Seat Belts and Individual Freedom
- Thread starter butch50
- Start date
Rich,
I hope that you're not meaning me
. I've been told that I'm pretty far Right, hence the reason that I've been banned more times than you can count on one hand 
. People just don't wish to hear the truth.
What my previous post (before the previous ones that I've just made) says is that people have to be responsible for themselves, to pay as you go, and that being free is not a safe warm fuzzy concept, freedom comes with risks and I, as should everyone here and in life, should chose freedom over security.
Security, as a concept, cannot be achieved no matter how hard you wish it. There is no such thing as being secure. There are too many variables, with life being the biggest. To live is to die, that is the end game (depending on your faith and beliefs that is). You can ensure that you are secure, by placing yourself in a padded room that is air controlled, bomb proof, and protected against disease but then, the end result will still be the same, you die. That is a fact that cannot be refuted or denied. In the end, you will die.
So, it then comes to how you wish to live your life. Through government mandates, government control, or what you wish to do with it. Quite frankly, if you wish to test out how well of a glass breaker that you could become by going through your front windshield, more power to you. Hell, I don't care, it's your life. How and when you choose to end it, or whatever manner you choose, that is your right to do so. I will stop to say, that I will be sueing your insurance company if your body passes into my windshield and causes even more damage. Up to and including blood tests on your mangled body for any disease that you may have.
This debate basically boils down to two things, personal responsibility and the use of safety devices given to you. I personally wear my seat beat. I didn't wear a seat belt in my 1957 Chevy Pick up when I owned it, it didn't have any. Yet on my cars and truck now, they have them, I wear them. Because the government tells me to do so, no, because as a person I believe that they are useful and will use them. The same reason that I use my lights and my turn signals. Here in oregon, you don't have to use your ligts in bad weather and you don't have to use your signals, but I do, because it creates a more secure environmnet for me, as a person and individual.
To me, if you wish to be a crash test dummy, that is your choice. Go for it. The government has no right to tell you what to do, whether you wish to be smart, or stupid.
Wayne
I hope that you're not meaning me
. I've been told that I'm pretty far Right, hence the reason that I've been banned more times than you can count on one hand . People just don't wish to hear the truth.What my previous post (before the previous ones that I've just made) says is that people have to be responsible for themselves, to pay as you go, and that being free is not a safe warm fuzzy concept, freedom comes with risks and I, as should everyone here and in life, should chose freedom over security.
Security, as a concept, cannot be achieved no matter how hard you wish it. There is no such thing as being secure. There are too many variables, with life being the biggest. To live is to die, that is the end game (depending on your faith and beliefs that is). You can ensure that you are secure, by placing yourself in a padded room that is air controlled, bomb proof, and protected against disease but then, the end result will still be the same, you die. That is a fact that cannot be refuted or denied. In the end, you will die.
So, it then comes to how you wish to live your life. Through government mandates, government control, or what you wish to do with it. Quite frankly, if you wish to test out how well of a glass breaker that you could become by going through your front windshield, more power to you. Hell, I don't care, it's your life. How and when you choose to end it, or whatever manner you choose, that is your right to do so. I will stop to say, that I will be sueing your insurance company if your body passes into my windshield and causes even more damage. Up to and including blood tests on your mangled body for any disease that you may have.
This debate basically boils down to two things, personal responsibility and the use of safety devices given to you. I personally wear my seat beat. I didn't wear a seat belt in my 1957 Chevy Pick up when I owned it, it didn't have any. Yet on my cars and truck now, they have them, I wear them. Because the government tells me to do so, no, because as a person I believe that they are useful and will use them. The same reason that I use my lights and my turn signals. Here in oregon, you don't have to use your ligts in bad weather and you don't have to use your signals, but I do, because it creates a more secure environmnet for me, as a person and individual.
To me, if you wish to be a crash test dummy, that is your choice. Go for it. The government has no right to tell you what to do, whether you wish to be smart, or stupid.
Wayne
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Wayne-
You and I happen to see eye to eye on this.
I've no problem with people disagreeing, but when they're disagreement takes the form of unreasoned sloganism and begins to sound like a .gov seatbelt commercial, I begin to wonder whether their position is born of logic, emotion or unconscious repetition of what they've heard on the tube.
Rich
You and I happen to see eye to eye on this.
I've no problem with people disagreeing, but when they're disagreement takes the form of unreasoned sloganism and begins to sound like a .gov seatbelt commercial, I begin to wonder whether their position is born of logic, emotion or unconscious repetition of what they've heard on the tube.
