179 réponses à ce sujet

[Lord Sullivan]

Boiny Bunny wrote...

I could equally say to you, if you don't see a law that bans individuals from purchasing/owning hand grenades, then you're in big trouble and one of these days you'll find out the hard way.

What exactly constitutes a 'trampling' of your 'rights' is entirely subjective - depending on what you percieve your own rights to be.  If you are personally offended by the notion that the government legally requires you to wear a seatbelt, then by all means, please, express your displeasure.  Some will agree with you, some will not.  Please do not state or imply however, that other people are wrong simply because their idea of 'trampled rights' differs to your own.  There is no place for such childishness here.

Freedom is a right, wearing a seat belt is personal where no one a say in it but yourself, so when the goverment brings laws into effect that touches your personal choice, that is trampling on rights. Even a monkey with half a brain can understand that.

Childish? lol tell that to those that think people should be forced to wear the seat belt that engages in the name calling (i.e. Idiot) There's is no place here for your hyperbole here.

[Lord Sullivan]

kglaser wrote...

A seatbelt saved my life in a head-on collision.
Seriously, I am very "live and let live", but I have zero tolerance for people who whine about having to wear seat belts. If you don't wear one, you are just plain stupid. Why wouldn't you?!?

Well then next time keep on your side of the road and keep your eyes on your environment!

[kglaser]

You've got a point. Maybe this will help to eliminate those from the population who have no regard for their own lives. Darwin awards, and all that. Never mind what happens when these unrestrained shallow morons rip open their aortas on impact with the dashboard and veer into oncoming traffic, killing innocents. Carry on.

[Lord Sullivan]

kglaser wrote...

You've got a point. Maybe this will help to eliminate those from the population who have no regard for their own lives. Darwin awards, and all that. Never mind what happens when these unrestrained shallow morons rip open their aortas on impact with the dashboard and veer into oncoming traffic, killing innocents. Carry on.

nothing but Hearsay, sensationalism and hyperbole, is that all you've got?

[kglaser]

Big words, good for you!

[sympathy4saren]

Cmon guys, I think there can be legitimate discussion over this without assaults.

[Massadonious1]

Lord Sullivan wrote...
Well then next time keep on your side of the road and keep your eyes on your environment!

Lanes are just an arbitrary government restriction. I should be able to drive wherever I want!

[Lord Sullivan]

Massadonious1 wrote...

Lord Sullivan wrote...
Well then next time keep on your side of the road and keep your eyes on your environment!

Lanes are just an arbitrary government restriction. I should be able to drive wherever I want!

That is actualy quite funny!

[kglaser]

Lanes are a suggestion.  Just like speed limits.

[Lord Sullivan]

sympathy4saren wrote...

Cmon guys, I think there can be legitimate discussion over this without assaults.

Of course there can be, but with those control freaks... I'm not sure that's a possibility.

Modifié par Lord Sullivan, 15 juillet 2011 - 04:22 .

[sympathy4saren]

Massadonious1 wrote...

Lord Sullivan wrote...
Well then next time keep on your side of the road and keep your eyes on your environment!

Lanes are just an arbitrary government restriction. I should be able to drive wherever I want!

That indeed does have major effects on others. I don't think a seatbelt ever caused an accident, unless in was because someone was restricted in turning to look.

[kglaser]

Lord Sullivan wrote...

sympathy4saren wrote...

Cmon guys, I think there can be legitimate discussion over this without assaults.

Of course ther can be, but with those control freaks... I'm not sure that's a possibility.

I'm no control freak.  I already said, go ahead and kill yourself in a traffic accident if you wish.  Just stay out of my way while you do it.

[sympathy4saren]

Lord Sullivan wrote...

sympathy4saren wrote...

Cmon guys, I think there can be legitimate discussion over this without assaults.

Of course ther can be, but with those control freaks... I'm not sure that's a possibility.

They have a unique perception to existence like me and you, though. I'm in the same boat you're in probably....I think seatbelts can be beneficial for those who choose to wear them. It's my body, I don't know why they are telling me what to do to my body

[Lord Sullivan]

kglaser wrote...

Lord Sullivan wrote...

sympathy4saren wrote...

Cmon guys, I think there can be legitimate discussion over this without assaults.

Of course ther can be, but with those control freaks... I'm not sure that's a possibility.

