He’s right, though. Isn’t he?
All you saw was “states’ rights,” and your immediate reaction was, “He supports slavery,” even though his comment had nothing to do with slavery. States’ rights are a legitimate constitutional concept. They exist independently of racism.
You were so locked into your presuppositions that the only response you could imagine was satire.
You advocate for federal authority when it suits you, and then invoke states’ rights when that is more convenient.
The bandwagon effect is strong here. They condemn Trump for "rigging" elections, yet they're perfectly comfortable downvoting anything that doesn't fit their paradigm regardless of how correct it is. That undermines the intended purpose of upvoting and downvoting.
School zones don’t have to exist. Roads near schools could simply have permanent reduced speed limits instead of time-restricted ones. The issue is that children are more likely to be struck by vehicles where they congregate most, namely in school zones and residential areas.
Because of that, this is the one area of traffic law I fully support.
That does not mean I oppose other traffic rules. I do not have to personally endorse traffic lights, stop signs, or road signs in order to follow them.
I’m not sure where the idea of anarchy comes from. I am explicitly agreeing to follow the rules established by the government.
My point is that I don’t need the government to tell me to stop at a red light. It is obviously in my own best interest to do so.
By contrast, there is no inherent self-interest in slowing down in a school zone. That is precisely why specific laws exist to mandate it.
I do not need a law or rule to tell me to stop my car at a red light or to drive at a safe speed on the freeway. I do that because I want to be safe on the road.
School zones are special traffic rules that exist only during certain times. They are enforced strictly by law and are not primarily for the safety of the motorist. They exist solely for the safety of pedestrian children within the school zone.
I did, however, notice the glibness of your comment. I apologize that this runs contrary to your original statement, which is ultimately incorrect, but it is what it is.
You ascend to the pearly gates. Saint Peter stands there, or the Islamic equivalent, whatever, holding a book with your record. He flips through it.
“Let’s see. Beat his wife and kids, no problem. Stole massive amounts of money, okay. Generally racist, shouldn’t be an issue. Killed a man in cold blood. It was a Jew, so no great loss. Wait. You used pork paintballs? Are you fucking kidding me?”
A hole opens beneath you. You fall straight to hell.
He’s right, though. Isn’t he? All you saw was “states’ rights,” and your immediate reaction was, “He supports slavery,” even though his comment had nothing to do with slavery. States’ rights are a legitimate constitutional concept. They exist independently of racism.
You were so locked into your presuppositions that the only response you could imagine was satire.
You advocate for federal authority when it suits you, and then invoke states’ rights when that is more convenient.
The logical fallacies just keep stacking higher.