Pleroma Microblog

Pleroma Microblog

Driving a car on the road is a ‘privilege’ not a right. I guess people driving without a license or insurance forget about this

@hackerhans Jaaahaaa blobcatgiggle

@qorg11 That would be amazing yess..!

@hackerhans Hmm? What do you wanna say? blobcatgiggle You have a driving licence?

@hackerhans Haha my man! 💪 👍

@hackerhans You can say it.. You have a personal driver with a limo right? blobcatgiggle

@hackerhans blobcatgiggle You are like me I guess, waiting for the right moment bloblaugh

@stux I consider it a right, and that it is the government who forgot about that :)

@hamjb

No authority has recognized my right.. a right need not be recognized to be a right, at least not according to the typical use of the word "right" which is not limited to "positive law"

@stux

@hamjb

No, rights, rights are never granted, only taken away.

@stux

@hamjb

Who gave you the authority to decide that then? No one, your right to declare that was intrinsic

@stux

@hamjb

I never said you had a right or authority, but here you are making claims freely without anything stopping you, so clearly you have the right despite no one in authority granting it to you.

@stux

@hamjb

Those arent mutually exclusive terms nor even related. If someone punched you in the face when you said it there would have been a lack of tolerance, but the fact that you were still able to say it despite the lack of tolerance shows you had the intrinsic right to do so, lack of tolerance doesnt take away your right, it just adds consequences to utilizing it.

@stux

@hamjb @freemo But.. but... My 'statement' was just personal blobcatgiggle An oppinion xD

There's now actual book for this I guess haha! Breathing, food, drinks and even the internet I think are basic hooman rights, driving is not one of them blobcatgiggle

@stux

Everything is a right, by default.. some you just cant exercise. All your really saying is people should not be allowed to exercise their right to drive a car without approval.. thats fine, nothing wrong with that stance. The important part here is recognizing that rights are **never** granted, by default everything is a right, governments just choose which of them to take away. Good governments take away the right ones, bad governments take away the wrong ones.

@hamjb

@freemo @hamjb

That is correct! It's also 'just a way of looking at it from a different angle' blobcatgiggle

The end result is the same indeed but just how you interperted it I guess..

I think mine is more "positive" though! For example: 'The right to murder someone in cold blood.' (your way says its a right you cannot do) I say it's not a right at all bloblaugh

Btw, not only the government makes those "restrictions" we also do haha! Murder for example is never a right ever ever

@stux

Well no not exactly.. I would word it differently "everyone has the right not to be killed, if you permit people to murder then you take away that right"

The default is a single human being in an infinitely empty universe.. you have all ther ights to do anything, stab what you likely, shoot what you like, the right to everything.. then you introduce other human being to the thought experiment, now you have rights which can no longer co-exist and be exercised, thats where governments come in. Their entire purpose is to resolve contradictory rights that arise when humans exist as groups.

@hamjb

@freemo @hamjb

Haha but that also the different angle right bloblaugh Is totally depends how you look at it xD There's no right or wrong only the ones we make up rickhey2

Hm.. Governments or regilion? blobcatgiggle

Isn't that kinda the same deal in this story?

I know what you mean indeed but now in 2021 those "restrictions" or "taken away rights" are generally accepted (mostly) like don't kill another hooman etc

@stux

I would never argue that we shouldnt take away or restrict some rights, we should within reason. and yea religion can often serve a similar purpose.

though to go back to the original statement, I would say that driving a car isnt one of those things a government should really have the right to regulate.. it seems almost absurd to me personally. If im being reckless then yes, arrest me, but as long as I'm driving safely I shouldnt need to seek anyones permission to do so.

@hamjb

@freemo @hamjb

Well, I would never ever go out on the streets ever again if a licence or insurance for example was not required by the government hahaha!

Omfg.. People WITH a licence can barely keep control over a 1000KG+ weighing death machine let alone without any "proof" omg.. That's death for everyone!

Its hard getting a licence here but i think it should be even harder.. Let them practice before killing another person :(

@hamjb

Except you cant start from all, many, or infinity.. we started from one, not from many. The first human (wherever we wish to draw that line genetically) had the right to do anything they wanted, over time as there were more humans and governments those rights were taken away.

@stux

@freemo @hamjb

True but I also always look from the "we" perpective since we are with many hoomans these days that should be the default..

