(The worst, of course, being those parents who didn't want their kids being told to "stay in school")
I thought each State was more or less independent from Washington, not as much as EU countries, but not that far off either.
That guy is a disgrace and is making the US the lauging stock of the world.
Oh, and how nice of him to go on vacation and skip out on the traditional Memorial ceremony at Arlington...
Whay a great guy!
How's he not letting Arizona protect its own borders? Their new legislation may have some effect, but not much, from what I can tell. At any rate, it wouldn't stop the cartels.
Hey, here's an idea... let's protect our border and then go after the cartels?
But wait, that makes sense, so it is unlikely to happen.
Oh, Barry's admin has said that the INS won't accept illegals from Arizona...
Isn't that nice?!
I swear, some people need to be vigorously shaken...
How's he not letting Arizona protect its own borders? Their new legislation may have some effect, but not much, from what I can tell. At any rate, it wouldn't stop the cartels.
Hey, here's an idea... let's protect our border and then go after the cartels?
But wait, that makes sense, so it is unlikely to happen.
Oh, Barry's admin has said that the INS won't accept illegals from Arizona...
Isn't that nice?!
I swear, some people need to be vigorously shaken...
Maybe we could start by treating immigrants like human beings and not allow policies that break up families.
Barry is doing such a great job at border security, he isn't letting Arizona protect its own border.
That guy is a disgrace and is making the US the lauging stock of the world.
Oh, and how nice of him to go on vacation and skip out on the traditional Memorial ceremony at Arlington...
Whay a great guy!
How is he preventing Arizona from protecting it's own border?
And do you expect him to personally take a shotgun, go into the middle of this lake and shoot Mexican pirates?
Is that how things are done in the US? I'm foreign, I don't know.
The fact is, illegal immigration is down, and it really isn't that much of a problem (actually economically it tends to balance out in our favor). A worker program where we can identify and legally collect taxes from illegals in the country, would be a much more efficient and productive solution (especially during an economic criss when the budget is need of cash).
Maybe we could start by treating immigrants like human beings and not allow policies that break up families.
Edit: this site sucks. Print what I type damnit.
Maybe we could simply make them fill out the proper forms and immigrate legally? I know from some co-workers it really isn't that hard.
Well, that is a great idea in concept, but the problem (and I know from experience) is there really isn't a channel in place for most people to immigrate legally (unless you are from a European country). The people come here illegally because they've already tried the legal modes of entry. Getting a visa to the US in most countries is like winning the lottery. And the problem is, many who want to come here, simply want to be with their family who is already here.
How's he not letting Arizona protect its own borders? Their new legislation may have some effect, but not much, from what I can tell. At any rate, it wouldn't stop the cartels.
Hey, here's an idea... let's protect our border and then go after the cartels?
But wait, that makes sense, so it is unlikely to happen.
Oh, Barry's admin has said that the INS won't accept illegals from Arizona...
Isn't that nice?!
I swear, some people need to be vigorously shaken...
Maybe we could start by treating immigrants like human beings and not allow policies that break up families.
Maybe illegals should treat our laws with respect and obey them.
Isn't that a novel idea!?
And as far as breaking up families... the illegals shouldn't be putting their families in those situations...
Maybe we could start by treating immigrants like human beings and not allow policies that break up families.
Edit: this site sucks. Print what I type damnit.
Maybe we could simply make them fill out the proper forms and immigrate legally? I know from some co-workers it really isn't that hard.
Well, that is a great idea in concept, but the problem (and I know from experience) is there really isn't a channel in place for most people to immigrate legally (unless you are from a European country). The people come here illegally because they've already tried the legal modes of entry. Getting a visa to the US in most countries is like winning the lottery. And the problem is, many who want to come here, simply want to be with their family who is already here.
So, if a person legally tries to get in and fails, it is then ok to come in illegally?
7th, you are usually sound in your arguments...
So, if a person legally tries to get in and fails, it is then ok to come in illegally?
It means that the laws are faulty, doesn't it?
Good thing the current attitude toward "illegals" didn't exist a few generations ago.
So, if a person legally tries to get in and fails, it is then ok to come in illegally?
It means that the laws are faulty, doesn't it?
No, it doesn't.
It mean the person entering the country illegally is breaking the law.
Why is that so hard to understand?
Maybe we could start by treating immigrants like human beings and not allow policies that break up families.
Edit: this site sucks. Print what I type damnit.
Maybe we could simply make them fill out the proper forms and immigrate legally? I know from some co-workers it really isn't that hard.
Well, that is a great idea in concept, but the problem (and I know from experience) is there really isn't a channel in place for most people to immigrate legally (unless you are from a European country). The people come here illegally because they've already tried the legal modes of entry. Getting a visa to the US in most countries is like winning the lottery. And the problem is, many who want to come here, simply want to be with their family who is already here.
So, if a person legally tries to get in and fails, it is then ok to come in illegally?
7th, you are usually sound in your arguments...
Riiight or we just open up the borders to anyone who comes in peace without a record. What happend to what the Statue of Liberty stands for? I'm sorry your America and mine are entirley different countries. mine is a place of freedom where anyone and everyone is welcome with open arms to start over again. If we made them all legal they wouldnt be able to be exploited by big buisnesses. Land of the Free not land of the judgmental who hate everyone not born here. The Tea party movement is a DISGRACE what they want would destroy every gain we have made in this country. Heck the new text books in Texas are a huge disgrace.
Thats what we should be focusing on one state deciding to rewrite american history. Immigrants do not increase crime as much as people say they do. I could go on and on about how idiotic most conservatives are, and how Chenney should have been executed for treason for LEAKING the name of a CIA agent during time of war for political gain. Nothing Obama does will be as bad as that in my opinion due to the horrible precedent that sets. And lets not forget the abomination that is the patriot act.
So, if a person legally tries to get in and fails, it is then ok to come in illegally?
It means that the laws are faulty, doesn't it?
No, it doesn't.
It mean the person entering the country illegally is breaking the law.
Why is that so hard to understand?
Maybe it should be made easier for them to enter legally?
So, if a person legally tries to get in and fails, it is then ok to come in illegally?
It means that the laws are faulty, doesn't it?
No, it doesn't.
It mean the person entering the country illegally is breaking the law.
Why is that so hard to understand?
Maybe it should be made easier for them to enter legally?
Maybe.
I don't know the details/particulars ...
But as it is right now, they are breaking the law and causing an economic burden on the state and federal levels. Also, a large portion of illegals are criminals and/or drug smugglers. It's not the US fault that Mexico sucks. They need to learn how to run their own country.
Oh, and take a look at Mexicos immigration laws before you decide the US laws are bad... Mexicos are downright draconian.
So, if a person legally tries to get in and fails, it is then ok to come in illegally?
It means that the laws are faulty, doesn't it?
No, it doesn't.
It mean the person entering the country illegally is breaking the law.
Why is that so hard to understand?
Maybe it should be made easier for them to enter legally?
Maybe.
I don't know the details/particulars ...
But as it is right now, they are breaking the law and causing an economic burden on the state and federal levels. Also, a large portion of illegals are criminals and/or drug smugglers. It's not the US fault that Mexico sucks. They need to learn how to run their own country.
Oh, and take a look at Mexicos immigration laws before you decide the US laws are bad... Mexicos are downright draconian.
SOOOO much fail in this post. Most illegals are only looking for work your wrong here. U.S is not Mexico U.S was created by immigrants. Mexico does not have a large statue as a national symbol representing liberty and freedom. The poor unwashed huddling masses, ya know what America is supposed to stand for. Anyone profressing to love america but not want easier immigration, or to punish these people is a hypocrite.
Anyone profressing to love america but not want easier immigration, or to punish these people is a hypocrite.
And anyone who thinks our laws shouldn't be enforced or to understand the problems caused by illegal immigrants is naieve and foolish.
Easier immigration would be fine, but there are illegals here already and they have already proven their inability to abide by laws and do things the right way.
Punishing someone who is breaking the law?
Who would've thought!!
If by punishing you mean sending them back to where they came from, then yeah... I say punish 'em.
But as it is right now, they are [...] causing an economic burden on the state and federal levels
You keep saying that, but you keep conveniently forgetting that your food is so cheap because of them. So in a sense, I suppose you're right. If we didn't have so many illegal immigrants, then everyone doing that back-breaking field labor would have to be a legal worker, which would mean they'd be getting paid minimum wage and be recorded, ballooning the industrie's costs, both in wages paid and payroll taxes, which would get passed onto the consumer (that's everyone) in the form of exponentially higher groceries bills, resulting in greater sales tax.
So in a sense, I suppose you're right.
But what about the free healthcare they get in the emergency room that the taxpayers have to pay for? Or the other social services they recieve paid for by the taxpayers?
And hey! What about the fact that they broke the law to get into this country to enjoy the benefits?
I am ok with providing work visas or something to those who want to do that.
But what about the free healthcare they get in the emergency room that the taxpayers have to pay for? Or the other social services they recieve paid for by the taxpayers?
And hey! What about the fact that they broke the law to get into this country to enjoy the benefits?
An unjust law need not be obeyed. And they should all be given visas to stay here at least the ones who want to work. Only IF they commit a real crime should they be sent back. America was founded to stand for something. That all men are created equal with the rights to life liberty and pursuit of happiness it says nothing about only those born here. It says nothing about only those who have to take a civics test half of Americans could not pass. Make it easier for them to enter legally and they'd be paying taxes. The arizona law is the wrong way to go, its a backwards approach to the problem.
And anyone who thinks our laws shouldn't be enforced [...] is naieve and foolish.
Oh, I don't know... I've got quite a few of those.
- Seat belt safety laws for adults.
- Adultry laws.
- Statutory **** laws that make a distinction between when the older partner is a man or a woman and when the sex is hetero or ****.
- Staturoy **** laws for when the older partner is less then 4 years older.
- Those sodomy laws that are still on the books.
- State laws banning atheists and agnostics from elected office.
- Defense of Marriage Act.
- Laws criminalizing using certain words (like the "n-word").
- Zero-tolerance policies in public schools such that a small folding pocket knife is enough to get someone expelled.
- Laws that would kick someone out for being an illegal immigrant when they were brought here when they were three.
- the FDA blood ban on any man that's had sex with a man since 1977.
- That Arizona law that bans "ethnic studies" from being taught in public schools.
- Laws that criminalize miscarriage.
- Laws that prohibit use of cell phones while driving unless you're using a hands-free set.
- Foreign aid to countries that think human rights are good for toilet paper.
- Tax laws that give tax-exempt status to political groups that masquerade as churches.
- The gag order. Global Gag Rule, aka the Mexico City Policy.
- Policies that promote abstinence-only education.
- Drug laws that treat cocaine differently depending on it's form.
- Criminalization of marijuanna.
- The standing policy of US House Representives being able to complain about all the abortions going on when there isn't even an abortion provider in their district.
- Senators being able to demand the immediate resignition of other senators over sexual misconduct, and then cling onto their seat with a death grip when their sexual misconduct comes to light.
Okay, so I wandered around from just laws to policies as well, but you get the point. Not all laws are good laws, and not all criminals are necessarily bad people. That's why the law-chaos axis is seperate from the good-evil axis.
Edit: Added a few more, corrected for the proper name of the gag order.
But what about the free healthcare they get in the emergency room that the taxpayers have to pay for? Or the other social services they recieve paid for by the taxpayers?
And? They're not the only ones, ya know. 'sides, it's not like your own Sarah Palin hasn't snuck over the Canadian border to get free healthcare over there1.
Or to put it another way: yes, there are problems. But condemning everyone isn't the solution.
________
1Maybe. Depending on who she's talking to, she changes the story of where they went.
But what about the free healthcare they get in the emergency room that the taxpayers have to pay for? Or the other social services they recieve paid for by the taxpayers?
And? They're not the only ones, ya know. 'sides, it's not like your own Sarah Palin hasn't snuck over the Canadian border to get free healthcare over there1.
Or to put it another way: yes, there are problems. But condemning everyone isn't the solution.
________
1Maybe. Depending on who she's talking to, she changes the story of where they went.
+50 for this and above post, also there's a town somewhere forgot where where it is illegal to sing off key in public for longer than 30 seconds yeah talk about stupid.
- The gag order.
Wikipedia has some more [here].
Thank you. I usually look these things up, but I had a feeling it wasn't the real name, and I'm not quite sure what googling 'gag rule' would have gotten me
LOLZ this made me laugh. Thanks for the info Escher I was kinda confused about that as well.
- Seat belt safety laws for adults.
- Laws that prohibit use of cell phones while driving unless you're using a hands-free set.
EE, those laws are some of the better thought out ones (unless the penalty is way too huge).
Remove those laws from people's minds, add general disrespect for speed limits and a tendency to drive drunk and you know why I am generally afraid of traffic (getting a driving license was tedious and terrible).
I bet you believe in Common Sense? And you called my beliefs illogical ;)
I don't remember if that's still the case, but for a long time my cousin needed a visa just to be with her husband and son in Texas. Getting one of those is a lottery. And American Presidents have been snowing Polish officials about the issue at least since 1991. It could get a little annoying.
EE, those laws are some of the better thought out ones (unless the penalty is way too huge).
Remove those laws from people's minds, add general disrespect for speed limits and a tendency to drive drunk and you know why I am generally afraid of traffic (getting a driving license was tedious and terrible).
Seatbelt laws for children I have no problems with. As minors it is the government's duty to make sure they're at least reasonably safe, even from their parents and their own idiocy. But quite simply, if an adult wants to be stupid and put their own life at risk with no real risk to other people, they shouldn't be penalized. We do not need the government protecting people from their own idiocy when that idiocy doesn't put other people at risk.
As for the cell-phone while driving laws, my main beef is they do nothing to address the problem if they permit hands-free sets but not normal ones. It isn't having one hand tied up that's the problem, and that's all the law tackles. If that was the problem, then standard transmissions would be outlawed, one-armed people wouldn't be able to drive, and so-on. So if the no-cell-phone-while-driving law says "but it's okay if you have a handsfree set" I call bullshit.
Seatbelt laws for children I have no problems with. As minors it is the government's duty to make sure they're at least reasonably safe, even from their parents and their own idiocy. But quite simply, if an adult wants to be stupid and put their own life at risk with no real risk to other people, they shouldn't be penalized. We do not need the government protecting people from their own idiocy when that idiocy doesn't put other people at risk.
Except protecting people is one of the main reasons governments exist. Protecting citizens from themselves included.
In reality not forcing to buckle up would result in no one doing it (except old ladies). We'd have people flying out of their cars each time there was even a minor collision.
I was in two collisions already (as a passenger). One of them was rather strong and I didn't go headfirst through the windshield solely because of seatbelt.
And seriously, it's not like the seatbelt is actually making driving harder or preventing you from doing anything that's reasonable to do in a car. And don't reply the "limiting freedom" crap, please.
As for the cell-phone while driving laws, my main beef is they do nothing to address the problem if they permit hands-free sets but not normal ones. It isn't having one hand tied up that's the problem, and that's all the law tackles. If that was the problem, then standard transmissions would be outlawed, one-armed people wouldn't be able to drive, and so-on. So if the no-cell-phone-while-driving law says "but it's okay if you have a handsfree set" I call bullshit.
