NationStates Jolt Archive

Could something as silly as this go on.

CHARLESTON (AP) — West Virginia is offering special driver’s licenses to people who oppose digitized photos because they believe this could be the beginning of the biblical “mark of the beast” prophecy.

http://www.herald-dispatch.com/homepage/x1839307778/Special-licenses-offered-to-those-who-fear-beast
Driving isn't a right. If people don't want to follow the policies that apply equally to everyone else, then let them walk.

I demand a special driver's licence made out of pasta, in accordance with my Pastafarian beliefs.

This is fine, on two conditions - a photo-less drivers license cannot be used as ID and if they are pulled over by police they have to attend the police station with full photographic ID, just the same as people caught driving without a driver's license at hand.

I demand a special driver's licence made out of pasta, in accordance with my Pastafarian beliefs.

Ramen! :)

Although what's there to prevent you from eating your license then?

Well, It probably wouldn't be boiled pasta, and the lack of sauce wouldn't make it that tasty. Plus, instead of a points system if you are caught speeding, they can just boil your license, add some sauce and eat a portion of it. Once its all gone, you get banned from driving.

Ramen! :)

Although what's there to prevent you from eating your license then?

What prevents you from eating it now?

So....


....


The Beast has Photoshop?

Well, in that case, they can't have a credit card, a bank account number, a social security number, a telephone number, an address..........

Yeah, hello?

Driving is a right. I don't know where this privilege thing comes from. (Probably school teachers, they like to say things like that).

And actually the 'license' really isn't the thing that you carry around either for that matter. Which is why until the instigation of global fascism, you didn't have to have it with you when you went for a drive.

Ramen! :)

Although what's there to prevent you from eating your license then?

Paperwork. An eternity of suffering in straight, yet disorganized lines that stretch from horizon to horizon when you try to replace it.

Driving is a right. I don't know where this privilege thing comes from. (Probably school teachers, they like to say things like that).

Absolutely. Driving on public roads is not.

Always count on West Virginia for a laugh...

I think you have confused rights and privileges.

dictionary.com

Sometimes, rights. that which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles, etc.: women's rights; Freedom of speech is a right of all Americans

priv·i·lege Audio Help (prĭv'ə-lĭj, prĭv'lĭj) Pronunciation Key
n.

A special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste. See Synonyms at right.
Such an advantage, immunity, or right held as a prerogative of status or rank, and exercised to the exclusion or detriment of others.

If driving were a RIGHT, then three year olds could do it. It is a privilege, and one that can be revoked if you are clearly unfit to do it (as in drunk and reckless drivers).

Besides which, it's the number of the beast, correct? which is still on a license. Not the picture of the beast.

Could something as silly as this go on.

http://www.herald-dispatch.com/homepage/x1839307778/Special-licenses-offered-to-those-who-fear-beast
Driving isn't a right. If people don't want to follow the policies that apply equally to everyone else, then let them walk.

Agreed.

You can't just keep pandering to stupidity.

Driving is a right. I don't know where this privilege thing comes from. (Probably school teachers, they like to say things like that).

Can you prove it?

Agreed.

You can't just keep pandering to stupidity.

But you have to! It's democracy after all :tongue:

I think you have confused rights and privileges.

dictionary.com

Sometimes, rights. that which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles, etc.: women's rights; Freedom of speech is a right of all Americans

priv·i·lege Audio Help (prĭv'ə-lĭj, prĭv'lĭj) Pronunciation Key
n.

A special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste. See Synonyms at right.
Such an advantage, immunity, or right held as a prerogative of status or rank, and exercised to the exclusion or detriment of others.

If driving were a RIGHT, then three year olds could do it. It is a privilege, and one that can be revoked if you are clearly unfit to do it (as in drunk and reckless drivers).

Besides which, it's the number of the beast, correct? which is still on a license. Not the picture of the beast.

No, mark of the beast. There's a bit in revelations where it says that everyone will have the mark of the beast on their head or hand, or something like that (can't be asked to look it up at the moment).

No, mark of the beast. There's a bit in revelations where it says that everyone will have the mark of the beast on their head or hand, or something like that (can't be asked to look it up at the moment).
Well since this is neither on the hand or the head, it's just a stupid-ass attempt to rort the system.

How many of these jerks d'ya think have tats?

I think you have confused rights and privileges.

dictionary.com

Sometimes, rights. that which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles, etc.: women's rights; Freedom of speech is a right of all Americans

priv·i·lege Audio Help (prĭv'ə-lĭj, prĭv'lĭj) Pronunciation Key
n.

A special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste. See Synonyms at right.
Such an advantage, immunity, or right held as a prerogative of status or rank, and exercised to the exclusion or detriment of others.

If driving were a RIGHT, then three year olds could do it. It is a privilege, and one that can be revoked if you are clearly unfit to do it (as in drunk and reckless drivers).

