Seatbelt Laws

[Kiabin]

Why mock a person that cares too much.

Because, they only want money and cause nothing but madness. The cops ALL need to take it down a notch, and don't "care" at all.

 

[dam prayer noobs]

Sooooo. Since you can't stop it, do nothing. The perfect solution.

Or, get as close as possible and run by fear. I wouldn't do it, but it's the closet thing to do before you start infringing on peoples rights. Would you prefer 100% surveillance?

Some ruin the privileges for all.

You can't stop human stupidity. By parenting people you are only increasing stupidity. The only way to stop stupidity is to give people responsibility and let them suffer consequences for their actions.

Why mock a person that cares too much.

Why the fuck should you care about people who don't even care about themselves? And what gives you the right to punish them for it?

 

[Arya]

I see now the topic I wanted goes into another one , but that's okay.

Anyways, why should suicide be illegal? If I own myself, then how can someone else regulate how I take preserve myself?

Oh, no, i'm not going into another topic. It's simply an example. A comparison between the "punishment you'd get" for suicide, and the punishment for not wearing your seatbelt. I was responding to the, "do you believe the Government has a right to punish you for not taking care of yourself?"

Why the fuck should you care about people who don't even care about themselves? And what gives you the right to punish them for it?

Is it not possible to see the potential in someone who can't quite see it in themselves?

 

[K-3-V-1-N]

Your questions highlighted in green have been answered. The government have a right to protect people from themselves when others are in danger from an individuals actions.

How can I make this clear... IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OTHERS. I'm totally off the seatbelt subject, completely.

 

[dam prayer noobs]

Is it not possible to see the potential in someone who can't quite see it in themselves?

I don't understand what you're trying to say.

The government have a right to protect people from themselves when others are in danger from an individuals actions.

I don't know where you people are getting this idea that people that aren't wearing seat belts are going to fly into other passengers and kill them. It might have happened like once in history, which is definitely not a good enough reason to justify a law.

 

[Arya]

I don't understand what you're trying to say.

Well, I'm responding to your, "Why the fuck should you care about people who don't even care about themselves?"

Humanity has potential. Without the actual human, though, it's useless. Why not minimize injury in society, aka, "Caring about people who don't even care about themselves", by putting in the proper laws to insure seatbelt safety, solely for the fact that maybe by wearing that seatbelt, that person that would have died is actually alive.

He may not have cared about his safety at the time, but let's take this example to how that person, 1/7.5 billion, could be a great addition to society in the future.

I mean, the chances are longwinded and stretch out very far, but it's possible. Why risk that slim chance simply because they don't care about their safety?

Nonetheless, and even disregarding this point, I'm sure every now and then, you'd get the person who was actually thankful for the seatbelt in the first place.

You can't learn from mistakes if you die from the first one.

I don't know where you people are getting this idea that people that aren't wearing seat belts are going to fly into other passengers and kill them. It might have happened like once in history, which is definitely not a good enough reason to justify a law.

In history? It happens every day. At a certain speed, one human into another means death.

From a logical standpoint, when you see a problem in society dealing with one of the most used objects, you fix it. Especially when you're trying to run that society.

 

[The Fat Controller]

Wow, you are a fucking idiot dude. Lol putting other people in danger by flying into them in a car crash, oh man this is going in my sig. If you are so scared of other passengers flying into you then just fucking TELL them to put on a seat belt lmao, would probably do more good than making it illegal. The possibility of a passenger flying into you is so small, that it would be stupid to justify any law by it.

And your little scenario there, you do realize that in a car crash, all the passengers are flying at the same rate, so when the rear passenger hits the front seat, the front passenger is hitting the air bag, and the front seat absorbs all the shock. Damn, you are pretty stupid dude.

Picture this. You're the passenger in front wearing a belt, the person behind you isn't wearing one. The car crashes, the person behind you smashes their head into your headrest at 50mph and breaks your neck.

 

[dam prayer noobs]

Well, I'm responding to your, "Why the fuck should you care about people who don't even care about themselves?"