Hey, the only way to fix this issue would be completely banning cellphones in cars. Like that's going to pass.
At least forcing the handsfree set fixes the "driving with one hand" issue.
Except protecting people is one of the main reasons governments exist. Protecting citizens from themselves included.
So I'll be putting you down as a supporter of the nanny-state then?
Hey, the only way to fix this issue would be completely banning cellphones in cars. Like that's going to pass.
I didn't realize that when you find a problem you can't deal with, you should make-up a problem you can.
In reality not forcing to buckle up would result in no one doing it (except old ladies). We'd have people flying out of their cars each time there was even a minor collision.
I guess I'm an old lady.
Your statement disproves itself.
"If you don't wear a seat belt, you'll have people flying out of their cars each time there was... a... collision"
That seems like a pretty hefty penalty without the state imposing any sort of monitoring or banditry (banditry being where you are stopped on a highway and your money is taken from you by someone with a weapon).
I guess I'm an old lady.
Your statement disproves itself.
"If you don't wear a seat belt, you'll have people flying out of their cars each time there was... a... collision"
That seems like a pretty hefty penalty without the state imposing any sort of monitoring or banditry (banditry being where you are stopped on a highway and your money is taken from you by someone with a weapon).
You forgot that most people think "bad things happen to other people, not me". Being very cautios about yourself is considered a form of paranoia.
There's also the arrogant attitude: "I'm the best driver there is, nothing is going to happen to me!"
Except even the best driver can be bumped from behind and launched forward.
I'd rather have people paying fines than smearing all over pavement, please.
Am I supporting "nanny state"? My country used to be communist; I think I can see the difference between minor obligations and restrictions of freedom.
I didn't realize that when you find a problem you can't deal with, you should make-up a problem you can.
No one was inventing it; it was part of the issue already, and this one was easier to fix.
As I said, this could only be truly fixed by banning cellphones altogether, which is impossible.
Guess what, a few years ago smoking while driving was outlawed in Poland. No one is obeying this one anyway.
EDIT. That counters my argument, as it shows that fighting stupidity is a losing battle, but I'm still going to show it:
So I'll be putting you down as a supporter of the nanny-state then?
Most Barry supporters fall into that category.
EE, you are against a nanny-state?
How do Mexican pirates have anything to do with the Obama Administration?
"When one expects a mighty stallion they will find hooves on an ant".
How do Mexican pirates have anything to do with the Obama Administration?
You hear of Barry doing anything about the pirates? Or the border?
Hell, do you know of Barry doing anything other than apologizing for the US? I guarantee Barry will be a one-termer, just like that loser Carter...
I guarantee Barry will be a one-termer, just like that loser George H.W. Bush...
Fixed.
Doubly fixed...
Doubly fixed...
Really? A personal attack? Not cool, man, not cool.
Doubly fixed...
Really? A personal attack? Not cool, man, not cool.
I thought that was our sctick?
Anyway, I will remove it if I can...
That is a good occurrence then. My database recalls you like being crept out. Of course, my database often replaces information during reboots, so it could have been that you are open to disturbing things.
I thought that was our sctick?
Anyway, I will remove it if I can...
Fair enough, it's just that one didn't come off like playful teasing. Could just be that my PLAYDAR is off today.
I thought that was our sctick?
Anyway, I will remove it if I can...
Fair enough, it's just that one didn't come off like playful teasing. Could just be that my PLAYDAR is off today.
No harm, no foul...
During the 60's, more Democrats opposed equal rights and persecuted black folk far more than Republicans.
.Oh and conservatives haven't been, pretty much ever, more for minority rights. Since conservatism by definiton wants to preserve the status quo, and the status quo until very recently was official disdain of minority rights, wouldn't that require for conservatives to be opposed to attempts to increase said minority rights?
EDIT: missed some punctuation.
But the funny thing is, the republicans/conservatives have always been, historically, more for equal/minority rights than the Democrats.
During the 60's, more Democrats opposed equal rights and persecuted black folk far more than Republicans.
I don't know much about American history, but the republicans haven't done a good job of convincing minorities that they share our interests. I mean we are very, very conservative in many respects, but we sense hostility from republicans that makes us vote democrat. My point is, if you guys gave up on the immigration issue and softened your stance on Islam (perhaps shifting a toleration of traditional religious morality position) I think republican majorities would be assured for several decades.
We should be Americans first. I hate terms like "African American" or "Mexican American" because that divides us into groups based on race. We should describe ourselves as Americans, not altitude challenged interracial lesbian American... or whatever.
Whatever...
We should be Americans first. I hate terms like "African American" or "Mexican American" because that divides us into groups based on race. We should describe ourselves as Americans, not altitude challenged interracial lesbian American... or whatever.
It honestly takes 3 generations for people to become Americans. That is the way it has always been. That is how it was for Germans, the Irish, Italians. That is how it is for hispanics, arabs, etc. What is different, is even people like me who identify as Arab American tend to emphasize the American side. We are proud to be here in a great coutry, and hope one day to see our decendants live the American dream. This doesn't happen in places like Europe. Truly you should be proud of your country for this. My only point is, if the Republicans drop some of the beligerance, they will win seats. Its simple math. Why get hung up on people who love america still having some attachment to their identity. Actually the hyphenation is what makes America great. Its not like Europe where your an Arab minority. I am an Arab American here. And I've noticed previous immigrant groups contributed a great deal of their heritage to American culture. This is America's strength, its ability to absorb what works. You are like Rome, You take what works from the people who come here. Look at your cuisine, it is basically Italian. Pizza is an american staple. It came from Italy and you made it your own.
And groups that are actually unindicted co-conspirators in the 9-11 attacks?
The ACLU
People like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton
La Raza
the KKK and various and sundry neo-nazi/white supremicst groups
the Black Panthers
Nation of Islam -have you actually listened to the stuff Farrakhan says?
And the Arab-American Council something or other, which is an unindicted co-conspirators in the 9-11 attacks
All of these people/groups have a stake in keeping people divided and made to feel/be unequal. They create issue where they can because they have to.
But I'm sure you are aware of certain groups active in the US that seek to divide us by groups?
And groups that are actually unindicted co-conspirators in the 9-11 attacks?
The ACLU
People like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton
La Raza
the KKK and various and sundry neo-nazi/white supremicst groups
the Black Panthers
Nation of Islam -have you actually listened to the stuff Farrakhan says?
And the Arab-American Council something or other, which is an unindicted co-conspirators in the 9-11 attacks
All of these people/groups have a stake in keeping people divided and made to feel/be unequal. They create issue where they can because they have to.
I am not talking about dividing people. Of course that is wrong. But it is much easier for groups like this to divide americans when they can point to republicans as racial antagonists (I am not saying republicans are, I am just saying their hardline approach on some issues makes them good targets for the label). This is like Judo. If you resist a movement too strongly, you gain nothign but exhaustion. However if you use your enemies energy against them, you gain victory.
But the funny thing is, the republicans/conservatives have always been, historically, more for equal/minority rights than the Democrats.
During the 60's, more Democrats opposed equal rights and persecuted black folk far more than Republicans.
And right now there isn't a Republican candidate I can vote for that doesn't align themselves with evangelicals that say I should be rounded up and put in prison. Forgive me if I'd rather not vote against my own interests.
We should be Americans first.
Sure, I'll drink to that. But just because I see myself as an American first doesn't mean I stop identifying with other groups, yes? You can march under different flags on different days. Today I have a USA flag out. In a few weeks I'll have a rainbow one. No conflict.
The ACLU
... you do realize that people go to the ACLU for help when they're being discriminated against, and the ACLU doesn't go out looking for problems, yes? They don't pick fights, they stand up for the little guy. If that's not the American thing to do1, I'm not sure what is.
I'd rather have people paying fines than smearing all over pavement, please.
And while I'd rather people buckle up then not, I still feel that it should be their choice to make, free of government coercion. When you have to twist someone's arm into doing the right thing, you're freeing them from making the choice to do the right thing.
But the funny thing is, the republicans/conservatives have always been, historically, more for equal/minority rights than the Democrats.
During the 60's, more Democrats opposed equal rights and persecuted black folk far more than Republicans.
And back in 19th century when those parties were formed, their political goals were completely opposite of what they are today. Basically early Republicans were today's Democrats and vice versa ;P
The more you know!
You mean in the 60s where there was substantial overlap between both parties and both parties were big tents? And since you mentioned it, most Democrats that opposed civil rights legislation were southerners that formed a short lived Dixiecrat party that was absorbed into the current Republican party (Nixon's Southern Strategy). No historical revisionism here
Oh and conservatives haven't been, pretty much ever, more for minority rights. Since conservatism by definiton wants to preserve the status quo, and the status quo until very recently was official disdain of minority rights, wouldn't that require for conservatives to be opposed to attempts to increase said minority rights?
EDIT: missed some punctuation.
Thank you.
In the end when it comes to Red Ties I'll probably never vote for them. Because the very platforms they run upon are Anti American. (Decentralize government*, Oppose Minority Rights, Kick Em All Out if they aren't Lily White Enough, And bomb them for having a different Religion, and pro destruction of being able to move up the Financial/Social Ladder, oh and the Destruction of Seperation of Church and State)
*They only seem to have an urge to put this into practice when the Blueboys are involved. Otherwise? More government!
But quite simply, if an adult wants to be stupid and put their own life at risk with no real risk to other people, they shouldn't be penalized.
In other words, you object to the system where drivers are licensed?States regulate the usage of public roadways. And one of those regulations is that to legally operate a motorvehicle on a public roadway you need to be licensed. Seatbelt laws are safety regulations. If a licensed operator can ignore safety regulations as they wish that creates a legal precedent. How many different kinds of equipment, how many industries, how many jobs require licensing?
BTW, in an accident an unrestrained body will sometimes act like a projectile. I'm sure the fact that the guy in the backseat was well within his rights, in your opinion, to not buckle up will resurrect the person in the front that his body crushed into the dashboard.
If you think it is that bad of a law lobby to have it changed. I've heard my mother make all the same arguements and they just don't hold water. It's safety equipment, part of your licensing agreement is to follow the laws and regulations, including the ones pertaining to safety equipment. Don't like it? Don't drive.
In other words, you object to the system where drivers are licensed?
I see you missed the part where I said "with no real risk to other people".
It's safety equipment, part of your licensing agreement is to follow the laws and regulations, including the ones pertaining to safety equipment. Don't like it? Don't drive.
You know, I'm constantly surprised when people confuse me saying "I don't like something" with "I don't like it and don't abide by it."
I see you missed the part where I said "with no real risk to other people".
I see you ignored the part about bodies becoming projectiles in accidents.
Yep. 'cause it's not a reasonable risk. Possible? Sure. But even before seat belt laws, there wasn't a huge rash of people-as-projectiles. It's just not a serious concern.
Actually that is one of the major causes of death in accidents. It isn't that people were being launched out of the car and into others. They were being launched from the back seat into people in the front seat. Or two passengers sitting next to each other would collide. If someone in the vehicle you are n isn't wearing a safety belt, that person is putting your life at risk. That is 100-200 pounds of bone slamming into your body, possibly your neck or skull. Even a minor accident can become serious if a person's dome from the back seat hits you in the back of the head.
But quite simply, if an adult wants to be stupid and put their own life at risk with no real risk to other people, they shouldn't be penalized.
In other words, you object to the system where drivers are licensed?States regulate the usage of public roadways. And one of those regulations is that to legally operate a motorvehicle on a public roadway you need to be licensed. Seatbelt laws are safety regulations. If a licensed operator can ignore safety regulations as they wish that creates a legal precedent. How many different kinds of equipment, how many industries, how many jobs require licensing?
BTW, in an accident an unrestrained body will sometimes act like a projectile. I'm sure the fact that the guy in the backseat was well within his rights, in your opinion, to not buckle up will resurrect the person in the front that his body crushed into the dashboard.
If you think it is that bad of a law lobby to have it changed. I've heard my mother make all the same arguements and they just don't hold water. It's safety equipment, part of your licensing agreement is to follow the laws and regulations, including the ones pertaining to safety equipment. Don't like it? Don't drive.
I agree 100%. Seatbelts save lives, and there are just way too many people out there driving dangerously to make this issue a libertarian rallying cry. Driving isn't a right, plain and simple. You agree to abide by certain measures of safety when the state gives you your license. because you are not only putting yourself at risk on the road, you are putting others at risk.
[...] there are just way too many people out there driving dangerously to make this issue a libertarian rallying cry.
Once again, bafflement.
Just what makes you think I'm trying to turn anything into any political rallying cry? That I included it in a list of other laws and policies I don't think should be enforced? That's a rather interesting jump, no?
As for passengers in a car colliding with each other... at the point where you're in a car with someone, you have a perfect opportunity to see to your own safety if that is a concern to you. You can turn, look the person in the eye, and say "Hey idiot, put on your safety belt." Perfect solution. Requires no government intervention, and moves personal safety back to a personal responsibility in situations where it's easy and feasible for a person to do so.
In other-other news: Escef, if you find the probability of someone flying out of a vehicle and becoming a living (or dead) projectile such a threat to other people that alone that is enough to justify a safety belt law for adults, why do you find the increased probability of someone being hit by an electric car at low speeds in certain situations insufficient for a noise-maker?
Once again, bafflement.
Just what makes you think I'm trying to turn anything into any political rallying cry? That I included it in a list of other laws and policies I don't think should be enforced? That's a rather interesting jump, no?
I just assumed because your argument, appeared on first glance to be from a libertarian stand point and most of the time when people come out against seat belt laws it is the same reason. If that isn't you, I do appologize.
As for passengers in a car colliding with each other... at the point where you're in a car with someone, you have a perfect opportunity to see to your own safety if that is a concern to you. You can turn, look the person in the eye, and say "Hey idiot, put on your safety belt." Perfect solution. Requires no government intervention, and moves personal safety back to a personal responsibility in situations where it's easy and feasible for a person to do so.
Well, that sounds great, but some people actually refuse to do so, and some people don't have the will to push that kind of thing on someone. Even more important though, it saves lives. You cut down on the number of deaths every year by having and enforcing seat belt laws. Especially among young people who often need a good reason (like the prospect of a fine) to actually use a seatbelt. I tell my daughter to wear her safety belt, but I feel much better knowing it is a law so her and her friends have good reaosn to wear those belts.
Anyways, you missed my central rebuttal: it actually is a big cause of deaths. Contrary to your claim that it poses a minimal risk.
I do agree with many of the other laws you listed. But this is one I think is important.
I just assumed because your argument, appeared on first glance to be from a libertarian stand point and most of the time when people come out against seat belt laws it is the same reason. If that isn't you, I do appologize.
It is from a libertarian stand point, but that doesn't mean I have any intention of turning it into a "rallying cry". Someone can be against something, still abide by it, and not make a fuss about it except when prompted ya know. And yes, having people try to make a fuss over one item in a long list is prompting me to defend my view point.
Well, that sounds great, but some people actually refuse to do so, and some people don't have the will to push that kind of thing on someone.
And yet we tell people to "toughen up" when it comes to condoms and safe sex, and find that sufficient, and that's much more likely to screw up your life, no? If it's good enough for that level of personal intimacy, how can it not be enough for "hey dude, buckle up".