Besides which, it's the number of the beast, correct? which is still on a license. Not the picture of the beast.

I absolutely have not confused them. If you meet the qualifications the government must license you on application, and you have the right to the use of the public highways. There is no privilege aspect to it whatsoever, it's like marriage.

Naturally, the right can be limited in the interest of public safety or withdrawn after due process of law, but that doesn't mean that it is not a right.

But you have to! It's democracy after all :tongue:

You have to tolerate it, you don't have to satisfy it. :)

So children have the right to drive, because rights apply to anyone.

I absolutely have not confused them. If you meet the qualifications the government must license you on application, and you have the right to the use of the public highways. There is no privilege aspect to it whatsoever, it's like marriage.

Naturally, the right can be limited in the interest of public safety or withdrawn after due process of law, but that doesn't mean that it is not a right.

I wonder where you perceive the difference between 'rights' and 'privileges', then. Because you call it a 'right', but your justification seems to be what I would call 'privilege'.

So children have the right to drive, because rights apply to anyone.

So why does the UN have a separate convention on the rights of the child?

I wonder where you perceive the difference between 'rights' and 'privileges', then. Because you call it a 'right', but your justification seems to be what I would call 'privilege'.

If you meet the qualifications the government has to issue you a license and let you drive. If it doesn't you can get the courts to compel it to do so. Therefore it is a right. Like concealed carry in certain states, or marriage.

Nobody has a problem with the concept that there is a right to get married - or do they? - and it really isn't any different.

So children have the right to drive, because rights apply to anyone.

Do children have the right to get married? No. Do children have the right of public assembly? No. To children have complete freedom of travel? No? Do children have freedom of association? No.

Are the above privileges?

Just because it is a right, doesn't mean it can't be limited in the interest of public safety - as most rights are. Doesn't mean it is not a right.

In the list of US states, I take it that I should tick the boxes "pickup trucks" & "flannel shirts" beside Virginia.....?

Do children have the right to get married? No. Do children have the right of public assembly? No. To children have complete freedom of travel? No? Do children have freedom of association? No.

Are the above privileges?

Just because it is a right, doesn't mean it can't be limited in the interest of public safety - as most rights are. Doesn't mean it is not a right.

Can any of those rights be removed by the government if they are abused by an individual? Can you say the same about driving?

If you meet the qualifications the government has to issue you a license and let you drive. If it doesn't you can get the courts to compel it to do so. Therefore it is a right. Like concealed carry in certain states, or marriage.

Nobody has a problem with the concept that there is a right to get married - or do they? - and it really isn't any different.

I think ones 'right' to drive, could be encompassed under the 'right' to travel freely.

If you meet the qualifications the government has to issue you a license and let you drive. If it doesn't you can get the courts to compel it to do so. Therefore it is a right. Like concealed carry in certain states, or marriage.

Nobody has a problem with the concept that there is a right to get married - or do they? - and it really isn't any different.

I'm not sure I can have my marriage revoked because I have poor eyesight, or that I am only allowed to be married while sober. Just for instance...

Quoting a nice, sarcastic guy from the discussion in the link:

"I'm surprised they agree to have their pictures taken at all. That little box steals your soul, you know."

I don't see it as that big a deal. If some people would like an alternative, and we're in a position to provide it, why the hell not? I mean sure, the request in the first place seems silly to most of us, but who cares? If you just say, "No, your belief is dumb, and despite the fact that we could easily do so, we will not be responding to your request," that just makes you kind of a jerk.

And invariably, the responses will be in the "But what if they had [racist belief x]?" vein, but there is a difference. This particular belief, as silly as it seems, hurts no one, infringes upon no rights, and is completely inconsequential to anyone's life outside the people who choose to get the alternate license.

A final point: I know the person who said something about Virginia is from Ireland, so he/she is exempt from knowing US states, but it drives me nuts when other people insist/assume/claim that WEST Virginia is a part of Virginia. It is not. They are indeed separate states.

In the list of US states, I take it that I should tick the boxes "pickup trucks" & "flannel shirts" beside Virginia.....?

Virginia is not West Virginia. Please consult a map.

If you've ever been to either, you would know that there is also a significant, and noticeable cultural and linguistic difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachia

While there's a small part of Virginia in that region, it certainly isn't representative of the major parts of Virginia.

West Virginia, on the other hand, is well within Appalachia, and you can really tell when you cross into it.

Please refrain from spreading your profound ignorance about US states.

Virginia is not West Virginia. Please consult a map.

If you've ever been to either, you would know that there is also a significant, and noticeable cultural and linguistic difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachia

While there's a small part of Virginia in that region, it certainly isn't representative of the major parts of Virginia.

West Virginia, on the other hand, is well within Appalachia, and you can really tell when you cross into it.

Please refrain from spreading your profound ignorance about US states.

He/she is from Ireland.

A final point: I know the person who said something about Virginia is from Ireland, so he/she is exempt from knowing US states, but it drives me nuts when other people insist/assume/claim that WEST Virginia is a part of Virginia. It is not. They are indeed separate states.


And on that one, please our Americam brethern, learn to pronouce Thames, and Gloucester properly when you come over here sight seeing!:D

Ramen! :)

Although what's there to prevent you from eating your license then?
Nothing. That's the idea.
What prevents you from eating it now?
The taste.
So....


....


The Beast has Photoshop?
And he downloaded it illegally!
Quoting a nice, sarcastic guy from the discussion in the link:

"I'm surprised they agree to have their pictures taken at all. That little box steals your soul, you know."
Made me smile
Please refrain from spreading your profound ignorance about US states.

Please refrain from spreading your profound ignorance about the use of the question mark(?).
And on that one, please our Americam brethern, learn to pronouce Thames, and Gloucester properly when you come over here sight seeing!:D

Don't forget everyone's favourite, Worcestershire.

Could something as silly as this go on.

http://www.herald-dispatch.com/homepage/x1839307778/Special-licenses-offered-to-those-who-fear-beast
Driving isn't a right. If people don't want to follow the policies that apply equally to everyone else, then let them walk.

I'm chalking this right up there with the "Photography will steal your soul!" superstition. How absurd.

*Snickers*

*Snickers*

*marsbars*

*marsbars*

*Dies from corny joke*

I demand a special driver's licence made out of pasta, in accordance with my Pastafarian beliefs.

Make me one of chorizo and I'll be happy.

heh. We should stir them up and tell them that if they refuse to take the new drivers license then they won't be able to buy or sell things, and they will have to be beheaded. Their Left Behind instincts will kick in and they will go ape wild. It'd be funny to see.

This is fine, on two conditions - a photo-less drivers license cannot be used as ID and if they are pulled over by police they have to attend the police station with full photographic ID, just the same as people caught driving without a driver's license at hand.
I can see alot of muslims who want their pics taken while they wear a full face-concealing burkha moving to Virgina now.

If you meet the qualifications the government has to issue you a license and let you drive. If it doesn't you can get the courts to compel it to do so. can you show where this has happened in the past?

Snip This particular belief, as silly as it seems, hurts no one, infringes upon no rights, and is completely inconsequential to anyone's life outside the people who choose to get the alternate license.
Snip.
Except those paying to for these special license and the bureaucracy and procedure that surrounds getting one.

Not to mention the law enforcement and other business that require a photo ID to be reasonable assured of non fake ID's

There stupidity does have an impact

Virginia (...)tes.

Dear me, we're a bit tetchy.

I suppose because this takes the heat out of the old reliable of muslims and veils a bit......

Virginia is not West Virginia. Please consult a map.

If you've ever been to either, you would know that there is also a significant, and noticeable cultural and linguistic difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachia

While there's a small part of Virginia in that region, it certainly isn't representative of the major parts of Virginia.

West Virginia, on the other hand, is well within Appalachia, and you can really tell when you cross into it.

Please refrain from spreading your profound ignorance about US states.

Which one is where the banjo playing freaks come from?

Which one is where the banjo playing freaks come from?

The appalachian areas of Georgia.

Anywhere along and slightly west of the southern Blue Ridge Mountains is not a place to be seen in a small town dressed in a three piece suit driving a Ford Crown Victoria (these people have made illegal alcohol for decades, and will think you're a revenue agent).

Nor a place to hike in the woods unarmed.

http://www.wspa.com/spa/news/local/article/hiker_attempts_record_in_memory_of_pisgah_blood_mountain_slain/5897/

A Hendersonville woman is hiking through the Appalachain Trail as a way to honor slain hikers in Georgia and Pisgah National Forest and attempt to set a new women’s record for the fastest supported female through-hike of the Trail.

Jennifer Pharr Davis, 25, began her hike June 20 at Mt. Katahdin, Maine. She hoped to make it to New York by Monday.

As of Thursday, Davis had already completed nearly 700 miles of the AT, averaging 33 miles per day. Her plan was to hike a little more than 20 miles some days, and 45 to 50 miles on others.

Davis, who got married in June, is hiking the trail supported, which means her husband, Brew Davis, is providing support and supplies at road crossings.

She eats a snack about every hour, consisting of foods such as Clif and other energy bars, candies, cookies and more. The strenuous trip means she must consume about 4,000 calories per day.

Davis’ goal is to complete the trail in a total of 60 to 80 days, which would mean she would arrive at the end of the trail at Springer Mountain, Ga., in mid- to late August or early September.

