Mister Turnip
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 02:20 pm
@Jebediah,
Jebediah;173472 wrote:
Small fines are a discouragement. They tax cigarettes heavily which is very similar.


Yes, and "perhaps all risky activities will be outlawed" is highly improbable.

A may lead to B, and B to C, and C to D, but there is no reason to assume that this will continue all the way to Z. Perhaps at D to E, people will say "enough is enough".

If you stick with the hard-core interpretation, you would be against many many things that save lives. Government regulation of auto safety? Maybe the will force us to wear crash helmets when we go for a walk. Testing of new drugs by the FDA? Maybe that will lead to children having to get their lemonade recipe's approved before they can run a lemonade stand.

I think it's clear that the government should work to keep the people safe, and that they should not go too far. But denying one end of the scale is not helpful.

I can easily see them taking the protection thing too far, but if it isn't too far at seat belts, and the actual law that will be used as precedent is not too broad, then we should have the seat belt laws and argue against salt restrictions if that is something we do consider banning.

I disagree with small fines on seatbelt wearing, as well as a tax on cigarettes. I think transparency is the answer instead--like the label on cigarettes that says they can kill you, basically. After that point, it's your own responsibility to make the wise choice. After one death, private organizations will undoubtedly start producing PSAs and seatbelt-awareness campaigns and the like, and so transparency about the risks of not wearing a seatbelt will have been accomplished. But government sticking its pudgy fingers into the mix isn't going to help anybody in the long run.

And again, as regards the Slippery Slope... Like you, I don't think the government is going to go "too far" (although some might say they've gone "too far" already). The reason I don't think it's a Slippery Slope fallacy, however, is because of the logical reasoning behind the legislation. Logically speaking(if indeed the government is acting on the maxims I stated earlier), it is highly probable--in fact, logically necessary--that the chain of events will occur.
0 Replies
 
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 02:21 pm
@Theaetetus,
Theaetetus;173449 wrote:
I really wouldn't call not wearing a seat belt to be a crime committing act, much like parking in a no parking zone is not committing a crime or not having a properly registered vehicle. The are just public laws that are instituted to generate money if the ordinances are not adhered to.


Theaetetus;173474 wrote:
No one ever says they are not going to wear their seat belt because every one else isn't, and no group of people care enough to base friendships based on wearing or not wearing seat belts.

My point: you need to be clearer to what you are strongly disagreeing with. I never said anything about excuses and I fail to see the connection between what you quoted and what you wrote.
Very well, I will spare you nothing this time then.

I am utterly disgusted that a moderator in such importaint matters of public health, morals and etics, will speak such blatant ignorent and puerile words.

The first seat belts/harness would indeed kill people, by being ridgid and cause sidewards passenger head collisions, but today they will slack and desellerate the body and cause no trauma to the body nor cause sideward head collisions.

So as you say "The are just public laws that are instituted to generate money if the ordinances are not adhered to", statistics speaks it's clear judgemen on the case, seatbelts/harnes saves lifes.

And for the other things, one gets a ticket for being a selfish prick that doesn't care about the laws in society, and without caring for laws, it will become anarchy. Bad moral will cause precedense for others who will follow, that you should know, specially as a moderator.
0 Replies
 
Jebediah
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 02:29 pm
@Night Ripper,
Mister Turnip;173482 wrote:
I disagree with small fines on seatbelt wearing, as well as a tax on cigarettes. I think transparency is the answer instead--like the label on cigarettes that says they can kill you, basically. After that point, it's your own responsibility to make the wise choice. After one death, private organizations will undoubtedly start producing PSAs and seatbelt-awareness campaigns and the like, and so transparency about the risks of not wearing a seatbelt will have been accomplished. But government sticking its pudgy fingers into the mix isn't going to help anybody in the long run.

And again, as regards the Slippery Slope... Like you, I don't think the government is going to go "too far" (although some might say they've gone "too far" already). The reason I don't think it's a Slippery Slope fallacy, however, is because of the logical reasoning behind the legislation. Logically speaking(if indeed the government is acting on the maxims I stated earlier), it is highly probable--in fact, logically necessary--that the chain of events will occur.


But the government isn't logical. And they overule previous rulings.

Fact is, cigarette taxes consistently drop the number of new teen smokers, and seat belt laws save the lives of people who don't want to die and whose families don't want to die. I hate, hate, hate the mentality that ignores common sense because of some vaguely defined abstract principle. This comes up all the time in philosophy.

Night Ripper;173479 wrote:
Perhaps. The question is, what principle will stop it from continuing all the way to Z? If the difference between A and Z is only one of degree and not of principle then what makes you predict it would ever stop? I'm looking for some kind of principle that differentiates seat belt laws from healthy diet laws and government controlled breeding.