As for your daughter... if she's an adult, then it's her choice to be stupid if she wants. If she's not an adult, I'd like to point out that I said "safety belt laws for adults."
Anyways, you missed my central rebuttal: it actually is a big cause of deaths. Contrary to your claim that it poses a minimal risk.
Nope. Escef spoke specifically of people flying out of cars and becoming projectiles, and that is what I objected to being a "reasonable risk". You provided another risk that, while perhaps more reasonable, doesn't really have merit for government intervention when someone can easily take their own safety into their own hands.
Oh, if the goal is to save lives because driving is dangerous, then we should just stop driving.
It is from a libertarian stand point, but that doesn't mean I have any intention of turning it into a "rallying cry". Someone can be against something, still abide by it, and not make a fuss about it except when prompted ya know. And yes, having people try to make a fuss over one item in a long list is prompting me to defend my view point.
Breath easy buddy. I didn't mean to open a can of worms. I wasn't accusing you of leading a libertarian revolt or anything.
And yet we tell people to "toughen up" when it comes to condoms and safe sex, and find that sufficient, and that's much more likely to screw up your life, no? If it's good enough for that level of personal intimacy, how can it not be enough for "hey dude, buckle up".
I don't know how condoms got invovled in this. But sex is a much more personal thing than driving a car, and you really can't have the government intrude into peoples' bedrooms like that. But driving a car is a public safety issue (you aren't just putting you and your partner at risk when you drive a car). And to keep the roads safe overall for use, you need to enforce laws.
As for your daughter... if she's an adult, then it's her choice to be stupid if she wants. If she's not an adult, I'd like to point out that I said "safety belt laws for adults."
Okay, fair enough. I still think its better to save adult lives than allow people to die becuase they don't want to wear a seatbelt. This is an area where you don't lose much (really is not wearing a seatbelt that important to anyone), and you gaina great deal.
Nope. Escef spoke specifically of people flying out of cars and becoming projectiles, and that is what I objected to being a "reasonable risk". You provided another risk that, while perhaps more reasonable, doesn't really have merit for government intervention when someone can easily take their own safety into their own hands.
I don't know, I'll have to go back and check, when I saw his post I recall him specifically mentioning people clashing on the inside of the vehicle from lack of seatbelts.
Again, it still has plenty of merit. Other people in the car shouldn't be allowed to put my life at risk because they don't want to wear seatbelts. Knowing that I am backed up by the law is important there. This is a very high risk. Like I said, one of the big killers in accidents. And I frankly think it is selfish for people to whine that they can't go without a safety belt because the big bad gov'ment is making them wear one. Boo hoo my friend. boo hoo.
If the reason you're wearing a seatbelt is 'cuz I don't wanna get fined' instead of 'cuz I don't wanna die or possibly risk injuring a fellow passenger' then there's a problem, IMO. You should want to wear a seatbelt because it's the safe thing to do - not out of fear of gov't intervention. In any case, seatbelts do save lives. The thing is, the lives they save are only the lives already endangered. In other words, me wearing a seatbelt isn't gonna save you when you hit my car with yours. It's gonna save me. It's a personal safety measure. And the fact that that's legislated mandatory irritates me. It's my life, I'm not endangering yours so let me do as I please. I suppose I may be a danger to someone riding in my vehicle with me. In that case, if you don't like it, you're free to get a ride elsewhere. If I endanger someone else when they're giving me a ride in their vehicle, they can tell me to comply or get out. And that works. More importantly, it works properly by placing the responsibility on those that should be responsible.
Oh, if the goal is to save lives because driving is dangerous, then we should just stop driving.
Again, your personal freedoms get limited once you enter the car. Driving comes with responsibilities, and if you don't like them. Don't drive. I don't have any sympathy for people who complain about these laws. And again, you shouldn't be allowed to endanger me, when we are driving together.
Again, your personal freedoms get limited once you enter the car. Driving comes with responsibilities, and if you don't like them. Don't drive. I don't have any sympathy for people who complain about these laws. And again, you shouldn't be allowed to endanger me, when we are driving together.
You're right, I shouldn't be allowed to endanger you. Here's the thing, though. As an adult, you're perfectly capable of handling this situation without legislated interference. Daunting, I know, but perfectly true. Were I, for example, to enter your vehicle as a passenger and refuse to wear a seatbelt, there's nothing (not even in law) forcing you to allow me to remain a passenger. You don't even need to put the key into the ignition. Just tell me to comply or leave. On the same note, were you to enter my vehicle as a passenger and I refused to wear a seatbelt, you can simply refuse to allow me to drive you anywhere. That's your right. And it works. So, do you really need a law to solve this 'problem' or can you handle it - as an adult - on your own?
Again, your personal freedoms get limited once you enter the car. Driving comes with responsibilities, and if you don't like them. Don't drive. I don't have any sympathy for people who complain about these laws. And again, you shouldn't be allowed to endanger me, when we are driving together.
You're right, I shouldn't be allowed to endanger you. Here's the thing, though. As an adult, you're perfectly capable of handling this situation without legislated interference. Daunting, I know, but perfectly true. Were I, for example, to enter your vehicle as a passenger and refuse to wear a seatbelt, there's nothing (not even in law) forcing you to allow me to remain a passenger. You don't even need to put the key into the ignition. Just tell me to comply or leave. On the same note, were you to enter my vehicle as a passenger and I refused to wear a seatbelt, you can simply refuse to allow me to drive you anywhere. That's your right. And it works. So, do you really need a law to solve this 'problem' or can you handle it - as an adult - on your own?
Yes I do need a law. And frankly your complaining about a really stupid perceived liberty (the ability to not wear a safety belt). I think you should have to wear a helmet, and wear a safety belt. And what is more, I don't think you should be allowed to carry firearms wherever you want to (I am not even sure I think people should be allowed to own them). I don't want you to be able to endanger me or anyone. I don't want to have to force you out of my car, or confront you about it. I want a law in place that makes sure you do it anyway. I am confident I could handle that sort of situation. But my wife and daughter are a different story. I want legal protection for passengers, not for idiots who decide to exercize their "personal liberty" and not wear a seatbelt. You aren't going to change my mind. I am impervious to the libertarian position, which ultimately arrives where rand paul arrived at last week.
That libertarian appeal to the masculine need to not be protected by the state, is meaningless to me, and so many others that see through it.
If the reason you're wearing a seatbelt is 'cuz I don't wanna get fined' instead of 'cuz I don't wanna die or possibly risk injuring a fellow passenger' then there's a problem, IMO.
I mentioned earlier that most people don't expect accidents to happen to them or they simply don't care out of (over)confidence. They do care about their money though, so the gov't hits them where it hurts.
That libertarian appeal to the masculine need to not be protected by the state, is meaningless to me, and so many others that see through it.
... this is about masculinity all of a sudden?
Neat. I guess I finally have something to post in the masculininity thread. "Held a libertarian view point on the reach of government".
I mentioned earlier that most people don't expect accidents to happen to them or they simply don't care out of (over)confidence.
And if people want to be idiots, that's their right, so long as it doesn't put others at an unreasonable risk.
Yes I do need a law. And frankly your complaining about a really stupid perceived liberty (the ability to not wear a safety belt). I think you should have to wear a helmet, and wear a safety belt. And what is more, I don't think you should be allowed to carry firearms wherever you want to (I am not even sure I think people should be allowed to own them). I don't want you to be able to endanger me or anyone. I don't want to have to force you out of my car, or confront you about it. I want a law in place that makes sure you do it anyway. I am confident I could handle that sort of situation. But my wife and daughter are a different story. I want legal protection for passengers, not for idiots who decide to exercize their "personal liberty" and not wear a seatbelt. You aren't going to change my mind. I am impervious to the libertarian position, which ultimately arrives where rand paul arrived at last week.
That libertarian appeal to the masculine need to not be protected by the state, is meaningless to me, and so many others that see through it.
I think you need to set your anti-libertarian stance far, far aside if you want to have an actual discussion. Too many assumptions to make any real attempt at it at this point. '[A]ppeal to the masculine need to not be protected by the state'? Where, again? So ... yeah. Quit it or quit 'discussing'. As it stands, you've not only assumed the argument, you've assumed the stance it's coming from. No wonder nothing can change your mind.
I mentioned earlier that most people don't expect accidents to happen to them or they simply don't care out of (over)confidence. They do care about their money though, so the gov't hits them where it hurts.
Well, that's their individual problem IMO. If they want to be a danger to themselves, that's fine with me. And that's all they are. No need for gov't intervention here.
(And for the record, I don't think either should be mandatory, although I would still use both.)
Generally speaking, the mandated amount of auto-insurance you must have is to cover the costs if you crash into someone else. That is, in case you're at fault, they're not in the hole. Protecting other people from you.
Zombie_Babies (and EscherEnigma, if applicable): Why do you take a different stance when it comes to auto-insurance? Its the same argument: you only are harming yourself. If you have insurance, you don't need to fear the uninsured since your coverage will pay for you against uninsured drivers. Additionally, there's the argument that auto-insurance is a much more real hassle than wearing a seat beat.
(And for the record, I don't think either should be mandatory, although I would still use both.)
It's not the same at all, though. If you hit me, you done affected more people than yourself. It's not only a matter of personal coverage, it's a matter of covering those injured (property or personally) other than yourself. And it goes beyond simply not riding with or driving someone that doesn't wear a seatbelt because, in order to remove the risk here, you'd have to stop driving altogether. You're not just harming yourself when you don't have insurance. You're harming those you get into accidents with if you're not able to afford the repairs and medical care you'd be responsible for. Mandatory insurance doesn't protect the insured. It protects those the insured interact with.
But if you have full, comprehensive insurance, it covers you if you are not at fault. It would cover your expensives if an uninsured driver hits you. So someone who is fully insured would not have to fear the uninsured driver.
If you only get the minimum mandated insurance, yes, you are not covered if someone (who uninsured) is at fault. But isn't that the reason people have the choice to get differing amounts of coverage.
If I'm worried about someone hitting me, I can get full coverage.
If I'm okay with those risks and only concerned about being at fault, I can get liability.
If I'm okay with being at fault, I should be able to get no insurance.
So wouldn't the equivalence to "not getting into the car with someone without seat belts" be "not getting into the car with someone who doesn't have full insurance"?
Auto-insurance mandates are to protect people from you. I approve this.
Safety-belt laws are to protect you from yourself. I think this is crossing the line.
No conflict.
But I think what you meant was "how do safety-belt laws protect you from yourself", in which case the answer is "by giving a milder punishment for idiocy so hopefully you'll correct said idiocy before you need the safety-belt and would suffer a greater punishment for said idiocy."
has anyone ever crashed from overzealously playing punchbuggy?
Safety-belt laws are to protect you from yourself. I think this is crossing the line.
The difference between us, it seems, is that to me the line is much further ahead than this (and this I can't help but see it as pointless drama).
There's also the fact that your point of view about safety belts is shared by a complete loon, so I'm kind of biased. I have also stated that traffic scares me.
This and the cellphone thing are the only things I disagree with you about.
That's all very nice, Scypio, but it doesn't do a thing to point out an inconsistency.
Auto-insurance mandates are to protect people from you. I approve this.
Safety-belt laws are to protect you from yourself. I think this is crossing the line.
No conflict.
This. Insurance is mandated so that, were I to injure someone, they'd be properly compensated for it. Seatbelt laws are instituted to keep me from hurting myself. There's no concern for another human being here. They're completely different.
There's also the fact that your point of view about safety belts is shared by a complete loon, so I'm kind of biased.
You can find a loon to back up any point of view. That doesn't say much about the actual validity of it.
It is against the law to not wear a seatbelt, but you may ride a motorcycle without a helmet...
?
Yes I do need a law. And frankly your complaining about a really stupid perceived liberty (the ability to not wear a safety belt). I think you should have to wear a helmet, and wear a safety belt. And what is more, I don't think you should be allowed to carry firearms wherever you want to (I am not even sure I think people should be allowed to own them). I don't want you to be able to endanger me or anyone. I don't want to have to force you out of my car, or confront you about it. I want a law in place that makes sure you do it anyway. I am confident I could handle that sort of situation. But my wife and daughter are a different story. I want legal protection for passengers, not for idiots who decide to exercize their "personal liberty" and not wear a seatbelt. You aren't going to change my mind. I am impervious to the libertarian position, which ultimately arrives where rand paul arrived at last week.
That libertarian appeal to the masculine need to not be protected by the state, is meaningless to me, and so many others that see through it.
I think you need to set your anti-libertarian stance far, far aside if you want to have an actual discussion. Too many assumptions to make any real attempt at it at this point. '[A]ppeal to the masculine need to not be protected by the state'? Where, again? So ... yeah. Quit it or quit 'discussing'. As it stands, you've not only assumed the argument, you've assumed the stance it's coming from. No wonder nothing can change your mind.
I don't see how the remainder of my argument doesn't matter. I've basically stated the state should step in and protect people from themselves and others at times, you've said it shouldn't because we are all adults don't need the government to do things for us. Plus your argument made exactly the same emotional appeal to masculinity and rugged individualism as the libertarian talking point memo. If you want to clarify go ahead. Or respond to my specific points. No need to ignore my argument because I am "assuming too much". So I am assuming. Too bad.
I just assumed because your argument, appeared on first glance to be from a libertarian stand point and most of the time when people come out against seat belt laws it is the same reason. If that isn't you, I do appologize.
Well, as a libertarian, how about a better reason. Seat belts USUALLY save lives. They can also take them. Having had the misfortune of being in a number of accidents (most with someone else driving), I've experienced three separate instances where the seat, itself, that I WAS occupying didn't survive the crash. In two of which, the entire compartment where I was otherwise seated didn't survive. It's a probability game. Unfortunately, one that is made for us. Since most will benefit - make it mandatory for all. After all, fewer deaths are better right? Those on the extremes of the demographic curve - oh well, I guess.
I just assumed because your argument, appeared on first glance to be from a libertarian stand point and most of the time when people come out against seat belt laws it is the same reason. If that isn't you, I do appologize.
Well, as a libertarian, how about a better reason. Seat belts USUALLY save lives. They can also take them. Having had the misfortune of being in a number of accidents (most with someone else driving), I've experienced three separate instances where the seat, itself, that I WAS occupying didn't survive the crash. In two of which, the entire compartment where I was otherwise seated didn't survive. It's a probability game. Unfortunately, one that is made for us. Since most will benefit - make it mandatory for all. After all, fewer deaths are better right? Those on the extremes of the demographic curve - oh well, I guess.
This is the argument my 80-year old 2nd grade teacher used to make. The car got crushed, but I got out in time because I wasn't wearing a seatbelt. But you said it correctly, it is a numbers game. And in the overwhelming number of cases, seatbelts save lives. I am all for improving seatbelts so evacuating the vehicle in a hurry is easier. But I think it is still the right call to require seatbelts since the numbers are there. Unless the number of people being killed because of seatbelts is high enough to warrant concern (and to my knowledge it isn't), this is absolutely the right call. And one I think the government has a right to make.
However, you misread me. My issue with the law is simple. Such a law condemns the minority to death (if not, serious injury) to protect the majority. Pick any other minority, and ask yourself if you would be so cavalier in your response. When aids broke out in this country, perhaps we should have quarantined and executed Haitians?
And lest you read the above as hyperbole, it is not. It is just another example of condemning a minority to death to protect the lives of the majority.
You misunderstand - it isn't a question of evacuation. The seat (in the three instances) didn't survive the impact. (ie. not an after-effect). One was a side collision of someone running a red light (at well over the speed limit) that pushed the passenger door to the middle of the car (I was in the passenger seat), cracking the seat in half (pictured a very acute angled, inverse "v"). The second was a rollover, pushing the roof down to the seat (sit part, not back). The third was a spectacular flip where the car "bounced" (sort of, some impact lost to crushing) off the roof, again driving the roof down to the seat. As I said, though, it's numbers.
However, you misread me. My issue with the law is simple. Such a law condemns the minority to death (if not, serious injury) to protect the majority. Pick any other minority, and ask yourself if you would be so cavalier in your response. When aids broke out in this country, perhaps we should have quarantined and executed Haitians?
And lest you read the above as hyperbole, it is not. It is just another example of condemning a minority to death to protect the lives of the majority.
Actually I don't think that is a good comparison. You are not condemning a minority to death. You are making a calculated risk assessment determining the best course of action (something we do all the time). On average, you are simply going to save more people by having them wear seatbelts. If you don't have the law, you are "condemning" even more people to death. It is a matter of how many people you would want to die. You have three options. Seatbelts are mandatory. Seat belts are forbidden. Seat belts are a matter of choice. If you choose the last two options, more people die. If you choose the first, less people die. Trying to tie this to somekind of genocide against a minority is just a speciious argument and you know it.
Also - using your logic (expanded to the guns, etc)- the following substances should be banned - alcohol, nutmeg, knives, rope, 2 story buildings, and a host of others. Again, to protect the majority, as a minority will suffer or cause death.
Plus your argument made exactly the same emotional appeal to masculinity and rugged individualism as the libertarian talking point memo.
I'm still confused on this. Just what emotional appeal to what masculinity are you talking about?
Plus your argument made exactly the same emotional appeal to masculinity and rugged individualism as the libertarian talking point memo.
I'm still confused on this. Just what emotional appeal to what masculinity are you talking about?
I am talking about the argument (I believe it was Zombiebabies who made it) that appeals to once sense of sense sufficiency and manliness to push forward some of these libertarian ideas. Such as when Zombiebabies was hammering home the idea that if your an adult you can stand up for yourself and you don't have to drive with someone who refuses to wear a seatbelt. In short that you don't need the state to intervene on your behalf. It is a very common argument from libertarian positions. This is why you see terms like the "nanny state" thrown around by the right. They are trying make people who believe in government involvement and intervention appear weak and unmanly.
But you are, indeed. As said, it's a numbers game. You are confusing the term "minority", in context. Minority in this case denotes a small (relative, subjective) portion of the population. The common factor in this case, is not race, creed, religion, sexual preference, origin - but the fact that a seat belt (in a particular collision) would CAUSE death. It's a minority - one that apparently, you care nothing for. You'd prefer to save the majority - at the expense of the very lives said minority. The analogy is appropriate.
No, you are conflating two types of minorities (afterall you were the one who said it was the same as if I condemned haitians and not others to die). We are not talking about a type of person in your example, but a type of accident. So you aren't talking about minorities of people, but minority of collisions. And the end result is you are saving more lives if you enforce seatbelt laws. Are people who are invovled in the types of accidents you describe going to be injured and possibly killed if they are forced to wear a seatbelt? Yes. But those are very rare types of accidents, and you are saving far more lives by having the seatbelt law.
I am sorry, you are using very faulty logic, comparing types of accidents to haitian genocide, and if you can't see that I really don't know what to say.
Also - using your logic (expanded to the guns, etc)- the following substances should be banned - alcohol, nutmeg, knives, rope, 2 story buildings, and a host of others. Again, to protect the majority, as a minority will suffer or cause death.
Sorry that isn't a logical equivalent. Only if I suggested we ban cars would this make any sense at all. And I am not arguing that. What I am advocating aking to regulating guns, knives, 2 story building construction and alcohol (and we do all those things already).
No, you are conflating two types of minorities (afterall you were the one who said it was the same as if I condemned haitians and not others to die).
No, conflation - I'm using the term correctly with no added baggage. A minority is a minority. If you don't care about those in a minority of crashes, why do you care about those in a minority according to any other metric. There is no difference. Along the lines of airbags. Good for most - but kills some. Mandatory is NOT the term that should be applied.
We are not talking about a type of person in your example, but a type of accident. So you aren't talking about minorities of people, but minority of collisions. And the end result is you are saving more lives if you enforce seatbelt laws.
Again - personal choice. Seat belts, most likely, will NEVER be safe for me (in a collision, I tend to be similar to a drunk). They are wonderful devices for a head-on, but otherwise cause problems. This is (and was) known. However, the decision was made to sacrifice the few for the many.
Are people who are invovled in the types of accidents you describe going to be injured and possibly killed if they are forced to wear a seatbelt? Yes. But those are very rare types of accidents, and you are saving far more lives by having the seatbelt law.
Rare when looking at the entire population, perhaps. I've had the misfortune of being a party to 13 accidents. NONE fit the model for when seat belts help. (ie. head-on)
I am sorry, you are using very faulty logic, comparing types of accidents to haitian genocide, and if you can't see that I really don't know what to say.
No - my logic is sound. You are bringing in the concept of genocide. I am using the general terms as given. I find it telling that you've convinced yourself that one is heinous (assumed) to be called genocide, but the other "practical" enough to call Law.
Sorry that isn't a logical equivalent. Only if I suggested we ban cars would this make any sense at all. And I am not arguing that. What I am advocating aking to regulating guns, knives, 2 story building construction and alcohol (and we do all those things already).
This was a separate note regarding the expansion you gave regarding regulations. The equivalence is apt, in this case. Also, we do NOT do all those things - rope, knives and nutmeg are all purchasable/usable in deadly quantities with no regulation whatsoever. Heck - WATER (ingested) can be deadly - should that be regulated and monitored?
No, conflation - I'm using the term correctly with no added baggage. A minority is a minority. If you don't care about those in a minority of crashes, why do you care about those in a minority according to any other metric. There is no difference. Along the lines of airbags. Good for most - but kills some. Mandatory is NOT the term that should be applied.
Yes you are conflating. Because you are using the term to mean two different things: a minority of crashes and a minority of people based on ethnicity. You are arguing that a minority of people will die under this policy, therefore Pippy believes in mistreating all minorities including haitians. That is what your argument was. If you want to strip down the hyperbole and be less anal about your use of the word minority, we can do so. But you know perfectly well when people say minority in the US they are refering to a group of people identified as such because of their religion, race, social class or sexual identity.
Again, yes airbags will kill some, but they save millions more. It is a better policy to save hundreds of thousands than allow 1000s to die, in order to prevent a handful of deaths.
Again - personal choice. Seat belts, most likely, will NEVER be safe for me (in a collision, I tend to be similar to a drunk). They are wonderful devices for a head-on, but otherwise cause problems. This is (and was) known. However, the decision was made to sacrifice the few for the many.
I am sorry. Not buying this argument at all. You only get into very rare accidents where seatbelts are dangerous? Therefore you have minority status and a being wrongfully subject to oppression? The incidents of seatbelt related deaths are very small compared to the number of deaths that could be prevented by seatbelt use. There is so much wrong with your logic here I don't even know where to begin.
Rare when looking at the entire population, perhaps. I've had the misfortune of being a party to 13 accidents. NONE fit the model for when seat belts help. (ie. head-on)
You clearly don't know what you are talking about, because seatbelts and airbags together are good for all kinds of accidents (not just head-on collisions).
No - my logic is sound. You are bringing in the concept of genocide. I am using the general terms as given. I find it telling that you've convinced yourself that one is heinous (assumed) to be called genocide, but the other "practical" enough to call Law.
Go back and read your original post. The implied idea of genocide is clear. Otherwise, why bring up Haitians?
This was a separate note regarding the expansion you gave regarding regulations. The equivalence is apt, in this case. Also, we do NOT do all those things - rope, knives and nutmeg are all purchasable/usable in deadly quantities with no regulation whatsoever. Heck - WATER (ingested) can be deadly - should that be regulated and monitored?
No it is not apt at all. All I am calling for is driving regulations, not a ban on driving. So why would I call to ban two story buildings or nutmeg?
Actually we do regulate all those things. Nutmeg is subject to the food and drug administration. There are numerous laws prohbiting people from carrying concealed knives. Alcohol (which you also mentioned originally) cannot be sold to anyone under age (nor can it be consumed heavily before driving). Rope, you got me, perhaps we don't regulate rope.
It is a could thing I don't take things to extreme conclusions like many libertarians do. I agree there are some things we shouldn't regulate because the risks are minimal. But we do regulate water. Bottled it is monitored by FDA, and the tap is heavily regulated to prevent parasites from entering the water supply.
But regardless if you want to accuse me of attacking minorities (which makes no sense at all), fine. I am all for a policy that saves more lives. And I thinkt he minimal risk posed by seatbelts is balanced out by the hundreds of thousands of lives they save.
Yes you are conflating. Because you are using the term to mean two different things: a minority of crashes and a minority of people based on ethnicity.
Ethnicity has nothing to do with my statement, other than it is another case where sacrificing a minority of people will save a majority. Why should HOW that minority is drawn matter? (The assumed answer is, simply that you don't hold the same respect for those that suffer that type of crash as you do for a person's ethnicity)
You are arguing that a minority of people will die under this policy, therefore Pippy believes in mistreating all minorities including haitians.
Explain the difference, then, please. Why is one minority accpetable for sacrifice, but another not?
That is what your argument was. If you want to strip down the hyperbole and be less anal about your use of the word minority, we can do so. But you know perfectly well when people say minority in the US they are refering to a group of people identified as such because of their religion, race, social class or sexual identity.
In most cases this would be true - however, I lead the passage by stating it was numbers game and specifically mentioned the demographic (curve). This is a statistical reference. Ethnicity MAY (depending on location) place one in a minority (statistically), but it is - as I've stated, just another metric for purposes of this discussion. As stated, how can you justify one, but recoil at the other?
Again, yes airbags will kill some, but they save millions more. It is a better policy to save hundreds of thousands than allow 1000s to die, in order to prevent a handful of deaths.
Whereas I believe it is best to allow all INDIVIDUALS (regardless of where they fall in the demographic) to make their own choice in the matter, free from overt coercion (there are always social stigmas, et al, to contend with)
I am sorry. Not buying this argument at all. You only get into very rare accidents where seatbelts are dangerous? Therefore you have minority status and a being wrongfully subject to oppression? The incidents of seatbelt related deaths are very small compared to the number of deaths that could be prevented by seatbelt use. There is so much wrong with your logic here I don't even know where to begin.
Please, attempt to do so - my logic is sound. I have said plainly 13 accidents total. NONE head-on. Most in the passenger seat, and in 3 (23%) a seat belt would have been fatal. I claim minority, only as you say that in the majority seat belts save lives (a given). As for oppression... a strong term, but apt. Any laws that attempt to intrude on my behavior to MYSELF, with little/no effect on another IS a form of oppression. Using the law to force people to act a certain way when there is no benefit to society, at large. A wonderful book you may wish to read - "My Ishmael", Daniel Quinn. The trouble with many laws is that they concern themselves with how people behave. As the main character in the book (a gorilla named Ishmael) notes (and I agree), laws are better served to set recompense for ones actions SHOULD they affect society, not force behavior.
You clearly don't know what you are talking about, because seatbelts and airbags together are good for all kinds of accidents (not just head-on collisions).
Incorrect. In fact, your comment shows that you are unaware. 42%. That's the number of fatalities prevented. (the "majority" you still claim).
Go back and read your original post. The implied idea of genocide is clear. Otherwise, why bring up Haitians?
No implication - I state my points clearly. Sacrifice a minority to protect the majority. Plain and simple. In the case of AIDS - the minority could be determined by ethnicity. However, as you continually argue, it seems that such a means of determination is taboo for you.
No it is not apt at all. All I am calling for is driving regulations, not a ban on driving. So why would I call to ban two story buildings or nutmeg?
The ban was for guns. However, what about regulations?
Actually we do regulate all those things. Nutmeg is subject to the food and drug administration.
Misunderstanding on your part. It isn't the quality of nutmeg, it's the quantity, something that is entirely UNREGULATED (heck, I have lethal dose sitting in a bag in the next room).
There are numerous laws prohbiting people from carrying concealed knives. Alcohol (which you also mentioned originally) cannot be sold to anyone under age (nor can it be consumed heavily before driving). Rope, you got me, perhaps we don't regulate rope.
And still mostly wrong-headed laws (#1). Moreover, they aren't fully. For knives - that's shifting the goalpost, and not fully applicable (not all states). For alcohol - go out and buy a case of vodka (lethal). See what regulations you face (answer - none).
It is a could thing I don't take things to extreme conclusions like many libertarians do. I agree there are some things we shouldn't regulate because the risks are minimal. But we do regulate water. Bottled it is monitored by FDA, and the tap is heavily regulated to prevent parasites from entering the water supply.
As before - I mentioned quantity, not quality. These are not extremes. It's a simple premise. If I'm not harming anyone (other than myself), stay out of my life.
edited: typo does -> dose
Such as when Zombiebabies was hammering home the idea that if your an adult you can stand up for yourself and you don't have to drive with someone who refuses to wear a seatbelt.
... that's not "manliness", that's called being an adult, and we expect people1 to do it all the time. And also kinda why I brought up the condom thing, 'cause that's a case where we explictely tell people, everyone, that you should demand safe practices. If we can expect every woman out there to tell her bloke to wrap it, why is it suddenly too much to expect you to tell your driver to click it?
________
1men, women, and those that defy such simple categories.
In other-other news: Escef, if you find the probability of someone flying out of a vehicle and becoming a living (or dead) projectile such a threat to other people that alone that is enough to justify a safety belt law for adults, why do you find the increased probability of someone being hit by an electric car at low speeds in certain situations insufficient for a noise-maker?
Where the hell did I say that? Why are you making things up? Why are you lying? Is that how tenuous your position is, that you need to lie about what I said so that you can make an attempt to continue the debate? Seriously, this isn't the first time I've seen you do this. WTF is wrong with you? Yes, I came out and said it. And I don't care if I get a warning from the mods. Someone needs to call you on this. And I'm doing it.
Where the hell did I say that?
Post #67 [link]
And yes, I did extrapolate a little. You didn't give any counter to the general argument of "if you're only risking yourself, the government has no business telling you to stop", and the only support you gave for safety-belt laws was the human-projectile argument.
Where the hell did I say that?
Post #67 [link]
And yes, I did extrapolate a little. You didn't give any counter to the general argument of "if you're only risking yourself, the government has no business telling you to stop", and the only support you gave for safety-belt laws was the human-projectile argument.
Considering that I immeadiatly explained what I was saying, no, you did not extrapolate. You lied. You were intellectually dishonest, and now when I call you on it you attempt to deflect. That crap don't fly with me.
