Seat Belt Laws

so what your saying is that people don't wear their seatbelt out of some sort of thrill seeking behavior?

Is your comfort worth the loss of you to your family?

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.

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?

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!!

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.
..............

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)

"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".

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.

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.

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.

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

So what are your ideals?

Not wearing one has never CAUSED an accident