Ocalhoun. The State interfering with parents who are raising their children. I am all in favour of those extreme situations where children may be abused, but getting to tattoos and similar "mild" protection measures, is going a bit far. Next thing we may get legislation where a young child is not allowed to cross a road unless accompanied by a parent? Or young children are not allowed to ride bikes until they have shown that they can ride bikes safely, i.e. licensing. They have to do tests in road safety first and demonstrate they can ride a bike safely. If I had a choice between the latter and tattoos however, I would go for the latter first before the tattoos. How many kids have died as a result of bike riding vs. kids who have died as a result of tattoos?


But there is legislation for those, also. If parents let their kids run in the road the kids may be taken away because the parents are negligent and willingly risking their kids lives. If a child rides a bike without a helmet, the parents can be fined. Basically, it comes down to what Bikerman said. However, it really goes much deeper.

The primary role of the government should be to protect the rights of individuals. That is the goal of the U.S. government and should be the main goal of any government. The other roles of the government should be trade (foreign affairs), eduction, etc. But the main goal should be to protect the rights of the people.

Now what it comes down to is kids are not the property of parents. Children need to have rights. However, some people seem to think that parents own their children. If I want to buy my infant (I don't have children - this is hypothetical) beer and have him drink it, should I have a right to buy my child beer? If I don't, then, according to ocalhoun, the government is being a "nanny-state." So I would be taking away the parents "rights." But what if the kid is four years old, and thus old enough to say, "yes?" The kid knows that he/she wants a candy bar, so wouldn't they know if they want beer? Probably. So by the government not allowing it, the government is taking away the child's rights. Well... Not exactly.

The kid probably doesn't know about the dangers of alcohol and that is why we have laws against selling it to minors (21 is the drinking age in most of the U.S.). So what it comes down to is that you have to protect the child's rights. Because they are children, you need to be "nanny." That's why children are raised... And since they do not belong to the parents, you need to have laws protecting them. If a parent is a dumbass (and dumbasses breed the most), there needs to be some sort of legislation preventing the dumbass parent from screwing up the kid. This is important for two reasons:
1) Protecting the kid's rights (that way if they screw themselves over in life, it will at least be their decision as an adult)
2) The entire society has a stake in this child being raised correctly
paul_indo
Protecting children from decisions they may later regret in the future, whether made by themselves or their parents, is often a wise decision these days.

I totally agree with the philosophy that government should be carried out with the minimum of restriction on free choice but I must concede that the modern world is not as easy or safe a place to grow up in as I experienced.

When it comes to licences for bikes, jet skis etc or restricting dangerous sports like hang gliding or para sailing I am pretty much against any of that but genital mutilation and tattooing I can except that the risk of unfair restriction is probably worth the opportunity to prevent child abuse or just later regret in life.

Generally speaking though there are way to many silly laws.
Bikerman
So, name 3 silly laws (and I don't mean trawling back to find a 12th century statute that hasn't been repealed).
Afaceinthematrix
Bikerman wrote:
So, name 3 silly laws (and I don't mean trawling back to find a 12th century statute that hasn't been repealed).


Would a law that I find to be morally wrong count as being silly? If so, then these are three silly U.S. laws:

1) In the late 1980's, Ronald Reagan (I hate that guy and how he was so damn religious and like all other overly religious people felt the need to push his bullshit onto everyone else in the country) banned pornography. That is, of course, morally wrong because it is restricting the freedom of consensual adults. I would have no problem banning children from getting pornography - although I still do see the problem of younger people watching porn. If I had a thirteen-year-old kid, I wouldn't care.

2) Marijuana is both banned and sometimes very heavily sentenced. It used to be much more mildly sentenced (I believe it was just a fine if you were caught with a small amount) but then we had Reagan who upped the sentences to a much more severe level. I personally believe all drugs should be legal because it is freedom to allow adults to use drugs. Plus there are the numerous economic and social benefits that are always used. Examples would be that gangs are funded by illegal drug selling and so legalizing drugs would take funding away from gangs and that if it was sold legally, it could be taxed and then that tax revenue could be used to open up free rehabilitation programs. Plus, Nixon's War on Drugs has cost the U.S. billions of dollars...

