Talk About Irony.

2011-07-07 06:17:38

#126

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6915|Canberra, AUS

Jay wrote:
Spark wrote:
lowing wrote:

and bikers with helmets never lose control? so with your argument we should outlaw motorcycles, because there is all kinds of shit that can force a biker to lose control of their motorcycle, and I will bet a june bug is low on that list.
...

It's about risk minimization.

I'm really amazed that such a minor issue could elicit such debate. Different strokes for different folks I guess.
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

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2011-07-07 06:20:17

#127

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6347|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:
It's part of a larger pattern.

So move to Somalia - Is Libertarian paradise.

Fuck Israel

2011-07-07 06:21:25

#128

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6892|USA

Spark wrote:
lowing wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:

Yeah they are, an out of control bike flying through your windscreen isn't a joke.
I've seen a biker lose control, let go of his bike and it went on to total a car.
and bikers with helmets never lose control? so with your argument we should outlaw motorcycles, because there is all kinds of shit that can force a biker to lose control of their motorcycle, and I will bet a june bug is low on that list.
...

It's about risk minimization.

I'm really amazed that such a minor issue could elicit such debate. Different strokes for different folks I guess.

It isn't miner when it affects you, I do not ride motorcycles, but I can easily see where this law would piss off a person who chooses to ride without one.

Yup you are right it is about risk minimization, and think just how much risk we could minimize if bikes were outlawed all together. That is if we were going to use your logic of protecting ourselves from ourselves.

I am consistent in my beliefs, I do not believe you can remove some one elses privilege, just because it does not affect me.

2011-07-07 06:22:45

#129

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6347|eXtreme to the maX

I want the freedom to drive with bald tyres.

Fuck Israel

2011-07-07 06:23:35

#130

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6892|USA

Shahter wrote:
Spark wrote:
In a perfect, libertarian world then I'd say we don't need it but in the real world, it's something I'm completely fine with.
that's it right there, man. those who beat their chest while chanting that "liberty and pursuit of happiness"-mantra of theirs are not living in the real world but in something they imagined for themselves.

No actually, the world I live in seems quite real, I have real problems, real bills, a real mortgage, real teenagers. What you can't seem to stand is, with all of that, I also have real solutions, and none of my solutions involves fucking you over and taking anything away from you..

2011-07-07 06:23:42

#131

Jaekus: I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose; +957|5419|Sydney

Someone's gotta clean the mess up. I'm sure if you were a paramedic you'd be singing a different tune (and yes, I've heard a fair few paramedics lecture about wearing helmets/seatbelts as it just is really messy without them). So it does affect other people.

2011-07-07 06:25:18

#132

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6347|eXtreme to the maX

I don't see how making people wear helmets = "fucking you over and taking anything away from you.."

Fuck Israel

2011-07-07 06:27:27

#133

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6711

Spark wrote:
Jay wrote:
Spark wrote:

...

It's about risk minimization.

I'm really amazed that such a minor issue could elicit such debate. Different strokes for different folks I guess.
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

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2011-07-07 06:28:54

#134

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6347|eXtreme to the maX

I want the freedom to drive without driving lessons or a driving licence.

The only counter-argument you're allowed is that all cars must be banned and income tax should rise to 99%.

Fuck Israel

2011-07-07 06:29:06

#135

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6892|USA

Dilbert_X wrote:
lowing wrote:
and bikers with helmets never lose control? so with your argument we should outlaw motorcycles, because there is all kinds of shit that can force a biker to lose control of their motorcycle, and I will bet a june bug is low on that list.
No we should just take obvious steps to reduce the risk of an accident.

Most countries have regulations on cracks in windscreens and condition of wipers, not because its important that everyone should have a nice car but because if you can't see where you're going you're more likely to hit someone or something.

Granted the primary reason for requiring riders to wear helmets isn't prevention of accident, it was probably never part of the thinking. Given the speed bikes go it seems obvious to mandate it for third party safety alone.
Not about sticking it to the govt. It is about person freedom when what you do does not affect anyone else.
As we've pointed out, it can easily affect someone else.

I can take your argument way past helmet laws dilbert. Plenty of shit going on out there that COULD affect someone else, why not use your argument and force ban on all of it?