The current AT women’s record — 87 days — is held by Jenny Jardine. Davis is hiking to honor murder victims Meredith Emerson, a 24-year-old Atlanta woman who was killed while hiking on Blood Mountain in Georgia, and a Horse Shoe couple, John and Irene Bryant, who were brutally murdered in November while hiking in Pisgah National Forest. Davis hopes her journey will assure others it’s safe to hike in the woods.

Never alone, and never unarmed. People are more of a threat than bears there.

If this goes through, when I turn 16, i'm going to WV, and claiming I'm a "Goldonlytarian". See what responses I get.:tongue:

Except those paying to for these special license and the bureaucracy and procedure that surrounds getting one.

Not to mention the law enforcement and other business that require a photo ID to be reasonable assured of non fake ID's

There stupidity does have an impact

I knew someone would say this. The cost, I'm sure, is negligible at best. There's not going to be a tax increase or a significant budget cut in another area. This is not a big deal, financially.

And as for the police, I'm sure there are other measures that can be taken. This is not a deal breaker and is, at best, an incredibly minor problem that needs solving.



And Junii, you're an American. You should know that West Virginia is a state, not part of Virginia. You see what happens when people post without reading the whole thread? :rolleyes:


(;))

I don't see it as that big a deal. If some people would like an alternative, and we're in a position to provide it, why the hell not? I mean sure, the request in the first place seems silly to most of us, but who cares? If you just say, "No, your belief is dumb, and despite the fact that we could easily do so, we will not be responding to your request," that just makes you kind of a jerk.

And invariably, the responses will be in the "But what if they had [racist belief x]?" vein, but there is a difference. This particular belief, as silly as it seems, hurts no one, infringes upon no rights, and is completely inconsequential to anyone's life outside the people who choose to get the alternate license.

A final point: I know the person who said something about Virginia is from Ireland, so he/she is exempt from knowing US states, but it drives me nuts when other people insist/assume/claim that WEST Virginia is a part of Virginia. It is not. They are indeed separate states.

Why provide two versions when one version is perfectly servicable? Indeed, creating two versions creates an unnecessary confusion, and has the potential to cause a lot more trouble than it's worth.

Anyone who is worried that the Devil is going to get them if they have a digitised picture on their license shouldn't be allowed a picture, at all - because they are clearly not suitable material for such a shot, being - obviously - a penis.

Why provide two versions when one version is perfectly servicable?

Because people asked for it, and we can easily provide it.

Indeed, creating two versions creates an unnecessary confusion, and has the potential to cause a lot more trouble than it's worth.

I'm sure desegregation was confusing to a lot of people, too. As was (is) Affirmative Action. That's certainly no reason not to do it. Besides, how much confusion do you really estimate that this will cause? Police officers will have to be told, "Hey, this is the new license. You might see it at some point. Here are the ways to tell it's fake." OH NOES.

Anyone who is worried that the Devil is going to get them if they have a digitised picture on their license shouldn't be allowed a picture, at all - because they are clearly not suitable material for such a shot, being - obviously - a penis.

Haha. Well played, sir.

Driving is a right. I don't know where this privilege thing comes from. (Probably school teachers, they like to say things like that).

(Because that's correct, your tortured attempt at semantic ping-pong notwithstanding.)

Absolutely. Driving on public roads is not.

Bingo. Drive on your pastureland or build your own roads if you wish to drive absent the privilege granted through licensure.

I think you have confused rights and privileges.

dictionary.com

Sometimes, rights. that which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles, etc.: women's rights; Freedom of speech is a right of all Americans

priv·i·lege Audio Help (prĭv'ə-lĭj, prĭv'lĭj) Pronunciation Key
n.

A special advantage, immunity, permission, right, or benefit granted to or enjoyed by an individual, class, or caste. See Synonyms at right.
Such an advantage, immunity, or right held as a prerogative of status or rank, and exercised to the exclusion or detriment of others.

If driving were a RIGHT, then three year olds could do it. It is a privilege, and one that can be revoked if you are clearly unfit to do it (as in drunk and reckless drivers).

Besides which, it's the number of the beast, correct? which is still on a license. Not the picture of the beast.

Sh! Don't confuse WV's religious nut-hatchery with the facts!

Virginia is not West Virginia. Please consult a map.

If you've ever been to either, you would know that there is also a significant, and noticeable cultural and linguistic difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachia

While there's a small part of Virginia in that region, it certainly isn't representative of the major parts of Virginia.

West Virginia, on the other hand, is well within Appalachia, and you can really tell when you cross into it.

Please refrain from spreading your profound ignorance about US states.

Please excuse Hotwife. He hasn't been the same since...well...ever...really.

Because people asked for it, and we can easily provide it.

And yet these same people are probably the loudest of the chorus of those who complain about "wasteful government spending". Keeping and maintaining a separate license-generation and tracking apparatus, while not B-2 bomber expensive, is an unnecessary cost in tight financial times.