3) Gay marriage is illegal. I shouldn't really have to say more about how silly and morally wrong it is to stop these people from having a basic right...
Bikerman
No, I don't think I would want to say those are silly. Those laws are/were all very sensible - if you had a certain belief system.
A silly law would be one that had no such sense, purpose, consistency or practicality.
tingkagol
deanhills wrote:
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
These laws aren't too bad. I have seen worse.

Quote:
In Minnesota, minors can no longer get tattoos or pierced genitals, regardless of whether they have a parent's permission.


You wouldn't want minors with negligent parents to let them make decisions that they aren't mature enough to handle and will regret the rest of their lives... At least make them be an adult to consent.
There are many things that you want adults to consent to to protect their children. But why legislate all of that? Would that then mean that in the end teenagers would have to have their parents' permission wherever they go? If they are camping in remote areas, they have to have the permission of their parents? If they go to night clubs they have to have their parents' permission.

The way I understood it, minors can't get tattoos or pierced genitals regardless if they had their parents' consent. So it's actually trying to render parental consent moot, as opposed to requiring it.

I don't know what to think of it. I'm not a fan of tattoos or piercings, but I guess minors do a lot of stuff they might regret in the future. As for parents who allow their child to get tattoos/piercings, I don't know how to rationalize their decision in doing so. I think they're just being careless.

Maybe if tattoos and other visible 'bodily alterations' weren't such a taboo in the professional world, maybe people wouldn't care so much if adults/teens/kids/babies get them.
deanhills
tingkagol wrote:
The way I understood it, minors can't get tattoos or pierced genitals regardless if they had their parents' consent. So it's actually trying to render parental consent moot, as opposed to requiring it.
You're right Tingkagol. I completely lost sight of that. OK, looking at that with fresh eyes, that is still State interference however isn't it?

tingkagol wrote:
I don't know what to think of it. I'm not a fan of tattoos or piercings, but I guess minors do a lot of stuff they might regret in the future. As for parents who allow their child to get tattoos/piercings, I don't know how to rationalize their decision in doing so. I think they're just being careless.

Maybe if tattoos and other visible 'bodily alterations' weren't such a taboo in the professional world, maybe people wouldn't care so much if adults/teens/kids/babies get them.
Angelina Jolie likes to tattoo her children's names and is quite proud of those tattoos, so wonder what the situation would be if her children should wish to get tattoos of their own? That has to be quite a common situation with adults who like tattoos. Their kids would like to have them too? So if the State then decides to ban that, it has to take away the parents' personal freedom to make decisions for their children, and the children to have a tattoo?
Bikerman
Personal freedom is what it says - the ability to decide for one's person. Her child is not her person or her belonging. She does not have freedom to do what she likes with her children and nor should any parent. A parent should be someone who acts in the best interest of the child, not themselves - a guardian, not an owner. Obviously the state is reluctant to intervene in most cases because :
a) it is HUGELY demanding in terms of staffing, resourcing and emotional wear and tear
b) It is nearly always completely thankless. If they intervene they are busybodies, the nanny state. If they don't, and a child dies, they are incompetent.

Whenever a child goes to court the first principle is - the best interest of the child - that is put before any parental rights - and I believe that is the correct way to look at it. Some parents retort that they know their child better than anyone, so they know what is best. I can tell you after many years teaching that this is true of some and untrue of many. If I had a pound for every parent who found it impossible to believe that their son/daughter could possibly have done x or y because 'they are so good at home' then I wouldn't need a pension. Many parents (and these are otherwise 'normal' people, not basket cases) have little idea what their child is really like. A combination of wilful blindness, love and self-delusion allow them to maintain a particular image of the child which is often so far from true that it is almost laughable...ask any teacher....
SonLight
ocalhoun wrote:
HalfBloodPrince wrote:
I agree with the last one. American students need more math and science. A LOT more math and science.

