Keep Your Laws Off My Body

[JohnOfSheffield]

The difference is road and traffic laws exist to protect OTHERS. Seatbelt and helmet laws exist only to protect you from yourself.

Another swing and a miss.

No, Red is completely correct and your assertion is completely wrong, andyone above the age of five could prove you wrong on this one, that goes for ALL of your arguments.

Traffic laws DO indeed exist to protect you from yourself in some instances.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Why would you feel this thread is only about seatbelt laws?

It didn't start out that way, and was only given as one of many examples of welfare laws that save you from yourself. Others may have latched onto it and argued the law with me, but to think this one law is my cause shows you either didn't follow the thread, or you're being intentionally obtuse.

Jesus bloody christ... i suggest those who don't support these laws pay for the cost of their revocation, their taxes will go up by about 3000%, yeah, that is right, they will pay a shitload more than they earn but at least they would learn not to be so fucking stupid.

You don't get that everyone injured is a cost to society whether it's via medical care or lost income?

I suppose you are a red blooded commie then who don't get that everything that goes into the market supports the market as a whole.

Christ you are a daft piece of twat.

 

[Amused]

No, Red is completely correct and your assertion is completely wrong, andyone above the age of five could prove you wrong on this one, that goes for ALL of your arguments.

Traffic laws DO indeed exist to protect you from yourself in some instances.

No, they do not. Traffic laws serve to ensure the safety of traffiic and keep people from harming EACHOTHER.

Please list one US traffic law besides helmet and seatbelt laws that serve to ONLY protect ME from MYSELF.

 

[Amused]

Jesus bloody christ... i suggest those who don't support these laws pay for the cost of their revocation, their taxes will go up by about 3000%, yeah, that is right, they will pay a shitload more than they earn but at least they would learn not to be so fucking stupid.

You don't get that everyone injured is a cost to society whether it's via medical care or lost income?

I suppose you are a red blooded commie then who don't get that everything that goes into the market supports the market as a whole.

Christ you are a daft piece of twat.

Um, I am anti-socialist for the very argument you make.

My entire point over these laws is most are passed using the "cost to society" argument. Well, why not just NOT pay, or charge higher insurance premiums for those who risk more and keep our freedom?

But, you're British, so you know very little of what liberty actually is. Of course you'd never understand my argument.

If I injure myself it costs society NOTHING. It's my body, and the risks I take with it are none of your business.

And speaking of twats, your attitude is exactly why we kicked yours out of our country 230 odd years ago.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

No, they do not. Traffic laws serve to ensure the safety of traffiic and keep people from harming EACHOTHER.

Please list one US traffic law besides helmet and seatbelt laws that serve to ONLY protect ME from MYSELF.

You're fucked in your head, don't blame me for it.

Anyone of ANY sanity can get that if you are out of your seat you have no control over your car and that is what happens if you get hit while not wearing your seatbelt.

Helmet laws are there to protect the society from the cost of having to deal with what happens afterwards if a biker does NOT wear his helmet.

of course, you'd have to have some kind of sanity of mind to understand these simple issues, something you don't have.

At the same time you defend known toxins going into food and preach personal responsibility towards know addictive substances?

You are fucked in your head, not just a little bit but A FUCKING LOT, you're so stupid that causation doesn't even compute in your fucked up brain.

I'd hate to be you, you must be pissed off at yourself at all times because you, as everyone else, is not perfect.

 

[Amused]

You're fucked in your head, don't blame me for it.

Anyone of ANY sanity can get that if you are out of your seat you have no control over your car and that is what happens if you get hit while not wearing your seatbelt.

Helmet laws are there to protect the society from the cost of having to deal with what happens afterwards if a biker does NOT wear his helmet.

of course, you'd have to have some kind of sanity of mind to understand these simple issues, something you don't have.

At the same time you defend known toxins going into food and preach personal responsibility towards know addictive substances?

You are fucked in your head, not just a little bit but A FUCKING LOT, you're so stupid that causation doesn't even compute in your fucked up brain.

I'd hate to be you, you must be pissed off at yourself at all times because you, as everyone else, is not perfect.

What "known toxins" have I defended?

Again, my body is NONE of your, or the government's business. And there is NO valid study showing a signifigant increase in accidents between belted, and non-belted drivers.

