C
Thats the Town I live in!
and I have worked with Officer Gatchell before talking to cub scouts, its the law and if they do impound the bike , the kids can get it back by showing up wit a parent and a helmet, and the town will provide a helmet free of charge if necessary.
and I have worked with Officer Gatchell before talking to cub scouts, its the law and if they do impound the bike , the kids can get it back by showing up wit a parent and a helmet, and the town will provide a helmet free of charge if necessary.
Communist oppressors!!!!!!!
Everyone should wear a helmet. I'm wearing mine now. Can't be too safe.
However, I am against laws that force people to do so.
If kids end up brain dead them's some nice fresh organz fer transplantin'... plus think of the tax revenue to be generated offa the doctor salaries
However, I am against laws that force people to do so.
If kids end up brain dead them's some nice fresh organz fer transplantin'... plus think of the tax revenue to be generated offa the doctor salaries
It saves tons of lives with no hassle whatsoever, why shouldn't it be a law, it is just like seat belt laws. They are a very minor inconvenience to save countless lives.Everyone should wear a helmet. I'm wearing mine now. Can't be too safe.
However, I am against laws that force people to do so.
If kids end up brain dead them's some nice fresh organz fer transplantin'... plus think of the tax revenue to be generated offa the doctor salaries
ahaha pwned by the word filter
Why shouldn't it be a law? Because in the "Land of the Free" people should be free to make their own decisions... stupid as they may be.
Why do you hate Freedom?
And don't get me started on why there are seat belt laws and whose benefit they are really for...
There is no logical reason to allow people to endanger children who cannot make the logical decision of wearing a seat belt or not, since they can't understand the full risks of not wearing a seat belt.
Try to keep the logical fallacies like "why do you hate freedom" out of it
http://www.policyalmanac.org/economic/archive/seatbelts.shtml
Last edited:
people aren't good at calculating risk when the incidence is very small but the potential danger is catastrophic. furthermore, taxpayers pay for these peoples' indiscretions: it's not a personal responsibility issue when an unseatbelted driver involved in a HSROMVC (high speed rollover motor vehicle collision in ER-speak) racks up a $300k bill from his workup and ICU team that ends up being written off as "charity care". charity care isn't charity when medicare gets (over)charged that much more for other patients so that the hospital stays out of the red overall.
Damn the liberal seat belt lobby!
Are you new here?Try to keep the logical fallacies like "why do you hate freedom" out of it
The logical reason is because people should be free to make their own decisions.
Smart people choose to protect themselves... the rest, well...
As far as "the children" go (won't someone please think of the children?) if their parents are not smart enough to protect their kids then maybe they should not have reproduced.
I'm all for safety and saving lives, I'm just against laws that restrict personal freedom in an attempt to do so.
It is not government's responsibility guarantee our right to safety and security.
Yep. Here is the real reason for seat belt laws.
And what if, god forbid, this moron actually had health insurance?
Won't someone please think of the insurance companies?
They should let fat, ugly and stupid kids ride with no helmets. We don't want them in the gene pool anyway.
C
curtix
Guest
Words in Bold were changed to illustrate a point.
No, I took a break from posting here for awhile after n8 got banned, it got boring.
So then it is the child's fault for being born? I'm confused on the point you are making, because I don't see why people that were born to ignorant parents by no fault of their own should be punished when seat belts are such a minor thing that give tremendous results.
The government should enact policies that keep the population safe and secure, and putting on a seat belt is hardly fascism, it is a minor nuisance that only serves to benefit the community.
Defenstrated said:
i tend to agree.
nanny state = fail
mandate it on the off chance there's a future hottie hidden in the depths of violet beauregarde. all augustus gloops should be shot & dressed
the crash thread would be much worse if it weren't for helmets
point is, while people should have the freedom to make stupid choices, we shouldn't bear the burden.
if anything, there should be a fat tax based upon something a little less arbitrary than BMI
C
curtix
Guest
I have to partially disagree here. I honestly think that the government shouldn't posses the power to make these sorts of decisions and to take away freedom of choice "For your own good". That is not only not the governments role, it is a dangerous precedent to set that could lay the foundations for more removal of free choices. I could easily argue that snowboarding is one place I should were a helmet - but don't. It throws off my balance and I CHOOSE not too. Its my choice. The government has no right to take that away from me. But under the guises you just used you think they should - because its better for my safety if I wear it.
The slippery slope argument is a very weak one, since taking away the freedom of speech doesn't compare anywhere to enacting seat belt laws.
The government should recognize, that as part of the great advance from the feudalistic nation of society established in primitive times to the bold era of liberalism in the 18th century, its duty is to protect and serve the citizens of its country, rather than be protected and served by its citizens.
I'm all for it.
C
curtix
Guest
Where did I mention freedom of speech?
You mentioned freedoms, and I was making the point that seat belt laws don't impact major freedoms like freedom of speech.
I should have been more clear, that I was saying that major freedoms are not in danger because of seat belt laws.
C
curtix
Guest
I understand that. But it does set a precedent or foundation if you will for the government taking away my right to choose. Which is ironic as much as people cry for freedoms to make choices. Its not a matter of if the law is good or not, its a matter of the Freedom to Chose.
The example I listed about snowboarding.should be cited again. I would ask would you in favor of legislation to force me to wear a helmet when I snowboard?
is the requirement to wear a seat belt or helmet really that great of an infringement of your personal freedoms? please.
if the government wanted to take advantage of the "slippery slope" created by these regulations, individuals wouldn't be allowed to smoke, drink, or have sex (without a condom) b/c of the massive potential for harm. when that starts happening, i'll worry.
regardless, i think the individuals who founded this country had enough foresight and wisdom to create a body of rights/laws to ensure your freedoms.
if the government wanted to take advantage of the "slippery slope" created by these regulations, individuals wouldn't be allowed to smoke, drink, or have sex (without a condom) b/c of the massive potential for harm. when that starts happening, i'll worry.
regardless, i think the individuals who founded this country had enough foresight and wisdom to create a body of rights/laws to ensure your freedoms.
No, because very few people get hurt from snowboarding, I don't consider it necessary.
According to http://www.nsaa.org/nsaa/press/0506/facts-about-skiing-and-snowboarding.asp, 45 die per year and 42 are seriously injured per year on average from skiing and snowboarding.
I would highly suggest you wear one though
C
curtix
Guest
The number of people has nothing to do with it. Either you force them to protect themselves or you don't. So if its a lot of people then force it, if its just a few then don't doesn't make any sense.No, because very few people get hurt from snowboarding, I don't consider it necessary.
According to http://www.nsaa.org/nsaa/press/0506/facts-about-skiing-and-snowboarding.asp, 45 die per year and 42 are seriously injured per year on average from skiing and snowboarding.
I would highly suggest you wear one though
BTW Snowboarding is one of the fastest growing sports in the country.
The risk to the public isn't a great enough to warrant enacting helmet laws for snowboarding, therefore I don't see the need to do it.
edit: Enacting laws when they wouldn't have much effect doesn't make sense.
Last edited:
C
curtix
Guest
Well that's the difference between you and me. You don't see a need to do it, I don't think you have the right to do it.
That is also the foundational differences between the way America was founded ( freedoms ) and the way Socialist and to some degree Communist countries work today. Just ask the Chinese.
while china may be a popular punching bag against freedom, they have remarkably become open in most regards. just don't openly challenge the ruling party, and you get away with most anything, including open (i.e., unregistered) churches.
not that i'm packing my bags...
not that i'm packing my bags...
Economic socialism is terrible in practice, and totalitarianism goes against the tenets of democratic socialism. I don't support those governments at all.
edit: to clarify, curtix PM'd me asking about my avatar and if I was socialist, since my avatar is the symbol of Socialist International, an international organization of social democrats, labor parties, and socialists. I replied that I am a social democrat, meaning I don't seek a Soviet or state-planned economy. I think curtix mixed my ideology up with Marxism-Leninism.
Last edited:
C
curtix
Guest
errr - not really http://www.religioustolerance.org/rt_china.htm
Excerpt: "Officers of the Police and Public Security Bureau raided about 60 independent and unregistered house churches as they were meeting on Sunday, 2005-MAY-22. Most were released after a day or two of interrogation. However, about 40 are believed to have been held until at least JUN-10. On the following Friday, about 60 additional leaders of unregistered house churches were arrested. The Voice of the Martyrs believe that the government's goal is to eliminate house churches near universities. 8"
the "busting" of churches is little more than a flexing & reminding of the hierarchy, and the fact that 1% of 1% of churches are being raided is a remarkable sign or progress. keep in mind, it used to be an organization like the YMCA would set up camp (at the oversight of the state) in order to teach rural chinese english, and sneak in a bible lesson or two. now, you have the countryside flooded with missionaries, and for the most part they operate unmolested. it's when the locals get uppity & start to get organized these crackdowns take place.
there's no doubt a tension, but it's certainly nothing like what you'd find in DPRK or the majority of muslim countries, where access from the outside is rare, and handover to the locals is whisper thin
there's no doubt a tension, but it's certainly nothing like what you'd find in DPRK or the majority of muslim countries, where access from the outside is rare, and handover to the locals is whisper thin
Man you must really suck.
Not if you used the right wax.
WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Police state here I come!!
That's saying precedents are meaningless? So maybe you're okay with outlawing one or two words, like racial slurs? Even if its an infringement on free speech?
I think the slippery slop argument is pretty rational when applied right.
As for seatbelts and bike helmets... I think mandating parents to protect their children is okay, but not themselves. That's probably inconsistent on some level, but it's where Im at.
No helmet = natural selection
You can't force people to make good decisions.
You can't force people to make good decisions.
precedent =/= slippery slope.
edit: really my objection is that adhering to slippery slope fears means that almost by definition you have select between extremes rather than find a middle ground.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Remember rick santorum warning us about gay marriage and beastiality? Well ever since same sex marriages in california were recognized.......well I mean.........you see what's going on.
A standard Bell/Giro cycling helmet probably isn't the best helmet in the world when it comes to saving your life in a crash. I've broken 2 E2's and I'm thankful that I had them on, but I seriously doubt they "saved my life."