It also stands out in stark contrast compared to other, more freedom restricting and personal space invading laws brought up by EE.
That's not really an argument, but I'd like to repeat that to me getting all worked up about seatbelts sounds simply silly.
Well, I can't speak for others, but for me its the personal experience that gets me worked up. Admittedly, I've grown past the (physical/mental) inability to drive with a seat belt on (lasted a few months), and will wear one when necessary. However, that particular law would have killed me three times over. When faced with your own mortality, it's difficult not to be effected by the experience, and "get all worked up".
Well, I can't speak for others, but for me its the personal experience that gets me worked up. Admittedly, I've grown past the (physical/mental) inability to drive with a seat belt on (lasted a few months), and will wear one when necessary. However, that particular law would have killed me three times over. When faced with your own mortality, it's difficult not to be effected by the experience, and "get all worked up".
It's also part personal experience for me. I mentioned before, my life was saved by a seatbelt at least once. I'm still shakey when the car I'm in is going fast while the one in front of it is slowing down or stopping.
Witch Hunt
The night is black, without a moon.
The air is thick and still.
The vigilantes gather on
The lonely torchlit hill.
Features distorted in the flickering light,
Faces are twisted and grotesque.
Silent and stern in the sweltering night,
The mob moves like demons possesed.
Quiet in conscience, calm in their right,
Confident their ways are best.
The righteous rise
With burning eyes
Of hatred and ill-will.
Madmen fed on fear and lies
To beat and burn and kill.
They say there are strangers who threaten us,
Our immigrants and infidels.
They say there is strangeness too dangerous
In our theatres and bookstore shelves,
That those who know what's best for us
Must rise and save us from ourselves.
Quick to judge,
Quick to anger,
Slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice
And fear walk hand in hand.
The night is black, without a moon.
The air is thick and still.
The vigilantes gather on
The lonely torchlit hill.
Features distorted in the flickering light,
Faces are twisted and grotesque.
Silent and stern in the sweltering night,
The mob moves like demons possesed.
Quiet in conscience, calm in their right,
Confident their ways are best.
The righteous rise
With burning eyes
Of hatred and ill-will.
Madmen fed on fear and lies
To beat and burn and kill.
They say there are strangers who threaten us,
Our immigrants and infidels.
They say there is strangeness too dangerous
In our theatres and bookstore shelves,
That those who know what's best for us
Must rise and save us from ourselves.
Quick to judge,
Quick to anger,
Slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice
And fear walk hand in hand.
which is why I favor individual choice. As a Rush fan, ...
Me Too!!!
OH.
My bad.
I thought you were talking about Limbaugh...
Ethnicity has nothing to do with my statement, other than it is another case where sacrificing a minority of people will save a majority. Why should HOW that minority is drawn matter? (The assumed answer is, simply that you don't hold the same respect for those that suffer that type of crash as you do for a person's ethnicity)
Yes it does, you brought up haitians as an example and drew a direct connection between both types of "minorities". Your is an utterly specious argument and you know it.
Again your missing the point, those aren't a type of people but types of accidents, and it has nothing to do with respect for them or lack there of. It has to do with maximizing the number of lives saved.
Explain the difference, then, please. Why is one minority accpetable for sacrifice, but another not?
See above. You are completely misusing the term. In my case you are weighing what policy will save more lives. You aren't deliberately sacrificing one group for another, you are maximizing car safety---aware that there is a minimal risk imposed on everyone (not a minority of people) by the safety measures in place, but that risk is vastly outweighed byt he large numbers of people it will save.
In most cases this would be true - however, I lead the passage by stating it was numbers game and specifically mentioned the demographic (curve). This is a statistical reference. Ethnicity MAY (depending on location) place one in a minority (statistically), but it is - as I've stated, just another metric for purposes of this discussion. As stated, how can you justify one, but recoil at the other?
It doesn't matter how you lead the passage, because you end up drawing the ethnic comparison, for obvious reasons.
Whereas I believe it is best to allow all INDIVIDUALS (regardless of where they fall in the demographic) to make their own choice in the matter, free from overt coercion (there are always social stigmas, et al, to contend with)
And I don't. If given a choice, most people chose not to wear safety belts. The fact is, but making it a law you save more lives.
Please, attempt to do so - my logic is sound. I have said plainly 13 accidents total. NONE head-on. Most in the passenger seat, and in 3 (23%) a seat belt would have been fatal. I claim minority, only as you say that in the majority seat belts save lives (a given). As for oppression... a strong term, but apt. Any laws that attempt to intrude on my behavior to MYSELF, with little/no effect on another IS a form of oppression. Using the law to force people to act a certain way when there is no benefit to society, at large. A wonderful book you may wish to read - "My Ishmael", Daniel Quinn. The trouble with many laws is that they concern themselves with how people behave. As the main character in the book (a gorilla named Ishmael) notes (and I agree), laws are better served to set recompense for ones actions SHOULD they affect society, not force behavior.
No this isn't oppression, it is an absolutely reasonable regulation, and you continue to show a lack of knowledge of the kinds of accidents safety belts are effective in. What is more, you just keep using anecdotal evidence. So you've been in thirteen extreme accidents. Most people will be saved, rather than harmed by the use of satey belts. And I really have to question your 23% number there. Taking a safety belt off to leave the vehicle, is easy and quick to do.
Incorrect. In fact, your comment shows that you are unaware. 42%. That's the number of fatalities prevented. (the "majority" you still claim).
First off, check your numbers my friend. Second, it still saves way more lives thatn not wearing them would save (in fact not wearing them results in thousands of more deaths in the US alone each year). The numbers a dependant on type of vehicle:
Lap-shoulder belts reduce the risk of fatal injury to front-seat occupants by 45% and the risk of moderate-to-critical injuries by 50%, depending on the type of vehicle and seating position involved. For light truck occupants, safety belts reduce the risk of fatal injury by 60% and moderate-to-critical injury by 65%.(National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, or NHTSA, 2005)
No implication - I state my points clearly. Sacrifice a minority to protect the majority. Plain and simple. In the case of AIDS - the minority could be determined by ethnicity. However, as you continually argue, it seems that such a means of determination is taboo for you.
Now you are back tracking, then still trying to make the same specious conenciton between types of accidents and minority groups.
The ban was for guns. However, what about regulations?
Now you aren't even making any sense.
Misunderstanding on your part. It isn't the quality of nutmeg, it's the quantity, something that is entirely UNREGULATED (heck, I have lethal dose sitting in a bag in the next room).
No, we regulate the quality in terms of safety. Places that produce and handle spices are regularly inspected and have to follow health safety codes.
And still mostly wrong-headed laws (#1). Moreover, they aren't fully. For knives - that's shifting the goalpost, and not fully applicable (not all states). For alcohol - go out and buy a case of vodka (lethal). See what regulations you face (answer - none).
Are you opposed to drunk driving laws then?
Again, your logic is sloppy and all over the place. If I buy alcohol, I have to show ID (there is a regulation). I can't get drunk in public (there is a regulation) and I can't drive drive if I am drunk (there is a regulation).
As before - I mentioned quantity, not quality. These are not extremes. It's a simple premise. If I'm not harming anyone (other than myself), stay out of my life.
I am not interefering with your freedoms pal, I am saying you want to take on the responsibility of driving, I'm totally fine with the law requiring you to wear a seat belt.
Such as when Zombiebabies was hammering home the idea that if your an adult you can stand up for yourself and you don't have to drive with someone who refuses to wear a seatbelt.
... that's not "manliness", that's called being an adult, and we expect people1 to do it all the time. And also kinda why I brought up the condom thing, 'cause that's a case where we explictely tell people, everyone, that you should demand safe practices. If we can expect every woman out there to tell her bloke to wrap it, why is it suddenly too much to expect you to tell your driver to click it?
________
1men, women, and those that defy such simple categories.
Sorry, I am unmoved by the appeal. Simply stated, seat belts save thousands of lives a year, and if a simple law will help increase that number and sharply descrease fatilties on the road, then I am for it.
I don't see how the remainder of my argument doesn't matter. I've basically stated the state should step in and protect people from themselves and others at times, you've said it shouldn't because we are all adults don't need the government to do things for us. Plus your argument made exactly the same emotional appeal to masculinity and rugged individualism as the libertarian talking point memo. If you want to clarify go ahead. Or respond to my specific points. No need to ignore my argument because I am "assuming too much". So I am assuming. Too bad.
Umm, ok, I'll play. The remainder of your argument doesn't matter cuz your POV is so clouded by your anti-libertarian bias that you're purposefully misconstruing things and then arguing against these things that are only a construct of your own mind. See, I never once made any appeal to masculinity or whatever. If anything, it was an appeal to adulthood. As adults, we're perfectly capable of making any and all decisions regarding seat belts. What's really interesting is that you don't think one group of people is rationally capable of making decisions regarding seat belts and yet, somehow, this other group (the gov't) miraculously is. I find that ... interesting. The gov't, you see, is made up of people. People like you and, yes, people like me. To you, I obviously don't have any idea how to best keep you safe (actually, you don't think I have any idea how to keep myself safe - or, at least, the right to make that decision). That's fine. So how do these other people have any idea? It just doesn't make any sense when you think about it. Then again, you need to get past bias to actually think clearly.
The fact also remains that my decision not to wear a seat belt has no influence whatsoever on your personal well being. As it doesn't, what rational reason can there be to force me to wear it? I'm not hurting anyone.
Oh, I also followed some of the discussion you and PBN were having. That, actually, is what made me decide to continue ignoring your argument. Cuz, see, you just make stuff up. He mentions nutmeg, water and vodka and how obtaining and consuming lethal doses is not something regulated in the least and you won't shut up about the FDA. Well, what the FDA does has nothing to do with this particular discussion. I believe you know it, too. So I must assume (he he! it is fun!) that you saw that he made an effective point against you and decided to cling to an argument that doesn't fly in the hope he'll move on. Well, I hope he doesn't though your ... reluctance to actually pay attention to the argument he's actually making - and not the one you made up - is likely frustrating. So there's that, too.
Lemme see if I can help with that last part a bit (in the spirit of assuming the best - in this case, that you actually don't understand and aren't being willfully obtuse):
1) Water, nutmeg and vodka are common items that will, if ingested in sufficient quantity, be fatal.
2) The gov't in no way, shape or form regulates the amount of these items that you can ingest.
3) Unless your argument against these points has evidence that the gov't does, in fact, regulate the amount of water, nutmeg and/or vodka we can ingest, you don't actually have one.
3a) Pointing out that vodka is not legally ingestible by minors (which isn't wholly accurate anyway) in no way undermines the point as you're also left with two things that are both legally obtainable by minors - nutmeg and water.
So maybe that helps, maybe it doesn't. Why I'm trying I don't know. Anyhoo, that's why I'm not feeling the least bit troubled by ignoring the rest of your argument. You aren't arguing rationally so there's not much meat to it. If you decide to play fair, I'll be here. If not, whatever. I hold no grudges and you shouldn't be surprised to find me on your side in some future discussion. It happens. Each thread and discussion is, to me, its own entity. Nothing leaves that thread. Ok, that's not totally true. In some cases, people have so revealed themselves that I absolutely had to remember what they do or else be subjected to the same BS over and again. So that may happen, too. But yeah, I hope I explained why I decided to gloss over the rest and focus where I did. There's no point in arguing with you at this ... erm ... point. You've let preconceived notions about a group of people color your thoughts too much for that. That ... bias (being nice) just won't let discussion happen.
EDIT: Damn, I wrote a lot. Heh.
And lest you read the above as hyperbole, it is not. It is just another example of condemning a minority to death to protect the lives of the majority.
How could anyone possibly take "condemning a minority to death to protect the lives of the majority" as hyperbole?
which is why I favor individual choice. As a Rush fan, ...
Me Too!!!
OH.
My bad.
I thought you were talking about Limbaugh...
Ah, yes, the drug addicted college drop-out with weight issues. I find it amazing that a man who is barely qualified to be a deprtment manager at Sears wields so much influence.
Umm, ok, I'll play. The remainder of your argument doesn't matter cuz your POV is so clouded by your anti-libertarian bias that you're purposefully misconstruing things and then arguing against these things that are only a construct of your own mind. See, I never once made any appeal to masculinity or whatever. If anything, it was an appeal to adulthood. As adults, we're perfectly capable of making any and all decisions regarding seat belts. What's really interesting is that you don't think one group of people is rationally capable of making decisions regarding seat belts and yet, somehow, this other group (the gov't) miraculously is. I find that ... interesting. The gov't, you see, is made up of people. People like you and, yes, people like me. To you, I obviously don't have any idea how to best keep you safe (actually, you don't think I have any idea how to keep myself safe - or, at least, the right to make that decision). That's fine. So how do these other people have any idea? It just doesn't make any sense when you think about it. Then again, you need to get past bias to actually think clearly.
My POV shouldn't matter at all. All that matters is the validity of my argument: seatbelt laws save lives, and are good for society.
People who decide not to wear safety belts have demonstrated they aren't capable of making the decision. Look, driving a car isn't like other activities. You are allowed to drive a vehicle because the government gives you license to do so, and it can place whatever restrictions it wants on that right. If you must wear saftey equipment to drive, and that is based on years of valid research, then so be it.
The fact also remains that my decision not to wear a seat belt has no influence whatsoever on your personal well being. As it doesn't, what rational reason can there be to force me to wear it? I'm not hurting anyone.
Yes it does. We've already established a major cause of death and injury is people flying around inside the car because they aren't belted. Your decision not to wear a belt therefore impacts (literally) other peoples' lives.
Oh, I also followed some of the discussion you and PBN were having. That, actually, is what made me decide to continue ignoring your argument. Cuz, see, you just make stuff up. He mentions nutmeg, water and vodka and how obtaining and consuming lethal doses is not something regulated in the least and you won't shut up about the FDA. Well, what the FDA does has nothing to do with this particular discussion. I believe you know it, too. So I must assume (he he! it is fun!) that you saw that he made an effective point against you and decided to cling to an argument that doesn't fly in the hope he'll move on. Well, I hope he doesn't though your ... reluctance to actually pay attention to the argument he's actually making - and not the one you made up - is likely frustrating. So there's that, too.
I don't know why I appear to be irritating you so much. But you are once again wrong. How does government regulation of these products not have anything to do with government regulation of vehicles? The basic argument is the government is taking away choices from people to improve safety. You are not free to drink alcohol and then get in a car and drive. Nor are you free to provide that alcohol to underage people.
And actually he didn't make a valid point at all. He engaged in very fuzzy logic, and he certainly must know it. He jumped from A to C without touching B.
Lemme see if I can help with that last part a bit (in the spirit of assuming the best - in this case, that you actually don't understand and aren't being willfully obtuse):
1) Water, nutmeg and vodka are common items that will, if ingested in sufficient quantity, be fatal.
2) The gov't in no way, shape or form regulates the amount of these items that you can ingest.
3) Unless your argument against these points has evidence that the gov't does, in fact, regulate the amount of water, nutmeg and/or vodka we can ingest, you don't actually have one.