As for the aftermath of an accident, crap. Again, it's MY FUCKING BODY. Not yours. You do what you please with yours and leave mine the fuck alone.

BTW, if you think your debating style is effective, think again. You only sound like a crabby little bitch.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

What "known toxins" have I defended?

Again, my body is NONE of your, or the government's business. And there is NO valid study showing a signifigant increase in accidents between belted, and non-belted drivers.

As for the aftermath of an accident, crap. Again, it's MY FUCKING BODY. Not yours. You do what you please with yours and leave mine the fuck alone.

BTW, if you think your debating style is effective, think again. You only sound like a crabby little bitch.

. It is your body but did you ever stop to think that even a light accident might cause you to NOT be able to reach the pedals if you are not held down? No? Of bloody course you havent because that is your trademark, YOU DO NOT THINK! then there is all other costs associated with an accident caused by a minor incident that became a major one because of you being smart enogh to strap down. Then there is all of societies costs for a more severe via verse a not so severe accident, thought of that, no, YOU DO NOT THINK.

All in all, you simply don't think beyond the first instance, that is a sign of schizophrenia, perhaps you should get that checked out?

 

[Amused]

. It is your body but did you ever stop to think that even a light accident might cause you to NOT be able to reach the pedals if you are not held down? No? Of bloody course you havent because that is your trademark, YOU DO NOT THINK! then there is all other costs associated with an accident caused by a minor incident that became a major one because of you being smart enogh to strap down. Then there is all of societies costs for a more severe via verse a not so severe accident, thought of that, no, YOU DO NOT THINK.

All in all, you simply don't think beyond the first instance, that is a sign of schizophrenia, perhaps you should get that checked out?

Because we left your shithole of a kingdom to come here and have individual freedom.

Meanwhile, I asked you for valid studies showing signifigant increases of accidents when the driver is unbelted. I take it by the example you ripped from your ass that you have none.

I do think. It is YOUR assumption that I do not think. The problem is, you cannot understand the idea of individual liberty, and think the collective is more important than the individual. Your ideology is the problem here. Not my ability to think.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Because we left your shithole of a kingdom to come here and have individual freedom.

Meanwhile, I asked you for valid studies showing signifigant increases of accidents when the driver is unbelted. I take it by the example you ripped from your ass that you have none.

I do think. It is YOUR assumption that I do not think. The problem is, you cannot understand the idea of individual liberty, and think the collective is more important than the individual. Your ideology is the problem here. Not my ability to think.

I gave you an example that would involve EVERY DRIVER involved in ANY ACCIDENT and you didn't like it because it might not happen?

Son, you are so fucked in your head that it's not even amusing to discuss with you since you always go out of bounds.

Yeah, it's my FUCKING ASSUMPTION that if you are in a collision, even a fucking minor one you will not remain in the seat without a seat belt. Know what, it's also reality, unless you can do skullcrushers with 1500lbs you are not going to be able to hold the fuck on to the stearing wheel.

You'd think common sense would enter the brain of a lunatic like you at some point but not even when explained... christ... that must be a problem with your healthcare system or something.

Again, don't assume sheit, just bloody think for yourself for ONCE in your life.

 

[Red Dawn]

Why would you feel this thread is only about seatbelt laws?

I dunno, maybe due to the fact that there's many posts discussing it, including some of yours

 

[Darwin333]

Stupid people have a Right to Live and to perpetuate Life.

What does that have to do with the conversation? No one is forcing them NOT to wear a seatbelt. If their dumbass doesn't put it on and dies, the gene pool just got a little cleaner.

 

[Darwin333]

That's pretty much the slippery slope fallacy in a nutshell. Today it's what kind of lightbulbs we can buy. Tomorrow they're wiretapping our homes. The one doesn't necessarily follow from the other, particularly in a democracy. One can support the one and oppose the other. To suggest that you cannot is to polarize the issue to "purist" extremes whereby you either support complete tyranny or near total anarchy where the government does nothing. These are false dichotomies, the product of rigid ideological thinking.

- wolf

It is the product of reality. Thats the way it has been working for a while now. The right wingers loved the expansion of Presidential powers.... when they had a republican president. Now they are completely against it.