What's wrong with the "Jesus Christ, leave me alone already" principle? I mean, I think you could formulate a principle, something about freedom and the purpose of government. There's probably one out there already. But it's self regulating even without that.
Night Ripper
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 02:34 pm
@Jebediah,
Jebediah;173489 wrote:
Fact is, cigarette taxes consistently drop the number of new teen smokers, and seat belt laws save the lives of people who don't want to die and whose families don't want to die. I hate, hate, hate the mentality that ignores common sense because of some vaguely defined abstract principle. This comes up all the time in philosophy.


Some people don't want to wear a seat belt. Why force them? What does common sense have to do with forcing people to do things against their will?
Jebediah
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 02:45 pm
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;173491 wrote:
Some people don't want to wear a seat belt. Why force them? What does common sense have to do with forcing people to do things against their will?


They also don't want to die.

And it's a seatbelt, you don't even notice it when you're wearing it, for christ's sake.

Because see, we aren't talking about the government "forcing people to do things against their will". We are talking about the government fining people for not wearing a seat belt. It's important to talk about what we are actually talking about. Slavery is also "forcing people to do things against their will". There are a lot of things that fall under that category. If you are going to talk abstractly you have to be more specific.
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 02:46 pm
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;173491 wrote:
Some people don't want to wear a seat belt. Why force them? What does common sense have to do with forcing people to do things against their will?


Hi Night ripper,
Some people don't want to pay taxes either, most I'd say. But I'd just like to say this - If you were under my government, I mean "MY". I would exile you, or anyone else, that broke ANY law, to the antarctic peninsula.

And as for what Theaetetus said earlier about friendships and seatbelts. Any friend of mine that intentionally broke ANY law of the country we both dwell in - Would no longer be a friend of mine.

Thank you, night ripper, and have a splendid everything. But don't break the law, Please...

Mark...
Jebediah
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 02:51 pm
@mark noble,
mark noble;173497 wrote:
If you were under my government, I mean "MY". I would exile you, or anyone else, that broke ANY law, to the antarctic peninsula.

And as for what Theaetetus said earlier about friendships and seatbelts. Any friend of mine that intentionally broke ANY law of the country we both dwell in - Would no longer be a friend of mine.

Thank you, night ripper, and have a splendid everything. But don't break the law, Please...


What's your reason for this extreme totalitarianism? It seems obviously unjust. You would probably be assassinated (and rightly so).
Night Ripper
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 02:59 pm
@mark noble,
mark noble;173497 wrote:
Thank you, night ripper, and have a splendid everything. But don't break the law, Please...


I'm not talking about breaking laws. I'm talking about repealing them.
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 03:00 pm
@Jebediah,
Jebediah;173499 wrote:
What's your reason for this extreme totalitarianism? It seems obviously unjust. You would probably be assassinated (and rightly so).


Hi Jebediah,

Though I don't agree with all the laws of this land (UK), I do abide by them, and so do my friends. How else can an example of law-abidingness pass on to those in our wake? As for the Antarctic exile scenario, Harsh, maybe? but a good deterrent once publicised. Anyway I have no intention of governing a nation, so you needn't get overly worked up over my pipe-dreams.

Thank you Jebediah (is that your real name, by the way?). have a brilliant day.

Mark...
0 Replies
 
Night Ripper
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 03:00 pm
@Jebediah,
Jebediah;173495 wrote:
They also don't want to die.


What about people that ride motorcycles? Are they suicidal? When will that be illegal as well?
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 03:02 pm
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;173502 wrote:
I'm not talking about breaking laws. I'm talking about repealing them.


Hi night ripper,

But I like wearing a seat belt. I'm with you on the repealing of taxes though...

Thank you, Keep well.

Mark...
Jebediah
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 03:08 pm
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;173504 wrote:
What about people that ride motorcycles? Are they suicidal? When will that be illegal as well?


No. This is a B-->C example. They are something like 16 times more likely to die? So it worth a discussion. But they have good reason to want to ride (insert list of reasons why people ride motorcycles). I would at worst want a short safety training course mandated. I don't think I would even go for mandatory helmets.

I do believe in strong limitations on this kind of paternalism, but I wouldn't do away with it.

Quote:
As for the Antarctic exile scenario, Harsh, maybe? but a good deterrent once publicised.


Harsh, maybe? State sponsored cruel and unusual murder for someone who goes over the speed limit?
Night Ripper
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 03:08 pm
@mark noble,
mark noble;173507 wrote:
Hi night ripper,

But I like wearing a seat belt. I'm with you on the repealing of taxes though...

Thank you, Keep well.

Mark...


I like wearing seat belts too. I just don't try to legislate my personal opinions.
0 Replies
 
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 03:18 pm
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;173424 wrote:
The point is, people are allowed to hurt themselves if they are doing so in an informed manner. If a person knows the risks involved in having unprotected sex then it's their choice to do so anyways and possibly contract HIV.


This is just something we have to accept. The laws obviously aren't completely consistent. For God sakes, alcohol is legal (after age), but marijuana, in most states, still is not. And of course, it is widely known that comparatively alcohol is more harmful to the body (and to others).

Quote:
I like wearing seat belts too. I just don't try to legislate my personal opinions.


That's just how the legal system works. Some things will be enforced, even if there are things that could cause just as much harm, and are not enforced. If you want to know exact reasons for why a law was enacted, I suggest you do the research. That's about all I can tell you, because there's no consistent basis for many of them.
Night Ripper
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 03:27 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;173514 wrote:
This is just something we have to accept. The laws obviously aren't completely consistent. For God sakes, alcohol is legal (after age), but marijuana, in most states, still is not. And of course, it is widely known that comparatively alcohol is more harmful to the body (and to others).


No, it's unacceptable. If we don't like the laws we should change them. Saying "that's just the way it is" shouldn't even be a response. I'm not sure why you think otherwise.
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 03:30 pm
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;173516 wrote:
No, it's unacceptable. If we don't like the laws we should change them. Saying "that's just the way it is" shouldn't even be a response. I'm not sure why you think otherwise.


Because, I have long since given up the wishful thought that everyone in this world can be rational. Yes, much of what is in legislation is inconsistent. What would you have us do? If you're really passionate about it, start battling the law-enactors! I personally can't be bothered - we have to choose where we want to focus our energy in this life, and as Jack's father says, "You can't save everyone, son".
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 03:42 pm
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;173516 wrote:
No, it's unacceptable. If we don't like the laws we should change them. Saying "that's just the way it is" shouldn't even be a response. I'm not sure why you think otherwise.
A simple look back in history should tell you better, just read up on the boot leg days, when USA tryed prohibit alcohol.
0 Replies
 
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 03:47 pm
@Jebediah,
Jebediah;173511 wrote:
No. This is a B-->C example. They are something like 16 times more likely to die? So it worth a discussion. But they have good reason to want to ride (insert list of reasons why people ride motorcycles). I would at worst want a short safety training course mandated. I don't think I would even go for mandatory helmets.

I do believe in strong limitations on this kind of paternalism, but I wouldn't do away with it.



Harsh, maybe? State sponsored cruel and unusual murder for someone who goes over the speed limit?


Hi Jebediah,

I don't break the speed limit, so why should my life and my family's life be put at risk by some moron that does, mobile phone in hand, no doubt?

And why label it "Murder" They can keep their clothes. I was going to send them there naked, but, Knowing this to be cruel, I conceded a little.

No, on a serious note - LAW MUST be upheld, any infraction that is overlooked, merely lessens the systems integrity.
I like conversing with you, you're extremely extreme.

Have a great day, Jebediah.

Mark...
Night Ripper
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 03:49 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;173517 wrote:
Because, I have long since given up the wishful thought that everyone in this world can be rational. Yes, much of what is in legislation is inconsistent. What would you have us do? If you're really passionate about it, start battling the law-enactors! I personally can't be bothered - we have to choose where we want to focus our energy in this life, and as Jack's father says, "You can't save everyone, son".


Ah, you seem to be asking for the point of this thread. Well, I just wanted to make sure there weren't any arguments I was missing. For example, maybe not wearing a seat belt is a safety risk for others and not just yourself. That would make it a reasonable law. I haven't seen any argument like that however.
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 03:56 pm
@Night Ripper,
Night Ripper;173529 wrote:
Ah, you seem to be asking for the point of this thread. Well, I just wanted to make sure there weren't any arguments I was missing. For example, maybe not wearing a seat belt is a safety risk for others and not just yourself. That would make it a reasonable law. I haven't seen any argument like that however.


Well, people could offer arguments for why seat belts are good, and these arguments may be good, but the legislation, as a whole, would still be inconsistent. Because, as you noted, there are still things which cause the same amount, or just as much, harm, and are not being enforced.

But, does the fact that the seat belt law is inconsistent in one way, mean that it is not a good idea to have a seat belt law? I'm getting the impression you wouldn't want it being enforced, even if it our legal system was consistent. Is that right?
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Seat Belt Laws
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/05/2020 at 11:15:32