I'm sure desegregation was confusing to a lot of people, too. As was (is) Affirmative Action. That's certainly no reason not to do it. Besides, how much confusion do you really estimate that this will cause? Police officers will have to be told, "Hey, this is the new license. You might see it at some point. Here are the ways to tell it's fake." OH NOES.

If you wish me to take you seriously after typing that sentence and submitting it, you're going to have to explain it. I was unable to attempt to digest anything after I read that. The problem is/was that "you can't kill or harass non-whites anymore" is/was confusing? Really?

Because people asked for it, and we can easily provide it.


I want to see Rose McGowan getting head from Salma Hayek. It could easily be provided.

By your logic, that's sufficient reason for it to happen. So where are my tapes?


I'm sure desegregation was confusing to a lot of people, too. As was (is) Affirmative Action. That's certainly no reason not to do it. Besides, how much confusion do you really estimate that this will cause? Police officers will have to be told, "Hey, this is the new license. You might see it at some point. Here are the ways to tell it's fake." OH NOES.


There are several problems.

It's retrogressive. In making a new, more secure technology - it is illogical to then ADD a legacy protocol. It's creating an unnecessary backdoor.

It's also a precedent. If one group can request special licenses 'because the Devil will get me', then you can have all kinds of other objections, too. All of a sudden, the document that was supposed to speed things up and make them easier, is a minefield.

The confusion element, also, shouldn't be underestimated. The cop that pulls you over is far from the only person who might want to see your picture ID.

And, perhaps most importantly, there is the roadblock effect. A photograph is a pretty simplistic piece of biometric data. A license is easily stolen, and fairly easily faked. Another biometric - like... a fingerprint... can be digitally added to your license. Only - now you've got these two (or more) different forms of licensing to deal with... and this group, here, doesn't want fingerprints on their ID because the devil will eat their souls...


Well played, sir.

:D

And yet these same people are probably the loudest of the chorus of those who complain about "wasteful government spending". Keeping and maintaining a separate license-generation and tracking apparatus, while not B-2 bomber expensive, is an unnecessary cost in tight financial times.

They may be those very people. That doesn't matter. People have asked for it; it's easily providable; thus, we provide it. As to the cost, perhaps it would be excessive. My presumption is that it would not be. Like I said, there won't be tax increases or significant cuts to another part of the budget, so I don't see the financial burden as being that strenuous.

If you wish me to take you seriously after typing that sentence and submitting it, you're going to have to explain it. I was unable to attempt to digest anything after I read that. The problem is/was that "you can't kill or harass non-whites anymore" is/was confusing? Really?

Racist: What? We've gotta desegregate schools?! But the system we have now is fine. Teachers don't have to worry about teaching to white kids and blacks; they just teach to one or the other. Putting them in the same classrooms is just going to cause confusion for teachers! Why not just leave things the way they are?

I want to see Rose McGowan getting head from Salma Hayek. It could easily be provided.

By your logic, that's sufficient reason for it to happen. So where are my tapes?

Rose McGowan and Salma Hayek have no responsibility to citizens. The government does. Nevertheless, I suppose the added condition should be "There is no good reason not to," but of course, this is what we're arguing anyway.

There are several problems.

It's retrogressive. In making a new, more secure technology - it is illogical to then ADD a legacy protocol. It's creating an unnecessary backdoor.

I'm not sure what you mean by "legacy protocol."

It's also a precedent. If one group can request special licenses 'because the Devil will get me', then you can have all kinds of other objections, too. All of a sudden, the document that was supposed to speed things up and make them easier, is a minefield.

Ah, the old 'slippery slope' argument. It doesn't work with gay marriage, and it doesn't work here. You only have to allow so much as to keep things relativley smooth. When you decide that there are too many licenses out there, don't make any more. The fact that there may be too many licenses later is no reason to not make a single one. At some point, you can reasonably stop.

The confusion element, also, shouldn't be underestimated. The cop that pulls you over is far from the only person who might want to see your picture ID.

So now we're worried about how confused bouncers at clubs get? It wouldn't require a ton of training for anyone to recognize that there is a new license and adapt. I'm not sure who you have in mind that would lead to such a hassle.

And, perhaps most importantly, there is the roadblock effect. A photograph is a pretty simplistic piece of biometric data. A license is easily stolen, and fairly easily faked. Another biometric - like... a fingerprint... can be digitally added to your license. Only - now you've got these two (or more) different forms of licensing to deal with... and this group, here, doesn't want fingerprints on their ID because the devil will eat their souls...

Well, worry about that when you come to it. For now, just say, "You can have a photo or a fingerprint." Perhaps later there will be another possible measure to use on IDs if the need arises. Like I said, if it gets too convoluted, then you can cut back. Right now, however, there's no good reason to not provide this as it will not cause significant problems by itself, so why not do it? Again, the slippery slope argument sucks and is not reason enough to not provide this tiny, simple service.

