Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

 

2010-07-15 08:33:54
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6370|North Tonawanda, NY

lowing wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

lowing wrote:

Oh see, I thought you were going to make an argument that was in the realms of reason and statistically probable.
What else do you want, lowing?  I said I abandoned the obviously crap reasoning for the law...since it doesn't really affect other people.  I clarified my own personal opinion, and said that anyone in my car WILL wear one regardless of the law...but that's because it's my car and my insurance, so it will obviously affect me in some way.

What part of that does not have reason and the statistically probable in mind?
"since your right to not wear a seatbelt ends when your body flies through my windshield." <--------I want you to defend this since you said it.

lowing wrote:

Use your head for something other than a hat rack.
Take your own advice, chief.
2010-07-15 08:34:06
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6645|North Carolina

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:


Isn't waiting until they kill a family of 5 in a mini van a little late to figure out they shouldn't have driven drunk? Use your head for something other than a hat rack.
Statist.
Willing to bet your families life on that?
Yes.  They have good enough reflexes to dodge a drunk driver.
2010-07-15 08:34:54
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

Jaekus wrote:

Can please we get back on topic before lowing picks arguments with half the posts in this thread and trashes it once more?
Trying to argue with someone about how fast they were going in an accident is really not the point and should be considered trolling.

Thanks.

To the OP: I see where you're coming from but it kinda takes away the free will people have. Ideas like that, whilst on the surface seem good end up opening a Pandora's Box where it allows the possibility of other prohibitive measures to be taken that take away people's liberty. That sounds a little grandiose but if this idea was the case with every boat, what next? All cars with seat belts? What about in a bar and you have to have a breath reading to make sure you're not too drunk before you order your next drink? Where would it stop?

At the end of the day it imposes upon free will. Whether this allows for people to make good decisions or stupid ones is up to them, but people should not necessarily be allowed to make them, but rather should not be totally prevented from making them in the first place. Because who's call is that to make, where would the line in the sand be drawn? That's what laws are for.
I apologize I thought an point to not wearing a seatbelt because you survived a car accident at 15 fuckin miles an hour was worth an argument.
2010-07-15 08:36:01
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Statist.
Willing to bet your families life on that?
Yes.  They have good enough reflexes to dodge a drunk driver.
I am sure the graveyards are full of people that felt the same way, could never happen to them either.
2010-07-15 08:37:04
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5418|Sydney
People still have accidents, I doubt they'd lose work. I think they'd rather be trying to save lives than scraping someone off the asphalt into a bucket for identification later on.

And their use never was a requirement, but I guess after cleaning up a lot of accidents where people died horrifically they pushed for the laws to make it compulsory to wear a seatbelt. That's part of the role of an elected official; if these matters are brought to their attention and nothing is done then doesn't that make them negligent?

But anyway, I think the laws are sound, but taking it the extra notch where you can't operate a vehicle unless you are wearing a seatbelt/lifejacket is really going down the nanny state path.
2010-07-15 08:37:07
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6645|North Carolina

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:


Willing to bet your families life on that?
Yes.  They have good enough reflexes to dodge a drunk driver.
I am sure the graveyards are full of people that felt the same way, could never happen to them either.
Well, if it did happen to them, then they weren't physically alert enough to survive.  That's a fault on them.
2010-07-15 08:37:48
Hurricane2k9
Pendulous Sweaty Balls
+1,538|5942|College Park, MD

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


Statist.
Willing to bet your families life on that?
Yes.  They have good enough reflexes to dodge a drunk driver.
well I ain't willing to bet my life or anyone's life on it. All it takes is one drunken asshole to completely ruin a person's life. Same goes for excess speeders.
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg
2010-07-15 08:38:50
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

SenorToenails wrote:

lowing wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:


What else do you want, lowing?  I said I abandoned the obviously crap reasoning for the law...since it doesn't really affect other people.  I clarified my own personal opinion, and said that anyone in my car WILL wear one regardless of the law...but that's because it's my car and my insurance, so it will obviously affect me in some way.

