Author Topic: raider179 was right... (Read 9574 times)

Jackal1 · « **Reply #210 on:** September 22, 2005, 09:00:53 PM »

Beet, could you sort of either give us a time limit or a page limit on or about what time you will quit posting the same thing and still expect the answers that have been given you over and over?
It certainly would cut down time spent.
Thanks

Quote

Given your vehement opposition to seatbelt laws

Let`s see it`s been explained how many times now? Seat belt laws have very little to do with it. There ya go. I know how hard it is for you to get a grip on.

Sixpence · « **Reply #211 on:** September 22, 2005, 11:45:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
holden get's it.... what cost is enough that you can take away someones freedoms?

It is all an illussion in any case since... the supposed savings were never passed on to the sheep like sixpense.

lazs

Quote

Originally posted by Sixpence

We live in a dry town, we like it that way. We have a low crime rate and there isn't alot of riff raff. Now someone in another part of the country is trying to tell us we are wrong to have a dry town? Gee, with people like that around, who needs the feds to tell us what to do. If you want to drink and party, live in a town that allows it. You have that choice if you choose to drink.

The same with walking around naked in public, we don't wanna see bums(or anybody) walking around naked in public, and we don't allow this in our town. But some liberals are going to tell us we have to let them walk around naked because we are taking their choice to walk around naked away? Huh?

We want people to buckle up in our town, when multiple people are thrown from a vehicle, it puts a strain on our limited resources. It is alot easier to tend to victims who are close together than it is to find and tend to them when they are hundreds of feet apart. Now some liberals are going to tell us that we can't have that law cause we are denying their choice to be thrown from the vehicle?

If you want to drink and choose to live in a dry town, you have made a choice.

If you want to walk around naked and choose to live in a town that has a public decency law, you have made a choice

If you want to take oxycontin for pain but live in a town that has a law against the sale of it, you have made a choice

If you don't want to wear a seat belt and live in a town that has a seat belt law, you have made a choice

If we live in a democracy and 90% of a town wants a seat belt law, and 10% don't want it, then what should happen? The 10% are going to rise up and start a revolution?

When you tell the 90% they can't have a drug, public decency, or seat belt law, that is what starts a revolution

Nash · « **Reply #212 on:** September 23, 2005, 12:34:53 AM »

Since the freedom of hell-bent personal destruction seems to be in vogue....

How do you feel about unfettered drug use? Why should that be regulated when, as Holden said:

Quote

My freedom to be unsafe in my personal behavior is what the seat belt law is all about. To be responsible for one's own actions may be the ultimate freedom. To say that my freedom is restricted because society must pay the bills for medical consequences is restricting my freedom because of a choice of the government to pay for those consequences. If they government doesn't want to pay all it has to do is stop writing checks and hold me financially responsible.

Why stop at cars and bikes? Hows about stripping companies from every regulation that would prohibit them from sucking in your grandparents and spitting them out? Gran and Gramps should have the right to be personally destructive as well.

Ooh nooo... No, we won't end up picking up that tab as well. Yeah sure.

It's hard to know where to start, and daunting in its endlessness.

This whole "nanny" thing is chanted constantly by people that I have an easy time picturing as self absorbed, selfish and clueless old men.

It turns out that this aint the Wild West anymore. Yeah... heartbreaker. And chances are that things are so tight that you've got a fence dividing you from a neighbor not more than 20-30 feet away from you. You are one of millions and millions, yet have a decided impact.

It's pretty much high-time that some of yas shelve your utopian "I wanna be a kid again and stink up everything and do whatever I damned well please" freedom ideas. 'Cuz money doesn't grow on trees, old-timers.

Rest assured... Economically, environmentally, and whatever other other E words that may apply... you are going to be dead soon enough and we are going to have to pay for your little self centered joy-rides.

Lazs... phht... "Give me a car that makes a huge mess, give me my guns, and don't make make me pay for the mess I make when I go "splat" all over the interstate." Yeah that's freedom. Tell me lazs - how much came out of your own pocket for your multiple surgeries? Not much? Then who paid for it? Because someone did.

Try to convince some of us to lump your child fantasies with a smile and you're only gonna attract other man-children who've long since passed the age of accountability, and have entered the golden age of screw-you-entitlement . The rest of us... we don't buy it. Because we're staring the bill collector right in the face.

If only we could insert your flowery idealism into an ATM.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #213 on:** September 23, 2005, 01:01:59 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
This whole "nanny" thing is chanted constantly by people that I have an easy time picturing as self absorbed, selfish and clueless old men.

"Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err." -- Mohandas Gandhi.... another clueless old man

Nash · « **Reply #214 on:** September 23, 2005, 01:05:45 AM »

Well that's fantastic, Holden.

Your defence of this bs is to say that freedom allows bs.

Fine. We agree.

It's still bs.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #215 on:** September 23, 2005, 01:08:38 AM »

How much is your right to bs worth to you Nash...

$10? 100? US or Cdn?

Apparently your freedom is for sale.

Nash · « **Reply #216 on:** September 23, 2005, 01:13:57 AM »

Quote

Apparently your freedom is for sale.

You lost me. How do you get the idea that my thoughts can be bought?

(I aint saying they're not for sale... Everyone's got their price.)

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #217 on:** September 23, 2005, 01:21:26 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
It's pretty much high-time that some of yas shelve your utopian "I wanna be a kid again and stink up everything and do whatever I damned well please" freedom ideas. 'Cuz money doesn't grow on trees, old-timers.

