Author Topic: raider179 was right... (Read 7949 times)

Lazerus · « **Reply #30 on:** September 19, 2005, 08:14:17 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sixpence

But they can't choose which road the business is on

[/B]

Surely they can. Don't like the road, go to a different business.

Quote

So if you make the job unbearable and no one chooses to do it, who does it? And that being said, why make the job worse?

Q1: First, it's supply and demand. Second, decades of an absense of mandatory seatbelt laws certainly did not result in a lack of EMT's.

Q2: That question has no place in a discussion about legislating another facet of my life.

Quote

Not quite, she chose to live on that street. Yeah, maybe you are right, she should turn her head the other way and not help.

Yes, quite. She chose to live there and she chose to go out to gawk at an accident scene. I do no presume to tell anyone what they should or should not do, unlike the nanny-state advocates that support this type of legislature.

Quote

So, you are on record that safety devices do not make a difference?

[/B]

Not at all. Of course they do, in many instances. In that particular one, they didn't. That is not justification for another intrusion on my life.

Quote

Oh wait, I see further down you wear yours all the time, weird.

[/B]

I'm curious as to why you find the fact that I choose to wear my seatbelt weird.

Quote

Or for an emt to sue a victim who was thrown from the car cause the emt was looking off the road for said victim and snapped his leg falling in a hole

[/B]

Again, you have failed to grasp the fundamental concept here. That EMT chose his profession and chose to go off looking for a victim. Statutory compulsion vs choice belongs in that bag of mixed fruit.

Quote

I always wear mine by the way. Have since about 2 years after I started driving, which was 16 years ago.

Huh, go figure

It is possible to believe in a right and disagree with or not partake of an action at the same time. Should firearms be legal? Absolutely. Do I own one? No. Should a natural, unrefined or processed substance that alters ones state of mind (pot) be legal? Absolutely. Do I smoke it? No.

Quote

Driving is a privilege, and they only thing they ask is to wear your seat belt

[/B]

False statement.

Quote

[/B]and this tramples your rights and freedoms? And i'm a liberal? Seems you use this term quite liberally, I guess that makes you a liberal too, eh? [/B]

I really am sorry that you don't see how legislating behaviour such as this is yet another infringement on everyone. As far as the liberal tag, I didn't paste it on you, in this thread at least. It has come to define those in favor of increased governmental control over everything. It once defined a philosophy of limited government, so I'll take that old label if you want to try to paste a label on me.

lazs2 · « **Reply #31 on:** September 19, 2005, 08:31:55 AM »

sixpense... it would seem that you would outlaw motorcycles and bicycles too... they are transportation but they make really messy corpses and injuries when they make contact with a car.... we certainly wouldn't want an ambulance driver or policeman to see anything messy now would we?

By your logic since there is no reason to not drive a seat belted car and motorcycles are dangerous.... we should get rid of em.

what I don't understand is that you think a bloated floater of a swiming accident corpse is fine for people to see but a guy going through the windsheild is not?

No matter how many people wear seatbelts.... you are gonna have really messy and/or fatal wrecks... grandma is gonna see some headless or crushed seatbelted in corpse.

If your entire arguement is based on the fact that you are slightly more likely to see an injured or dead person if they aren't forced to wear seatbelts... then you have no arguement. It doesn't matter if you have to drive or not... it doesn't matter if you have to swim or not or skydive or not or ride motorcycles or not.

If you are so frietghtened of seeing an injured person that you would make laws to restrict freedom then you have some real issues to work out... For others.... seeing such a sight might make em want to wear a seatbelt... maybe not. I seen a few head injuries from motorcyle wrecks and some people killed not wearing seatbelts.... I sometimes choose to not wear seatbelts or helmets. It is my life and my choice.

lazs

lazs2 · « **Reply #32 on:** September 19, 2005, 08:41:07 AM »

and... lazer has the correct attitude of a free man... he wears a seatbelt because he believes they are effective but he would not even consider to make a law forcing other free men to..

he doesn't own a gun or smoke pot but doesn't tell other free men to.. there is hope for the country so long as this kind of American spirit exists..

contrast this with sixpenses british (the losers)like boston mentaliy of looking for ways to make people do what he thinks is the right thing... I have known women who were less controling than this guy.

lazs

SOB · « **Reply #33 on:** September 19, 2005, 08:44:11 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
what I don't understand is that you think a bloated floater of a swiming accident corpse is fine for people to see but a guy going through the windsheild is not?

Well, you see, most people can't swim to work, and Six doesn't have a swimming pool in his front yard, so that's why it's OK.

lazs2 · « **Reply #34 on:** September 19, 2005, 09:03:07 AM »

ok sob... so what you are trying to tell me is that it is ok to restrict freedom so long as it is.... is what?

People have to drive.... no... have to get to work... soooo... it is fine to make any laws that you want so far as the transportation goes? Ever seen a motorcycle wreck? wouldn't it be in everyones best interest to just outlaw em?

Are you in agreement with sixpense and the brits that it is a sensible law and that restricting freedom is worth it if there is the slightest chance it will keep you or a rescue worker from seeing an extra accident victim that has suffered an injury?

Who are you protecting and why is all I would ask.

have we really sank so low from our revolutionary roots that we feel that we can restrict everyones behavior over every percieved offense to our tender sensibilities?

lazs

MrRiplEy[H] · « **Reply #35 on:** September 19, 2005, 09:05:45 AM »

It's really sad to see lazs completely missing the point. Every injured or dead person creates loss for the government. They do not want to kill a milking cow so they regulate your actions lazs.

See, you're nothing but a cow in the herd.

On the seatbelts - I would gladly wear 4-point belts if my car was prefitted with them if it meant saving me from a serious injury or death one day.

Ever seen any racing accidents? None of them would walk out of them without good and tight seatbelts. Most people who do not wear the seatbelt are too dumb for their own good. They actually believe that they can support their body with their hands if a 30mph collision happens in the town.

The legislators got tired of seeing windshields with tard faces imprinted on them.

SOB · « **Reply #36 on:** September 19, 2005, 09:06:34 AM »

I think maybe my sarcasm was a little too subtle. I've always worn a seatbelt...at this point, putting it on is as natural as turning the key in the ignition. But I don't give a crap if you wear one, 'cause it's none of my business.

Sixpence · « **Reply #37 on:** September 19, 2005, 09:11:04 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Lazerus

That is not justification for another intrusion on my life.

So I guess driving on the right hand side of the road is an intrusion on your life?

I'm curious as to why you find the fact that I choose to wear my seatbelt weird.

Well, seeming it is such an intrusion on your life and all

Should firearms be legal? Absolutely.

I agree, but you have a constitutional right to bear arms, you do not have a constitutional right to drive a car.

Should a natural, unrefined or processed substance that alters ones state of mind (pot) be legal? Absolutely. Do I smoke it? No.

So, I guess driving a car under the influence of pot be an infringement on your rights?

False statement.

True statement, you do not have the right to drive a car, it is a privilege

I really am sorry that you don't see how legislating behaviour such as this is yet another infringement on everyone.

I am really sorry you see the infringement on other people is your right. Why do you have the right to my tax dollars? I should have a say in it too.

It has come to define those in favor of increased governmental control over everything.

So law and order is just a liberal takeover?

lazs2 · « **Reply #38 on:** September 19, 2005, 09:15:10 AM »

ripley... you may have the point on your first part...

after that you go a little effeminate on us... I not only seen race accidents... I was in em. If you like 5 point harnesses then you should install em.

I think you may have noticed that for miles driven... you are somewhat more likely to get into an unsurvivable wreck in a race car than driving to the store at 25 or 30mph.

I don't believe that seatbelts aren't a good thing to wear... I just don't sometimes.. I have been driving for 50 years... I have been in no wrecks off the track that I needed a seatbelt... I wear lap belts but there are no cars built today that have only lap belts... both my Hot Rods do.

So... 50 years of a strap digging into my neck every minute compared to maybe getting into a wreck where the damn thing will do some good? mostly I pass... but.. the choice should be mine.

sob... I missed the sarcasm... I should have known tho that you were not an advocate of big brother nannyism.

Again... you should wear your seatbelts... they work... you should not be able to tell me (or anyone else) to under pain of law.

lazs

Sixpence · « **Reply #39 on:** September 19, 2005, 09:15:34 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by SOB
But I don't give a crap if you wear one, 'cause it's none of my business.

But it is, it costs you money that could be spending on booze.

And that pool thing......I couldn't have said it better myself. Whatever you said

lazs2 · « **Reply #40 on:** September 19, 2005, 09:19:07 AM »

and six.... I agree that the government has a right to make laws about vehicles.... I am just saying that it is a bad law. It is not bad in that it doesn't work or even that it isn't the best thing for us...

It is a bad law in that it takes away the freedom of individuals for no good reason other than it is better for them... it is like you are saying we need to outlaw greassy food because of all the misery it causes to family and friends and medical staff..

Why not require helmets in cars.... race car drivers use em... they would be a good idea..

lazs

lazs2 · « **Reply #41 on:** September 19, 2005, 09:23:13 AM »

driveing under the influence of any drug endangers others. If you made laws that called it murder if you killed someone because you were under the influence then there would be no need for the laws.

How am I taking your tax dollars if I get myself injured or killed in a wreck? I have insurance.

lazs

SOB · « **Reply #42 on:** September 19, 2005, 09:23:35 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sixpence
But it is, it costs you money that could be spending on booze.

It costs me money because he could possibly get in a bad car wreck and die? So what. I could possibly cost me money to cover a lot of things that other people do. Again, I'll take personal freedom over some perceived cost down the road. You give yours away if you want, as that is also none of my business...since I don't now, nor do I ever plan to live in MA.

Quote

Originally posted by Sixpence
And that pool thing......I couldn't have said it better myself. Whatever you said

I was actually trying to be as retarded as I could within the bounds of what you had posted previously. Seriously.

Sixpence · « **Reply #43 on:** September 19, 2005, 09:23:59 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
and six.... I agree that the government has a right to make laws about vehicles.... I am just saying that it is a bad law. It is not bad in that it doesn't work or even that it isn't the best thing for us...

It is a bad law in that it takes away the freedom of individuals for no good reason other than it is better for them... it is like you are saying we need to outlaw greassy food because of all the misery it causes to family and friends and medical staff..

Why not require helmets in cars.... race car drivers use em... they would be a good idea..

lazs

My support of the law has nothing to do wether it is bad for you or not, what you do with your life is your business. I support it because of the impact it has on others.

Sixpence · « **Reply #44 on:** September 19, 2005, 09:31:10 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by SOB

It costs me money because he could possibly get in a bad car wreck and die?

Well, it's my money too, I should have no say in it?

Again, I'll take personal freedom over some perceived cost down the road.

There is nothing perceived about it. It costs us money. And I guess having to use the roads to drive is giving up personal freedom? I can't drink and drive is infringing on my freedoms?

I was actually trying to be as retarded as I could within the bounds of what you had posted previously. Seriously.

I know, I was trying to be funny, swing and a miss