The issue with many people is still the "I" factor.. I think that's wrong, other are more important than I am. If more people think that way the world would be a lot better..

@stux

You probably would when you realized it didnt make things anymore dangerous, wehn you realize it was never licenses or insurances keeping things in check but rather peoples desire not to kill a little kid and go to jail for 10 years

@hamjb

@freemo @stux @hamjb one might be careful confusing "accepting" a loss of inalienable rights with "hasn't napalmed the capital building over it yet."

a lot of those losses have not been taken on the chin, but suppressed by ex. facebook and courts refusing to give remedy or hear cases.

@freemo @hamjb @stux in recent canada cases they allowed jews to congregate† and then told normal citizens to get fucked. the judge dismissed the non-jews case by claiming they "didn't allege harm" despite clearly saying the lockdown measure†† violated his charter right to mobility.

†the court ruled that the religious service was allowed, the citizens wasn't, and used some cop-out "oh its a different thing because i said it was" mechanism to avoid justifying how jewish synagogs are safe but a private gathering of equal size is not.

††canadian health minister admitted the lockdown had zero medical justification

@icedquinn @hamjb @freemo The fact there's a divide between "normal people" and "jews" makes it wrong all together in the first place..

What the fuck is wrong with hoomanity.. We are all the same, its not that hard really mortyderp

@stux

That doesnt make it the "default" that makes it the current state... the default is the state we start in with no external factors.. a single human in isolation..

@hamjb

@freemo @hamjb

That's a bonus haha! Trust me, police helps for sure! And even the pennalties.

for sure people don't wanna kill, I hope..! Else they belong or in jail or into a nuthouse 😇

@freemo @hamjb
Let me put it another way 😇
I have my licence for about 9 years now I think but i still am very uncomfortable driving a car.. I can drive thats not the issue but I constantly keep reminding myself of things that can go wrong with this heavy machine that goes over 120/130KM/H and that's me! If something goes wrong I have almost zero control over the situation, how does this go with more 'fragile' people who also take on the road.. If I get myself killed it's "okay" but others? no

@freemo @hamjb I would no one dare to get into that with zero experiece what so ever.. And a licence is not a garantee, aboslutely not but a real good demo/tutorial for what's about to come

Still my order on the road:
1. Pedestrians
2. Cyclists
3. Motorciclist
4. Public transit
5. Cars

@freemo @hamjb

Off-topic; "Helping others for me also helps my own situation with distraction 😉" For example, I'm still till my shoulders in debt but my Masto bill goes before everything else since it brings so much joy and distraction from the crappy stuff in life! Worth it!

@stux @icedquinn @hamjb @freemo

I think, this part of the problem comrs in this case from the jews themselfes…

The “slbstverständnis” of the jews is, to be and STAY not to be part of the rest of zhe people in the country, where they live… they call themself “Juden IN Deutschland” to separate themself from the germans.

For me, we all are only humans, and religion and ideologie is only to divide people… obviously most people love to be devided (AND all the others are not that good as WE are), to feel a little better… on the jewish part of this game, the rules seem to be the same. Jews hae to marry jews. A jew is only a jew, if the mother is a jew… others can maximal convert religion.. but you can never become a original jew… its the same stupid game…

@stux @freemo @hamjb @icedquinn please understand me correct!

it is the same stupid game as christians play, and muslims, and all of the nationalists all over the world. and the communists, and the kapitalists...

divide people in "we" and "the other". and it's really difficult to see on the problem, if jews are involved, to not get stamped as "antisemitic"... i don't like nationalists, i don't like religion, i don't like religious like ideologics... and i don't like rassists.

under this circumstance, jews play a very rassistic game for themselve, because they see themselve as a very old tribe, different from all others... and choosen from god as his own tribe. this is in *my* world not even better as the german nazis thought... if i look back in history... just read the holy bible... the *old* jews, the hebraic people, did also gennocids... much smaller then the nazis did with the jews... and this gennocids are in the holy books for jews AND christians... holy crap!!!

yes. the holocaust was one of the awfullst stories in menhood... but it was not the only one. people are stupid and like to kill others who are only "other"....

i don't understand all this :-(
replies
1
announces
0
likes
0

@jakob @freemo @hamjb @stux going deep in to the religion thing really wasn't my point. the inconsistency was, as was highlighting attempts to lawfully protest lockdowns by ex. seeking injunctive relief.