Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 08:30 pm
@Night Ripper,
Amperage wrote:
so what your saying is that people don't wear their seatbelt out of some sort of thrill seeking behavior?


No, what I am saying is that a person not wearing a seatbelt in and of itself, is not a good reason to believe that that person doesn't know the consequences of not wearing a seat belt. Because, as mentioned, many people fully understand the consequences and yet still choose not to wear one.

---------- Post added 06-05-2010 at 10:35 PM ----------

Amperage;173670 wrote:
Is your comfort worth the loss of you to your family?


No, which is why I keep betting that I'll live! Very Happy
Amperage
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 08:36 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;173671 wrote:
No, what I am saying is that a person not wearing a seatbelt in and of itself, is not a good reason to believe that that person doesn't know the consequences of not wearing a seat belt. Because, as mentioned, many people fully understand the consequences and yet still choose not to wear one.
I don't see how you've proved your statement that they fully understand the consequences. It's hard for me to understand how someone can truly understand and yet not want to do something as simple as buckling up. We're talking about absolutely no effort vs. being dead and leaving friends family and children behind.

I suppose someone who doesn't value their own life or value their friends and family might could both fully understand and still not care, but I think for the majority this is not the case.

That being the case, I would seem to me that for them(the majority who does not fall into the above category) to not buckle up would mean they have either not actually understood or either they just forgot....in both these cases I see the law as being a good thing
0 Replies
 
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 08:39 pm
@Night Ripper,
Jebediah wrote:
That being the case, I would seem to me that for them to not buckle up would mean they have either not actually understood or either they just forgot....in both these cases I see the law as being a good thing


Well, begin to understand that sometimes people put themselves in danger in order to satisfy desires. It happens all the time. Some people are just risk-takers. What do you think went through Evil Knievel's mind every time he did he a stunt? He knew that he could die during every single performance, but he still did it? Why? (He had four children, by the way)

And I'm not making the case that everyone that doesn't wear a seatbelt is a thrill-seeker. I'm just saying, there can obviously be reasons why people choose not to wear a seatbelt, even though they fully understand the consequences. Yeah, some people just don't care, too.
Amperage
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 08:44 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;173676 wrote:
Well, begin to understand that sometimes people put themselves in danger in order to satisfy desires. It happens all the time. Some people are just risk-takers. What do you think went through Evil Knievel's mind every time he did he a stunt? He knew that he could die during every single performance, but he still did it? Why?
A. evil Knievel was in a controlled environment. B. Because he was getting paid. C . he wore a helmet, essentially doing everything he could to make it as safe as possible. D. Because he didn't fully understand the consequences. If he had, he may have done some other safer thrill seeking activity. Like high stakes poker. E. I bet he would have worn his seatbelt in the car....why subject himself to further risk?

Take your pick I guess
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 08:45 pm
@Amperage,
Amperage;173677 wrote:
A. evil Knievel was in a controlled environment. B. Because he was getting paid. C . he wore a helmet, essentially doing everything he could to make it as safe as possible. D. Because he didn't fully understand the consequences. If he had, he may have done some other safer thrill seeking activity. Like high stakes poker.

Take your pick I guess


He understood the consequences. That's why he made the money! His profession was daredevil!!
Amperage
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 08:47 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;173679 wrote:
He understood the consequences. That's why he made the money! His profession was daredevil!!
For the record, do you or do you not think it's possible for an adult to say they understand the consequences of something and actually not?
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 08:47 pm
@Amperage,
Amperage;173681 wrote:
or the record, do you or do you not think it's possible for an adult to say they understand the consequences of something and actually not?


Of course I do. But, come on, if it's your profession, don't you think you would understand the consequences? Let's be reasonable here.
..............
Amperage
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 08:51 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;173682 wrote:
Of course I do. But, come on, if it's your profession, don't you think you would understand the consequences? Let's be reasonable here.
..............
I would like to think so but it makes one wonder how long he would have continued doing it if he wasn't getting paid. IMO, he would have eventually moved on to something else.
0 Replies
 
Jebediah
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 09:03 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;173676 wrote:
Well, begin to understand that sometimes people put themselves in danger in order to satisfy desires. It happens all the time. Some people are just risk-takers.