Humanity has potential. Without the actual human, though, it's useless. Why not minimize injury in society, aka, "Caring about people who don't even care about themselves", by putting in the proper laws to insure seatbelt safety, solely for the fact that maybe by wearing that seatbelt, that person that would have died is actually alive.

He may not have cared about his safety at the time, but let's take this example to how that person, 1/7.5 billion, could be a great addition to society in the future.

I mean, the chances are longwinded and stretch out very far, but it's possible. Why risk that slim chance simply because they don't care about their safety?

Nonetheless, and even disregarding this point, I'm sure every now and then, you'd get the person who was actually thankful for the seatbelt in the first place.

You can't learn from mistakes if you die from the first one.

I highly doubt that someone who doesn't even care about themselves would care enough to benefit society in any way.

Your here worried about a few people dieing in car crashes while people are killing each other in wars all around the world and people getting shot up in ghettos.

 

[Arya]

I highly doubt that someone who doesn't even care about themselves would care enough to benefit society in any way.

Well, see, that's where the concept of, "The future" comes in. In this reality, people grow up, and change their ways of thinking. It's not rare. It happens everyday.

Your here worried about a few people dieing in car crashes while people are killing each other in wars all around the world and people getting shot up in ghettos.

Well, that would be a different subject, but considering the fact that we're only on the topic of Seatbelt Laws, your post is not valid in this discussion.

 

[dam prayer noobs]

Picture this. You're the passenger in front wearing a belt, the person behind you isn't wearing one. The car crashes, the person behind you smashes their head into your headrest at 50mph and breaks your neck.

When a car crashes at 50 mph, the front passenger's head is going to smash into the airbag at the same time the rear passenger's head is going to smash into the head rest and absorb all the shock. I don't get why this is so hard to understand.

Well, see, that's where the concept of, "The future" comes in. In this reality, people grow up, and change their ways of thinking. It's not rare. It happens everyday.

Well, that would be a different subject, but considering the fact that we're only on the topic of Seatbelt Laws, your post is not valid in this discussion.

Your idea that the government can take away your freedom to die because you might benefit society someday is a 100% totalitarian idea. If you really think like this then move to China, you will love it there.

 

[The Fat Controller]

When a car crashes at 50 mph, the front passenger's head is going to smash into the airbag at the same time the rear passenger's head is going to smash into the head rest and absorb all the shock. I don't get why this is so hard to understand.

It's hard to understand because you're wrong:

Source 1

Source 2

Source 3

"The results suggest that the risk of death to a front seat car occupant is increased by about three-quarters by the presence of an unrestrained rear seat passenger behind them, a much smaller increase than was claimed by the Japanese researchers."

"The results indicate that belted front seat passengers sustain a higher injury risk with an unrestrained passenger in the back seat. These results are valid for collision speeds below 45 km/h."

"Adjusting for confounders (other than point of impact), the odds of fatality for a belted driver in a head-on crash was 2.28 times greater (95% CI = 1.93 to 2.7) with an unbelted rear-seat passenger. The unbelted rear-seat passenger also had an increased risk of death (odds ratio, 2.71; 95% CI = 2.44 to 3.01) when compared with restrained rear-seat passengers. Conclusions: Unrestrained rear-seat passengers place themselves and their driver at great risk of fatal injury when involved in a crash."

 

[Arya]

Your idea that the government can take away your freedom to die because you might benefit society someday is a 100% totalitarian idea. If you really think like this then move to China, you will love it there.

Even beginning to consider it a sole purpose for seatbelts is ignorant on your part. I'm simply saying that as a major possible and step-up in society, this variation of things is a perfect reason to ensure the usage of seat-belts.

You may not understand it, but when you're running an entire nation, from the slightest to the largest of possibilities dealing with that nations citizens must be considered.

 

[dam prayer noobs]

It's hard to understand because you're wrong:

Source 1

Source 2

Source 3

"The results suggest that the risk of death to a front seat car occupant is increased by about three-quarters by the presence of an unrestrained rear seat passenger behind them, a much smaller increase than was claimed by the Japanese researchers."

"The results indicate that belted front seat passengers sustain a higher injury risk with an unrestrained passenger in the back seat. These results are valid for collision speeds below 45 km/h."

