posted
The comparison between driver and passenger behavior on collectively-owned, collectively-managed/maintained and...personal eating habits? That comparison?
There is no slippery slope here. We as a society get to choose the rules by which people can use our roads, in and of itself. The *reason* we make this particular choice-seatbelts-is that not wearing them is provably dangerous and stupid, and has an also proven chance of directly sucking up resources that are in limited supply, such as cops, firefighters, and EMTs. That doesn't just cost money, it can also lead directly to other people dying or suffering because cops and EMTs spent an extra hour mopping up an accident because someone didn't buckle up.
That sets aside the very real (and obvious) possibility of successive accidents if one doesn't buckle up. Now, are you going to insist that needs to be proven, the things mentioned in this post? Or are they quite straightforward and self-evident? Not wearing a seatbelt might not just kill or injure you, but your passengers, people driving near you, and might even cause harm to the people who would've had cop/firefighter/EMT support. Obesity just kills you. Not wearing sunscreen just hurts you.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: If you can back all of those statements up with facts, then I accept I was wrong about my comparisons.
I only have personal stories but really all around the entire country there have to be many cases where a seatbelt has turned a multi hundred of thousand dollar surgery into nothing worse than whiplash and belt bruise. I could give you three of those stories myself just that I know of from one county from one state, so the money we "save" can add up fast.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: You may disagree with what they think is right, but don't demonize them as some non-human "Government".
I often lament the fact that American English favors the collective singular for government, as in "the government *is* working on the problem" rather than "the government *are* working on the problem," as it is often rendered in British English.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Obesity just kills you. Not wearing sunscreen just hurts you.
I suppose the argument runs that obesity *also* has an economic cost and a tax on the system. However, the tangibility of that cost is far lower than that of driving without a seatbelt. What more do people want? It's natural that we address tangible costs with greater ease than intangible ones. Tangible costs often have highly tangible solutions- like a seat belt. It's all very cut and dried.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Obesity just kills you. Not wearing sunscreen just hurts you.
That's right. If I die of obesity, my family won't grieve over the loss of their husband/father/son/brother. His wife and kids won't miss his income. They won't have to come up with unexpected funeral expenses. They won't struggle to put food on the table. They won't have to give up their home if they can't pay the mortgage.
posted
Obesity doesn't kill you. Particularly high levels of obesity might, but controlling for fitness and diet, moderate obesity makes you live longer. The rise in obesity in the US is not, in and of itself, a problems; the problems are indicated by the rise in obesity, not manifested in it themselves.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Why on Earth are you rolling your eyes at me? I didn't say one's hypothetical death only affected them. I said that obesity and skin cancer only have the power to kill or maim *that person*. Lack of a seatbelt, however, doesn't-and then there's the other angle of emergency services personnel being allocated to the greater injuries or death that causes. And *then* there's the point that the roads aren't owned by an individual like their skin, belly, or mouths are.
This is pretty straightforward stuff. It's not your road, it's *our* road. That means we get to decide how it's used. In such a group decision-making setting, individuals won't always get their way. Compromise. Built into the system. Fundamentally American.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry Rakeesh, that wasn't fair. I was in a bit of a hurry and didn't read your post carefully enough. My response was not intended to be a personal reply to you, but rather a reply to the "My death only affects me" argument that has come up.
I was careless, sorry.
Posts: 692 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"And *then* there's the point that the roads aren't owned by an individual like their skin, belly, or mouths are."
So by that logic, sunscreen could be required at public beaches?
The argument that wearing a seatbelt physically protects other people seems so weak to me. I'm having trouble picturing an accident where someone gets thrown from their seat fast enough to seriously injure someone else that a seatbelt would have prevented (without stretching my imagination too much). I read the anecdotes but those don't seem common enough to justify forcing everyone to wear one, based on possible physical injuries to others.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did you read that part about people wearing safety belts being more able to stay in control of their car in case of an accident?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your application of logic is questionable if that is your outcome. Even if those parts are on a public beach, they are still your parts, where as the manner in which you drive and your ability to continue to remain in control of your car after a crash on a public road are rather a matter of public safety.
The argument for seat belts physically protecting others isn't from your flailing body, it's from your car, which you lost control of because your body is flailing around instead of fastened to your seat.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: "And *then* there's the point that the roads aren't owned by an individual like their skin, belly, or mouths are."
So by that logic, sunscreen could be required at public beaches?
No, that logic doesn't follow. One case involves a car. You may want to go back and check your math.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gaal, I'm really beginning to think you're simply not listening because you've made up your mind. If you don't wear sunscreen at the beach, is a cop going to have to respond to a 911 call to help? An EMT, a firefighter? Once there, will their time spent hinge on whether you wore sunblock?
That aside, and also aside from your strange notion that seatbelts don't increase one's chance of remaining in control of their car in an accident (are you really suggesting that seatbelts have no real impact on that? I just want to be sure), your mention of the beach is faulty already. It is the public's beach, and we *do* have rules about its use, sunscreen not being one of them. Can't drive a car, motorcycle, moped, can't let your pets crap on it, can't littler, can't build a fire, can't snatch sea turtle eggs, can't be nekkid, can't can't can't.
We already, as a group, have decided some things should be allowed on the beach and others not. You're already fine with that, so your objection isn't to the imposition of rules-just rules you disagree with. In which case-democracy in action. Sometimes you won't get your way. It's not a *sign* of anything.