Its no different with rights. Once you let them in the door they rarely leave, quite the oposite, they usually grab more power. Its like the discussion at hand, seatbelt laws are rationalized because if you don't wear your seatbelt you wind up costing society a ton of money. Not a bad argument but what about fat people? They cost society a whole lot of money as well, doesn't the exact same argument work? Why should you be able to eat that big mac if I have to pay for your bypass surgery?

What I advocate is nowhere near anarchy, its really quite simple in fact. If someones actions are not directly harming another person or their property then LEAVE THEM THE HELL ALONE. Have we run out of people actually harming other people and their property to fuck with or something? Cops are bored to tears so they need something to do?

This isn't a slippery slope. You either want the government to make common sense choices, that do not directly effect anyone else, for you or you don't. Eating that big mac when you are already 40 pounds overweight is something common sense should dictate you do not do but at the same time it doesn't hurt me, just like wearing a seatbelt. If you want to be a crackhead then be a crackhead, if you break into my house we already have laws on the books to deal with it but simply being a crackhead has no bearing whatsoever on my life.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

What does that have to do with the conversation? No one is forcing them NOT to wear a seatbelt. If their dumbass doesn't put it on and dies, the gene pool just got a little cleaner.

Try getting hit and remain in your seat without a seatbelt.

Yeah, it does indeed save others from having to deal with you out of control of your car that just got dented.

The forces in a collision are fucking great, even at minor collisons you are going to get out of your seat if nothing is holding you to it and without the capacity of breaking, steering or even hitting the gas you are in trouble with everyone on the road even if the first collission was minor.

There IS a good reason for seat belt laws to protect others from your stupidity.

If anyone asks me for statistics on this i'll bloody well kill them.

 

[Amused]

I gave you an example that would involve EVERY DRIVER involved in ANY ACCIDENT and you didn't like it because it might not happen?

Son, you are so fucked in your head that it's not even amusing to discuss with you since you always go out of bounds.

Yeah, it's my FUCKING ASSUMPTION that if you are in a collision, even a fucking minor one you will not remain in the seat without a seat belt. Know what, it's also reality, unless you can do skullcrushers with 1500lbs you are not going to be able to hold the fuck on to the stearing wheel.

You'd think common sense would enter the brain of a lunatic like you at some point but not even when explained... christ... that must be a problem with your healthcare system or something.

Again, don't assume sheit, just bloody think for yourself for ONCE in your life.

I think you forget; those who can think for themselves left your little empire long ago. All that's left there now are sheep like you who do what they're told and have no concept whatsoever of individual freedom.

Again, victimless crimes are unjust laws. Seatbelt and helmet laws along with drug laws, consensual sex and abortion laws are ALL victimless crimes.

You can try to keep using vulgar rants to protest this fact... but you won't change it.

 

[Amused]

Try getting hit and remain in your seat without a seatbelt.

Yeah, it does indeed save others from having to deal with you out of control of your car that just got dented.

The forces in a collision are fucking great, even at minor collisons you are going to get out of your seat if nothing is holding you to it and without the capacity of breaking, steering or even hitting the gas you are in trouble with everyone on the road even if the first collission was minor.

There IS a good reason for seat belt laws to protect others from your stupidity.

If anyone asks me for statistics on this i'll bloody well kill them.

Come kill me.

I would like valid studies that show belted drivers are signifigantly less dangerous to other drivers than unbelted drivers.

If a collision is hard enough to knock you out of your seat, you're gonna lose control belted or not.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I think you forget; those who can think for themselves left your little empire long ago. All that's left there now are sheep like you who do what they're told and have no concept whatsoever of individual freedom.

Again, victimless crimes are unjust laws. Seatbelt and helmet laws along with drug laws, consensual sex and abortion laws are ALL victimless crimes.

You can try to keep using vulgar rants to protest this fact... but you won't change it.

I explained how it's not a victimless crime to you THREE TIMES and you argued that you don't like England?

Seriously? Why the fuck make a post based on ignorance and then dance around the subject? Because that is what you ALWAYS do you stupid twat?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Come kill me.

I would like valid studies that show belted drivers are signifigantly less dangerous to other drivers than unbelted drivers.