I'm no control freak.  I already said, go ahead and kill yourself in a traffic accident if you wish.  Just stay out of my way while you do it.

Well I wasn't pointing the finger at you and I'll remain alive for a very long time yet, but thank you for the sentiment!

[Lord Sullivan]

sympathy4saren wrote...
They have a unique perception to existence like me and you, though. I'm in the same boat you're in probably....I think seatbelts can be beneficial for those who choose to wear them. It's my body, I don't know why they are telling me what to do to my body

Precisely.

Though like I said before in a previous post, I would still wear the seat belt on the highway, just not in the city when general populace drive at turtle speed.

[kglaser]

Lord Sullivan wrote...
 I'll remain alive for a very long time yet

Must be awesome to be sure of such a completely unknowable thing.  You MUST tell me your secret!

[Lord Sullivan]

kglaser wrote...

Lord Sullivan wrote...
 I'll remain alive for a very long time yet

Must be awesome to be sure of such a completely unknowable thing.  You MUST tell me your secret!

It's called "Know thy self" put in some sharp instinct and premonitional vision. Ooops, not a secret anymore... damn you!

[Boiny Bunny]

Lord Sullivan wrote...

Boiny Bunny wrote...

I could equally say to you, if you don't see a law that bans individuals from purchasing/owning hand grenades, then you're in big trouble and one of these days you'll find out the hard way.

What exactly constitutes a 'trampling' of your 'rights' is entirely subjective - depending on what you percieve your own rights to be.  If you are personally offended by the notion that the government legally requires you to wear a seatbelt, then by all means, please, express your displeasure.  Some will agree with you, some will not.  Please do not state or imply however, that other people are wrong simply because their idea of 'trampled rights' differs to your own.  There is no place for such childishness here.

Freedom is a right, wearing a seat belt is personal where no one a say in it but yourself, so when the goverment brings laws into effect that touches your personal choice, that is trampling on rights. Even a monkey with half a brain can understand that.

Perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough. 

You personally believe that laws which impact your personal choices, are trampling on your rights. 

I have no problem with your viewpoint on this matter, and you are most welcome to express it here.  There are a number of variables within that statement which are subject to differ by person however (e.g. definition of 'personal choices', definition of 'rights', perception of what laws do in fact trample one's 'rights')

What I do have a problem with, and feel is quite childish behaviour, is you informing people who do not agree with your personal opinion on the matter, that they are wrong.

This is akin to the classic primary school schoolyard conversation:

Child A: Red is my favorite colour.
Child B: I like Blue better, so anybody whose favorite colour is not blue is an idiot.  You are an idiot.

I'm certain that there is somebody out there who believes it is their right to own hand grenades.  Likewise, there are probably people out there who believe it is their right to be allowed to engage in rape without punishment.  Is the government 'trampling on their rights' by not allowing them to engage in these activities?  The answer is subjective, and will differ by person.

Lord Sullivan wrote...

Childish? lol tell that to those that think people should be forced to wear the seat belt that engages in the name calling (i.e. Idiot) There's is no place here for your hyperbole here.

I haven't named you an 'idiot' personally, and have no intention of speaking for others partaking in this discussion.  I'm merely taking issue with your assertion that your personal opinion on a subjective matter is correct in an absolute sense, when really, this is impossible, as the matter is entirely subjective.

Hopefully that's a little bit clearer.

[Homebound]

I like wearing seatbelts. it helps me stay alive inside a car.
why would anyone not want to be safe inside a car?

[chunkyman]

Nizzemancer wrote...

1. If you're going to off yourself, do it privately, not on public roads.
2. Murder is when you by a deliberate action that you can reasonably predict could kill someone else kills someone, again, if you want to kill yourself go ahead, just don't infringe on my right to live by doing so, and yes passengers can choose not to ride with you, but do I really need to cut this out in cardboard for your viewing pleasure?.
3. Because you seem incapable of doing it yourself if you're making all this fuzz about it? Oh it's not like there are a whole lot of people who die every year because they're to stupid to use it is there? Oh wait...

4. No, you need to wear a seatbelt or you'll be fined, I was just stating the most obvious answer to the question posed in the OP.
As for being for or against a law: I don't need to read between a whole lot of lines to get what this topic is about, and it's not the principle of laws stating the obvious but an obvious ****ing kid complaining about how unfair it is that he can't drive his car while hanging halway out the window or doing some other stupid stunt like that.

and FYI: The Anarchy proponents died out like 25 years ago, if you want to live where nobody is controling you I can heartily suggest Somalia, nobody is going to force you to wear a seatbelt, clothes or anything like that there, just don't expect anyone to save you from the AK47-wielding warlords.

