BF2S Forums Talk About Irony.

We don't actually charge people with crimes when it comes to attempted suicide. It's still technically illegal but it's not something you can get a jail sentence for. I had a friend who tried overdosing to death and was sent to a state psychiatric hospital for a few days at the request of state social workers. He never had any other sort of legal trouble stemming from it.

I'm guessing that's the way they handle it in Australia too?

lol completed suicide. makes it sound like an xbox achievement.

Ah, my opinion is in a lot of welfare cases...choosing not to work as a choice, much like not wearing a helmet

Pug wrote:

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?

As I said many times now, you can apply that bullshit argument to whatever you want. How far you willing to curtail personal freedom from govt. interference to save you money. I would rather have the freedom, I can make my own money thanks.

Pug wrote:

Ah, my opinion is in a lot of welfare cases...choosing not to work as a choice, much like not wearing a helmet

Fine, feel free to not work, and I will feel free maintain MY opinion that you are a worthless piece of shit undeserving of any assistance from the producers in our society. No problem, because the fact is, your lazy worthless ass is getting paid anyway.

Well at least we can all agree he wont be needing a helmet where he's going.

Jay wrote:

Pug wrote:

Ah, my opinion is in a lot of welfare cases...choosing not to work as a choice, much like not wearing a helmet

That makes absolutely no sense.

sorry...
in may welfare cases, they are not attempting to get a job.  aka choosing not to work.

Pug wrote:

lowing wrote:

Pug wrote:

It isn't about me...it's about you.

I'm referring to your preference to pay for asinine behavior, because of a choice...and arguing you are okay with paying for it because it's part of the system.

You are willing to rubberstamp anything which we all must endure, no matter what the cost?  Instead of allowing it impact a subset of people?  Not sure I can agree with that

Tell ya what, you show me where my insurance bill, or my tax bill has gone DOWN since helmet laws were enacted and I will give yo the whole damn argument. Show me where I keep more of my money because a biker wears a helmet and you win.

Also consider, the money spent on people that have survived the crash where they otherwise would have died by wearing helmet that is now paid for medical bills, rehabilitation, physical therapy, artificial breathing machines, etc....I mean if you wanna make it a cold hard money game, fine. How much is spent because they lived and are now in the care of professionals who need to wipe their asses?

You didn't read the links I posted, which basically says:
1) medical expenses are higher for unbelted/unhelmeted who survive
2) medical expenses for belted/unhelmeted are a lower gross per instance and is smaller than the "saving more lives = more medical expenses" argument
3) it is being picked up by the community at large

So I'm supposed to prove YOUR costs went down if these laws were enacted?  READ THE LINKS.

Feel free to ignore albeit I've posted it at least a dozen times - this thread and the seat belt thread

Im sorry, I thought you said this was about ME!! So if it is about ME show ME where MY bills are less because of this. Welfare and helmet laws are not the same god damn thing and to argue that it is, is nothing more than desperate bullshit to come with any thing you can to promote your idea of big brother hand holding your sorry ass through life.

I already said we could take your argument as far as we are willing to go. I said lets ban sky diving because it would appear all you are thinking about is "the cost". and what was your answer? Some bullshit about this isn't about you. Stay constant in your beliefs that freedom cost too much or let it go, do not try and argue welfare is about fucking freedom, that is stupid angle to approach this from.


It is laughable to read how NOT believing in paying for someone to sit on their ass, automatically, somehow, translates into NOT believing in anything, or makes everything else you believe in, hypocritical.

Last edited by lowing (2011-07-07 12:43:10)

Pug wrote:

lowing wrote:

Im sorry, I thought you said this was about ME!! So if it is about ME show ME where MY bills are less because of this.

Really?

Let me try again:
Based on the articles I have posted...
...NOT wearing a seat belt or a helmet has this result:
The entire public's medical care costs AND medical insurance costs have risen.  THIS INCLUDES YOU.

The opposite of that statement is:
Wearing a seat belt or a helmet has this result:
The entire public's medical care costs AND medical insurance costs have fallen.

So what exactly am I missing?  You asked me to show you where your my insurance bill or tax bill have gone DOWN because of helmet/seat belt laws.  I'm posted stats supporting that NOT wearing one is costing YOU money.  But the opposite isn't true?

and I already said the if it costs me more to be free of govt. intrusion then that is worth the extra cost.

I gain nothing by paying some dumb fuck to sit on his ass and do nothing. So please stop with the welfare comparisons. It isn't the same thing.

and as I said, if you want to argue cost, lets ban sky diving, and everything else that might cost us when they get hurt doing something? Your argument does not hold water.

Last edited by lowing (2011-07-07 13:38:49)

Pug wrote:

Good.  Just want to let you know it costs something...since you repetitively are in error:

"why should i care if a guy kills himself biking...don't cost me anything"
"medical expenses are lower because their are more deaths"

Both statements are false.

Someone that kills himself biking has not drawn a single cent out of my checking account that is a fact.


My insurance premiums for me and my family have not risen because someone got killed because they didn't wear a helmet.


Using your argument of cost, can be applied across the board, and you are not willing to do that, so you are not being consistent in your concerns of cost.

and finally, welfare has got nothing to do with any of this



So the REAL argument is, govt. intrusion on private lives, you are all for it, I am not.

Pug wrote:

Well, I'll re-post the links tomorrow.

The way you are saying it, logically you are sound.

HOWEVER,
"Someone that kills himself biking has not drawn a single cent out of my checking account that is a fact.


My insurance premiums for me and my family have not risen because someone got killed because they didn't wear a helmet."

These two statements are false, contained in the links I've posted already.  That is why your reasoning is incorrect.

Pug,  I got stats as well, so now what?


http://www.easyrider.com/fact_sheet.htm
http://www.easyrider.com/codes.htm

Stats can be made to lean anyway your agenda dictates. so fuck stats, lets get back to the real issue, govt. intrusion in our private lives.

the system.. it's going to eat us!