Rich
I recently saw a video reenactment of an accident in England where one unbelted passenger's flying body bludgened ALL three other passengers to death.
Wayne, do you really want an explanation of how a strap of cloth designed to hold you in your seat might be useful in maintaining control of a car?
Wayne, do you really want an explanation of how a strap of cloth designed to hold you in your seat might be useful in maintaining control of a car?
Rich Lucibella
Staff
But, but, but, Rabbi-
What about the Gun Owners?
What about the FAT People?
What about the SUV's and Porsche's?
Surely you're not just a single issue Nanny Statist?
If you wish to debate this topic, do so with uniform logic that can be tracked thru to other Social Problems or admit that your views on some are simple emotion.
Rich
What about the Gun Owners?
What about the FAT People?
What about the SUV's and Porsche's?
Surely you're not just a single issue Nanny Statist?
If you wish to debate this topic, do so with uniform logic that can be tracked thru to other Social Problems or admit that your views on some are simple emotion.
Rich
Wraith, surely we can come to some point that recognizes differences and accepts distinctions. All-or-nothing is fine for uneducated people unable to make such distinctions, but for gun-owners who read and educate themselves maybe we could argue that some things are beneficial, some things are debatable, and some things are way over the top.
Rich.....
You said...
"I've no problem with people disagreeing, but when they're disagreement takes the form of unreasoned sloganism and begins to sound like a .gov seatbelt commercial, I begin to wonder whether their position is born of logic, emotion or unconscious repetition of what they've heard on the tube."
Rich
My position comes from my high school buddy being thrown 40 feet from his car and being in a vegative state the second he hit the pavement, he died on the last day of sophmore year. My position is logic and emotion. Not to mention the absence of bullheaded stupidity.
You said...
"I've no problem with people disagreeing, but when they're disagreement takes the form of unreasoned sloganism and begins to sound like a .gov seatbelt commercial, I begin to wonder whether their position is born of logic, emotion or unconscious repetition of what they've heard on the tube."
Rich
My position comes from my high school buddy being thrown 40 feet from his car and being in a vegative state the second he hit the pavement, he died on the last day of sophmore year. My position is logic and emotion. Not to mention the absence of bullheaded stupidity.
As with everytime someone on this board wants to make a comparison with them, PUBLIC roads are not analogous to other citizens' pursuits. The roads are heavily regulated, licensed and are only for the use of particular vehicles meeting certain standards.
If you want to compare it to something, I suggest trying something closer than guns, like medicine or industrial waste.
If you want to drive a bumperless, seatbeltless car with no brakes - go right ahead. Just don't expect to do it on OUR roads.
If you want to compare it to something, I suggest trying something closer than guns, like medicine or industrial waste.
If you want to drive a bumperless, seatbeltless car with no brakes - go right ahead. Just don't expect to do it on OUR roads.
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Rabbi-
You don't argue "nuance" or "compromise" when talking about Truth. An idea is either true or it is not true. Your Truth is that there should be enforcement on certain personal behaviors, but not on others. Those who reject YOUR list, are over the top. Rabbi, EVERYBODY has a list. Get it?
The difference between the royal YOU and and the Royal WE is that WE couldn't care less what YOU do to endanger YOURSELF so long as it does not have a DIRECT and SIGNIFICANT effect our our rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. WE don't live by harrumphs, "what if's" and "what about my $34 per year?" whines; WE don't care if YOUR dog is a pit; WE couldn't care less if you choose to strap yourself to the grill of YOUR car and have your friends play chicken with oncoming trains. YOU evidently care about all these possibilities in your neighbors; otherwise your concern about MY seatbelt use is simply irrational.
You've demonstrated that you care about certain personal behaviors that affect your pocketbook and [potentially] your safety, but not about others with 10X greater cost and risk. Is that what you call "reasonable"?
Quicktrig-
I'm sorry for your loss and think you have every right to preach seat belt use. However, there's lots more friends of gun tragedies out there than there are friends on non-seatbelt use.
Guess what **their** emotional issue is?
Surely you don't mean to say that your personal issue should trump those of the Million Mom March?
Rich
"Quicktrig-
I'm sorry for your loss and think you have every right to preach seat belt use. However, there's lots more friends of gun tragedies out there than there are friends on non-seatbelt use.
Guess what **their** emotional issue is?
Surely you don't mean to say that your personal issue should trump theirs?
Rich"
No I dont think my "personal issue", as you put it, should trump theirs. I knew a kid who blew his head clean off with an 870. I know what "**their**" emotional issue is, first hand.
I'm sorry for your loss and think you have every right to preach seat belt use. However, there's lots more friends of gun tragedies out there than there are friends on non-seatbelt use.
Guess what **their** emotional issue is?
Surely you don't mean to say that your personal issue should trump theirs?
Rich"
No I dont think my "personal issue", as you put it, should trump theirs. I knew a kid who blew his head clean off with an 870. I know what "**their**" emotional issue is, first hand.
Rich Lucibella
Staff
QT-
OK, I understand.
So you DO agree with the MMM demand for "common sense" regulation of firearms.
I can only assume you are in favor of those who call for more "common sense" controls over alcohol, high school sports, jet skis and snow boards. They, too, come from a background of personal tragedy.
But tell me this:
What progam calling for greater Government control of personal actions do you NOT support, and why?
Rich
OK, I understand.
So you DO agree with the MMM demand for "common sense" regulation of firearms.
I can only assume you are in favor of those who call for more "common sense" controls over alcohol, high school sports, jet skis and snow boards. They, too, come from a background of personal tragedy.
But tell me this:
What progam calling for greater Government control of personal actions do you NOT support, and why?
Rich
"QT-
OK, I understand.
So you DO agree with the MMM demand for "common sense" regulation of firearms.
I can only assume you are in favor of those who call for more "common sense" controls over alcohol, high school sports, jet skis and snow boards. They, too, come from a background of personal tragedy.
But tell me this:
What progam calling for greater Government control of personal actions do you not support, and why?
Rich"
Hmm I have to say I dont know what the MMM is really, Ive heard the phrase but what are they about?
Saying that, it would be pretty hard for me to support them, since I dont know what they are.
Also please dont put words in my mouth to try to strengthen your point. Thats extremely rude since Im having a civilized argument with you. If I didnt say I support the "MMM" then I obviously dont.
My position is I think seatbelt laws are fine, not comparing them to other "government controls of personal actions". Frankly I think that tactic is tacky, and you know that the comparisons are far fetched, as Handy said earlier.
Im starting to think that your arguing this for the sake of argument, since its so easy for you to compare it to a hundred other topics of "governmental control" that obviously infuriate you to no end. Whatever it is are you having fun?
OK, I understand.
So you DO agree with the MMM demand for "common sense" regulation of firearms.
I can only assume you are in favor of those who call for more "common sense" controls over alcohol, high school sports, jet skis and snow boards. They, too, come from a background of personal tragedy.
But tell me this:
What progam calling for greater Government control of personal actions do you not support, and why?
Rich"
Hmm I have to say I dont know what the MMM is really, Ive heard the phrase but what are they about?
Saying that, it would be pretty hard for me to support them, since I dont know what they are.
Also please dont put words in my mouth to try to strengthen your point. Thats extremely rude since Im having a civilized argument with you. If I didnt say I support the "MMM" then I obviously dont.
My position is I think seatbelt laws are fine, not comparing them to other "government controls of personal actions". Frankly I think that tactic is tacky, and you know that the comparisons are far fetched, as Handy said earlier.
Im starting to think that your arguing this for the sake of argument, since its so easy for you to compare it to a hundred other topics of "governmental control" that obviously infuriate you to no end. Whatever it is are you having fun?
Rich Lucibella
Staff
MMM= Million Mom March
I'm most certainly not arguing for the sake of arguing. I'm trying to understand the LOGIC of your position. There is no place for intellectual sloth or unreasoned emotion in Public Policy debate. You either articulate a consistent, LOGICAL position or you dismiss yourself as just another person with "deep emotional feelings" on the subject.
So, I'll give you one other example and you tell me whether the government should regulate:
1) Far more people are killed or maimed by excessive speed each year than seat belt violations.
Certainly there is no Legal reason that a car be capable of doing 100, 120, 140 or 160 MPH.
Government can resolve this by the stroke of a pen.....simply require, beginning with the '07 Model year, that manufacturers limit automobile computers to 75 MPH.
Would you be in favor of this simple, yet effective change. If yes, I'll have a couple of others for you. If not, I'd like to know Why Not?
Rich
Another way of looking at the issue is this:
If my neighbor decides to rent a bulldozer and drive it through his house, then more power to him. But, he better not be expecting to move in with me afterwards.
Personal liberty includes the right to choose to do things that can harm yourself. Personal responsibility means that if you harm yourself you fix it yourself and don't depend upon your neighbors to fix it for you at their expense.
The problem we have is that we have a system in place that is attempting to replace personal responsibility with a safety net sytem for those individuals who choose to take actions that harm themselves. By doing so, it creates the situation where personal liberty is being curtailed in order to curtail the costs of people damaging themselves.