3a) Pointing out that vodka is not legally ingestible by minors (which isn't wholly accurate anyway) in no way undermines the point as you're also left with two things that are both legally obtainable by minors - nutmeg and water.
On this specific argument (death from ingestion of too much nutmeg) there is no comparison. The government doesn't regulate the acts of eating and drinking (frankly to do so would be not only impractical, but unpleasant for most people). However, as a society we have given the government the power to regulate driving (because risks associated with driving are much more of a threat to life and limb than over consumption of water).
But more specifcally the problem with this comparison is he is comparing apples and oranges and he knows it. And all the regulations take place before the consumer ingests these products. Manufacturers are required by law to limit realistic hazards (like parasites) before they hit shelves. The potential risk posed by over-ingestion of nutmeg or water is not at all comparable to the risk posed by driving without a seatbelt.
So finally I have to ask, why don't I have an argument again? Are you honestly saying it is inconsistent to legislate seatbelt laws but not legislate water drinking and nutmeg consuming limits?
So maybe that helps, maybe it doesn't. Why I'm trying I don't know. Anyhoo, that's why I'm not feeling the least bit troubled by ignoring the rest of your argument. You aren't arguing rationally so there's not much meat to it. If you decide to play fair, I'll be here. If not, whatever. I hold no grudges and you shouldn't be surprised to find me on your side in some future discussion. It happens. Each thread and discussion is, to me, its own entity. Nothing leaves that thread. Ok, that's not totally true. In some cases, people have so revealed themselves that I absolutely had to remember what they do or else be subjected to the same BS over and again. So that may happen, too. But yeah, I hope I explained why I decided to gloss over the rest and focus where I did. There's no point in arguing with you at this ... erm ... point. You've let preconceived notions about a group of people color your thoughts too much for that. That ... bias (being nice) just won't let discussion happen.
I see, so I basically won the argument, and you cry foul. Gotch you!
which is why I favor individual choice. As a Rush fan, ...
Me Too!!!
OH.
My bad.
I thought you were talking about Limbaugh...
Right you two lose all credibility with me Rush is a MORON who has no idea what he is talking about ever. He's a biggot and a racist. How he even still has a show I don't know. He Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin make me scared for the direction of this country especially as frequently as they bring god into any conversation.
How could anyone possibly take "condemning a minority to death to protect the lives of the majority" as hyperbole?
It's just an example of Right Wing logic. Grab any linguistic root you can to bring it back to concentration camps and Hitler. Clearly my claim to save millions of lives through safety belts is just an insidious cover-up for my real desire: ethnic cleansing.
My POV shouldn't matter at all. All that matters is the validity of my argument: seatbelt laws save lives, and are good for society.
Well, I'm sorry but it does. If you come from a biased viewpoint and that colors your perception of the argument (which your assumptions have shown it has), well, it kind of matters a lot.
I see, so I basically won the argument, and you cry foul. Gotch you!
That's funny. I'm trying, but I can't look far enough back into my youth to come up with the proper rebuttal. Was it 'I'm rubber, you're ...' nope. Hmm. Maybe 'nuh-uh'? 'Nanner, nanner nanner'? I'm sorry, I just haven't 'debated' in this fashion in so long. I trust you'll forgive my faulty memory?
Actually, this is exactly why I chose to ignore your argument in the first place - and why I regret wasting all the text above (slightly - I do like to talk). You've got your fingers stuck so far into your ears you can't even hear yourself screaming 'lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala I can't hear you!' any longer. See? Bias does cause issues when you're trying to have a discussion.
EDIT: I made a major, major edit to this post. Namely, I removed all of the 'wasted text' referenced in the last paragraph. Cuz it was, you know, wasted.
Well, I'm sorry but it does. If you come from a biased viewpoint and that colors your perception of the argument (which your assumptions have shown it has), well, it kind of matters a lot.
Eveyone has a point of view. What matters is the validity of their conclusions. A biased person can still be just as right or wrong about a subject an an unbiased one. If you want to ignore my assumptions fine. But don't ignore my actual argument.
That's funny. I'm trying, but I can't look far enough back into my youth to come up with the proper rebuttal. Was it 'I'm rubber, you're ...' nope. Hmm. Maybe 'nuh-uh'? 'Nanner, nanner nanner'? I'm sorry, I just haven't 'debated' in this fashion in so long. I trust you'll forgive my faulty memory?
Actually I made this statement to meet you at your level. Your responses to my post can at best be desccribed as dismissive, at worst described as insulting. Either way, if you don't want to be hit with ad homs, don't throw them around at others.
Actually, this is exactly why I chose to ignore your argument in the first place - and why I regret wasting all the text above (slightly - I do like to talk). You've got your fingers stuck so far into your ears you can't even hear yourself screaming 'lalalalalalalalalalalalalalalala I can't hear you!' any longer. See? Bias does cause issues when you're trying to have a discussion.
I may have engaged in one childish jibe at a childish poster (you). But your posts to me on this thread have been consistently childish. And I actually have taken the time to read and respond to your points. You on the other hand say things like I am a waste of time, or arguing with me is pointless.
Eveyone has a point of view. What matters is the validity of their conclusions. A biased person can still be just as right or wrong about a subject an an unbiased one. If you want to ignore my assumptions fine. But don't ignore my actual argument.
Too bad that's not true. A biased opinion can cause one to see only what they want to. You took whatever it was you wanted out of what I (and others) had to say and, in the process, not only missed the actual argument, but also helped steer it to where it currently is.
Actually I made this statement to meet you at your level. Your responses to my post can at best be desccribed as dismissive, at worst described as insulting. Either way, if you don't want to be hit with ad homs, don't throw them around at others.
My level? Really? See, I wasn't aware I simply said 'I win'. What I did do was give an explanation of my position and how I came to it. That you didn't like it or felt slighted by it for any reason doesn't change the fact that I did support my reasoning for abandoning rational discourse in this particular conversation. Hell, I even went so far as to explain my 'no grudge' policy and that whatever happened in this thread, to me, means little to nothing outside of it. So yeah, you didn't even approach my level. You fell far beneath it.
If this is how you need to rationalize your remark, though, feel free. Oh, and if anyone started anything, it was you when you started throwing words in my mouth and motivations behind them. A discussion is one thing. To have someone tell you what you're saying, however, is quite another. And it's quite rude and in no way constructive.
I may have engaged in one childish jibe at a childish poster (you). But your posts to me on this thread have been consistently childish. And I actually have taken the time to read and respond to your points. You on the other hand say things like I am a waste of time, or arguing with me is pointless.
Well, it would hardly do for me to call a discussion pointless and then attempt to engage in it, would it? As for the rest, I point you to my above section. Again, I didn't just resort to some playground tactic as you did. I gave reasons for how I arrived at my current place in this conversation, explained how I view forum discussions and how, at some other time, I may even be on your side in an argument. But hey, if that's insulting and childish to you, whatever. At least you've made me feel more confident in my decision on this matter.
That's not really an argument, but I'd like to repeat that to me getting all worked up about seatbelts sounds simply silly.
I'm not getting worked up, I'm just defending my point of view since it was questioned.
Sorry, I am unmoved by the appeal.
Who cares?
I'm trying to figure out why being an adult is suddenly an appeal to masculinity.
It's just an example of Right Wing logic.
Hey Hater! Someone threw me over the fence! So this is what your side looks like. Smells kinda funny.
Eveyone has a point of view. What matters is the validity of their conclusions. A biased person can still be just as right or wrong about a subject an an unbiased one. If you want to ignore my assumptions fine. But don't ignore my actual argument.
Too bad that's not true. A biased opinion can cause one to see only what they want to. You took whatever it was you wanted out of what I (and others) had to say and, in the process, not only missed the actual argument, but also helped steer it to where it currently is.
I never said bias doesn't interfere with forming good conclusions. I said a biased person can still reach good conclusions, and you should judge the conclusion on its own merit.
I don't see how I am steering the conversation anywhere, I see two posters making appeals to personal liberty and railing against government interference in their personal lives. Those seem like libertarian positions and arguments to me.
My level? Really? See, I wasn't aware I simply said 'I win'. What I did do was give an explanation of my position and how I came to it. That you didn't like it or felt slighted by it for any reason doesn't change the fact that I did support my reasoning for abandoning rational discourse in this particular conversation. Hell, I even went so far as to explain my 'no grudge' policy and that whatever happened in this thread, to me, means little to nothing outside of it. So yeah, you didn't even approach my level. You fell far beneath it.
No you didn't. You attacked and dismissed me in your post in what I regard as a childish manner. Go back and re-read your response to my post. It may contain an argument somehwere, but its hard to find between the ad homs.
If this is how you need to rationalize your remark, though, feel free. Oh, and if anyone started anything, it was you when you started throwing words in my mouth and motivations behind them. A discussion is one thing. To have someone tell you what you're saying, however, is quite another. And it's quite rude and in no way constructive.
I don't need to rationalize it. Because I was clearly winning the debate with you (less so with the others, who were holding their ground admirably).
I wasn't aware I was telling you what you were in saying. Please point out where you think I put words in your mouth and we can discuss it.
Well, it would hardly do for me to call a discussion pointless and then attempt to engage in it, would it? As for the rest, I point you to my above section. Again, I didn't just resort to some playground tactic as you did. I gave reasons for how I arrived at my current place in this conversation, explained how I view forum discussions and how, at some other time, I may even be on your side in an argument. But hey, if that's insulting and childish to you, whatever. At least you've made me feel more confident in my decision on this matter.
Actually your tactics appeared very playground-esque in my view. Here are some examples:
Oh, I also followed some of the discussion you and PBN were having. That, actually, is what made me decide to continue ignoring your argument. Cuz, see, you just make stuff up.
In this case I didn't just make stuff up. I was responding to a bad argument made by another poster, and you just decided because you disagreed with my reasoning I was making stuff up.
So I must assume (he he! it is fun!) that you saw that he made an effective point against you and decided to cling to an argument that doesn't fly in the hope he'll move on.
Again, childish. And again, we just disagree about what another poster is arguing, and my conclusions about that argument. But you are taking it to a whole other level of playground taunting (i.e. HE HE! IT IS FUN). Then after that you are dismissive of my position.
You aren't arguing rationally so there's not much meat to it. If you decide to play fair, I'll be here.
To be fair, I used this same tactic with PBN (in his case though I assumed he was deliberately making specious arguments, which is why I raised the issue), but it is still childish to dismiss my reasoning just because you disagree with my conclusions.
Who cares?
I and anyone else who hasn't found the argument convincing;)
I'm trying to figure out why being an adult is suddenly an appeal to masculinity.
I see it as such because the example in question (with the person in the care needing to stick up for his or herself) is not just an appeal to being a grown up, but an appeal to being strong and having the ability to assert ones' preferences. My concern is for people like my daughter who may not have the strength of will to bring it up or push someone on the issue.
It's just an example of Right Wing logic.
Hey Hater! Someone threw me over the fence! So this is what your side looks like. Smells kinda funny.
I am not sure what you mean by this.
I and anyone else who hasn't found the argument convincing;)
And? I stopped trying to convince you, ergo, I don't care if you find an appeal I'm not making particularly convincing or not.
I see it as such because the example in question (with the person in the care needing to stick up for his or herself) is not just an appeal to being a grown up, but an appeal to being strong and having the ability to assert ones' preferences. My concern is for people like my daughter who may not have the strength of will to bring it up or push someone on the issue.
Well quite frankly, that's a problem. Because whether you like or not, your daughter will be in situations where she has to look out for herself because no one else will. Whether it's basic safety, not getting into a car with a driver who's a little too drunk, making her partner wear protection or wait until she's ready, asserting herself in board meetings or so-on, she needs to be able to assert herself.
And that has nothing do with masculinity, that has to do with being an adult. It's a basic skill everyone needs to learn. Masculinity is not required, and claiming that it is just hurts people in the long run.
I am not sure what you mean by this.
Probalby 'cause your name isn't "Hater".
I don't see how I am steering the conversation anywhere, I see two posters making appeals to personal liberty and railing against government interference in their personal lives. Those seem like libertarian positions and arguments to me.
Not responding, just saving.
No you didn't. You attacked and dismissed me in your post in what I regard as a childish manner. Go back and re-read your response to my post. It may contain an argument somehwere, but its hard to find between the ad homs.
As I said, if you felt slighted or didn't like the reasons I gave, that doesn't mean I didn't give them.
I don't need to rationalize it. Because I was clearly winning the debate with you (less so with the others, who were holding their ground admirably).
Keep on pattin' yourself on the back, I don't care. I don't think me seeing you as someone that isn't willing to argue is you winning anything. I told you why we're at this point (from my end), you didn't like the way I did it and so haven't accepted it. Nothin' I can do about that. But it's got nothing to do with who was winning anything. Besides, I don't argue to win. I argue to have a discussion, learn and possibly shed light from my personal point of view (I admit that's a rarity in internet debate and I do not think I'm some special snowflake with all sorts of wisdom to offer). If you're trying to win, you're doin' it wrong. There's nothing to be won.
I wasn't aware I was telling you what you were in saying. Please point out where you think I put words in your mouth and we can discuss it.
And this is why I saved that first statement. You assume. To me, that's taking something I've said, ignoring it and then deciding what I'm really saying for yourself. You know, that pesky bias as a problem issue I cited a few times. You've also accused me of espousing my viewpoint from some masculine agenda and said some other crap - while not directly to me - about me being right wing or something. But whatever. I'm sure there's some reason. Don't care.
Actually your tactics appeared very playground-esque in my view. Here are some examples:Oh, I also followed some of the discussion you and PBN were having. That, actually, is what made me decide to continue ignoring your argument. Cuz, see, you just make stuff up.
In this case I didn't just make stuff up. I was responding to a bad argument made by another poster, and you just decided because you disagreed with my reasoning I was making stuff up.
No, you did make stuff up. You decided he was talking about FDA regulation because you could actually argue against that. I've explained it twice, I think, and so I shan't again.
So I must assume (he he! it is fun!) that you saw that he made an effective point against you and decided to cling to an argument that doesn't fly in the hope he'll move on.
Again, childish. And again, we just disagree about what another poster is arguing, and my conclusions about that argument. But you are taking it to a whole other level of playground taunting (i.e. HE HE! IT IS FUN). Then after that you are dismissive of my position.
Aight. That'n was for funsies. At any rate, as I've said many times now, I also gave reasons as to why I feel the way I do. That you don't like the way they were presented in no way changes that. It also makes it quite different from 'I win'.
To be fair, I used this same tactic with PBN (in his case though I assumed he was deliberately making specious arguments, which is why I raised the issue), but it is still childish to dismiss my reasoning just because you disagree with my conclusions.
So it's some special tactic? And that isn't childish? This is an internet discussion, man. And I'm not dismissing your reasoning because I disagree with your conclusions. I'm doing it because you reached those conclusions by looking at others' arguments through bias, by assuming the origin of the comments others made and by, quite simply, making stuff up in order to argue against it. I hope I've been clear this (third, I think) time.
Well quite frankly, that's a problem. Because whether you like or not, your daughter will be in situations where she has to look out for herself because no one else will. Whether it's basic safety, not getting into a car with a driver who's a little too drunk, making her partner wear protection or wait until she's ready, asserting herself in board meetings or so-on, she needs to be able to assert herself.
Of course she will. But I am not interested in life lessons here (I give her plenty of those on my own). And this is a situation I would rather have the weight of law behind (just like the drunk driving example you raised). I am interested in assuring her safety and the safety of others, and I don't mind the government stepping in in this case. It simply doesn't bother me.
And that has nothing do with masculinity, that has to do with being an adult. It's a basic skill everyone needs to learn. Masculinity is not required, and claiming that it is just hurts people in the long run.
I agree. I don't think masculinity is required to be responsible, strong or independant. I have a daughter after all, and I don't want her walking through life thinking she is lacking qualities only possessed by men. But I think that is what the libertarian line on this argument (not that that is where you are coming from neccessarily, but that is where I see this idea originating from), is an appeal to a masculine ideal of independence (however illusionary that may be).
Probalby 'cause your name isn't "Hater".
Now I am even more confused.
Probalby 'cause your name isn't "Hater".
Now I am even more confused.
One of the guys here has burned through several user names, one of which was Hater. The individual in question is strongly opinionated and very right wing. A rarely agree with this person myself, though he occasionally does stumble upon a point. :P
No, you did make stuff up. You decided he was talking about FDA regulation because you could actually argue against that. I've explained it twice, I think, and so I shan't again.
I did nothing of the sort. I just pointed out we do regulate those things in different ways, and that the FDA regulates water and nutmeg. My point being, we respond to levels of risk posed by different things differently. Dying in an accident, is the risk cars pose. Dying from parasites is the risk water poses. Dying from over-drinking water isn't a a high risk concern. It is minimal. Whereas auto accidents and parasites are much more common.
Aight. That'n was for funsies. At any rate, as I've said many times now, I also gave reasons as to why I feel the way I do. That you don't like the way they were presented in no way changes that. It also makes it quite different from 'I win'.
You are making an awful big deal out of a single throw away line of mine, rather than focusing on my actual points (which is funny because that is kind of what you are also accusing me of doing).
So it's some special tactic? And that isn't childish? This is an internet discussion, man. And I'm not dismissing your reasoning because I disagree with your conclusions. I'm doing it because you reached those conclusions by looking at others' arguments through bias, by assuming the origin of the comments others made and by, quite simply, making stuff up in order to argue against it. I hope I've been clear this (third, I think) time.
I did nothing of the sort. I responded to PBN's arguments on their own merits. I really don't know why you are obsessed with my POV. Again, address the specifics of my position if you disagree. But PBN was making a lot of sweeping conlcusions and logical connections that I just didn't see any grounds for at all.
I agree. I don't think masculinity is required to be responsible, strong or independant. I have a daughter after all, and I don't want her walking through life thinking she is lacking qualities only possessed by men. But I think that is what the libertarian line on this argument (not that that is where you are coming from neccessarily, but that is where I see this idea originating from), is an appeal to a masculine ideal of independence (however illusionary that may be).
Right. So I just want to be clear here.
No one here made any appeal to masculinity or even mentioned it until you brought it up.
You decided that, even though we were pretty clear on talking about adult behavior, that what we really meant was "masculine" behavior, and proceded to attack on those grounds.
And now you're saying that it isn't masculine behavior at all.
Way to assume a conclusion mate.
I agree. I don't think masculinity is required to be responsible, strong or independant. I have a daughter after all, and I don't want her walking through life thinking she is lacking qualities only possessed by men. But I think that is what the libertarian line on this argument (not that that is where you are coming from neccessarily, but that is where I see this idea originating from), is an appeal to a masculine ideal of independence (however illusionary that may be).
Right. So I just want to be clear here.
No one here made any appeal to masculinity or even mentioned it until you brought it up.
You decided that, even though we were pretty clear on talking about adult behavior, that what we really meant was "masculine" behavior, and proceded to attack on those grounds.
And now you're saying that it isn't masculine behavior at all.
Way to assume a conclusion mate.
What is your problem man? Honestly what is everyones' problem here? I came on and defended safety belts and now I am being called out and nipped at by two really obnoxious posters. I signed on to relax and have fun, not get put on the defensive for seeing a libertarian position in an anti-seatbelt law argument.
But that doesn't matter, I don't think any issue is too small to be discussed if people are interested (I wanted to say that because too many people have told me the opposite ), and it has been enlightening for me. But perhaps people should stop with the political labels. Whether someone is a libertarian or not really shouldn't matter in this. I don't even know precisely what libertarianism is, but even I can see the logic in not banning risks that adults should be able to choose for themselves on principle. Why not let people's arguments stand and fall on their own merits, instead of dragging their alleged political position into it?
Please? 
If you want to relax and have fun, you probably shouldn't tell people they hold positions they've made no claim to and then attack them on that basis. That tends to really annoy people.
You could just assume good faith, and explain to me that you think my assumptions are wrong. You don't need to make snide remarks (you and Zombie babies both). I can totally accept that I as wrong and that I didn't get my position across clearly. I can totally agree to disagree. But I don't want to be pushed around by posters who take something I say the wrong way. If there is a problem, address it or ignore me (or take it to PM).
OK, I don't have much to add to the current topic. I just wanted to say that seatbelts are a really small issue. The limit to personal freedom by making them mandatory is minimal, and so is the amount of danger you're forced into without it (since you can just choose to wear one, and ask others to do the same).
But that doesn't matter, I don't think any issue is too small to be discussed if people are interested (I wanted to say that because too many people have told me the oppositePlease?
Well, libertarianism is really just a poltiical philosophy in the US that gives primacy to personal liberties and emphasizes small unintrusive government. I am not assuming anyones' politics, but if they are taking a libertarian position on an issue, and making a libertarian argument to support that position, I really don't see an issue with describing it as such. If someone wants to characterize my position as statist, I don't mind (even though I am not a statist).
OK, I don't have much to add to the current topic. I just wanted to say that seatbelts are a really small issue. The limit to personal freedom by making them mandatory is minimal, and so is the amount of danger you're forced into without it (since you can just choose to wear one, and ask others to do the same).
But that doesn't matter, I don't think any issue is too small to be discussed if people are interested (I wanted to say that because too many people have told me the oppositePlease?
Well, libertarianism is really just a poltiical philosophy in the US that gives primacy to personal liberties and emphasizes small unintrusive government. I am not assuming anyones' politics, but if they are taking a libertarian position on an issue, and making a libertarian argument to support that position, I really don't see an issue with describing it as such. If someone wants to characterize my position as statist, I don't mind (even though I am not a statist).
The problem is small government just does not work in the modern age. America is the ONLY first world country without universal health care and other socialist policies that right there should tell us something. Private buisnesses have proven they cant handle such things. Also the government does have responsibility to protect all its citzens.
You could just assume good faith, and explain to me that you think my assumptions are wrong. You don't need to make snide remarks (you and Zombie babies both).
Wait wait wait...
You want me to assume good faith after you make baseless assumptions and snide remarks? That's kinda a knife in the back of the golden rule, isn't it? As a side note, both mine and ZB's following posts after you first went off about masculinity were very clear that you were grasping at straws [link]. Yet you repeated the claim several more times.
So... yeah. You want good faith when you give none. You want politeness when you come out swinging. You want me to not assume, when you insist on doing the same (here and elsewhere).
Something 'bout this seems a little fishy.
You could just assume good faith, and explain to me that you think my assumptions are wrong. You don't need to make snide remarks (you and Zombie babies both).
Wait wait wait...
You want me to assume good faith after you make baseless assumptions and snide remarks? That's kinda a knife in the back of the golden rule, isn't it? As a side note, both mine and ZB's following posts after you first went off about masculinity were very clear that you were grasping at straws [link]. Yet you repeated the claim several more times.
So... yeah. You want good faith when you give none. You want politeness when you come out swinging. You want me to not assume, when you insist on doing the same (here and elsewhere).
Something 'bout this seems a little fishy.
And the masculinity issue was a small part of my argument. And just because you think I am grasping at straws, that doesn't mean I am.
Either way. I've tried to be reasonable here. I don't know what else I can say. Seatbelts are good and I support seatbelt laws. Sorry I stepped on a landmine.
Well, libertarianism is really just a poltiical philosophy in the US that gives primacy to personal liberties and emphasizes small unintrusive government. I am not assuming anyones' politics, but if they are taking a libertarian position on an issue, and making a libertarian argument to support that position, I really don't see an issue with describing it as such. If someone wants to characterize my position as statist, I don't mind (even though I am not a statist).
The issue is that it opens up a lot of different issues. Williamhm75 just mentioned healthcare, for instance. Once someone has been labelled as belonging to a certain fraction, it's too easy to slip into arguing against the fraction instead, even on areas where the person doesn't agree with others of the same label.
We already know the position (it's in the posts), so calling it libetarian doesn't elaborate or explain anything. It's not necessary. Now, you're free to do it, of course, and sometimes, labels can be useful. I'm just asking you to consider doing your opponents the courtesy of addressing their points without labels in this case, because I think it would help matters immensely. I promise to yell at them if they continue to be rude to you afterwards ;)
And the masculinity issue was a small part of my argument. And just because you think I am grasping at straws, that doesn't mean I am.
I'm sorry, but when you drag out a point no one has made and no one defends just so you can attack it, and then continue to do so after you've been called on your stunt and had it made clear that no one is behind the point you're attacking, how should I label your behavior?
It's certainly not arguing in good faith or giving people the benefit of the doubt.
I don't know what else I can say. Seatbelts are good and I support seatbelt laws. Sorry I stepped on a landmine.
Sadly, I don't think you're quite grasping just what landmine you stepped on. Hint: it's the same one you found in Astrid's. Nothing particular to seat belt laws at all.
I don't know what else I can say. Seatbelts are good and I support seatbelt laws. Sorry I stepped on a landmine.
Sadly, I don't think you're quite grasping just what landmine you stepped on. Hint: it's the same one you found in Astrid's. Nothing particular to seat belt laws at all.
Apparently I am not. Because it feels like people are seriously over-reacting to things in both places and I don't understand why.
Well, libertarianism is really just a poltiical philosophy in the US that gives primacy to personal liberties and emphasizes small unintrusive government. I am not assuming anyones' politics, but if they are taking a libertarian position on an issue, and making a libertarian argument to support that position, I really don't see an issue with describing it as such. If someone wants to characterize my position as statist, I don't mind (even though I am not a statist).
The issue is that it opens up a lot of different issues. Williamhm75 just mentioned healthcare, for instance. Once someone has been labelled as belonging to a certain fraction, it's too easy to slip into arguing against the fraction instead, even on areas where the person doesn't agree with others of the same label.We already know the position (it's in the posts), so calling it libetarian doesn't elaborate or explain anything. It's not necessary. Now, you're free to do it, of course, and sometimes, labels can be useful. I'm just asking you to consider doing your opponents the courtesy of addressing their points without labels in this case, because I think it would help matters immensely. I promise to yell at them if they continue to be rude to you afterwards ;)
It was really done to show where I am coming from more than anything else (why I have come to reject the argument about personal freedom and safety belts). But it was truly just a minor point. My bigger point was I would rather save lives, and I would rather the government continue to regulate behavior on the road. I just don't think cars are a place where liberty and choice trump safety.
If you want to relax and have fun, you probably shouldn't tell people they hold positions they've made no claim to and then attack them on that basis. That tends to really annoy people.
So... yeah. You want good faith when you give none. You want politeness when you come out swinging. You want me to not assume, when you insist on doing the same (here and elsewhere).
Something 'bout this seems a little fishy.
Yes it does, you brought up haitians as an example and drew a direct connection between both types of "minorities". Your is an utterly specious argument and you know it.
No, it doesn't. You need to unwrap your head from that notion. As you go on to state...
Again your missing the point, those aren't a type of people but types of accidents, and it has nothing to do with respect for them or lack there of. It has to do with maximizing the number of lives saved.
That is what the solution posted for AIDS, at its inception would have done. Why would you not want to maximize the number of lives saved there?
See above. You are completely misusing the term.
Not at all. However, if for some reason you cannot accept the TRUE statistical definition of the term minority, substitute the word bliggimahoo in its place. With the definition being those people that are at the edges of the demographic curve. (the definition of minority)
In my case you are weighing what policy will save more lives. You aren't deliberately sacrificing one group for another, you are maximizing car safety---aware that there is a minimal risk imposed on everyone (not a minority of people) by the safety measures in place, but that risk is vastly outweighed byt he large numbers of people it will save.
Again - incorrect. That "risk" KNOWINGLY will CAUSE the death of some. That IS a deliberate sacrifice. (again, by definition).
It doesn't matter how you lead the passage, because you end up drawing the ethnic comparison, for obvious reasons.
It matters entirely. As stated, the determining factor of the bliggimahoo HAPPENS to be ethnicity. No more, no less. EVERY demographic curve is based on some measurement of the population at large. Whether that measurement is a fatality caused by a seat belt, or an increased risk of bringing an pandemic into this country, the result is the same.
And I don't. If given a choice, most people chose not to wear safety belts.
First - how do you draw that conclusion? Socket plugs are optional for parents, yet MOST parents I know of use them. Better still - with optional helmet laws, 56% (ie. the majority) of riders in Kentucky wear a helmet. I am really trying to have a decent conversation, but PLEASE - get your facts straight. (or is 44% considered most by your definition)
The fact is, but making it a law you save more lives.
Yes, you do. However, that is NOT the role of government, nor should it be. (protecting one from one's OWN actions). Should electrical outlets be banned from bathrooms containing a tub, so people don't electrocute themselves? Should scissors only come in the safety variety? You seem to prefer to have the government act as a parent to the population. No thank you.
No this isn't oppression, it is an absolutely reasonable regulation, and you continue to show a lack of knowledge of the kinds of accidents safety belts are effective in. What is more, you just keep using anecdotal evidence. So you've been in thirteen extreme accidents. Most people will be saved, rather than harmed by the use of satey belts. And I really have to question your 23% number there. Taking a safety belt off to leave the vehicle, is easy and quick to do.
You have that backwards - beside the anecdotal - I gave you the ACTUAL figure (42%), AND the main cause. (hint, I have the figure, perhaps I - unlike you - have researched this topic) 42% is NOT most, not by a longshot. Further, you again, miss the point. None were evacuation situations. The seat in all three instances was destroyed on impact. So... when was I supposed to open the seat belt?
First off, check your numbers my friend. Second, it still saves way more lives thatn not wearing them would save (in fact not wearing them results in thousands of more deaths in the US alone each year). The numbers a dependant on type of vehicle:
Lap-shoulder belts reduce the risk of fatal injury to front-seat occupants by 45% and the risk of moderate-to-critical injuries by 50%, depending on the type of vehicle and seating position involved. For light truck occupants, safety belts reduce the risk of fatal injury by 60% and moderate-to-critical injury by 65%.(National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, or NHTSA, 2005)
I did and do - the NHTSA posts 45% (we were talking fatalities, don't slide again). The source I used posts 42%. That is the number given if ALL drivers wore seatbelts. As opposed to choosing. (from hyperphysics)
Now you are back tracking, then still trying to make the same specious conenciton between types of accidents and minority groups.