Fully understanding that there is a risk is not the same as fully understanding to what degree it is risky. If someone thinks there is a 1% chance of death and there is actually a 10% chance of death, they don't fully understand the risk.

Quote:
What do you think went through Evil Knievel's mind every time he did he a stunt? He knew that he could die during every single performance, but he still did it? Why? (He had four children, by the way)
"Bones heal. Chicks dig scars. Pain is fleeting. Glory is forever"
0 Replies
 
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 09:09 pm
@Night Ripper,
Jebediah wrote:
"Bones heal. Chicks dig scars. Pain is fleeting. Glory is forever"


And that's exactly what's going through my mind when I cruise down the street in my firebird without a seatbelt on. Oh, and, "damn, I really need to fix that oil leak".
Amperage
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 09:18 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;173692 wrote:
And that's exactly what's going through my mind when I cruise down the street in my firebird without a seatbelt on. Oh, and, "damn, I really need to fix that oil leak".
This seems somewhat relevant to me to the conversations.

This is from William Kingdon Clifford's essay, The Ethics of Belief:

Quote:
A SHIPOWNER was about to send to sea an emigrant-ship. He knew that she was old, and not over-well built at the first; that she had seen many seas and climes, and often had needed repairs. Doubts had been suggested to him that possibly she was not seaworthy. These doubts preyed upon his mind and made him unhappy; he thought that perhaps he ought to have her thoroughly overhauled and refitted, even though this should put him to great expense. Before the ship sailed, however, he succeeded in overcoming these melancholy reflections. He said to himself that she had gone safely through so many voyages and weathered so many storms that it was idle to suppose she would not come safely home from this trip also. He would put his trust in Providence, which could hardly fail to protect all these unhappy families that were leaving their fatherland to seek for better times elsewhere. He would dismiss from his mind all ungenerous suspicions about the honesty of builders and contractors. In such ways he acquired a sincere and comfortable conviction that his vessel was thoroughly safe and seaworthy; he watched her departure with a light heart, and benevolent wishes for the success of the exiles in their strange new home that was to be; and he got his insurance-money when she went down in mid-ocean and told no tales.

What shall we say of him? Surely this, that he was verily guilty of the death of those men. It is admitted that he did sincerely believe in the soundness of his ship; but the sincerity of his conviction can in no wise help him, because he had no right to believe on such evidence as was before him. He had acquired his belief not by honestly earning it in patient investigation, but by stifling his doubts. And although in the end he may have felt so sure about it that he could not think otherwise, yet inasmuch as he had knowingly and willingly worked himself into that frame of mind, he must be held responsible for it.
Source: burger-book

The point here being that I don't believe any person is justified to believe that not wearing a seatbelt is not unreasonable(goodness at the triple negative!) given the evidence before us and any attempt to do so, IMO, seems wrong.
0 Replies
 
Jebediah
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 09:24 pm
@Zetherin,
Nice, Amp. Nice. Busting out the Clifford Very Happy

" He had acquired his belief not by honestly earning it in patient investigation, but by stifling his doubts. "

Zetherin;173692 wrote:
And that's exactly what's going through my mind when I cruise down the street in my firebird without a seatbelt on. Oh, and, "damn, I really need to fix that oil leak".


I know the feeling, but I've been very suspicious of it ever since I noticed that the urge was weak when I was happy, and strong when I was depressed.
0 Replies
 
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 09:31 pm
@Night Ripper,
Jebediah wrote:
I know the feeling, but I've been very suspicious of it ever since I noticed that the urge was weak when I was happy, and strong when I was depressed.


You may know of the feeling, but do you truly, really, really, really, fully and absolutely, understand the feeling?! Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Zetetic11235
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Jun, 2010 11:56 pm
@mark noble,
mark noble;173527 wrote:
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...


Do you understand the conceptual difference between malum prohibitum and malum in se? I understand that you would be delighted if those who neglected to reach their cars before the parking meter ran out were not fined, but rather severely punished:).