Another example: Some time back some recreational climbers got themselves into trouble, and some of the rescuers died attempting to rescue them. Recreational climbers choosing to partake in a risky activity should go forth with the pure knowledge that if they get into trouble, no one is coming to help them. Accept that risk or don't go.
We The People need to move our government back to one that supports Personal Liberty and Personal Responsibility.
If my neighbor decides to rent a bulldozer and drive it through his house, then more power to him. But, he better not be expecting to move in with me afterwards.
Personal liberty includes the right to choose to do things that can harm yourself. Personal responsibility means that if you harm yourself you fix it yourself and don't depend upon your neighbors to fix it for you at their expense.
The problem we have is that we have a system in place that is attempting to replace personal responsibility with a safety net sytem for those individuals who choose to take actions that harm themselves. By doing so, it creates the situation where personal liberty is being curtailed in order to curtail the costs of people damaging themselves.
Another example: Some time back some recreational climbers got themselves into trouble, and some of the rescuers died attempting to rescue them. Recreational climbers choosing to partake in a risky activity should go forth with the pure knowledge that if they get into trouble, no one is coming to help them. Accept that risk or don't go.
We The People need to move our government back to one that supports Personal Liberty and Personal Responsibility.
Lol, 75 MPH speed limit.....LOL.
Then I couldnt street race up to 145 through a school zone....Cmon Rich be realistic......You seem liek the kidna guy that would do 120 on the way to work, so you have time to hit starbucks and grab your Wall street Journal....
Frankly I dont have "deep emotional feelings". Yea it sucked he got killed not wearing his belt. And if he would have worn it, he WOULD be alive. yea it hurts to drive by the cross on the side of the road, everyday, 4 times. Yea it sucks to see his parents working in their yard, and see Jeremiahs Pickup parked next to the garage. Yea it sucks to see his little brother at school, who is almost identical to Jeramiah, walking through the halls looking like a ghost. His brother was in the car when the car wrecked, But he lived BECAUSE OF HIS SEATBELT HE WAS WEARING.
I know youve got a whole list of things lined up to ask me about, your probably all excited, almost pissin yourself, all worked up. Your loving this, this is fun for you. And Im glad, Cause the longer I have you sitting here arguing with me, the less time your on the street without your belt on, in the same state as my family. But if you really want to have some fun, and I know you do, write your congressman, tell him all your exciting ideas, and BS with him till the sun comes up. But in the end we all know that wearing your seatbelt saves lives, and thats the freakin LOGIC.
P.S. I would love to hear your stands on some other "issues".
Then I couldnt street race up to 145 through a school zone....Cmon Rich be realistic......You seem liek the kidna guy that would do 120 on the way to work, so you have time to hit starbucks and grab your Wall street Journal....
Frankly I dont have "deep emotional feelings". Yea it sucked he got killed not wearing his belt. And if he would have worn it, he WOULD be alive. yea it hurts to drive by the cross on the side of the road, everyday, 4 times. Yea it sucks to see his parents working in their yard, and see Jeremiahs Pickup parked next to the garage. Yea it sucks to see his little brother at school, who is almost identical to Jeramiah, walking through the halls looking like a ghost. His brother was in the car when the car wrecked, But he lived BECAUSE OF HIS SEATBELT HE WAS WEARING.
I know youve got a whole list of things lined up to ask me about, your probably all excited, almost pissin yourself, all worked up. Your loving this, this is fun for you. And Im glad, Cause the longer I have you sitting here arguing with me, the less time your on the street without your belt on, in the same state as my family. But if you really want to have some fun, and I know you do, write your congressman, tell him all your exciting ideas, and BS with him till the sun comes up. But in the end we all know that wearing your seatbelt saves lives, and thats the freakin LOGIC.
P.S. I would love to hear your stands on some other "issues".
Rich Lucibella
Staff
OK, I agree. You are certainly not arguing from the position of "deep emotional feelings".
I deeply resent this. I don't read the Wall Street Journal.
But do you harbor similar unfounded concerns about many of your neighbors? Don't answer that. It was rhetorical.
Which brings us full circle. You must therefore believe in invasive government regulation of overeating, heavy SUVs, snowboarding, firearms ownership....stuff like that. Correct? After all, you claim to be arguing from a consistent and logical place.
Oh, that's easy. Read the Bill of Rights, the Federalist Papers and Atlas Shrugged. You'll get a pretty good idea of what a dangerous radical I am.
Rich