They may be those very people. That doesn't matter. People have asked for it; it's easily providable; thus, we provide it. As to the cost, perhaps it would be excessive. My presumption is that it would not be. Like I said, there won't be tax increases or significant cuts to another part of the budget, so I don't see the financial burden as being that strenuous.

You don't see many licensing budgets then. As someone who worked only in the licensing of vehicles (not drivers) for three years, I know that changes cost money in and of themselves, and that operating two separate systems (as had been the case for mobile homes (nka "manufactured homes", whatever that means) is a waste of taxpayer money. Given the time and level of security increases for driver licensing over vehicle licensing, what you "see" about the financial burden doesn't wash.

People ask for a lot of things. That doesn't mean they should automatically be provided. I'm not sure where you got that idea, but it seems to me any alteration of state law, or in this case, the state code that governs things like licensing of all kinds, requires legislation, not a request from people too stupid to realize that superstitions have no place in modern society.

Racist: What? We've gotta desegregate schools?! But the system we have now is fine. Teachers don't have to worry about teaching to white kids and blacks; they just teach to one or the other. Putting them in the same classrooms is just going to cause confusion for teachers! Why not just leave things the way they are?

So your point is that the racists found it confusing? So what? Seems to me you take them at their word and teach them the same way you've taught before. There's a whole mess of "don't get me started" when it comes to how we educators are forced to bend in ever more impossible directions in the name of multicultural sensitivity.

You're gonna have to do better than "confused because they didn't like darkies".

I'm not sure what you mean by "legacy protocol."


In this case, I am referencing security protocols. A 'legacy' protocol would be 'the old way of doing it', effectively. Why update your system, and make it more secure - and then knock a big fucking hole through it, right where the weak spot used to be?


Ah, the old 'slippery slope' argument. It doesn't work with gay marriage, and it doesn't work here. You only have to allow so much as to keep things relativley smooth. When you decide that there are too many licenses out there, don't make any more. The fact that there may be too many licenses later is no reason to not make a single one. At some point, you can reasonably stop.


Not a slippery slope - I mean a legal precedent. That's how law works.


So now we're worried about how confused bouncers at clubs get? It wouldn't require a ton of training for anyone to recognize that there is a new license and adapt. I'm not sure who you have in mind that would lead to such a hassle.


It doesn't take a ton of training. But how many places MIGHT use driving licenses as their recognised form of photo ID? When I worked in a video store, we used Driver's Licenses as one of the required ID's to set up an account. If the account holder lost their card... guess what we used as ID to check their account, request a new card... process transactions. And that's just a random job I've had...

Sure - it's only a little bit of training... but, maybe 100 million times.


Well, worry about that when you come to it. For now, just say, "You can have a photo or a fingerprint." Perhaps later there will be another possible measure to use on IDs if the need arises. Like I said, if it gets too convoluted, then you can cut back. Right now, however, there's no good reason to not provide this as it will not cause significant problems by itself, so why not do it? Again, the slippery slope argument sucks and is not reason enough to not provide this tiny, simple service.

There's no good reason TO provide an alternative.

If the logic is 'no good reason', well - there's no good reason to NOT just ignore the crazy people.

I'm not sure what you mean by "legacy protocol."

Protocol = procedure, formal way of doing things. Legacy = something from the past. In this context, "legacy protocol" means there's no point in switching to a more efficient format if you're then going to have to add an old format in order to please the fringe.

Ah, the old 'slippery slope' argument. It doesn't work with gay marriage, and it doesn't work here. You only have to allow so much as to keep things relativley smooth. When you decide that there are too many licenses out there, don't make any more. The fact that there may be too many licenses later is no reason to not make a single one. At some point, you can reasonably stop.

Okay. More than one is too many.

And you seriously compared drivers' licensing to marriage licensing? Really?

So now we're worried about how confused bouncers at clubs get? It wouldn't require a ton of training for anyone to recognize that there is a new license and adapt. I'm not sure who you have in mind that would lead to such a hassle.

Less a matter of hassle and more a matter of efficiency and not having to take extra time to figure out which license is which and maintain vigilance for fakes, too. The new and old licenses were/are faked in different ways.

Right now, however, there's no good reason to not provide this as it will not cause significant problems by itself, so why not do it? Again, the slippery slope argument sucks and is not reason enough to not provide this tiny, simple service.

So you keep saying, but I see no justification and you've offered nothing as defense for such an accommodation.

EDIT: got on a roll and kept replying. Sorry, G_n_i.

Protocol = procedure, formal way of doing things. Legacy = something from the past. In this context, "legacy protocol" means there's no point in switching to a more efficient format if you're then going to have to add an old format in order to please the fringe.


This ^^


Okay. More than one is too many.