"Adjusting for confounders (other than point of impact), the odds of fatality for a belted driver in a head-on crash was 2.28 times greater (95% CI = 1.93 to 2.7) with an unbelted rear-seat passenger. The unbelted rear-seat passenger also had an increased risk of death (odds ratio, 2.71; 95% CI = 2.44 to 3.01) when compared with restrained rear-seat passengers. Conclusions: Unrestrained rear-seat passengers place themselves and their driver at great risk of fatal injury when involved in a crash."

Ok, guess you're right. They should teach this in driving classes, but for some reason they don't. If you were in the front seat then why don't you just tell your passengers to buckle up if you care about your safety. I mean it would do more good than having some stupid law.

Even beginning to consider it a sole purpose for seatbelts is ignorant on your part. I'm simply saying that as a major possible and step-up in society, this variation of things is a perfect reason to ensure the usage of seat-belts.

You may not understand it, but when you're running an entire nation, from the slightest to the largest of possibilities dealing with that nations citizens must be considered.

You are a pure collectivist. You think it is right for the government to reach their hands into every part of human life and control it. What you fail to understand is that this is a one way road to totalitarianism. Watch all the videos on this thread and you will understand why collectivism is wrong: http://sythe.org/showthread.php?t=396626

 

[Arya]

You are a pure collectivist. You think it is right for the government to reach their hands into every part of human life and control it. What you fail to understand is that this is a one way road to totalitarianism. Watch all the videos on this thread and you will understand why collectivism is wrong: http://sythe.org/showthread.php?t=396626

You quoted my reply, which CLEARLY stated that while I do not condone the governments powers and abilities, especially in using them in their citizens lives, I tolerate it, and accept it as true and possible for them to do. Then you reply to that response claiming that I think it's right for the government to do what I just said it wasn't right for them to do.

Get yourself together before you continue to debate.

 

[dam prayer noobs]

You quoted my reply, which CLEARLY stated that while I do not condone the governments powers and abilities, especially in using them in their citizens lives, I tolerate it, and accept it as true and possible for them to do. Then you reply to that response claiming that I think it's right for the government to do what I just said it wasn't right for them to do.

You just contradicted yourself. Good job.

 

[The Fat Controller]

Ok, guess you're right. They should teach this in driving classes, but for some reason they don't. If you were in the front seat then why don't you just tell your passengers to buckle up if you care about your safety. I mean it would do more good than having some stupid law.

For some idiots, the risk of a fine is more of an incentive to wear the belt, there is evidence to show that this type of law does encourage people to wear them. It's one of the cases where I can't see any downside to the law, and so don't see as a particularly injurious or illegitimate application of authority.

 

[Arya]

You just contradicted yourself. Good job.

That's not a contradiction.

An example:

I am a kid. My mother orders me around. While I do not like the fact that she is ordering me around, I realize that she has the ability to.

The government has the ability to, no matter how much we disagree with and dislike it.

---------

You deleted your hypocrite insult. Why?
I had something to say to it.

 

[dam prayer noobs]

That's not a contradiction.

An example:

I am a kid. My mother orders me around. While I do not like the fact that she is ordering me around, I realize that she has the ability to.

The government has the ability to, no matter how much we disagree with and dislike it.

"The ultimate authority resides in the people alone." -James Madison

This country was founded on the idea that if the people did not like a law, then they could abolish that law. You certainly don't know much about the founding fathers and the beliefs this country was founded on, I suggest you go read up on it.

 

[DropKick Murphys]

The government has the ability to, no matter how much we disagree with and dislike it.

Why's that?

 

[Arya]

"The ultimate authority resides in the people alone." -James Madison

This country was founded on the idea that if the people did not like a law, then they could abolish that law. You certainly don't know much about the founding fathers and the beliefs this country was founded on, I suggest you go read up on it.

Oh, I know much on the subject. I also know that in reality, things aren't like that.

What you fail to realize is that leeching off of concepts and actions in the past is a grave mistake, considering how most of these concepts no longer apply.

Why's that?

They have the biggest guns