And it needs to be less repetitive...

When I went through school -- in Florida no less -- I 'learned' how to add and subtract fractions... every year*, again and again, each time introduced as a brand new concept. Each year we did little other than repeat the lessons from last year, perhaps only adding a few weeks worth of new material each year. Everything could have been thoroughly taught in two years if it weren't for the incessant review of already mastered material.

*From about 4th grade to graduation. -There was one exception, a year when the normal math class was supplanted by geometry, and actually introduced a host of new concepts. The following year was back to the grind of learning the same simple things over and over again though.

That wasn't as bad as English/writing/reading/grammar classes though, where the entire curriculum was indistinguishable between years, except that in the later years, we focused more on essays (in order to prepare for the standardized test- and we were only taught how to write the specific type of essay that would be required on that test).
In two consecutive years, the English class actually used the same textbook over again.

Science now, it at least avoided the repetition, but sometimes was woefully poorly taught, and even out of date... The textbooks I used once (in1998) claimed there were only 8 planets... Not because Pluto had been demoted, but because it hadn't been discovered yet at the time the book was printed.


What you describe is a real horror story. Some of this might be unique to a particular school district that's broke or has eighth grade graduates in control, but I think if these types of problems are addressed we could greatly improve our schools at reasonable cost, if such practices are widespread.

While I don't expect there is a need to use all new textbooks every five years, a science text from before the discovery of Pluto is unbelievable! The amount of repetition in subjects is probably the greater crime though, although it would be harder to document and fix.
missdixy
deanhills wrote:

I like this law in Florida, a good one:
Quote:
One Florida law adds more math and science requirements for high school graduation,


I wish more states in the US required this, as well as more intensive early exposure to science & math.
Afaceinthematrix
deanhills wrote:
That has to be quite a common situation with adults who like tattoos. Their kids would like to have them too? So if the State then decides to ban that, it has to take away the parents' personal freedom to make decisions for their children, and the children to have a tattoo?


1) I highly doubt there is a huge correlation (if any at all) between parents with tattoos and their children eventually getting tattoos.

2) Personal freedom is personal freedom. You can do whatever you want to yourself and your property. But children are not the property of parents! We used to endorse people being property but that was eventually stopped in most places in the world when people realized that slavery is wrong.

FYI, I recently heard about a law (I do not know if it was passed... It was proposed) in some U.S. state. Some woman was trying to pass a law requiring new drivers to put a sign on their vehicle that says, "New driver on board" (as if those "Baby on Board" signs aren't stupid enough). This sign, just like the "Baby on Board" sign, is inherently stupid. There is absolutely no logic behind it and will not, in any way, prevent accidents. If anything, it will cause additional accidents because it will serve as a distraction to drivers. Furthermore, what are you supposed to do when you see it? Try to switch lanes, turn early, etc. just to avoid this car? That will probably cause additional accidents eventually. I doubt this law will pass. But if it does, then here is a silly law for you, Bikerman.
Bikerman
No - that makes sense to me. We actually have something along that line already here - green L plates.
They indicate to other drivers that this driver is inexperienced and likely to do something unusual or dangerous. Thus you give them a bit more room and watch them a bit more carefully...

As a Biker I am fully in support of it. I have to make constant decisions which involve assumptions about other drivers. You cannot ride or drive expecting everyone to do something insane, otherwise you never get anywhere. You have to make some assumptions - such as the car in front will not suddenly pull a handbrake turn, or the car at the junction will not suddenly pull out if you have already made eye contact. The green plates tell me to focus more of my attention on that particular vehicle than I would normally.
deanhills
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
1) I highly doubt there is a huge correlation (if any at all) between parents with tattoos and their children eventually getting tattoos.
I could not find any evidence of this, i.e. there could be a correlation, or not, but did come up with this interesting legislation prohibiting parents from giving children tattoos:
Quote:
A northwest Georgia couple arrested for giving six of their children homemade tattoos say they didn't do anything wrong. The kids, they say, wanted the tattoos to be like Mom and Dad.