1.) Seatbelts have nothing to do with killing yourself or as a causation of crashes. It only factors in as a variable in your survival chance during a crash. While not wearing one most definitely lowers survival chances, it has a negligible impact on those that aren't the person crashing. Because deciding not to wear one doesn't infringe on other peoples rights, it is an unneeded law.

2.) You don't get to make up your own definition of murder to suit your argument, sorry.

3.) calm down buddy.

4.) It's nice to see you wildly assume things about people, really helps your argument.

BTW I'm not an Anarchist. I'm a libertarian with views in line with Thomas Jefferson and Milton Friedman. Again, nice of you to wildly assume things though. 

[Homebound]

I dont know bout u Americans, but in Canada its illegal to not wear a seatbelt. Cops will chase you down to your grandmother's house, knock down the door and handcuff you. Or they'll give you a ticket, follow u around for a bit to make sure u dont take it off then leave u alone.

[Swordfishtrombone]

chunkyman wrote...
I find that enforcing these laws are a waste of time for police officers, considering they could be using that time to look out for actual crime. I also find it as a more or less victimless crime (unless they fly through the window and hit someone, but that is probably rare), so I don't see the reason for the law.

First, as far as I know (and my experience is from Finland, where we are required by law to wear seatbelts - for both the driver and passangers in the car), there are no separate seat-belt checking raids by the police - seatbelts are checked by a simple glance into the vehicle as a part of other standard traffic stops, such as radar tests when they stop people who are speeding, or sobriety tests when they stop random people to blow into an alcometer.

Thus there is no additional cost at all involved in enforcing this law.

As for being a victimless crime, imagine a situation where you have a car full of passangers, and one of them decides to use his right not to wear a seatbelt, while the others value their safety more, and buckle up. The car then gets into an accident, and this one person slams at a great force to the people next to him.

It isn't just this one person who gets hurt, it is the others in the car as well - others who made the choise to use a seatbelt, and would have been ok, had there not been a single passanger who did not. Clearly not a victimless crime here.

[chunkyman]

Swordfishtrombone wrote...

chunkyman wrote...
I find that enforcing these laws are a waste of time for police officers, considering they could be using that time to look out for actual crime. I also find it as a more or less victimless crime (unless they fly through the window and hit someone, but that is probably rare), so I don't see the reason for the law.

First, as far as I know (and my experience is from Finland, where we are required by law to wear seatbelts - for both the driver and passangers in the car), there are no separate seat-belt checking raids by the police - seatbelts are checked by a simple glance into the vehicle as a part of other standard traffic stops, such as radar tests when they stop people who are speeding, or sobriety tests when they stop random people to blow into an alcometer.

Thus there is no additional cost at all involved in enforcing this law.

As for being a victimless crime, imagine a situation where you have a car full of passangers, and one of them decides to use his right not to wear a seatbelt, while the others value their safety more, and buckle up. The car then gets into an accident, and this one person slams at a great force to the people next to him.

It isn't just this one person who gets hurt, it is the others in the car as well - others who made the choise to use a seatbelt, and would have been ok, had there not been a single passanger who did not. Clearly not a victimless crime here.

In America, it's dependent on the cop as to whether he pulls you over for not having a seatbelt. Some will pull you over for no other reason than not wearing a seatbelt. Sounds like Finland has better cops, lol. 

I agree with your example about hurting the others in the car, it wouldn't be a victimless crime in that circumstance.
But even then, they don't have to be a passenger. I personally pester people to buckle up, but if they don't want to they shouldn't be forced to, in the same way that I don't have to be a passenger.

My ideal system would be that you can choose whether or not to wear a seatbelt, but if you choose not to you can't sue for personal injury if you get in a crash. I think that would both encourage seatbelt use, and still allow people to be idiots if they really wanted to, a win-win!

[Turnip Root]

Only fat people complain about not wearing seat belts so if they don't die in a car crash they'll die of heart disease or diabetic ketoacidosis. I'm fine if they die but I don't want to get blamed for their death if their death was a result of them not wearing a seatbelt.

On the bright side their fatness may prevent them from flying through the windshield. They'll get stuck.