What part of that does not have reason and the statistically probable in mind?
"since your right to not wear a seatbelt ends when your body flies through my windshield." <--------I want you to defend this since you said it.

lowing wrote:

Use your head for something other than a hat rack.
Take your own advice, chief.
Just wanted to make sure you agreed your reasoning was crap. Next time think about it before you type it.
2010-07-15 08:38:57
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5418|Sydney
Sure, good reflexes to dodge a drunk driver... as long as you can see them coming in time to swerve.
2010-07-15 08:39:14
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6645|North Carolina

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:


Willing to bet your families life on that?
Yes.  They have good enough reflexes to dodge a drunk driver.
well I ain't willing to bet my life or anyone's life on it. All it takes is one drunken asshole to completely ruin a person's life. Same goes for excess speeders.
True, but the same could be said for asshole CEOs that destroy your retirement or fire you before you can collect your pension.

It's just natural selection.
2010-07-15 08:39:59
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5418|Sydney

lowing wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

lowing wrote:

"since your right to not wear a seatbelt ends when your body flies through my windshield." <--------I want you to defend this since you said it.

lowing wrote:

Use your head for something other than a hat rack.
Take your own advice, chief.
Just wanted to make sure you agreed your reasoning was crap. Next time think about it before you type it.
I thought it was pretty clear tbh... you kinda don't have many rights at all when you're flying through a windscreen - unless you miraculously survive of course...
2010-07-15 08:40:21
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Yes.  They have good enough reflexes to dodge a drunk driver.
I am sure the graveyards are full of people that felt the same way, could never happen to them either.
Well, if it did happen to them, then they weren't physically alert enough to survive.  That's a fault on them.
Been talking with you several years now Turquoise, and there is no way you believe that.

Last edited by lowing (2010-07-15 08:40:33)

2010-07-15 08:41:59
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6645|North Carolina

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:


I am sure the graveyards are full of people that felt the same way, could never happen to them either.
Well, if it did happen to them, then they weren't physically alert enough to survive.  That's a fault on them.
Been talking with you several years now Turquoise, and there is no way you believe that.
I've decided to try out Social Darwinism.  It's quite refreshing, because you can literally justify everything bad that happens as just flaws in the people involved.  It's kind of like how religious people assume everything is part of God's plan.
2010-07-15 08:42:18
jord
Member
+2,382|6918|The North, beyond the wall.

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Can please we get back on topic before lowing picks arguments with half the posts in this thread and trashes it once more?
Trying to argue with someone about how fast they were going in an accident is really not the point and should be considered trolling.

Thanks.

To the OP: I see where you're coming from but it kinda takes away the free will people have. Ideas like that, whilst on the surface seem good end up opening a Pandora's Box where it allows the possibility of other prohibitive measures to be taken that take away people's liberty. That sounds a little grandiose but if this idea was the case with every boat, what next? All cars with seat belts? What about in a bar and you have to have a breath reading to make sure you're not too drunk before you order your next drink? Where would it stop?

At the end of the day it imposes upon free will. Whether this allows for people to make good decisions or stupid ones is up to them, but people should not necessarily be allowed to make them, but rather should not be totally prevented from making them in the first place. Because who's call is that to make, where would the line in the sand be drawn? That's what laws are for.
I apologize I thought an point to not wearing a seatbelt because you survived a car accident at 15 fuckin miles an hour was worth an argument.
I assume you're referring to my example?

Well I'm glad you've come to the conclusion that it was indeed half the speed I'd said, what with you being there and all I trust your opinion on MY accident.