This ^^


Less a matter of hassle and more a matter of efficiency and not having to take extra time to figure out which license is which and maintain vigilance for fakes, too. The new and old licenses were/are faked in different ways.


This ^^


So you keep saying, but I see no justification and you've offered nothing as defense for such an accommodation.


This ^^


EDIT: got on a roll and kept replying. Sorry, G_n_i.

No need for apology. You added to my post, and still managed to make the same points and more, in less words. Dammit.

:D

You don't see many licensing budgets then. As someone who worked only in the licensing of vehicles (not drivers) for three years, I know that changes cost money in and of themselves, and that operating two separate systems (as had been the case for mobile homes (nka "manufactured homes", whatever that means) is a waste of taxpayer money. Given the time and level of security increases for driver licensing over vehicle licensing, what you "see" about the financial burden doesn't wash.

Hm. I may ultimately agree with you then. You seem to be much more knowledgeable on this issue then myself, so I defer to you. My assertion that it should be done (which was never my stance IRL; I was firmly undecided :wink:) was based on the supposition that it would be relatively cheap and simple to introduce. If this is not the case, then I probably do not support it.

People ask for a lot of things. That doesn't mean they should automatically be provided. I'm not sure where you got that idea, but it seems to me any alteration of state law, or in this case, the state code that governs things like licensing of all kinds, requires legislation, not a request from people too stupid to realize that superstitions have no place in modern society.

Certainly people aren't entitled to everything, but if people ask for a change that is relatively simple and harmless, then saying no just kind of makes you a dick. It's like if a friend needs to be picked up from the airport and you refuse, despite the fact that you are doing nothing but sitting on the couch with no pants on at the moment.

So your point is that the racists found it confusing? So what? Seems to me you take them at their word and teach them the same way you've taught before. There's a whole mess of "don't get me started" when it comes to how we educators are forced to bend in ever more impossible directions in the name of multicultural sensitivity.

You're gonna have to do better than "confused because they didn't like darkies".

No, I don't think I do have to do better. My claim is simply that calling something confusing is no reason to reject it. In the desegregation case, people who opposed desegregation used the confusion argument as justification for opposition (or if they didn't, they could have). That was not valid. Similarly, there is a claim in this case by opponents of the licenses that it is confusing and should thus be rejected. It is still not valid.

No need for apology. You added to my post, and still managed to make the same points and more, in less words. Dammit.

:D

I find that I'm kind of the Japan auto industry of writing. I'm not very good and invention, but re-casting already invented ideas into fuel-efficient models to which the kids like to add thousands of dollars of useless bling and race on the streets is...kinda...my... ...wait....

Hm. I may ultimately agree with you then. You seem to be much more knowledgeable on this issue then myself, so I defer to you. My assertion that it should be done (which was never my stance IRL; I was firmly undecided :wink:) was based on the supposition that it would be relatively cheap and simple to introduce. If this is not the case, then I probably do not support it.

I'm just going from experience, but thanks.

Certainly people aren't entitled to everything, but if people ask for a change that is relatively simple and harmless, then saying no just kind of makes you a dick. It's like if a friend needs to be picked up from the airport and you refuse, despite the fact that you are doing nothing but sitting on the couch with no pants on at the moment.

Your example is dramatically different than creating a dual aspect to any part of an already-sluggish bureaucracy. I understand what you're saying, and I'd agree if the analogy applied.

No, I don't think I do have to do better. My claim is simply that calling something confusing is no reason to reject it.

Huh? You've been arguing that racist used the confusion argument to resist desegregation. I'm not sure what you mean by this opening sentence. "Confusion" was being used precisely TO reject desegregation. If it's no reason to reject something, don't you refute your own example? Or am I having reading problems today?

In the desegregation case, people who opposed desegregation used the confusion argument as justification for opposition (or if they didn't, they could have). That was not valid. Similarly, there is a claim in this case by opponents of the licenses that it is confusing and should thus be rejected. It is still not valid.

It seems you're not sure about your analogy. Since you brought it up, I'll let you figure out what you mean and whether or not it's even historically accurate. Regardless, you should make sure before taking up verbal arms with it.

I've never claimed it would be confusing -- any bouncer can be given a book to reference if he doesn't know a license on sight. I had a roommate in college who was a bouncer and he had a book detailing the security features of every possible US-issued ID and the major foreign ones (those crafty exchange students, y'know) right behind his access-restricting little desk at the front door.

The point is, it's one more thing to add to the burden of security professionals and licensing divisions multiplied by 50 states and some territories along with any number of businesses and institutions who use licenses as proof of identification. Up until 2009, that even include(s/d) border guards and customs agents at the US-Canada border.

The less bullshit a guard has to deal with, the better security will be. If a critical mass of WV citizens wanted this provision, I'm sure it would be written into code or accommodated in some other way. This is a fringe group and in no way does compliance place an undue burden on those people. That burden is their own, and it's not the state's job to bend for every whim religion demands.

