What are some things you are against?

[yukichigai]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
I don't get your whole passenger/driver thing. If the passenger *wants* to wear a seatbelt, that's fine, but why should our goverment mandate it? And impose fines on those who *choose* not to? Now, laws mandating that *children* must be restrained are ok, since a child does not have the capacity to make that choice themselves, but once you turn 18, who cares? Also, it'd be fine to even require city bus driver and such to wear them for their passenger's safety, but not private citizens.

Now as far as worrying about manufacturers not including seatbelts, that's just absurd. If any of them try that, they'll just lose business to those that do offer them. A *lot* of people wear seatbelts for their own personal benefit and would continue to do so, even without a law. I would never buy a car that didn't offer goverment-regulated-and-tested seatbelts. The free market would take care of that real quick. Or the gov can just change to law to saw that manufacturs *have* to include them, but people do't *have* to wear them. Why not?

Because there is no earthly justifiable reason why anybody should want to ride in a car without wearing a seatbelt. Also, because with such a law in place the police simply fine stupid people, instead of cleaning their body parts off the road.

It's a case of legislating common sense. There's no real reason why they should, but there's no real reason why they shouldn't. If you don't wear a seatbelt you're a freakin' retard. And, much as I hate to admit it, stupid people deserve to be saved from their own stupidity. If the logic of wearing a seatbelt isn't enough to motivate them to wear one, then the fine is.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: yukichigai

Because there is no earthly justifiable reason why anybody should want to ride in a car without wearing a seatbelt. Also, because with such a law in place the police simply fine stupid people, instead of cleaning their body parts off the road.

It's a case of legislating common sense. There's no real reason why they should, but there's no real reason why they shouldn't. If you don't wear a seatbelt you're a freakin' retard. And, much as I hate to admit it, stupid people deserve to be saved from their own stupidity. If the logic of wearing a seatbelt isn't enough to motivate them to wear one, then the fine is.

Well you know, that's an opinion. In *my* opinion, there is no "earthly justifiable reason" why people should be able to skydive. Or get their scrotum pierced. Or wear those fanny packs. Or listen to boy bands. If you do any of those things "you're a freakin' retard," as you put it. But I wouldn't support laws to prohibit any of those things! It is NOT the government's duty to protect me from my own behavior, as long as it doesn't deny anyone else their rights. The government is neither my mother nor my conscience.

 

[yukichigai]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Well you know, that's an opinion. In *my* opinion, there is no "earthly justifiable reason" why people should be able to skydive. Or get their scrotum pierced. Or wear those fanny packs. Or listen to boy bands. If you do any of those things "you're a freakin' retard," as you put it. But I wouldn't support laws to prohibit any of those things! It is NOT the government's duty to protect me from my own behavior, as long as it doesn't deny anyone else their rights. The government is neither my mother nor my conscience.

Those are asthetic or moral decisions. Not wearing a seatbelt is a decision based on physics. Physics. The Laws of the Universe. If you don't wear a seatbelt and are involved in a headon collision at 35+mph, you will go into the windshield. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. Yet some people are too stupid to realize this. This is why these laws exist.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
PNAC
neo-cons
ashcroft
cheney
capitalists (not the concept, but those who treat it as a religion and money the god)
prejudism
injustice
egocentricism
zealotism
ignorance
businesses as entities
heat
social conformity
mandatory attendance
government/social interferance in private matters
abuse
exploitation
environmental harm
ebonics
cruelty
lawyers
politicians
sports integrated with public schools on public money
job training over education
abortion as birth control
corporate welfare
needless welfare
any education, medicine, or basic needs industry being 'for profit'
outsourcing
open immigration
political correctness

there's a start anyway.

Added:
smoking
drug use (don't think it should be illegal, it just makes you a dumba$$ if you do it)
cheating (on a game)
cheating (on a lover/spouse)
hunting for sport
gossip
reality tv
paparazzi
people who infringe on the rights of others (especially in self-defense issues)
fashion
non-microbrew american beer

*thanks to all who posted them to give me the ideas

You have so many contradictions in your list, I don't even know where to start.

well, here's one

Business as Entities and Government Interference in Private Matters are completely contradictory.

I disagree. Government ALLOWING businesses the rights of an individual is interferance. Businesses aren't alive, and thereby have no rights. The people that own/run/work the businesses have rights, but the business itself does not truly exist.

By that reasoning they are not contradictory. Furthermore, your warrant is that a business is a private matter. However, I was speaking of private matters like the bedroom, beliefs, etc.

I see no contradictions, but feel free to point out any others so I can continue to explain them and discredit you.

If business (we're talking corporation) can not truly exist, then how can they be sued? How can they enter into contracts? How can they be awarded contracts? How can they be taxed?

And Privacy is privacy. What a private business, and to a limited extent public companies, do should be the sole discretion of that business.