I posted that because adding a personal experiance and opinion makes dst a bit more interesting than arguing about shit nobody has any real experiance of. Extend some fucking civility and you might not have 90% of the forum on your back...
2010-07-15 08:42:31
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

Jaekus wrote:

lowing wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

lowing wrote:

"since your right to not wear a seatbelt ends when your body flies through my windshield." <--------I want you to defend this since you said it.
Take your own advice, chief.
Just wanted to make sure you agreed your reasoning was crap. Next time think about it before you type it.
I thought it was pretty clear tbh... you kinda don't have many rights at all when you're flying through a windscreen - unless you miraculously survive of course...
that is why they should be able to maintain their right to plow their dumb asses through their own windshield if they so choose. It does not cost me a thing.
2010-07-15 08:44:26
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5418|Sydney

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

lowing wrote:


Just wanted to make sure you agreed your reasoning was crap. Next time think about it before you type it.
I thought it was pretty clear tbh... you kinda don't have many rights at all when you're flying through a windscreen - unless you miraculously survive of course...
that is why they should be able to maintain their right to plow their dumb asses through their own windshield if they so choose. It does not cost me a thing.
OMG dude, that is what he just said!!
2010-07-15 08:45:05
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6370|North Tonawanda, NY

lowing wrote:

Just wanted to make sure you agreed your reasoning was crap. Next time think about it before you type it.
And you thought before challenging my statement when I admitted it was wrong already?  I'm betting you didn't.

Again, take your own advice, chief.
2010-07-15 08:45:06
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6645|North Carolina

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

lowing wrote:


Just wanted to make sure you agreed your reasoning was crap. Next time think about it before you type it.
I thought it was pretty clear tbh... you kinda don't have many rights at all when you're flying through a windscreen - unless you miraculously survive of course...
that is why they should be able to maintain their right to plow their dumb asses through their own windshield if they so choose. It does not cost me a thing.
It could cost you more through them ending up in the hospital and not paying for services rendered, but that can easily be fixed by not serving people until they prove they can pay first.
2010-07-15 08:49:15
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5418|Sydney

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:


I thought it was pretty clear tbh... you kinda don't have many rights at all when you're flying through a windscreen - unless you miraculously survive of course...
that is why they should be able to maintain their right to plow their dumb asses through their own windshield if they so choose. It does not cost me a thing.
It could cost you more through them ending up in the hospital and not paying for services rendered, but that can easily be fixed by not serving people until they prove they can pay first.
Yay for capitalism! I'm sure if I were in a serious accident that wasn't my fault I'd love to be asked if I could afford the $30k in hospital bills before they worked on me, and if not just sent me on my jolly way back home.

I mean, cmon, really.
2010-07-15 08:50:56
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6645|North Carolina

Jaekus wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:


that is why they should be able to maintain their right to plow their dumb asses through their own windshield if they so choose. It does not cost me a thing.
It could cost you more through them ending up in the hospital and not paying for services rendered, but that can easily be fixed by not serving people until they prove they can pay first.
Yay for capitalism! I'm sure if I were in a serious accident that wasn't my fault I'd love to be asked if I could afford the $30k in hospital bills before they worked on me, and if not just sent me on my jolly way back home.

I mean, cmon, really.
You should sue the parties involved, and if you can't, your family should.  If you can't manage that, you just aren't self-reliant enough. 
2010-07-15 08:51:56
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5418|Sydney

Turquoise wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


It could cost you more through them ending up in the hospital and not paying for services rendered, but that can easily be fixed by not serving people until they prove they can pay first.
Yay for capitalism! I'm sure if I were in a serious accident that wasn't my fault I'd love to be asked if I could afford the $30k in hospital bills before they worked on me, and if not just sent me on my jolly way back home.

I mean, cmon, really.
You should sue the parties involved, and if you can't, your family should.  If you can't manage that, you just aren't self-reliant enough. 
And all this before receiving treatment? So you can prove you can pay the hospital, naturally?
2010-07-15 08:53:13
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6645|North Carolina

Jaekus wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Jaekus wrote:


Yay for capitalism! I'm sure if I were in a serious accident that wasn't my fault I'd love to be asked if I could afford the $30k in hospital bills before they worked on me, and if not just sent me on my jolly way back home.