Sorry... I assumed that because you want to put a price on mine that your freedom was for sale as well. My mistake.

Nash · « **Reply #218 on:** September 23, 2005, 01:34:18 AM »

Oh. Yeah... damn, sorry. I get it now.

But yeah, "freedom" does have a price. If you found yourself bankrupt and homeless tonight, and decided to slit your wrists....

.... it takes money (the rest of us) to deal with that.

If you wanna ride without a helmet because you like the feeling of wind blowing between your feathered hair and end up skidding face-first a hundred and fifty feet into a goat's anus.... we're going to pay for it.

Free? That's Freedom?

No... That's dumbarssery. It will always exist - and we'll always end up footing the bill for it.

But puhlease... don't try and make it look like patriotism. Stupid and expensive is all it is.

Sixpence · « **Reply #219 on:** September 23, 2005, 02:04:23 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Sorry... I assumed that because you want to put a price on mine that your freedom was for sale as well. My mistake.

How is making a seat belt, drug, or public decency law selling my freedom?

Nash · « **Reply #220 on:** September 23, 2005, 02:31:22 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sixpence
How is making a seat belt, drug, or public decency law selling my freedom?

Because in their world, you gotta hearken back to like, two hundred years ago, where everything was wide open and you maybe, maybe had to dodge the odd arrow or two but that's about it.

Once you finally set up your ranch or whatever, you got to party like nobody's business. You've pretty much earned it, and if you screw up.... you are way too far from help at that point anyways.

Fast forward to the screw-ups of the dust bowls and the Depression. Those folks.... I think... would look at some of your little baby "whaa I want to do whatever I want when I want to because it's my right to be a baby!" rants .....and be disgusted.

Jump ahead a few years, et voila. WWII. Thousands and thousands of men coming together for a single purpose. Just imagine how your cantankerous petty individualist whining would sound in the face of that?

No, no...

Men of the 60's and 70's... you need to shut up. Because you rode on the backs of much harder men than you. We all do, to this day. You aint entitled to squat. Especially if it means that the sons and daughters you leave behind end up having to pay for it.

"Whaaaah I wanna do whatever I damned well please!"

Really. You either whip out your check books right now, or spare us your right to cost us even further.

beet1e · « **Reply #221 on:** September 23, 2005, 02:35:49 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Jackal1
Let`s see it`s been explained how many times now? Seat belt laws have very little to do with it.

Erm... seatbelts have been the very focus in this thread for quite some time. See the past 4 pages. Right from the second post by HT. And your first sentence in this thread was about seat belts. And there are more than 150 occurrences of "seatbelt" in this thread. Now you're trying to say that "Seat belt laws have very little to do with it." Too funny. Is that a rabbit I see in my headlights?!

J_A_B · « **Reply #222 on:** September 23, 2005, 04:01:50 AM »

"Hows about stripping companies from every regulation that would prohibit them from sucking in your grandparents and spitting them out? "

That about sums up the nursing home industry, actually. Few people realize how truly horrible those places usually are. I sincerely hope that when I'm old, I have the presence of mind to kill myself before ever having to live in such a place. Life in those facilities is a fate worse than death.

Anyway....

While the expenses of someone dying is a common (and in a sense valid) argument for self-protection laws, the fact is everyone dies sooner or later anyway. Laws don't so much prevent such expenses as delay them. With the cost of sustained health care these days, it's far cheaper overall if you kill yourself in a quick accident then linger in the local nursing home for a few years. It's less painful, too, trust me on that one.

Stuff like drug use isn't quite the same as now you're talking about killing other people as a result of your actions as opposed to merely killing yourself. It's kind of like how you're completely free to smash up your own car with a sledgehammer, but do it to your neighbor's and you're in trouble.

J_A_B

Sixpence · « **Reply #223 on:** September 23, 2005, 04:39:40 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by J_A_B
Stuff like drug use isn't quite the same as now you're talking about killing other people as a result of your actions as opposed to merely killing yourself.

You can't go there, cause you can say the same for alcohol and guns. The alcohol and guns don't kill people, people kill people.

J_A_B · « **Reply #224 on:** September 23, 2005, 05:02:55 AM »

"You can't go there, cause you can say the same for alcohol and guns. The alcohol and guns don't kill people, people kill people."

Alcohol is a drug. Guns are a different matter since they don't impair judgement like most drugs do. A guy holding a Mauser is perfectly capable of making rational decisions. A guy high on cocaine or with a .20 BAC is not. An addict isn't even really capable of deciding whether or not to use the product he craves.

Now, if you want to consume your cocaine in an environment in which your actions are controlled by someone else for the duration of the effect, then that's fine by my line of thought. City dwellers typically have to go to a shooting range to shoot their guns--they don't have the "freedom" to endanger others by shooting out their apartment windows. Some laws ARE good laws. Only an anarchist wants no law whatsoever. The question is where to draw the line.

Fundamentally--

Laws which protect yourself from you own stupidity = bad.
Laws which protect others from your stupidity = good.

EDIT:

Regardless of opinion on which laws are/aren't "good", I'll say this: In general, it should be local governments deciding their own fates and NOT the federal government telling them what to do. The lifestyles of people in Ripley, West Virginia are much different than the way of life in New York City. A national law cannot be made to reflect such differences. Local statutes can. Even on a subject which I am personally against--drugs, for example--I feel that they should be banned at the local level, not federal. Let the people who like them move to a place where they're legal. Then, everyone wins.

J_A_B