Last edited by lowing (2011-07-07 06:37:04)

2011-07-07 06:30:29

#136

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6347|eXtreme to the maX

See my previous post on reductio ad absurdam

Fuck Israel

2011-07-07 06:30:30

#137

Jaekus: I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose; +957|5419|Sydney

It is merely common sense to wear a helmet.

2011-07-07 06:33:42

#138

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6892|USA

Jaekus wrote:
Someone's gotta clean the mess up. I'm sure if you were a paramedic you'd be singing a different tune (and yes, I've heard a fair few paramedics lecture about wearing helmets/seatbelts as it just is really messy without them). So it does affect other people.

lol, you do know you have the freedom to NOT be a paramedic right? ( at least in our country.....ummm so far) I guess a paramedic would push for not having kids, so he doesn't have to look a dead kid either? Your logic is far out there we can mold it into anything we want. Your argument that a biker not wearing a helmet can kill someone else is ridiculous unless of course you wanna throw out some stats as to just how many people out there are killed from helmet-less bikers.

2011-07-07 06:34:25

#139

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6892|USA

Dilbert_X wrote:
I don't see how making people wear helmets = "fucking you over and taking anything away from you.."

ask a biker that who doesn't want to wear a helmet

2011-07-07 06:35:38

#140

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6915|Canberra, AUS

Here's another line.
What are the practical, real-world benefits of allowing people to drive helmetless/seatbeltless?

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2011-07-07 06:36:03

#141

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6892|USA

Dilbert_X wrote:
I want the freedom to drive without driving lessons or a driving licence.

The only counter-argument you're allowed is that all cars must be banned and income tax should rise to 99%.

lol nice try but sorry that is not an argument...I take it back, it isn't even a nice try, more like pathetic and desperate.

2011-07-07 06:36:36

#142

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6347|eXtreme to the maX

I want the freedom to put 10ft long titanium spikes on the front of my car.

I'm a great driver so I don't see how its a safety issue.

If you object then you're a freedom-hating liberal.
Also, go find the stats on how many people are killed by 10ft long titanium spikes every year.
I bet its none.

Fuck Israel

2011-07-07 06:36:38

#143

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6892|USA

Jaekus wrote:
It is merely common sense to wear a helmet.

That is true, it is.

2011-07-07 06:39:23

#144

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5599|London, England

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.

"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 06:39:33

#145

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6892|USA

Spark wrote:
Here's another line.
What are the practical, real-world benefits of allowing people to drive helmetless/seatbeltless?

We maintain our freedom to choose without the nanny state and govt. interference and intrusion in our lives.

2011-07-07 06:40:46

#146

lowing: Banned; +1,662|6892|USA

Dilbert_X wrote:
I want the freedom to put 10ft long titanium spikes on the front of my car.

I'm a great driver so I don't see how its a safety issue.

If you object then you're a freedom-hating liberal.
Also, go find the stats on how many people are killed by 10ft long titanium spikes every year.
I bet its none.

lol nice try but sorry that is not an argument...I take it back, it isn't even a nice try, more like pathetic and desperate.

2011-07-07 06:41:02

#147

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5599|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:
I want the freedom to put 10ft long titanium spikes on the front of my car.

I'm a great driver so I don't see how its a safety issue.

If you object then you're a freedom-hating liberal.
Also, go find the stats on how many people are killed by 10ft long titanium spikes every year.
I bet its none.

These are your arguments? You've already lost if this is what you resort to.

"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 06:41:43

#148

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6393|what

Spark wrote:
Here's another line.
What are the practical, real-world benefits of allowing people to drive helmetless/seatbeltless?

Lowing already answered that one - "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. " page four

2011-07-07 06:42:12

#149

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6915|Canberra, AUS

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.

Last edited by Spark (2011-07-07 06:45:02)

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2011-07-07 06:45:06

#150

Jaekus: I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose; +957|5419|Sydney

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?

With some of the idiots on the road I wonder how they got theirs

BF2S Forums Talk About Irony.

Jay wrote:

Spark wrote:

lowing wrote:

Jay wrote:

Spark wrote:

lowing wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Spark wrote:

Spark wrote:

Jay wrote:

Spark wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Spark wrote:

Spark wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Spark wrote:

Jay wrote:

Spark wrote:

Spark wrote:

Jay wrote:

Spark wrote:

Board footer