I realize you don't agree, and I don't care in the least. Be a selfish, ego-centric greedy bastard all you want, I prefer a higher standard.

And that statement contradicts your dislikes of cruelty, ignorance and prejudism.

You prefer a higher standard, yet you stoop to name-calling in a debate. How adult of you.

hehehe, even us avatars can have an off day.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: yukichigai

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Well you know, that's an opinion. In *my* opinion, there is no "earthly justifiable reason" why people should be able to skydive. Or get their scrotum pierced. Or wear those fanny packs. Or listen to boy bands. If you do any of those things "you're a freakin' retard," as you put it. But I wouldn't support laws to prohibit any of those things! It is NOT the government's duty to protect me from my own behavior, as long as it doesn't deny anyone else their rights. The government is neither my mother nor my conscience.

Those are asthetic or moral decisions. Not wearing a seatbelt is a decision based on physics. Physics. The Laws of the Universe. If you don't wear a seatbelt and are involved in a headon collision at 35+mph, you will go into the windshield. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. Yet some people are too stupid to realize this. This is why these laws exist.

Last time, then I give up. To mirror your post:

What about sky diving? If you hit the ground after falling thousands of feet, you will die! That's physics! The Laws of the Universe. If your chute doesn't open, you will go into the ground. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. Yet some people are too stupid to realize this. But no law exists to prevent people from going skydiving.

It's the exact same thing! You *choose* to do something (skydiving/not wear seatbelt). If all goes according to plan (chute opens/no vehicular accident) then everybody is happy. If there is an accident (chutes fails/head-on collision), then you (and you alone) will probably die. It was your choice all along. Maybe people get a rush out of falling fast through the sky. Maybe people get a similar rush driving 70 on the freeway without a restraint. What's the difference?

If you support a seatbelt law, then by the exact same logic, you have to support a government ban on skydiving. Right?

Then where does it end? What about smoking? Some people can smoke and live happy and healthy long lives. But some unfortunate people will get cancer and die. Should the government prevent people from being able to smoke? I mean, it's simple medical science! The Laws of Life! If you smoke and get cancer in 95% of your lungs, you will be miserable and possibly die! That's not an opinion, that's a fact.

And what about autoerotic asphixiation? I mean, if you have an accident, you could strangle yourself and die! Where are the laws that dictate how I can masturbate?

Do you see how silly is can get by following the logic that the government should have the right and authority to tell individuals exactly how to live their lives? I hope so.

 

[Amused]

Some of the posts in here made me think of this quote, and how very relevant it is:

"Every movement that seeks to enslave a country, every dictatorship or potential dictatorship, needs some minority group as a scapegoat which it can blame for the nation's troubles and use as a justification of its own demand for dictatorial powers. In Soviet Russia, the scapegoat was the bourgeoisie; in Nazi Germany, it was the Jewish people; in America, it is the businessmen."

 

[palle33]

myself!...

 

[lucrioual]

1. Smoking
2. Drinking
3. Drugs
4. Racism

haha

 

[JulesMaximus]

I'm against people who are against hunting.
I am also against people who shove religion down your throat.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: cKGunslingerLast time, then I give up. To mirror your post:

What about sky diving? If you hit the ground after falling thousands of feet, you will die! That's physics! The Laws of the Universe. If your chute doesn't open, you will go into the ground. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. Yet some people are too stupid to realize this. But no law exists to prevent people from going skydiving.

It's the exact same thing! You *choose* to do something (skydiving/not wear seatbelt). If all goes according to plan (chute opens/no vehicular accident) then everybody is happy. If there is an accident (chutes fails/head-on collision), then you (and you alone) will probably die. It was your choice all along. Maybe people get a rush out of falling fast through the sky. Maybe people get a similar rush driving 70 on the freeway without a restraint. What's the difference?

If you support a seatbelt law, then by the exact same logic, you have to support a government ban on skydiving. Right?

Then where does it end? What about smoking? Some people can smoke and live happy and healthy long lives. But some unfortunate people will get cancer and die. Should the government prevent people from being able to smoke? I mean, it's simple medical science! The Laws of Life! If you smoke and get cancer in 95% of your lungs, you will be miserable and possibly die! That's not an opinion, that's a fact.

And what about autoerotic asphixiation? I mean, if you have an accident, you could strangle yourself and die! Where are the laws that dictate how I can masturbate?

Do you see how silly is can get by following the logic that the government should have the right and authority to tell individuals exactly how to live their lives? I hope so.

No, you don't.

If there were millions of people jumping out of airplanes without parachutes I'm sure there would be a law against skydiving. Duh. :roll:

 

[yukichigai]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
What about sky diving? If you hit the ground after falling thousands of feet, you will die! That's physics! The Laws of the Universe. If your chute doesn't open, you will go into the ground. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. Yet some people are too stupid to realize this. But no law exists to prevent people from going skydiving.