(For the record, the reason I'm starting to think you're not listening is because everything I've said here has been mentioned already, some parts repeatedly.)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Can't drive a car, motorcycle, moped, can't let your pets crap on it, can't littler, can't build a fire, can't snatch sea turtle eggs, can't be nekkid, can't can't can't.
The local cops only enforces the no fires for out of towners...it is known locally that if you actually live here at the beach and a cop hassels you for a bon fire, you say you live here and they tell you to make sure to put the fire ALL the way out when done with it.
As to the illegality of nudity on the beach, sometimes I wish this wasn't the case and then I see a half ogre in a thong (male or female) and am reminded why that law exists.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A car is, potentially, a deadly weapon. (Like, if you deliberately hit/run over someone with one- it's assault with a deadly weapon in some jurisdictions, if they don't have vehicular assault.)
It just makes sense to insist that all the many, many people steering deadly weapons not be impaired when doing so, and wear something that could keep them from becoming impaired and help them maintain control should something happen to potentially damage that control.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
SW: take a close look at the part of your post that invited her response, and think a bit about the actual reasons why nudity laws exist.
quote:As to the illegality of nudity on the beach, sometimes I wish this wasn't the case and then I see a half ogre in a thong (male or female) and am reminded why that law exists.
posted
fugu, my comment was clearly not serious but humorous in nature. My response of taking her comment too literally is intentional and not from a lack of understanding.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
What *are* the actual reasons anti-nudity laws^1 exist and how do they (or public nudity) relate to seatbelt laws?
1) If you had asked me outside this conversation why they exist, I would have answered that due to the variety of nudity (or lack thereof) laws (or clothing laws, including veils) that exist around the world, the laws reflect local cultural attitudes toward the human body. Not sure how this would relate back to seatbelts either.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems to me that nudity laws are the result of cultural taboos, mostly stemming from religious beliefs.
Some folks seem to think that a child or teen is harmed by seeing a naked body. Perhaps because it could encourage lustful thoughts, or because it damages their sexual purity.
I'm not sure if there are purely practical or secular reasons for the taboo. Places where nudity is common or even the standard, such as tribal societies, don't seem any worse for it.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh was poking holes in an argument that seat belt laws on public roads are like sunscreen laws at a public beach...by showing that there are laws for conduct, i.e. anti nudity laws.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, maybe I'm a bit slow here, but I'm not sure how that related. There are anti-nudity laws (or bylaws, I think, in many cases) for beaches, there are anti-nudity laws for when you're in the public (i.e. driving). How did the argument about sunscreen and seatbelts relate to nudity in either case?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:...your mention of the beach is faulty already. It is the public's beach, and we *do* have rules about its use, sunscreen not being one of them. Can't drive a car, motorcycle, moped, can't let your pets crap on it, can't littler, can't build a fire, can't snatch sea turtle eggs, can't be nekkid, can't can't can't.
It doesn't directly relate...it's just an example Rakeesh gave of rules that apply at beaches, which means that Gaal's example of sunscreen at the beach is not valid.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I meant it as an example of 'we're happy to make laws for public areas already-such as beaches'.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sam I like the essay quite a bit and the irony that follows is uncanny, I in fact wear a seat belt, I just disagree with the law making consequences for my free choices.
Wearing a seat belt should be only mere recommendation and not a law, that's where I draw a line.
From now on ever one of you has to wear a helmet. elbow and knee pads every single time you -ride a Bike Skateboard Roller blades - or decide to Walk around outside a tree might fall on you
You're no longer allowed to place metal objects higher than your head, because you could get struck by lightning, and if you do any of these things I am going to charge you $500 for endangering yourself.
It's a slippery slope that's what it is /:
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm beginning to think you're being witty, since your reasoning is so silly and irrelevant and you actually include the words 'slippery slope' in your post. If you are, then I'll admit it's going quite over my head (and I suspect several others).
If you're not, though, it appears you've almost completely ignored most of what's been said. You decieded that it's an 'imposition on personal freedom' or something, and that's where your thinking started-and stopped. First, the law makes consequences for personal choices all the time. Second, they're not your roads. They belong to the people collectively, and that means the people get to decide how they shall be used-not every individual according to his whims that day. Third, wearing a seatbelt doesn't just affect you. Fourth, your comparisons to rollerblades, bikes, skateboards, etc. are irrelevant to the biggest reasons we decide people should wear seatbelts on the road in automobiles.
The fines aren't for endangering yourself. They're for potentially, and needlessly, endangering and financially harming everyone else around you. You're welcome to disagree of course, and if you do I'd be interested in hearing why. But hearing that it's just a 'free choice' and a 'slippery slope' are both simply wrong, and in the former case wrong as a question of fact.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rawrain...what are the freedoms you feel are at stake on that slippery slope...considering you do use your seat belt, that isn't your problem, it's that you feel government shouldn't infringe on personal choice (right?), so, what specifically are you worried about?
You gave several examples of what you felt would be bad laws, safety gear while biking/skating etc., but the helmet part of that is already a law (for minors) in quite a few places (13 states with no law, 15 with county laws and 22 states with state laws).
And holding metal objects above your head seems rather silly. Do you have any -real- concerns when it comes to law vs "personal choice"?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rawrain: Sam I like the essay quite a bit and the irony that follows is uncanny, I in fact wear a seat belt, I just disagree with the law making consequences for my free choices.
I could demonstrate pretty clearly that what you've come up with not only ignores the issues brought up in this thread to keep some measure of validity (in a way which makes you seem very immature), but that you don't even believe it yourself.Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
