Pages: 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 10

 

2011-07-07 06:45:30
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6709|Canberra, AUS

Jaekus wrote:

Spark wrote:

Jay wrote:


Your statement assumes the natural order is government granting privilages rather than taking them away. I (and most americans) feel free to do whatever they want until the government sets bounds. Your thinking is that the bounds exist first before the behavior occurs.
But driving is a granted privilege.

Or at least here it is.

Here the idea is that on one side is a practically very useful idea of seat belts etc. (in that it saves plenty of lives) vs. theoretical arguments (which is what the above essentially is) and... what?
With some of the idiots on the road I wonder how they got theirs
You don't live in Canberra
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2011-07-07 06:46:21
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5213|Sydney

Spark wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Spark wrote:


But driving is a granted privilege.

Or at least here it is.

Here the idea is that on one side is a practically very useful idea of seat belts etc. (in that it saves plenty of lives) vs. theoretical arguments (which is what the above essentially is) and... what?
With some of the idiots on the road I wonder how they got theirs
You don't live in Canberra
You don't live in Brisbane
2011-07-07 06:49:22
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6709|Canberra, AUS

Jaekus wrote:

Spark wrote:

Jaekus wrote:


With some of the idiots on the road I wonder how they got theirs
You don't live in Canberra
You don't live in Brisbane
Can't comment the other way (although I might be able to in a week!) but the drivers here are terribad. Mostly because of dodgy lane merges. And none of them can park.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2011-07-07 06:50:37
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6140|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:

Your statement assumes the natural order is government granting privilages rather than taking them away. I (and most americans) feel free to do whatever they want until the government sets bounds. Your thinking is that the bounds exist first before the behavior occurs.
Society already exists. There are zillions of laws which 'restrict freedom' in ways someone or other objects to.
Its not as if everyone is born naked on the prairie and then the gubmint comes along and ruins their fun.

Freedom carries responsibility, its just most people are too stupid or too pig-headed to accept it.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2011-07-07 06:51:22
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5392|London, England

Spark wrote:

Jay wrote:

Spark wrote:

Here's another line.
What are the practical, real-world benefits of allowing people to drive helmetless/seatbeltless?
Your statement assumes the natural order is government granting privilages rather than taking them away. I (and most americans) feel free to do whatever they want until the government sets bounds. Your thinking is that the bounds exist first before the behavior occurs.
But driving is a granted privilege.

Or at least here it is.

Here the idea is that on one side is a practically very useful idea of seat belts etc. (in that it saves plenty of lives) vs. theoretical arguments (which is what the above essentially is) and... what?

Look, I'm not disagreeing with your logic in principle - except for the idea that driving is a natural right - it's just that the practical arguments are so massively the other way that the theoretical/ideological concerns pale in comparison IMO.
Right, you need a license here too. I'm perfectly ok with that because an untrained driver is a hazard to everyone else on the road. The difference here is the hazard to others statement. If you can prove that wearing a seatbelt saves lives other than the drivers, I'll jump on board.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-07-07 06:51:39
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6140|eXtreme to the maX

Spark wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Spark wrote:


You don't live in Canberra
You don't live in Brisbane
Can't comment the other way (although I might be able to in a week!) but the drivers here are terribad. Mostly because of dodgy lane merges. And none of them can park.
My parents used to live in Beirut, they reckon Lebanese drive better than South Australians.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2011-07-07 06:53:43
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6140|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:

Right, you need a license here too. I'm perfectly ok with that because an untrained driver is a hazard to everyone else on the road. The difference here is the hazard to others statement. If you can prove that wearing a seatbelt saves lives other than the drivers, I'll jump on board.
How about passengers?

If people are too stupid to realise their kids should wear seatbelts shouldn't the govt step in?
(Kids aren't property, too young to decide for themselves, blah blah blah)

I'm sure there are stats on people flying through windscreens and killing others, there are certainly stats on unbelted rear seat passengers killing front seat passengers.

I want the freedom to drive with slick tyres, its fun and makes me feel alive.
Screw the wet weather braking distances.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-07-07 06:56:42)

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2011-07-07 06:55:47
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5213|Sydney

Spark wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Spark wrote:


You don't live in Canberra
You don't live in Brisbane
Can't comment the other way (although I might be able to in a week!) but the drivers here are terribad. Mostly because of dodgy lane merges. And none of them can park.
We get that too, plus HEAPS who don't use indicators, cutting people off, tailgating etc. Drives me nuts sometimes.
2011-07-07 06:57:57
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6709|Canberra, AUS
Oh yeah but there's at least one lane merge on like any reasonably major street or road, so it can get... tiresome.

Right, you need a license here too. I'm perfectly ok with that because an untrained driver is a hazard to everyone else on the road. The difference here is the hazard to others statement. If you can prove that wearing a seatbelt saves lives other than the drivers, I'll jump on board.
Naturally, it doesn't. But in my estimation, the benefits of allowing no seatbelts are so, well, whimsical and ideological that they can't possibly outweigh, for me, the fact that a lot more people will die. Pointlessly.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2011-07-07 06:58:07
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5213|Sydney
To be honest if I had an accident with a motorcyclist and they weren't wearing a helmet and their brains splattered all over my car, or even if they had something less severe like an ABI, I'd be traumatised for quite a while I imagine. Certainly more so than if they were wearing a helmet.
2011-07-07 07:00:21
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6709|Canberra, AUS
I've been in an accident (in a car) with a motorcycle once. Did not end well for the motorcyclist at all. Not much fun for me either.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2011-07-07 07:00:36
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6685|USA

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

Right, you need a license here too. I'm perfectly ok with that because an untrained driver is a hazard to everyone else on the road. The difference here is the hazard to others statement. If you can prove that wearing a seatbelt saves lives other than the drivers, I'll jump on board.
How about passengers?

If people are too stupid to realise their kids should wear seatbelts shouldn't the govt step in?
(Kids aren't property, too young to decide for themselves, blah blah blah)

I'm sure there are stats on people flying through windscreens and killing others, there are certainly stats on unbelted rear seat passengers killing front seat passengers.

I want the freedom to drive with slick tyres, its fun and makes me feel alive.
Screw the wet weather braking distances.
Kids are not responsible and are not old enough to make those decisions, and therefore their safety is the responsibility of the driver. so yes, seatbelt laws protecting those under the charge of the driver is reasonable.
2011-07-07 07:02:51
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5213|Sydney

Spark wrote:

I've been in an accident (in a car) with a motorcycle once. Did not end well for the motorcyclist at all. Not much fun for me either.
Yeah.

A woman stayed at my work once (I'm a support worker for a mental health respite house, among other things) and she had PTSD from an accident she had 15 years prior. Psychological damage can be permanent for some.
2011-07-07 07:03:10
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6709|Canberra, AUS
Isn't that kind of inconsistent though? Passengers have to wear seatbelts - and remember if they don't, the driver is the one who cops it - but the driver doesn't?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2011-07-07 07:07:09
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5213|Sydney
What I find ironic is seemingly intelligent people arguing for the rights of dumb people to do dumb things.

But maybe it's a good way to thin the population a little.
2011-07-07 07:07:24
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6709|Canberra, AUS

Uzique wrote:

Spark wrote:

Jay wrote:


It's part of a larger pattern.
Yeah I don't believe in slippery slope arguments, or grander ideological/theoretical arguments in general. At all. Not sure if you've picked that up during your time here
pragmatist versus analytic
More or less.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2011-07-07 07:38:19
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6576|Texas - Bigger than France

lowing wrote:

Ok lets argue it then. I will also assume you support banning skydiving or race car driving, or scuba diving, because you are not interested in paying extra when they get hurt either?
No, but this isn't about me is it?
2011-07-07 07:41:15
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6576|Texas - Bigger than France

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Sky diving and racing have public liability insurance, afaik.
you don't think bikers carry liability insurance? Hell that is the LEAST they have to carry. So now what?
Within the links I posted, something like...25% of all helmet-less rider who were injured or dead did not have liability insurance.  While 5% of helmeted riders who got injured or dead did have liability insurance.
2011-07-07 07:43:10
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6576|Texas - Bigger than France

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Then don't.
Oh I do, and I would wear a helmet, as well. I just don't give a fuck what you do, nor do I think the govt. should dictate to you on such issues. Same thing with issues like smoking, inhale deep and hold it as long as you can, enjoy it, I don't care.
Because after all, you won't be paying it.  You do realize that the hospital does whatever it can to save the dude, and the dude's insurance will not pay the entire bill...so where do you think the hospital makes up the difference?
2011-07-07 07:44:57
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6576|Texas - Bigger than France

AussieReaper wrote:

my bad.

Lowing you should really look up the mortality rates of wearing a seatbelt as opposed to not. You'd be surprised, but they actually test for this kind of thing. Using "crash test dummies". Sounds funny I know! But it turns out that guy in the backset can go straight through a windscreen and onto the road, causing a mess for other motorists. But personal freedoms should be respected because belts are really uncomfy and restrict one's ability to die in a horrific accident and kill others in the process.
It's been done about a year ago.  This isn't a new topic.  I posted the stats of page 3...hotlinked the same argument from last time.
2011-07-07 07:47:39
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6576|Texas - Bigger than France

lowing wrote:

Look, bikers ride for the freedom of the road, wind in their hair etc.. a helmet takes that freedom away from them and reduces the experience. They are fighting for the choice, they know what they want and what they are asking for. I see no problem letting them have it since it really does not affect anyone else.
Right, but remember my question to you is:
why would you be willing to support helmetless bikers but not welfare?

Both cost you money.

And again, I have told you it DOES impact you and you ignored it...so remember it really does affect anyone else.
2011-07-07 08:01:46
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5392|London, England
Do all of you arguing in favor of this support jail time or fines for those that attempt suicide? What about for those that perform requested euthenasia? There is no difference. A person owns their life and can do with it as they will as long as it's not at the expense of others life, liberty or personal property.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-07-07 08:06:15
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5213|Sydney
Attempted suicide is not a crime in Australia. Is it still a crime in the US?
2011-07-07 08:06:44
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5392|London, England

Jaekus wrote:

Attempted suicide is not a crime in Australia. Is it still a crime in the US?
Yes.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-07-07 08:08:49
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5213|Sydney

Jay wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Attempted suicide is not a crime in Australia. Is it still a crime in the US?
Yes.
It used to be here, but the law was changed some years ago. The reasoning came about that if someone is attempting to take their own life they clearly have some mental health issues, and punishing them isn't exactly addressing the problem.

 

Pages: 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 10

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard