UPDATE x2: Could someone show me why I'm wrong?
- Thread starter joystickjunki3
- Start date
Recommended Videos
OK, but I don't see why their stupidity should affect me. It's not that I'm encouraging not wearing a seatbelt, it's that I have problems w/ laws that are enacted that can be used against me for no other reason than a cop feels like punishing me. I see something inherently wrong w/ rationalizing a law that exists only to be enforced if the government feels like it.Susan Arendt said:
Thats a good reason to not make it a law in my opinion. But I still think there should be a law that forces it, just because I cant help thinking of the people that have to clean up otherwise. Sure, they probably chose to take the job, but that alone deserves respect and this is only a small way of supporting them. Even though more seatbelts and helmets means less work for them.dontworryaboutit said:
US Constitution is an elastic document and "pursuit of happiness" can be interpreted in many different ways, but I see your point. I still disagree, though.ThrobbingEgo said:
To everyone railing against this:
No one, at any point in time, suggested not wearing seatbelts.
All that has been brought into question is why the government is allowed to dictate personal choices that will only hurt yourself. Essentially, "why does the government protect people from their own stupidity?"
No one, at any point in time, suggested not wearing seatbelts.
All that has been brought into question is why the government is allowed to dictate personal choices that will only hurt yourself. Essentially, "why does the government protect people from their own stupidity?"
1) It can't be interpreted that loosely. That wouldn't fly, and you know it.joystickjunki3 said:
2) You disagree. That's great. Answer why or you're just wasting text.
Simple answer is that laws like these have to be in place otherwise people would get themselves killed. If we didn't have signs on the edge of cliffs that said "Danger! Cliff!" or signs on nut stands that said "Danger! May include nuts!" then the human race would likely last about a week.
My theory is as a species we've had are ability to recognize danger bred out of us, and we have to be reminded constantly that doing stupid things may involve injury or death.
Also, people generally interpret laws as a bit stricter than other general "advice" and stick to them more rigidly.
But the heart of your arguement is essentially right, people should be free to get themselves killed because they failed to follow instructions. Though the price of that freedom would be shockingly high.
My theory is as a species we've had are ability to recognize danger bred out of us, and we have to be reminded constantly that doing stupid things may involve injury or death.
Also, people generally interpret laws as a bit stricter than other general "advice" and stick to them more rigidly.
But the heart of your arguement is essentially right, people should be free to get themselves killed because they failed to follow instructions. Though the price of that freedom would be shockingly high.
As I mentioned earlier, you can injure other passengers by not wearing a seatbelt. Think side collision, with skulls fracturing each other.Agayek said:
I agree it should not be "law" to have to wear a seatbelt or motorcycle helmet if over 18, I would consider it my right to chose how I do things. If you have taxpayer supported healthcare I can see an argument for it. But if it's really about saving money(from preventable things) then ban smoking/fat foods/motocross/football/rugby/ cause tons of people get hurt and that would save even more. If i'm the only one in the car and I'm not in a country with taxpayer supported healthcare then why should it be law? If you can bring up an article about someone being killed by flying bodies then I might change my mind a pinch.
If that's the case, I agree with you. I have no idea on the physics of car collisions. I'm just trying to clarify things so people would stop arguing over points that haven't even been raised.ThrobbingEgo said:
Edit: On a side note, I 100% agree with whoever it was that suggested we remove all warning labels from everything. The people that need them really shouldn't be allowed to continue existing in the first place.
Keep in mind here that I don't think I deserved to be condescended to as such, but I will do my best to satisfy your request.ThrobbingEgo said:
1) I think it can be interpreted that loosely. I don't know it wouldn't.
2) I disagree because it's my opinion that you're wrong about it not being part of my pursuit. I need no more justification (in this minute case) than that.
As we're on the subject, is it true or just an urban myth that American cars' airbags are more powerfull than european ones, and when wearing a seatbelt in one of those that you won't be able to click your seatbelt open if the airbag is 'deployed'?
read it once a very long while back. Just curious.
read it once a very long while back. Just curious.
Sorry for being condescending. I have a bad habit of doing that when I'm talking down to people. Seriously, though, I was just digging. Didn't mean to offend.joystickjunki3 said:
You can't just say something is your right "just because." You have to have a plausible reason why your pursuit of happiness requires you to drive without a seatbelt, or, well, you don't have a plausible reason for why your pursuit of happiness requires you to drive without a seatbelt. You see the problem here? I don't think you can justify this - it's as if you're just picking some arbitrary line out of your constitution because it sounds definitive.
I'm not way off on this one, am I?
I haven't read much of the thread, so forgive me if this point has already been brought up.
Ever seen a rollover simulation? They do them a lot at high schools and colleges to encourage seatbelt use. At only 30 mph, the body thrashed around inside the vehicle violently enough to snap someone elses neck (they had pressure sensors in the dummies).
You may not want to protect your own life, but you can kill other people in the car who ARE wearing their seatbelts if you aren't wearing yours, and that's hardly fair, is it?
Plus, I did see this earlier, ejections do happen, and you have to remember that your body weight is greatly increased. A lot of people forget that when your car stops, you don't If you aren't secured to the vehicle, you're going to continue moving at the speed you were going when you wrecked, and that could cause a LOT of damage to someone else.
So, it's not just to protect your own life, but the life of others who might be involved in an accident.
Ever seen a rollover simulation? They do them a lot at high schools and colleges to encourage seatbelt use. At only 30 mph, the body thrashed around inside the vehicle violently enough to snap someone elses neck (they had pressure sensors in the dummies).
You may not want to protect your own life, but you can kill other people in the car who ARE wearing their seatbelts if you aren't wearing yours, and that's hardly fair, is it?
Plus, I did see this earlier, ejections do happen, and you have to remember that your body weight is greatly increased. A lot of people forget that when your car stops, you don't If you aren't secured to the vehicle, you're going to continue moving at the speed you were going when you wrecked, and that could cause a LOT of damage to someone else.
So, it's not just to protect your own life, but the life of others who might be involved in an accident.
I don't think that happiness or the pursuit of need to be justified.ThrobbingEgo said:
Are you happy when you play video games? If so, should you have to justify your happiness while playing them? I'm not saying you can't justify it, just asking if you should have to.
I also don't think it's an arbitrarily picked line because by definition that means I picked it at random and w/o a reason.