So you're saying that just because you don't agree with it and that it's often ignored means it's not important and that it's not a crime?
It's nothing to do with where I stand, it is where everybody else stands. The fact this very debate exists over such an esoteric point, with people supporting both your viewpoint as well as mine, demonstrates that your viewpoint that the term 'law-abiding' is only valid in absolute terms is not correct. People do not use it to mean as you seem to want it to mean. In this case the language is defined by the usage. Again, this is nothing to do with my opinion of speeding, but the fact that such differences of opinion and interpretation exist.
Don't get me wrong, I've got no malice towards the OP, nor do I think he's a child killer, but that's not my point, I was just picking on something that is factually incorrect.
On what basis is it factually incorrect? The basis of your definition? A quick Google can reveal definitions of the phrase that include absolute as well as 'reasonable' adherence to the law. It is not an incomprehensible stray from reality for 'law-abiding' to not mean absolutely so, especially when absolute adherence to the law is not a very practical concept. For you to make a big song and dance over something with such little importance and enormous vagary waving flawed technicalities around just seems bizarre.
Well, if you're going to blur the lines, how often do you need to break the law to be not 'law abiding' or what offences don't count towards evicting your from the camp of 'law abiding citizens'?
I've no idea, but I'm quite sure that once doing 39 in a 30 is quite acceptable. He's not exactly miscreant extraordinaire.
Well, that also depends on interpretation. If your murder someone but don't get caught, are you still 'law abiding'?
Is it open to interpretation? You are trying to claim/imply that to be 'law abiding' you must be completely 100% white, yet simultaneously suggest that it's possible to 'interpret' someone as a criminal despite them not being convincted. Presumption of innocence conflicts with that interpretation and I feel highlights the fallacious nature of considering someone 'law abiding' absolutely based on their conviction count irrespective of the circumstances or detail. You can retrospectively consider someone a criminal if they are subsequently proven guilty, but until that occurs they are 'law abiding' under the legal definition that you began imposing. That is, of course, unless you have your own more reasonable definition, like I and many others do, and in fact it is your definition that is at conflict here, not some some form of higher powers?
Well it's not my definition, but if you have broken the law, then you're not law abiding. Whether this can be proven or whether you are convicted is irrelevant. IMO, people calling themselves 'law abiding' is completely meaningless.
If it's not your definition, then please point me to some legal or official definition of 'law abiding' that doesn't include those that haven't been convicted of any crimes they may or may not have committed.
) it still gets ~48MPG! I guess it's been designed for the German autobahns.
