"Why can't you just admit when you are wrong?"
You have not convinced me that I am.
"Now- I told you that speeding laws apply to all. To use your term, blanket all. (Just as God's laws are blankets over all.)"
The problem here is that you are trying to jump from the universal applicability of a law to universal applicability of a verdict. To use your analogy: I agree that laws against speeding apply to everybody. I do not believe that everybody is guilty of breaking them. I will reject any blanket verdict of "guilty." A law is universal in its application. My personal guilt or innocence is still dependent on my personal actions.
"I doubt that I could ever find another human being who would tell me that they are exempt from them, unless they are severely mentally impaired."
And I don't see where you get the idea that I think myself exempt from laws. I said that to find me guilty of violating them you need evidence of me personally actually doing so.
"Speeding is a blanket law, it applies to all. Say it PBS. Just humble yourself and say it and I might have some respect for you."
It doesn't require any humility. I already agree that the speeding laws apply to all.
"You talk as though speeding has to be proved, that is a lie."
So, you disagree with the concept of "innocent until proven guilty"?
"If the cops say you are speeding, you get a ticket."
Let me lay out the scenario for you. You are travelling down a city street at 32mph. The posted speed limit is 35mph (fairly standard.) A police officer pulls you over and says you were going 120mph (maybe he's trying to meet some sort of quota.) I don't know how I can make any plainer that the law is not in dispute. Now, certainly the police officer is writing a ticket; but you challenge it in court on the grounds that you were not, in fact speeding. Now, if I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that your actual innocence is completely immaterial and that there should be no actual recourse if a police officer erroneously or fraudulently writes a ticket.
"You said it is the job of the prosecutor to prove your guilt"
That is how the legal system is set up. I believe the exact terminology is "beyond a reasonable doubt."
"Then when that little side street led nowhere for you- you spoke as though the courts and judge hear a bunch of speeding ticket challengers, and proof has to be made by the cop. That's a lie."
I identified the court system as a recourse for the wrongly accused. I'm not sure whether you are misunderstanding me or deliberately misrepresenting me. I do not presume that people who really were speeding and deserved their ticket regularly challenge them in court. The avenue is a recourse for the innocent.
Tell you what, if you are deliberately misrepresenting me, say that you don't want to hear from me or something like that.
"Do your homework. 95% of people who get tickets NEVER challenge them on any level."
That's not in dispute. After all, I said the courts are there to provide recourse to the innocent. Those actually guilty may reasonably assume that the evidence will prove it.
Now, here's the point. I am not challenging the existence of a blanket law. I have asserted that I am not guilty. It is now your place, as my accuser, to provide evidence (not that the law is on the books, that is not being challenged here) but that I am actually in violation of that law. And if all you have is a 2000-year-old text that says "all have sinned," then you have failed to make your case.
The above is a response to the comment here. Now, she asks why I can't admit that I am wrong when she is acting like I was making claims that I didn't make. I don't know whether she was wrong or lying, although I am inclined to suspect the latter.