Each citizen, in my estimation, should act through a rationally developed sense of morality, balancing this with the grandest imposition of the majority: the law of the land. So he weights the risks of breaking each law that is arbitrary in his moral framework and if he chooses to break a law that is low risk but inconsistent with his moral framework society weights the importance of the law.

If someone is going 5 over the limit, rational persons generally consider it fair to issue a small penalty, but not a large one. It is quite psychological and social, which laws we pick. Many procedural laws have more polished reasoning behind them, so they are built from a socially/psychologically/neurologically based system of axioms (call it common sense, with a little education maybe).

To be more extreme, harboring fugitive slaves was a very major offense, in order to be consistent you would have to be morally opposed to the concept of civil disobedience on the most absolute level. This is why I find clinging onto ideology and the dis-allowance of pragmatics to temper a position to be so troublesome.

Of course, we tend to be very emotive in our view of the law and our opinions pertaining to it. Because, for instance, mark noble's position varies so vastly with that of the public, it is not reflective on the actual state of affairs; rational or not. It may be that you draw on the wisdom of Aristotle: 'I've gained this through philosophy, that I do without being commanded what other men do only out of fear of the law.' Though his wisdom is, as all wisdom, suspect.

I would not say for certain that it should be that we ought to be free to do what we please. I would say that the principle that the legalization of anything taking place in the personal sphere of consenting adults and not leaking outside of that to menace the public, is a very strong and coherent position. Only if the intoxicated man brings his vices onto the streets and threatens or violates another's well-being is he a menace, and we have no right to hold him accountable if he is presenting no concrete and obviously present menace to the public.
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2010 04:54 am
@Zetetic11235,
Zetetic11235;173704 wrote:
Do you understand the conceptual difference between malum prohibitum and malum in se? I understand that you would be delighted if those who neglected to reach their cars before the parking meter ran out were not fined, but rather severely punished:).

Each citizen, in my estimation, should act through a rationally developed sense of morality, balancing this with the grandest imposition of the majority: the law of the land. So he weights the risks of breaking each law that is arbitrary in his moral framework and if he chooses to break a law that is low risk but inconsistent with his moral framework society weights the importance of the law.

If someone is going 5 over the limit, rational persons generally consider it fair to issue a small penalty, but not a large one. It is quite psychological and social, which laws we pick. Many procedural laws have more polished reasoning behind them, so they are built from a socially/psychologically/neurologically based system of axioms (call it common sense, with a little education maybe).

To be more extreme, harboring fugitive slaves was a very major offense, in order to be consistent you would have to be morally opposed to the concept of civil disobedience on the most absolute level. This is why I find clinging onto ideology and the dis-allowance of pragmatics to temper a position to be so troublesome.

Of course, we tend to be very emotive in our view of the law and our opinions pertaining to it. Because, for instance, mark noble's position varies so vastly with that of the public, it is not reflective on the actual state of affairs; rational or not. It may be that you draw on the wisdom of Aristotle: 'I've gained this through philosophy, that I do without being commanded what other men do only out of fear of the law.' Though his wisdom is, as all wisdom, suspect.

I would not say for certain that it should be that we ought to be free to do what we please. I would say that the principle that the legalization of anything taking place in the personal sphere of consenting adults and not leaking outside of that to menace the public, is a very strong and coherent position. Only if the intoxicated man brings his vices onto the streets and threatens or violates another's well-being is he a menace, and we have no right to hold him accountable if he is presenting no concrete and obviously present menace to the public.


Hi Zetetic,

I would not be delighted to see any living creature suffer in any way at all. I do not get a kick from the misery of others. Neither do I gloat when come-uppances are exacted.
Good point though - I do indeed perceive a spectrum of variability - Should the rapist be compared to the litterer? Does one SIN outweigh another? The latter provides one with an eternity of torment beyond human comprehension in the confines of hell... for, on one hand, "Fibbing", and on the other "comitting genocide". It is not the degree of sin that is in question, it is the fear of the consequences that creates stability (if there is such a thing).
If someone comes into your home, and breaks "whatever" rules you have in place, knowing them what not to do, you either ask them to leave or don't invite them in again - because they do not have the respect to oblige your wishes(laws).
All we need ask is "Is my nation my home?
Anyway, I am neither a christian or a ruler, so it doesn't matter. These aren't my ideals, only loose propositions.