I mean, cmon, really.
You should sue the parties involved, and if you can't, your family should.  If you can't manage that, you just aren't self-reliant enough. 
And all this before receiving treatment? So you can prove you can pay the hospital, naturally?
Apparently, self-determined people can.  I believe Nietzsche called them Ubermenschen....  or maybe Ayn Rand said something about it.
2010-07-15 08:53:18
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

jord wrote:

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Can please we get back on topic before lowing picks arguments with half the posts in this thread and trashes it once more?
Trying to argue with someone about how fast they were going in an accident is really not the point and should be considered trolling.

Thanks.

To the OP: I see where you're coming from but it kinda takes away the free will people have. Ideas like that, whilst on the surface seem good end up opening a Pandora's Box where it allows the possibility of other prohibitive measures to be taken that take away people's liberty. That sounds a little grandiose but if this idea was the case with every boat, what next? All cars with seat belts? What about in a bar and you have to have a breath reading to make sure you're not too drunk before you order your next drink? Where would it stop?

At the end of the day it imposes upon free will. Whether this allows for people to make good decisions or stupid ones is up to them, but people should not necessarily be allowed to make them, but rather should not be totally prevented from making them in the first place. Because who's call is that to make, where would the line in the sand be drawn? That's what laws are for.
I apologize I thought an point to not wearing a seatbelt because you survived a car accident at 15 fuckin miles an hour was worth an argument.
I assume you're referring to my example?

Well I'm glad you've come to the conclusion that it was indeed half the speed I'd said, what with you being there and all I trust your opinion on MY accident.


I posted that because adding a personal experiance and opinion makes dst a bit more interesting than arguing about shit nobody has any real experiance of. Extend some fucking civility and you might not have 90% of the forum on your back...
Tell ya what try it again, do 30 miles an hour head on into a car doing 30 miles an hour, or a brick wall, do not put your seat belt on, and stick your arms out to "brace yourself". Then come back here, and explain to us all how your arms kept you from continuing your travels at 30 miles an hour after your car came to a dead stop. Using a pen in your mouth to punch the keys will be acceptable. You were not doing 30 miles an hour.


http://www.scienceperspectives.com/Sir- … -Belts.htm
2010-07-15 08:54:37
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

Jaekus wrote:

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:


I thought it was pretty clear tbh... you kinda don't have many rights at all when you're flying through a windscreen - unless you miraculously survive of course...
that is why they should be able to maintain their right to plow their dumb asses through their own windshield if they so choose. It does not cost me a thing.
OMG dude, that is what he just said!!
Who? Mister National health care? No he didn't
2010-07-15 08:56:13
jord
Member
+2,382|6918|The North, beyond the wall.

lowing wrote:

jord wrote:

lowing wrote:

I apologize I thought an point to not wearing a seatbelt because you survived a car accident at 15 fuckin miles an hour was worth an argument.
I assume you're referring to my example?

Well I'm glad you've come to the conclusion that it was indeed half the speed I'd said, what with you being there and all I trust your opinion on MY accident.


I posted that because adding a personal experiance and opinion makes dst a bit more interesting than arguing about shit nobody has any real experiance of. Extend some fucking civility and you might not have 90% of the forum on your back...
Tell ya what try it again, do 30 miles an hour head on into a car doing 30 miles an hour, or a brick wall, do not put your seat belt on, and stick your arms out to "brace yourself". Then come back here, and explain to us all how your arms kept you from continuing your travels at 30 miles an hour after your car came to a dead stop. Using a pen in your mouth to punch the keys will be acceptable. You were not doing 30 miles an hour.


http://www.scienceperspectives.com/Sir- … -Belts.htm
It wasn't head on, I said we went into the back of a car that was coming to a stop. I imagine the car we hit gave way a bit.
You must be arguing for arguments sake, you weren't there, don't presume to tell me what speed we were going. Whether I subconsciously used my legs to brace as well or the car we hit gave way some, we were doing very close to 30mph. It sure as shit wasn't 15 anyway...


edit: The car I was in was written off, it had no front end, newer cars have crumple zones, maybe that stopped me somewhat from going forward and into the windscreen.

Last edited by jord (2010-07-15 08:57:17)

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard