Skip to comments.New York Lawmaker Moves to Ban Use of Distracting Gadgets While Walking
Posted on 01/25/2011 3:29:33 PM PST by Baladas
click here to read article
Wow! Let me guess. 24 D cells?
His constituents should call and tell him how they feel about this just like people in NJ called and told an assemblywomen what they thought of her bike licensing bill last week. She announced it in the morning and by evening, it was withdrawn.
I agree, Darwin the Darwinists.
Mine required 12 D Cells and that one is twice as big.
Chewing Gum, Cigarettes, Cigars, Soft Drinks, Left or Right Arms (if engaged in Scratching) and if we are going to include our Elected Officials “Breathing” might be too much for them to handle.
Probably why he has reserved the “Growing Hair on His Head” Brain Cell for other activities.
for the nanny state ping list
I always thought a bus would get him but the way he finally got it was horrific, it made the news. The driver of the streetsweeper did not even know what happened and momentarily stopped at the corner with all the blood trailed behind. A passerby notified him about it. The family got a large settlement from the city.
We had a 20 something young lady last fall who was walking at night, in the rain, wearing her I-Pod headphones with a hoodie pulled over her head, and strolled right around the activated warning gates, lights and bells and into the path of an oncoming light rail train.
There is nothing you can do for someone like that.
Well, yeah; and entirely apart from any criticism of Darwin.
My focus is on this question: must we not all face the consequences of our worldview at some point? If the answer is "no," then why all the conflict between worldviews? If there are no consequences to bear, then why care who thinks what? But if we care enough about who thinks what to debate about it, and we care enough about what truths really are accurately descriptive of reality to continue arguing over them, then we implicitly assert that the consequences of the truths we embrace not only exist, but cannot be avoided. And, manifestly, we DO care, and so the answer is NOT "no," but "yes"; we MUST face the consequences of what we believe.
Beyond that, though, there is a level at which we are forced to face the consequences of things we DON'T believe.
It's a ludicrous example, but indulge me:
Gravity IS. Without regard to whether you believe it, or what truths you embrace, gravity IS, and if you decide that it ISN'T, and that you are, therefore, exempt from it, and you further decide to act in concert with your dearly-held belief in the non-existence of gravity, depending upon where you choose to demonstrate your faith in your worldview, you will have a distance exactly equal to 1/2 X at^2 over which to repent.
Can we just get over ourselves long enough to confess that SOMETIMES the old, white, European men — guys like Sir Isaac Newton, for example — were, and still are, RIGHT?
So, Natural Selection? Yeah, fine, survival of the fittest? Yeah, it's a demonstrable fact in nature, and arguably the singular mechanism by which all of nature has come to this present state. Yet, these marble-heads want to turn around and try to mitigate its operation legislatively?
"Oh, yes, natural selection is an inexorable force in nature, so we're going to enact this law so people can escape its consequences."
If that not an expression of deep psychopathy, then the very existence of psychopathy is in question.
Hoods can be dangerous, too. They act like blinders making it difficult to see on either side of you. Some designs are much worse than others.
Just ignore the stupid laws. If you are caught, pay the fine.
Than go back and do it again for 2 years till you get caught.
Every other person I see in their car is on their cellphone.