And I never have nor intend to send any visitors to my home to the Antarctic (clothed or not).

Thank you Zetetic, and have a brilliant day.

Mark...

Thank you Zetetic
Zetetic11235
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2010 03:55 pm
@mark noble,
mark noble;173764 wrote:
Hi Zetetic,

I would not be delighted to see any living creature suffer in any way at all. I do not get a kick from the misery of others. Neither do I gloat when come-uppances are exacted.


That was said in jest, hence the smiley face:Smile

mark noble;173764 wrote:
Good point though - I do indeed perceive a spectrum of variability - Should the rapist be compared to the litterer? Does one SIN outweigh another? The latter provides one with an eternity of torment beyond human comprehension in the confines of hell... for, on one hand, "Fibbing", and on the other "comitting genocide". It is not the degree of sin that is in question, it is the fear of the consequences that creates stability (if there is such a thing).
If someone comes into your home, and breaks "whatever" rules you have in place, knowing them what not to do, you either ask them to leave or don't invite them in again - because they do not have the respect to oblige your wishes(laws).
All we need ask is "Is my nation my home?
Anyway, I am neither a christian or a ruler, so it doesn't matter. These aren't my ideals, only loose propositions.

And I never have nor intend to send any visitors to my home to the Antarctic (clothed or not).

Thank you Zetetic, and have a brilliant day.

Mark...

Thank you Zetetic


So what are your ideals?
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jun, 2010 04:18 pm
@Zetetic11235,
Zetetic11235;173911 wrote:
So what are your ideals?


Hi Zetetic,
Regarding what? Give me a specific and I'll gladly answer. Your question is too broad for me to answer.

Thanks for asking though, and have a great day.

Mark...
0 Replies
 
jtgambit33
 
  0  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2011 11:33 pm
@xris,
Seatbelts ONLY protect the person wearing it. Not wearing one has never CAUSED an accident. The best way to judge whether a law like this is unjust or not is to ask yourself this question: "Are my/anyone's actions going to cause harm to anyone else"? We have the Constitutional right to choose to protect, or NOT protect ourselves, as long as it doesn't cause harm to anyone else. Speeding laws, for example, ARE justified because we would be putting ourselves & everyone else on the road in danger. Seatbelt laws serve only to protect the individual, and therefore, is both immoral and unconstitutional & should be repealed.

Now for some cold, hard truth...

We are told that these laws are for our own good & to protect us for 3 reasons:

1) Public Image - as long as they claim they have our best interests in mind, they don't draw much negative attention enforcing it.

2) THE MAIN REASON (by city) - to generate revenue! A LOT of money is made on these unjust laws, and just because they are technically "stealing" from us doesn't mean they are going to repeal the law if we don't like it.

3) THE MAIN REASON (by state) - To protect the pockets of the Insurance companies!!! The more harm that happens to you in an accident, the higher the cost of the claim/pay-out. It's the millionaires/billionaires behind these companies that pay millions & do special favors to get these laws on the books, basically to save them money so they can make more money.

I know many police officers who have literally TOLD me as much, so it is your RIGHT as a U.S. citizen to stand up for your rights and fight ANY seatbelt ticket you may get. If everyone starts showing up to contest their tickets, it will start hurting the Judicial System and FORCE them to re-evaluate the only way that seems to work nowadays...by costing THEM time & money!
HexHammer
 
  4  
Reply Sat 9 Jul, 2011 02:45 pm
@jtgambit33,
jtgambit33 wrote:
Not wearing one has never CAUSED an accident
Either your are utterly stupid, or utterly ignorent, either is just as bad.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Jul, 2011 02:59 pm
@HexHammer,
You bothered to reply ?
0 Replies
 
 

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 5
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/04/2020 at 11:12:42