Please, look up the term minority. No mention of ethnicity. All definitions but the first are applicable to my use.
No, we regulate the quality in terms of safety. Places that produce and handle spices are regularly inspected and have to follow health safety codes.
You ignore my point. Nutmeg is a poison. QUANTITY not QUALITY. I believe the problem we are having is that you are insisting on reading something other than what I have been clearly typing out.
Are you opposed to drunk driving laws then?
Not at all - they prevent one from harming another. Please, note the difference.
Again, your logic is sloppy and all over the place. If I buy alcohol, I have to show ID (there is a regulation). I can't get drunk in public (there is a regulation) and I can't drive drive if I am drunk (there is a regulation).
No, my logic is concise - your reading is "sloppy". A case of vodka is a lethal dose of alcohol. This, again, was about uncontrolled poisons. Not how old you have to be to poison yourself, or whether you can drive while intoxicated.
I am not interefering with your freedoms pal, I am saying you want to take on the responsibility of driving, I'm totally fine with the law requiring you to wear a seat belt.
You most certainly are. How does my wearing or not wearing a seat belt affect you or anyone other than myself?
This conversation reminds me of a recent news article. Bus drivers in China are now allowed to refer to their passengers as Sir or Madame (as opposed to comrade). They changed the LAW.
It's just an example of Right Wing logic. Grab any linguistic root you can to bring it back to concentration camps and Hitler. Clearly my claim to save millions of lives through safety belts is just an insidious cover-up for my real desire: ethnic cleansing.
Now, this is just funny. (considering I'm what most people consider a left wing nut). Liberal libertarian, to be precise. (classic liberal, not modern "liberal") . I'll note: YOU brought up those topics. I did not. Second - it isn't millions, it's thousands. Third, you still ignore the cost - these same safety measure WILL cause fatalities.
It's just an example of Right Wing logic. Grab any linguistic root you can to bring it back to concentration camps and Hitler. Clearly my claim to save millions of lives through safety belts is just an insidious cover-up for my real desire: ethnic cleansing.
Now, this is just funny. (considering I'm what most people consider a left wing nut). Liberal libertarian, to be precise. (classic liberal, not modern "liberal") . I'll note: YOU brought up those topics. I did not. Second - it isn't millions, it's thousands. Third, you still ignore the cost - these same safety measure WILL cause fatalities.
I cant think of a single kind of accident where a seat belt would cause a fatality, I dont doubt they happen but I doubt its thousands. If it were thousands someone would have sued by now.
You could just assume good faith, and explain to me that you think my assumptions are wrong.
Tried it, it didn't work. Between shifting goalposts, reinterpreting terms that I've clearly defined for purposes of the conversation and ignoring points that didn't fit within your ideal, conversation on this particular topic with you is ... difficult.
You don't need to make snide remarks
Good advice, you should consider it. Although, perhaps you define snide differently, as well.
I cant think of a single kind of accident where a seat belt would cause a fatality, I dont doubt they happen but I doubt its thousands. If it were thousands someone would have sued by now.
You misread will - the point was that mandatory seatbelts save thousands of lives, not millions (US). (in a year, perhaps worldwide over the course of the first installment of the law it might be millions, but I don't think so)
I cant think of a single kind of accident where a seat belt would cause a fatality, I dont doubt they happen but I doubt its thousands. If it were thousands someone would have sued by now.
You misread will - the point was that mandatory seatbelts save thousands of lives, not millions (US). (in a year, perhaps worldwide over the course of the first installment of the law it might be millions, but I don't think so)
shrugs I dont know I havent looked at the number I would think it would be higher than that, but oh well.
Each year there's a bit above 6,000,000 car crashes in the USA.
Those crashes give about 3,000,000 injured each year.
About 40,000 people dead each year.
A report in 2000 found that seat belts saved about 11,000 lives each year in the USA.
which is why I favor individual choice. As a Rush fan, ...
Me Too!!!
OH.
My bad.
I thought you were talking about Limbaugh...
Right you two lose all credibility with me Rush...
Robin_Hoodlum was the only one that said he is a Rush (Limbaugh) fan. PBN's original post stated being a fan of the canadian, rock band known as Rush.
which is why I favor individual choice. As a Rush fan, ...
Me Too!!!
OH.
My bad.
I thought you were talking about Limbaugh...
Ah, yes, the drug addicted college drop-out with weight issues. I find it amazing that a man who is barely qualified to be a deprtment manager at Sears wields so much influence.
Don't be mad because he is richer than you and is famous (infamous).
Rush is highly intelligent.
which is why I favor individual choice. As a Rush fan, ...
Me Too!!!
OH.
My bad.
I thought you were talking about Limbaugh...
Ah, yes, the drug addicted college drop-out with weight issues. I find it amazing that a man who is barely qualified to be a deprtment manager at Sears wields so much influence.
Don't be mad because he is richer than you and is famous (infamous).
Rush is highly intelligent.
Rich only because idiots think he has a clue when he's nothing more than a bigot and blowhard. He spouts random gibberish and thinks he has ideas just like glenn beck.
Rich only because idiots think he has a clue when he's nothing more than a bigot and blowhard. He spouts random gibberish and thinks he has ideas just like glenn beck.
You are either remarkably dim, or ignorant of understanding the things Rush says...
I think it is the former.
I just find it funny that any arguement against a particular law can be applied to all of them.
Not really, the arguments would vary depending on the law. Ideally, laws are the social contract one has to the society in which (s)he lives. The problem becomes when the law is opposed by a sizeable (though minority) portion of the populace. A good example is cannabis. Though illegal, at least one survey I read showed 40% usage. That means 40% of the population disagree with the law (to break it). However, as I stated below (I believe) - I feel laws should be compensatory, not compulsive.
Abolish laws, it's every man, woman, and child for him/herself. We're all adults right?
Anarchy - always an option, not necessarily the best, though.
Edit:
I am joking of course but the argument you made could be used against all laws. And every discussion that I've seen on these boards concerning laws all offer arguments that if you extend them then they can apply to all laws. Just my observation.
To further illustrate the reason vs. compulsion, one need only return to EEs example of condom use. Through education and awareness practices have changed. However, there is no law compelling the use. For me, this is the proper solution.
Stupid people will do what they do whether there is a law that says you can't or not.
Rich only because idiots think he has a clue when he's nothing more than a bigot and blowhard. He spouts random gibberish and thinks he has ideas just like glenn beck.
You are either remarkably dim, or ignorant of understanding the things Rush says...
I think it is the former.
No I just reject his ideas. The man is a biggot who has no idea what he is talking about. The way he talks about any minority and especially homosexual people is unconcionable. Then again I despise most conservatives. I think they are naive and ignorant of modern realities. Anyone who tries to keep things the same is ignoring the fact that only by change do we stay alive
.
Abolish laws, it's every man, woman, and child for him/herself. We're all adults, right?
Um, no?
The man is a bigot who has no idea what he is talking about.... Then again I despise most conservatives.
Yeah, them people are all prejudiced.
One of my favorite stereotypes about any group of people.
Abolish laws, it's every man, woman, and child for him/herself. We're all adults, right?
Um, no?
But they have to learn responsibility sometime. Children have to grow up to be responsible for themselves, or so it was said earlier in this thread, so yeah, they're adults they just don't know it yet.
Abolish laws, it's every man, woman, and child for him/herself. We're all adults, right?
Um, no?The man is a bigot who has no idea what he is talking about.... Then again I despise most conservatives.
Yeah, them people are all prejudiced.
One of my favorite stereotypes about any group of people.
Have you listened to him? I forget which football player it was but their was one he claimed only made money because he was black. And he is opposed to gays being allowed to get married and calls them things like unnatrual so yes his a biggot.
Don't be mad because he is richer than you and is famous (infamous).
Rush is highly intelligent.
... when the HCR debate was going on, he said on air that if it passed he would move to Jamaica (I think... I might be wrong on just which tropical country he gave). After it passed, he amended his statement that he would go there for healthcare. Jamaica (or whichever place he named if I have the name wrong) has socialized healthcare.
Do I need to say more?
I just find it funny that any arguement against a particular law can be applied to all of them. Abolish laws, it's every man, woman, and child for him/herself. We're all adults right?
Um, not really. The specific argument I've been using is that the government has an interest in protection you from other people, not yourself. That argument really can't be used against most laws. Some laws, yes. Like most drug laws, helmet laws, and other laws in place to force people to behave "right" (also known as "victimless crimes"). Sure, it can be used against those. But assault, murder, theft, and so-on are pretty much beyond my argument.
That is what the solution posted for AIDS, at its inception would have done. Why would you not want to maximize the number of lives saved there?
I am not sure what you are referring to exactly here.
Not at all. However, if for some reason you cannot accept the TRUE statistical definition of the term minority, substitute the word bliggimahoo in its place. With the definition being those people that are at the edges of the demographic curve. (the definition of minority)
I understand what it means statistically. But you are using the term in two ways. Clearly you are, otherwise you have equated it with an ethnic group. There is a very big difference when you are talking about people with minority status, and people in a data block forming a minority. You know it and I know it.
Again - incorrect. That "risk" KNOWINGLY will CAUSE the death of some. That IS a deliberate sacrifice. (again, by definition).
Again this argument is specious. I have three choices, all three will result in deaths. Laws enforcing seatbelts, laws prohibiting seatbelts, no laws at all. I go with the choice (laws enforcing seatbelts) that limits the number of total deaths more). Your argument is specious because every choice is going to condemn some people to die. You are playing a semantic game here, just as you were with the term minority.
It matters entirely. As stated, the determining factor of the bliggimahoo HAPPENS to be ethnicity. No more, no less. EVERY demographic curve is based on some measurement of the population at large. Whether that measurement is a fatality caused by a seat belt, or an increased risk of bringing an pandemic into this country, the result is the same.
No it isn't, because when you tie the statistical use of the term to the ethnic use, it raises concerns about killing "minorities". Which you brough up when you said that was what I was doing.
Yes, you do. However, that is NOT the role of government, nor should it be. (protecting one from one's OWN actions). Should electrical outlets be banned from bathrooms containing a tub, so people don't electrocute themselves? Should scissors only come in the safety variety? You seem to prefer to have the government act as a parent to the population. No thank you.
That is what you think about the role of government. I actually believe the government can help protect people from there own actions. That is why where I live, all electric sockets have to have breaks which cause the socket to shut down if you say drop your hairdryer into the tub. This measure has saved countless lives (a person in my highschool actually died that way).
I don't think the government should act as a parent (and again whether it is an appeal to masculinity or maturity it is still an emotional appeal based on a bad metaphor in my view), but I do think its fair for representatives to legislate safety measures the public supports (such as saftey belts, and other regulations). I like living in a safer environment. This isn't about the nanny state. It is about using our government to give us control over risk.
You have that backwards - beside the anecdotal - I gave you the ACTUAL figure (42%), AND the main cause. (hint, I have the figure, perhaps I - unlike you - have researched this topic) 42% is NOT most, not by a longshot. Further, you again, miss the point. None were evacuation situations. The seat in all three instances was destroyed on impact. So... when was I supposed to open the seat belt?
And I dispute that number, the numbers I posted were higher and more accurate. 45-66%
I did and do - the NHTSA posts 45% (we were talking fatalities, don't slide again). The source I used posts 42%. That is the number given if ALL drivers wore seatbelts. As opposed to choosing. (from hyperphysics)
Since lots of people drive SUVs and trucks, those other numbers are actually important. And critical injuries are important as well. Either way, the law is worth it even if it is just saving 45% from death.
Please, look up the term minority. No mention of ethnicity. All definitions but the first are applicable to my use.
Are you honestly arguing that the term minority isn't used to describe ethnic groups in the US?
You ignore my point. Nutmeg is a poison. QUANTITY not QUALITY. I believe the problem we are having is that you are insisting on reading something other than what I have been clearly typing out.
Then address my points about regulation of alchohol and firearms. The point is when there is a serious risk of injury, we legislate protective measures. But with water and nutmeg, the risks are so low, we don't legislate.
No, my logic is concise - your reading is "sloppy". A case of vodka is a lethal dose of alcohol. This, again, was about uncontrolled poisons. Not how old you have to be to poison yourself, or whether you can drive while intoxicated.
Actually I dispute your use of logic and the relevance of this part of your argument. So because I want to regulate the wearing of seatbelts, I should also want to regulate the amount of alcohol and nutmeg people can consume? Is that your point?
Third, you still ignore the cost - these same safety measure WILL cause fatalities.
Specious bullshit.
Hey now, that's just not fair. Conservatives, real conservatives, have a perspective that's quite defensible and not at all reprehensible. It's just unfortunate that the term has been co-opted bysocial conservatives, which are a different breed of political animal entirely, and have thrown pretty much every other kind of conservatism out the window in their pursuit of returning the USA to their vision of what the 50's was like.
Eh even economic conservativism does not work. The trickle down approach has never helped solve an economic crisis. And the idea of small government just does not work in the complex modern world. The conservative answer to most things to me is too simplistic, then again I find a lot of liberals the same way.
Rich only because idiots think he has a clue when he's nothing more than a bigot and blowhard. He spouts random gibberish and thinks he has ideas just like glenn beck.
You are either remarkably dim, or ignorant of understanding the things Rush says...
I think it is the former.
No I just reject his ideas. The man is a biggot who has no idea what he is talking about. The way he talks about any minority and especially homosexual people is unconcionable. Then again I despise most conservatives. I think they are naive and ignorant of modern realities. Anyone who tries to keep things the same is ignoring the fact that only by change do we stay alive
.
I must agree with this. There have been many times I have been repusled by his description of people in the black community. I don't despise conservatives though. But I have to question the movement when guys like this are part of its pantheon.
I cant think of a single kind of accident where a seat belt would cause a fatality, I dont doubt they happen but I doubt its thousands. If it were thousands someone would have sued by now.
You misread will - the point was that mandatory seatbelts save thousands of lives, not millions (US). (in a year, perhaps worldwide over the course of the first installment of the law it might be millions, but I don't think so)
For the record I was thinking over the course of decades when I said millions.
which is why I favor individual choice. As a Rush fan, ...
Me Too!!!
OH.
My bad.
I thought you were talking about Limbaugh...
Ah, yes, the drug addicted college drop-out with weight issues. I find it amazing that a man who is barely qualified to be a deprtment manager at Sears wields so much influence.
Don't be mad because he is richer than you and is famous (infamous).
Rush is highly intelligent.
1) I'm not mad.
2) If I cared about wealth would I have taken a pay cut to enlist just over 4 years ago?
3) What fool wants to be famous?
4) Rush may be an persuasive speaker, but he is not smart.
I still find it amazing that person of his (non) qualifications has managed to gain so much influence in the Republican party.
For the record I was thinking over the course of decades when I said millions.
Hrm... Ya talkin' the whole world then? 'cause even at the 2000 rate, that's still a century before you you're around 1 million, nevertheless multiple of 'em. Now, that rate will pick up with the population increases, but similarly that means that in previous years it was down.
That is to say, unless you're talking about the whole world, there's no way you're even close to right.
Due to complaints received about this thread, I've closed it. The thread will be reviewed to determine if it should be permanently closed, re-opened, and/or a new thread or threads created in its place.