I'm just going from experience, but thanks.

*thumbs up*

Your example is dramatically different than creating a dual aspect to any part of an already-sluggish bureaucracy. I understand what you're saying, and I'd agree if the analogy applied.

Huh? You've been arguing that racist used the confusion argument to resist desegregation. I'm not sure what you mean by this opening sentence. "Confusion" was being used precisely TO reject desegregation. If it's no reason to reject something, don't you refute your own example? Or am I having reading problems today?

It seems you're not sure about your analogy. Since you brought it up, I'll let you figure out what you mean and whether or not it's even historically accurate. Regardless, you should make sure before taking up verbal arms with it.

I think you're stretching my analogy farther than it was intended to go. Here is my point:

Some poeple were claiming that "It's confusing" is a valid reason to reject an idea. I was objecting to that claim. The desegragation example was to illustrate a case where saying "It's confusing" was not enough justification to reject an idea.

So here's how it was supposed to play out:

Person 1: These new licenses shouldn't be created because it would be confusing to a lot of people.
Me: Desegregation was confusing to a lot of people, but that was no reason to reject it.
Person 1: Oh, I see. You're absolutely right and an amazing lover.

Hope that clears it up.

I think you're stretching my analogy farther than it was intended to go. Here is my point:

Some poeple were claiming that "It's confusing" is a valid reason to reject an idea. I was objecting to that claim. The desegragation example was to illustrate a case where saying "It's confusing" was not enough justification to reject an idea.

So here's how it was supposed to play out:

Person 1: These new licenses shouldn't be created because it would be confusing to a lot of people.
Me: Desegregation was confusing to a lot of people, but that was no reason to reject it.
Person 1: Oh, I see. You're absolutely right and an amazing lover.

Hope that clears it up.

My problem stems from using such an extremely inappropriate analogy. Not in the sense of it's subject, but of it's applicability to something as benign of conflict as bureaucracy versus the quite heavily conflict-laden civil rights movement.

Also, "confusing to a lot of people" is mis-stating the opposition.

And I'm sure you're a remarkable lover, but amazing? You'll have to prove that one, baby.

And I'm sure you're a remarkable lover, but amazing? You'll have to prove that one, baby.

Well, "That's it?" would be a remark... and "I can't believe you're serious" would be amazement...

Funny, youd think we'd beat em to that kind of Logic, lol...

The appalachian areas of Georgia.

Anywhere along and slightly west of the southern Blue Ridge Mountains is not a place to be seen in a small town dressed in a three piece suit driving a Ford Crown Victoria (these people have made illegal alcohol for decades, and will think you're a revenue agent).

Nor a place to hike in the woods unarmed.

http://www.wspa.com/spa/news/local/article/hiker_attempts_record_in_memory_of_pisgah_blood_mountain_slain/5897/



Never alone, and never unarmed. People are more of a threat than bears there.
I was going to discourage this kind of nonsense, but I reconsidered. If city folks are afraid of North Georgia, then it might not turn into the sewer that is Atlanta. Keep it up and remember what inbred wackos we are up in these here parts...

And on that one, please our Americam brethern, learn to pronouce Thames, and Gloucester properly when you come over here sight seeing!:D
Tems and Gloster.

Silly Brits, always having a zillion letters you don't pronounce....
At least you're not as bad as the Welsh.

I can see alot of muslims who want their pics taken while they wear a full face-concealing burkha moving to Virgina now.

West Virginia, but yes. Starting with Sultaana Freeman. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sultaana_Freeman

Brunswick seemed pretty nice on my way to Orlando.

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/1382/facepalm2ly3.jpg

I wonder just how strong the protection is.

Imagining it from the FBI point of view, I'd just scan their analog pic ... and NOT TELL THEM.

"Oh I'm a fundy" is easy to say. Anyone who demands not to have their digitized picture on a government database should attract IMMEDIATE SUSPICION.

I read a story on another forum about religious officials in West Virginia churches telling their congregations that Obama was the Anti-Christ. This idiocy is nothing new.

And to think this is a state that came into being because it refused to leave the Union to join a pack of slave holding traitors. To have fallen so low...:(

West Virginia is a province in Afghanistan?

West Virginia is a province in Afghanistan?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v260/Katganistan/trollbridge-katdancer.jpg

I read a story on another forum about religious officials in West Virginia churches telling their congregations that Obama was the Anti-Christ. This idiocy is nothing new.

And to think this is a state that came into being because it refused to leave the Union to join a pack of slave holding traitors. To have fallen so low...:(

Poor state = poor education = this kinda stupidity



Sad to say, I am from WV.

Poor state = poor education = this kinda stupidity



Sad to say, I am from WV.

Hey, me too! What part?