If a collision is hard enough to knock you out of your seat, you're gonna lose control belted or not.

Some people have common sense and understand that even a minor accident will jerk a driver out of the seat, some, like you, don't understand physics at all and think they need statistics to understand common sense.

Do you know the math to calculate the speed the driver will move in at 10MPH? If you do you'll get my point, without a seatbelt this guy will not be in his seat and holding the steering wheel while someone who does have his seatbelt will be.

Any sane human being gets that these are the facts of the situation, why you have to be stubborn and bring unrelated sheit into the situation i do not know, except that you might know you are wrong, either way.

This discussion is over.

 

[woolfe9999]

It is the product of reality. Thats the way it has been working for a while now. The right wingers loved the expansion of Presidential powers.... when they had a republican president. Now they are completely against it.

Its no different with rights. Once you let them in the door they rarely leave, quite the oposite, they usually grab more power. Its like the discussion at hand, seatbelt laws are rationalized because if you don't wear your seatbelt you wind up costing society a ton of money. Not a bad argument but what about fat people? They cost society a whole lot of money as well, doesn't the exact same argument work? Why should you be able to eat that big mac if I have to pay for your bypass surgery?

What I advocate is nowhere near anarchy, its really quite simple in fact. If someones actions are not directly harming another person or their property then LEAVE THEM THE HELL ALONE. Have we run out of people actually harming other people and their property to fuck with or something? Cops are bored to tears so they need something to do?

This isn't a slippery slope. You either want the government to make common sense choices, that do not directly effect anyone else, for you or you don't. Eating that big mac when you are already 40 pounds overweight is something common sense should dictate you do not do but at the same time it doesn't hurt me, just like wearing a seatbelt. If you want to be a crackhead then be a crackhead, if you break into my house we already have laws on the books to deal with it but simply being a crackhead has no bearing whatsoever on my life.

Yeah we are treading familiar territory. I think it's a slippery slope - support seatbelt laws, and the next thing we're banning the Big Mac. I'll have one more go at this to explain how I approach this issue by issue. Not wearing seatlbelts and eating Big Macs do have that in common - they burden other people with higher healthcare costs. However, telling someone what they can eat is different than telling someone to wear a seatbelt because a seatbelt law is a regulation on how to behave on public roadways which do not belong to you, whereas what you put into your body is far more private decision. So the benefit of either restriction may be similar, but on the cost end, they are not the same. For foods, the only thing I support is labelling requirements so that people know how much fat/sugar/calories are in it. The rest is up to the individual.

- wolf

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Yeah we are treading familiar territory. I think it's a slippery slope - support seatbelt laws, and the next thing we're banning the Big Mac. I'll have one more go at this to explain how I approach this issue by issue. Not wearing seatlbelts and eating Big Macs do have that in common - they burden other people with higher healthcare costs. However, telling someone what they can eat is different than telling someone to wear a seatbelt because a seatbelt law is a regulation on how to behave on public roadways which do not belong to you, whereas what you put into your body is far more private decision. So the benefit of either restriction may be similar, but on the cost end, they are not the same. For foods, the only thing I support is labelling requirements so that people know how much fat/sugar/calories are in it. The rest is up to the individual.

- wolf

Yeah, it's like kinda how every other nation with a national healthcare has banned fatty foods.

Fish and chips? NO NHS FOR YOU!

Seriously, do any of these people actually believe they could stay in their seats proper without a seatbelt that involved even a low speed collision?

Are physics not taught in the schools these people went to? It's a sheitload of force, if you're moving at 10 MPH into anything with your body you'll be seriously fucking hurt and now you need to hit the brakes and steer away from an oncoming car, after that? With a seatbelt on yeah, you'll be able to (i know how your body and mind reacts to shock), but without it... head on collision and it wasn't your fault that a family died because you were not wearing a fucking seatbelt, not at all....

This discussion is daft.

 

[sandorski]

Yeah we are treading familiar territory. I think it's a slippery slope - support seatbelt laws, and the next thing we're banning the Big Mac. I'll have one more go at this to explain how I approach this issue by issue. Not wearing seatlbelts and eating Big Macs do have that in common - they burden other people with higher healthcare costs. However, telling someone what they can eat is different than telling someone to wear a seatbelt because a seatbelt law is a regulation on how to behave on public roadways which do not belong to you, whereas what you put into your body is far more private decision. So the benefit of either restriction may be similar, but on the cost end, they are not the same. For foods, the only thing I support is labelling requirements so that people know how much fat/sugar/calories are in it. The rest is up to the individual.