It's the exact same thing! You *choose* to do something (skydiving/not wear seatbelt). If all goes according to plan (chute opens/no vehicular accident) then everybody is happy. If there is an accident (chutes fails/head-on collision), then you (and you alone) will probably die. It was your choice all along. Maybe people get a rush out of falling fast through the sky. Maybe people get a similar rush driving 70 on the freeway without a restraint. What's the difference?

If you support a seatbelt law, then by the exact same logic, you have to support a government ban on skydiving. Right?

Then where does it end? What about smoking? Some people can smoke and live happy and healthy long lives. But some unfortunate people will get cancer and die. Should the government prevent people from being able to smoke? I mean, it's simple medical science! The Laws of Life! If you smoke and get cancer in 95% of your lungs, you will be miserable and possibly die! That's not an opinion, that's a fact.

First off, the last paragraph can be argued for or against. There are not that many hard facts on smoking, only studies. Whereas basic physics is nothing but hard facts. And by the by, if the feds are going to stop me from smoking pot then they should stop me from smoking tobacco as well.

Secondly, skydiving is a recreational activity. Wearing your seatbelt is not. To put it in context, a proper example would be that there should be a law banning skydiving without a backup parachute. And I agree, there should be. Why? Because the less informed will otherwise assume they don't need it. Now in skydiving there aren't that many uninformed people, but when it comes to driving there are plenty of them. Tons of them. Plenty of people assume they're unnecessary, and we need laws like that on the books to motivate them to buckle up.

Incidentally, I wanted to respond to something you said, about how car manufacturers wouldn't stop putting seatbelts in cars if the law was removed. There is no requirement that says a School Bus must have seat belts in the passenger seats. And they don't. Why not? If a van needs seat belts, shouldn't a school bus? The same rough physics apply to both. Yet they don't, and there is no major "get our School Busses seat belted" movement out there, because there are industry-funded studies that say they're more of a hazard than a help. Among the "sound" reasons they give: "if a bus overturns it will be that much more difficult to get children out" and, "seatbelts could jam and complicate existing conditions during an accident/collision." Sounds more like a problem with the seatbelts to me, and both of those problems exist in cars as well. But people believe it and take it as fact. Similarly, people would believe industry-funded studies saying seat belts are unnecessary in cars. It wouldn't be an overnight change, but it would happen.

 

[JulesMaximus]

I'm also against people who are against laws that are designed to protect your dumb ass.

 

[yukichigai]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I'm also against people who are against laws that are designed to protect your dumb ass.

Same, but only those laws that are based on solid, undisputable evidence. Y'know, like physics.

 

[KarenMarie]

Originally posted by: yukichigai

Originally posted by: KarenMarie
seatbelt laws

Care to explain how this one doesn't automatically nominate you for the Future Darwin Awards?

I am not against seatbelts. And I am not really against seatbelt laws for minors. I am against any government intrusion that claims they know what is best for us, when it is, in reality just another renevue generator. I think that if a grown adult chooses to drive their car without a seatbelt, it is incredibly stupid, but should not be illegal. It is just another excuse for the cops to write more tickets and meet their quota.

Are seatbelts a smart thing?... sure.
Do I think we should be forced by punishments of penalties to wear them?... no.

Just my pet peeve.

edit: Auto manufacturers were putting seatbelts in cars LONG before the law made it manditory to wear them.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: cKGunslingerLast time, then I give up. To mirror your post:


If you support a seatbelt law, then by the exact same logic, you have to support a government ban on skydiving. Right?

No, you don't.

If there were millions of people jumping out of airplanes without parachutes I'm sure there would be a law against skydiving. Duh. :roll:

No, you seem to be unable to comprehend a proper analogy. Jumping out of an airplane without a parachute equals certain death. Driving a car without a seatbelt does not! Having a major accident while not wearing your seatbelt might. See the difference? Having an accident while doing each of these activities can be fatal. Therefore, each of these activities should be prohibited. ie: Not wearing a seatbelt and skydiving. Get it?

Oh yeah, I guess I forgot this: duh. :roll:

ps: You know, if a bunch of people did start jumping out of airplanes without chutes, there still shouldn't be a law passed to prevent this. Issue a warning that this activity could be fatal and you are at your own risk, and leave it at that. Just like put a warning on the driver's test that says the same thing about seatbelts.

 

[bbkat]

REALITY SHOWS! :disgust:

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: yukichigai
And by the by, if the feds are going to stop me from smoking pot then they should stop me from smoking tobacco as well.

Hey! We agree on something!

Secondly, skydiving is a recreational activity. Wearing your seatbelt is not.

Why not? Why isn't driving without a seatbelt a recreational activity? Some people must enjoy it. Isn't that the definition of a recreational activity?

To put it in context, a proper example would be that there should be a law banning skydiving without a backup parachute. And I agree, there should be. Why? Because the less informed will otherwise assume they don't need it. Now in skydiving there aren't that many uninformed people, but when it comes to driving there are plenty of them. Tons of them. Plenty of people assume they're unnecessary, and we need laws like that on the books to motivate them to buckle up.

You don't use laws to motivate people; you use posters and commercials and motivational speakers and ad campaigns, etc. If that many stupid people are driving, then toughen up the driving requirements! Educate them. Just passing silly laws is a lazy, half-assed "solution" to the problem.

Incidentally, I wanted to respond to something you said, about how car manufacturers wouldn't stop putting seatbelts in cars if the law was removed. There is no requirement that says a School Bus must have seat belts in the passenger seats. And they don't. Why not? If a van needs seat belts, shouldn't a school bus? The same rough physics apply to both. Yet they don't, and there is no major "get our School Busses seat belted" movement out there, because there are industry-funded studies that say they're more of a hazard than a help. Among the "sound" reasons they give: "if a bus overturns it will be that much more difficult to get children out" and, "seatbelts could jam and complicate existing conditions during an accident/collision." Sounds more like a problem with the seatbelts to me, and both of those problems exist in cars as well. But people believe it and take it as fact. Similarly, people would believe industry-funded studies saying seat belts are unnecessary in cars. It wouldn't be an overnight change, but it would happen.

Again, so? If people choose to believe this, let them. I don't know how many times I have to say this, but in my opinion (and that of many others, including the founding fathers), IT IS NOT THE PLACE OF THE GOVERNMENT TO PASS LAWS TO PROTECT ME FROM MY OWN IGNORANCE. Warn me of potential dangers? Sure, let them knock themselves out. But fine me $500 for not wearing a seatbelt in a 1/2 mile drive from my house to the local convenience store? No. Not their business in the slightest. Even though I always do, it's because I *want* to, not because I should *have* to.

And yes, I did say I was done on this subject earlier, so I apologize for continuing.

 

[UglyCasanova]

The Mercury Commercial with the Hootie and the Blowfish song that comes on every 5 minutes.

Duhn DUhn, I Only wanna be with YYuouuuuuoooooouuuuuuuuu

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: KarenMarie

Originally posted by: yukichigai

Originally posted by: KarenMarie
seatbelt laws

Care to explain how this one doesn't automatically nominate you for the Future Darwin Awards?

I am not against seatbelts. And I am not really against seatbelt laws for minors. I am against any government intrusion that claims they know what is best for us, when it is, in reality just another renevue generator. I think that if a grown adult chooses to drive their car without a seatbelt, it is incredibly stupid, but should not be illegal. It is just another excuse for the cops to write more tickets and meet their quota.

Are seatbelts a smart thing?... sure.
Do I think we should be forced by punishments of penalties to wear them?... no.

Ah, a voice of reason! Thank you. :beer:

 

[Mitchydkid]

1. Fishing in the rain
2. People who think they are too smart to have a creator
3. Cars with less than 300 HP
4. Polititians who want to spend more of my money
5. Those who are not modest

 

[Red Dawn]

Assholes who believe what they think actually matters to me.

 

[mavs55]

kerry

people who are cruel to animals

fundies

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I'm also against people who are against laws that are designed to protect your dumb ass.

Yes, because we all know it's the government's job to protect us from ourselves :roll:

 

[DWW]

hrm for those people who are against government seatbelt laws ever think it isn't just for your safety? You, without a seatbelt, are a projectile through the front window.

In a collision you have a high chance of ending up in someone else's windshield or path of driving (causing them in turn to swerve and get in a collision).

I'm sure the same people who are against seatbelt laws would have a problem if a 150-200 pound bag of cement mix was loosely strapped to every vehicle on the road beside you. In the event of a collision it would fly off with lots of force.

That is how I always saw it at least. Also, there is more chance of recovering an out of control vehicle endangering others, if you are still -inside- of it.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: DWW
hrm for those people who are against government seatbelt laws ever think it isn't just for your safety? You, without a seatbelt, are a projectile through the front window.

In a collision you have a high chance of ending up in someone else's windshield or path of driving (causing them in turn to swerve and get in a collision).

I'm sure the same people who are against seatbelt laws would have a problem if a 150-200 pound bag of cement mix was loosely strapped to every vehicle on the road beside you. In the event of a collision it would fly off with lots of force.

That is how I always saw it at least. Also, there is more chance of recovering an out of control vehicle endangering others, if you are still -inside- of it.

Your analogy does not hold water. If I have a 150lb bag of cement in the back of my truck, there is no law in my state, that I am aware of, that states I have to tie it down.