"I'm their mother," Patty Jo Marsh said late Saturday. "Shouldn't I be able to decide if they get one?"

Georgia law prohibits tattoos from anyone other than a licensed professional. Children under 18 are also prohibited from getting tattoos.
Source: ajc
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
2) Personal freedom is personal freedom. You can do whatever you want to yourself and your property. But children are not the property of parents! We used to endorse people being property but that was eventually stopped in most places in the world when people realized that slavery is wrong.
Not sure why you are bringing this up, as that would be a common sense understanding. Neither, however, are they the property of the State either. Having given birth to them, it would appear that the parents are the guardians of the children up to the age of majority at least. Their rights as parents are also important as guardians.

Afaceinthematrix wrote:
FYI, I recently heard about a law (I do not know if it was passed... It was proposed) in some U.S. state. Some woman was trying to pass a law requiring new drivers to put a sign on their vehicle that says, "New driver on board" (as if those "Baby on Board" signs aren't stupid enough). This sign, just like the "Baby on Board" sign, is inherently stupid. There is absolutely no logic behind it and will not, in any way, prevent accidents. If anything, it will cause additional accidents because it will serve as a distraction to drivers. Furthermore, what are you supposed to do when you see it? Try to switch lanes, turn early, etc. just to avoid this car? That will probably cause additional accidents eventually. I doubt this law will pass. But if it does, then here is a silly law for you, Bikerman.
I like that idea, however for me it would fall under non-essential laws, i.e. not necessary. Wonder whether the next step in possible legislation would be to put the number of years driver's experience on the car? Smile
Bikerman
Quote:
I like that idea, however for me it would fall under non-essential laws, i.e. not necessary. Wonder whether the next step in possible legislation would be to put the number of years driver's experience on the car? Smilep
We were talking about stupid laws, not necessary/unnecessary ones. No law is necessary in the ultimate analysis. As for putting the number of years on a car - impractical - so we do the next nearest thing - we have insurance companies that charge according to experience.
deanhills
[quote="Bikerman"]
Quote:
I like that idea, however for me it would fall under non-essential laws, i.e. not necessary. We were talking about stupid laws, not necessary/unnecessary ones. No law is necessary in the ultimate analysis. As for putting the number of years on a car - impractical - so we do the next nearest thing - we have insurance companies that charge according to experience
This was the opening statement of the thread, so don't know where "stupid" comes from:
Quote:
Just found this article listing some amazing new laws in the US. Considering the cost of legislation, it boggles the mind that a law would be needed for example requiring public schools in Oklahoma to include lessons about the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing in their curriculum.


I don't completely agree with
Quote:
"no law is necessary in the ultimate analysis"
We can definitely do with some tougher environmental protection regulations for example.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
This was the opening statement of the thread, so don't know where "stupid" comes from:

Why not read the last 20 postings and you will then see.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
This was the opening statement of the thread, so don't know where "stupid" comes from:

Why not read the last 20 postings and you will then see.
You mean to say that the topic of the thread has been changed then? Because you say so? I don't see the the words "stupid laws" in any of the postings preceding the one where you introduced the words. I don't think much of the word "stupid" either, it is not a word that I would like to use in any discussion. The words I used were "amazing laws".
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
This was the opening statement of the thread, so don't know where "stupid" comes from:

Why not read the last 20 postings and you will then see.
You mean to say that the topic of the thread has been changed then? Because you say so? I don't see the the words "stupid laws" in any of the postings preceding the one where you introduced the words. I don't think much of the word "stupid" either, it is not a word that I would like to use in any discussion. The words I used were "amazing laws".
You would try the patience of a saint.
a) I didn't introduce the notion of silly laws - Paul Indio did. I then challenged him to name 3 such laws.
b) The words silly and stupid are close enough in this context to make no practical difference.
c) The use of the word 'amazing' meant something as close to silly as makes no odds, unless you were saying that you found them wonderful, superb, brilliant - and you didn't. It is clear from the tone and context that you were saying 'amazing' as in 'I'm amazed that these could ever be laws' as in disagreement. If you don't like the word stupid then nobody is forcing you to use it, but don't try to dictate what language I use, I'll decide that for myself.
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
deanhills wrote:
This was the opening statement of the thread, so don't know where "stupid" comes from:

Why not read the last 20 postings and you will then see.
You mean to say that the topic of the thread has been changed then? Because you say so? I don't see the the words "stupid laws" in any of the postings preceding the one where you introduced the words. I don't think much of the word "stupid" either, it is not a word that I would like to use in any discussion. The words I used were "amazing laws".
You would try the patience of a saint.
a) I didn't introduce the notion of silly laws - Paul Indio did. I then challenged him to name 3 such laws.
b) The words silly and stupid are close enough in this context to make no practical difference.
c) The use of the word 'amazing' meant something as close to silly as makes no odds, unless you were saying that you found them wonderful, superb, brilliant - and you didn't. It is clear from the tone and context that you were saying 'amazing' as in 'I'm amazed that these could ever be laws' as in disagreement. If you don't like the word stupid then nobody is forcing you to use it, but don't try to dictate what language I use, I'll decide that for myself.
I believe you were the one who have been doing the dictating Bikerman, interpreting the meaning of the words I used, even debating me on the meaning of the words I used, and telling me what I said. There is an enormous difference between "amazing" used in the sarcastic sense, and the meaning of "stupid". The "amazing" I used was used in the sense of "cannot believe it". Not that the laws were stupid. That was your interpretation.
Bikerman
Fine - you write your version of English and I'll write mine. You use the words 'boggles the mind' and I'll use the word silly or stupid. If you think the difference is that important then use whatever words you like. I didn't dictate anything to you - you were the one jumping in ...AGAIN....
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
Fine - you write your version of English and I'll write mine. You use the words 'boggles the mind' and I'll use the word silly or stupid. If you think the difference is that important then use whatever words you like. I didn't dictate anything to you - you were the one jumping in ...AGAIN....
NO Bikerman, wrong AGAIN. You were commenting on a posting of mine, and I then replied to your comment on my posting:
Bikerman wrote:
Deanhills wrote:
I like that idea, however for me it would fall under non-essential laws, i.e. not necessary. Wonder whether the next step in possible legislation would be to put the number of years driver's experience on the car? Smilep

We were talking about stupid laws, not necessary/unnecessary ones. No law is necessary in the ultimate analysis. As for putting the number of years on a car - impractical - so we do the next nearest thing - we have insurance companies that charge according to experience.
Bikerman
deanhills wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Fine - you write your version of English and I'll write mine. You use the words 'boggles the mind' and I'll use the word silly or stupid. If you think the difference is that important then use whatever words you like. I didn't dictate anything to you - you were the one jumping in ...AGAIN....
NO Bikerman, wrong AGAIN. You were commenting on a posting of mine, and I then replied to your comment on my posting:
Bikerman wrote:
Deanhills wrote:
I like that idea, however for me it would fall under non-essential laws, i.e. not necessary. Wonder whether the next step in possible legislation would be to put the number of years driver's experience on the car? Smilep

We were talking about stupid laws, not necessary/unnecessary ones. No law is necessary in the ultimate analysis. As for putting the number of years on a car - impractical - so we do the next nearest thing - we have insurance companies that charge according to experience.
No dean I'm not wrong. Read further back and you will see that Paul introduced the idea of a law being silly, I then challenged him to name 3 such laws - exactly as I said before in my previous posting. You really should read the whole thing in context.*

[previous insulting comment removed and I apologise]
Related topics
Oh, the evil that Bush has done to this world...
Evil
The new crustacean
Immigrant March
Google launching 4 new apps.
What is the fastest you ever driven?
th 2038 bug and google
Flock :: A New Web Browser
a question for all atheist friends.
Using Neighbor's Wireless Link: Probation
What is science and how do we decide?
Rising carbon dioxide levels altering rangelands
Is God selfish?
Are (Radical) Muslims Stupid?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.