- wolf

The "Freedom" argument was also used when certain jurisdictions started banning certain forms of Fat used in Deep Frying. Banning the "Big Mac" is very unlikely to occur, but Banning certain Ingredients involved in them or used in the making of them certainly could occur. I have no problem with these sorts of Bans as they are reasonable in the sense that safer alternatives exist and have a large positive affect. Some seem to always want to turn it into some Fundamental intrusion though.

 

[Amused]

Some people have common sense and understand that even a minor accident will jerk a driver out of the seat, some, like you, don't understand physics at all and think they need statistics to understand common sense.

Do you know the math to calculate the speed the driver will move in at 10MPH? If you do you'll get my point, without a seatbelt this guy will not be in his seat and holding the steering wheel while someone who does have his seatbelt will be.

Any sane human being gets that these are the facts of the situation, why you have to be stubborn and bring unrelated sheit into the situation i do not know, except that you might know you are wrong, either way.

This discussion is over.

Translation: I have no valid proof for my claims, so I'm going to insult you and claim to be the winner of my failed debate. I'm taking my bullshit claims and going home!!!

The fact of the matter is this: ANY accident in which a driver would be knocked from their seat would delay their reaction time and knock their hands from the wheel and feet from the pedels even if they were belted in, thus causing a loss of further control for a second or longer. Long enough for any secondary collision to occur. Seatbelts have NEVER been shown to improve driver reaction time or response time in an accident. Your point is moot.

The reason you cannot produce any study to support your point is because they do not exist.

 

[Amused]

I explained how it's not a victimless crime to you THREE TIMES and you argued that you don't like England?

Seriously? Why the fuck make a post based on ignorance and then dance around the subject? Because that is what you ALWAYS do you stupid twat?

You explained nothing but an unsubstantiated bullshit claim that must have tore a huge hole in your ass when you ripped it from the depths of your bowels.

I danced around nothing. I asked for proof and you provided none.

Your claim that unbelted drivers harm others is moot.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Translation: I have no valid proof for my claims, so I'm going to insult you and claim to be the winner of my failed debate. I'm taking my bullshit claims and going home!!!

The fact of the matter is this: ANY accident in which a driver would be knocked from their seat would delay their reaction time and knock their hands from the wheel and feet from the pedels even if they were belted in, thus causing a loss of further control for a second or longer. Long enough for any secondary collision to occur. Seatbelts have NEVER been shown to improve driver reaction time or response time in an accident. Your point is moot.

The reason you cannot produce any study to support your point is because they do not exist.

It's bloody common sense and you know it, that you wish to be right so much that you put aside all common sense says a lot about you.

Any sane man can understand my point, but you can't?

 

[Amused]

It's bloody common sense and you know it, that you wish to be right so much that you put aside all common sense says a lot about you.

Any sane man can understand my point, but you can't?

Any man with common sense can understand only one thing: You are clinging deserately to a non-fact you pulled out of your ass in a vain attempt to win an argument.

Fact: Any accident strong enough to unseat you WILL cause loss of control, belted or not, as your hands and feet are NOT tied to the wheel and pedels. We are talking reaction times of less than a second. Do you honestly think your hands will find the wheel and your feet the pedels in under a second after being ripped away from them in a crash violent enough to unseat an unbelted driver???

So, produce a valid study or just shut the fuck up already. You're a crabby little bitch who thinks insults and threats are valid debating tactics.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

You explained nothing but an unsubstantiated bullshit claim that must have tore a huge hole in your ass when you ripped it from the depths of your bowels.

I danced around nothing. I asked for proof and you provided none.

Your claim that unbelted drivers harm others is moot.

Yeah, because those hit in low speed accidents all have the capacity to hold on to their fucking pedals and wheel even when forces so great that not even Dorian Yates could is plausible in your deranged mind.

OK, fine.

You are actually ARGUING for not wearing your seatbelt?

THINK ABOUT IT YOU DAFT TWAT!