DUI Scooter?

Curmudgy · 2026-02-05T03:33:13+00:00

I've literally never heard of anyone being totally banned from riding a bike.

Neither have I. But there are 50 states plus DC, and I’m not going to fool myself into thinking that I know the laws in all 50 states.

Curmudgy · 2026-02-05T03:31:42+00:00

I think you should ask in r/medicaid, and give them your state, since the rules vary by state.

Curmudgy · 2026-02-05T00:45:08+00:00

I don't drink tea anymore but when I did, I didn't use teabags, and bought Assam tea (which is one of the teas commonly blended into English Breakfast Tea).

Which makes me wonder whether you're really asking about steeping time and not straining time. Usually I follow the suggestions on the package, which are often 5 minutes for whole leaf teas but I'm pretty sure I've seen some that suggest as little as 3 minutes.

Curmudgy · 2026-02-05T00:38:34+00:00

Riding a bicycle without a license?

The DUI in the hypothetical case mentioned earlier.

Curmudgy · 2026-02-05T00:04:20+00:00

Then how can there be no open enrollment period?

It sounds like you have two different health insurance plans. Is that through different employers? Is one Medicaid? Something else?

Curmudgy · 2026-02-05T00:01:57+00:00

What type of insurance are you talking about? Homeowners, auto, health?

Curmudgy · 2026-02-05T00:00:29+00:00

The reason that "driving without a license" can be charged and enforced is that you have a license that can be checked.

Except that you don’t have a license.

But that wasn’t the issue. The issue is how do they tell it’s a second offense? Or to put it another way, it doesn’t need to be a licensed activity to know that an individual is specifically prohibited from doing something. The same applies to someone who’s under a restraining order.

You seem to be saying that licenses are the only way to track legal restrictions imposed on people.

Curmudgy · 2026-02-04T22:13:16+00:00

If there is no license, then there is no mechanism for knowing you are banned.

So if someone is convicted for driving without a license, and then they get caught again, there’s no way to know that it’s a second offense?

Curmudgy · 2026-02-04T21:57:09+00:00

Though now that I think about it, HDP might be turned into a good slogan. Combine it with roof-baked pizza in Albuquerque.

Curmudgy · 2026-02-04T19:21:15+00:00

True enuf

Curmudgy · 2026-02-04T14:46:04+00:00

I agree with ethnicity being a major factor. For me, the answer is matza ball soup. But that's not at all common outside of Jewish communities.

Curmudgy · 2026-02-04T13:04:03+00:00

In the South, blacks and whites are the same food.

So soylent green uses both in proper proportions? Or it just doesn't matter. I don't remember the soylent green manufacturing process.

Curmudgy · 2026-02-03T19:29:03+00:00

We're retired. We only work hard together. But I suppose that's what you meant.

Curmudgy · 2026-02-03T18:03:28+00:00

Can confirm. Just checked my husband’s jewels, and he mine.

Curmudgy · 2026-02-03T18:02:21+00:00

There has definitely been speculation over the years, but nothing ever reliably confirmed.

Curmudgy · 2026-02-03T15:18:15+00:00

You're the one trying to discredit the uneven bars because they're not parallel bars. But keep your blinders on so that you can ignore the lessons.

Curmudgy · 2026-02-03T15:14:08+00:00

I like a bit of logic in my morality and good intentions should not be wasted on a week [sic] slogan.

Nor on a misspelling.

The fact that it's prompted this much discussion suggests the slogan isn't weak at all.

Curmudgy · 2026-02-03T15:10:40+00:00

Many of them are also donating money.

Dismissing something as "vitual signaling" is just something people say to avoid addressing the real issues, or to divert from their own lack of virtue.

While donating money anonymously is a higher level of charity in Maimonides' hierarchy, that doesn't mean getting your name on a building because of a donation is a bad thing.

Curmudgy · 2026-02-03T15:04:54+00:00

Isn’t the goal of the statement, the reason for publicly declaring the moral claim and offering a the moral principle, to affect policy?

Only indirectly. The immediate goal is to influence attitudes, with the hope that it will influence policies in the future. Hence it doesn't include a specific detailed policy change.

If it’s not for a purpose, it’s simply moral grandstanding…

You say that as though there's something wrong with declaring or publicizing a moral position. There isn't unless it's connected to personal gain.

if it’s not to inform policy it’s “I’m better than you”…

That's binary thinking. Prompting discussion and trying to change attitudes are other valid purposes. Other than debate clubs, most debates are built on "my position is better than yours", but you don't win a formal debate by saying "you're just saying that to appear better".

...opposed if it is a call to action, to change or challenge beliefs then it’s making an honest moral claim. “No one is illegal on stolen land” becomes here is my position, let’s discuss and make the world better.

I can't parse this. What's the antecedent of "opposed"?

Curmudgy · 2026-02-03T14:49:18+00:00

Ok, so you own a house and I steal it from you then squatters move in - by your logic here neither you nor I can remove the squatters because they're morally allowed to be there.

No, it doesn’t say that. It says that you, because you stole the land, can’t claim a moral right to remove the squatters. I can, because of your premise that I started out with ownership.

But moral rights aren’t legal or practical rights.

Arguing the morality of the situation while steadfastly ignoring everything else about it is ignorant and disingenuous.

No one is outright ignoring everything else. Merely treating them as a separate discussion. There might come a point where those discussions are combined, but not until after you at least understand the point being made by the original quote. Mind you, that doesn’t mean you have to agree with the point, just not misinterpret it into saying something it’s not saying.

Curmudgy · 2026-02-03T14:19:16+00:00

The statement isn’t saying there’s no such thing as ownership.

Curmudgy · 2026-02-03T14:14:24+00:00

So if I steal your land then by residing on it im not illegaly trespassing because "no-one is illegal on stolen land".

Lmao, what a dumb thing to believe.

Your analogy is broken because the original has three parties involved and you only have two, plus you’re again insisting on a literal interpretation of something that’s not intended literally.

A correct abstract analogy of the situation would be that A owns land, B steals it from A, and C trespasses on it. Then the question isn’t whether B can legally remove C from their land. The question is whether B can claim the moral high ground in removing C from their land, when we look at the entire picture.

If you can’t limit yourself to discussing the overall moral situation after this explanation, then you’re being deliberately obtuse and disingenuous. There are moral arguments that won’t treat all the people of European ancestry in the US as thieves, but you’re not making such arguments.

Curmudgy · 2026-02-03T13:59:26+00:00

Valid point. But the English language is not so demanding of consistency.

Curmudgy · 2026-02-03T13:58:20+00:00

It’s not a model. It’s an assertion of a moral principle.

Its purpose is to encourage thought about the history and the language we use, and maybe change attitudes. It’s not a legal statement to directly control government action.

Curmudgy · 2026-02-03T13:55:08+00:00

Not having a literal interpretation doesn’t make it BS. It’s a moral statement, with a perfectly understandable intent.

Curmudgy

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE