Do you believe the gov. should have the right to impose seat belt laws?

[GrowUrOwnDank]

Imo, no, the intensity of pleasure derived from proximity flying outweighs the potential cost to the taxpayer in the event of an accident, even at higher rates of death (1/100). Strap a gopro on their head and that amount increases even further as more people can enjoy a comparable level of pleasure without the risk

I'm going with punishable by life in prison. To keep them safe and breathing. It's our responsibility to govern each other and keep us breathing. Fuck happy and all that shit. Gotta be responsible and just keep a dude breathing at all costs. Straight jackets should be more common place.

 

[ttystikk]

Imo, no, the intensity of pleasure derived from proximity flying outweighs the potential cost to the taxpayer in the event of an accident, even at higher rates of death (1/100). Strap a gopro on their head and that amount increases even further as more people can enjoy a comparable level of pleasure without the risk

That argument- where people can enjoy 'a comparable level of pleasure without the risk' is likely to get the interest of insurance company executives, who will argue that virtual experience is as good as the real thing in outlawing a multitude of potentially dangerous pursuits.

I want MY experiences to be of the REAL THING, not some Matrix style imitation on YouTube.

 

[Padawanbater2]

I'm going with punishable by life in prison. To keep them safe and breathing. It's our responsibility to govern each other and keep us breathing. Fuck happy and all that shit. Gotta be responsible and just keep a dude breathing at all costs. Straight jackets should be more common place.

According to John Stuart Mill, there are different degrees of pleasure and different things cause different degrees of pleasure for different people. Simply living is not the ultimate goal of human existence

"It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied" -John Stuart Mill

That argument- where people can enjoy 'a comparable level of pleasure without the risk' is likely to get the interest of insurance company executives, who will argue that virtual experience is as good as the real thing in outlawing a multitude of potentially dangerous pursuits.

I want MY experiences to be of the REAL THING, not some Matrix style imitation on YouTube.

Do you derive any actual pleasure from watching that video?

 

[ttystikk]

According to John Stuart Mill, there are different degrees of pleasure and different things cause different degrees of pleasure for different people. Simply living is not the ultimate goal of human existence

"It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied" -John Stuart Mill

Do you derive any actual pleasure from watching that video?

I wanna see pigs fly!

 

[GrowUrOwnDank]

Freedom? We need more republicans with tiny penises to govern our choices. There is no gray area. Just do it like your told. Or else.

 

[Fogdog]

I drove without seatbelt regardless of the law, not really thinking about it. I got married and my wife insisted I wear one. She lost her father when she was twelve due to a car accident and he wasn't wearing a seat belt. Five kids, twelve and under and a widowed mother to take care of them. Whatever choice you make matters.

Seat belt laws may or may not make a difference to you but they do reinforce good practices. In spite of my wife's insistence, I would occasionally forget. A cop in my area pulled me over for something else and gave me a warning about the belt. So now, with two strikes against me, I've formed the habit of wearing a seat belt. Wearing a seat belt doesn't take away from the driving experience, I was just thoughtless.

So, eventually, it reduces needless harm to a few more people. Fact, Fewer children growing up without a parent. Overall lower cost to society. If you would rather not wear a seat belt, and you feel your freedom is impinged. Tough. Go play the knife game if you want a thrill.

 

[GrowUrOwnDank]

Ok. How about a little junior college economics 101.

Let's say you are privelaged enough to have been born into being a republican with a tiny penis. Said, business affiliations offer you the opportunity to invest in both public and private ventures. One of your affiliations offers you the opportunity to get involved in building out for profit prisons at the ground floor level.

Knowing, this. Which will make better return on your investment? Less prisoners or more prisoners in your system? Does common sense tell us that less is more? Or that more is more? And? How do we increase the prison population? Perhaps more laws?

Buckle up or go to jail. It's that simple. Put your seat belt on and quit yer bitchin.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Ok. How about a little junior college economics 101.

Let's say you are privelaged enough to have been born into being a republican with a tiny penis. Said, business affiliations offer you the opportunity to invest in both public and private ventures. One of your affiliations offers you the opportunity to get involved in building out for profit prisons at the ground floor level.

Knowing, this. Which will make better return on your investment? Less prisoners or more prisoners in your system? Does common sense tell us that less is more? Or that more is more? And? How do we increase the prison population? Perhaps more laws?

Buckle up or go to jail. It's that simple. Put your seat belt on and quit yer bitchin.

People don't go to jail for not wearing their seatbelt. Good point, but poor example

I'd cite the crack cocaine designation as a prime example to make that point. Same exact chemical substance, just put together differently, the law states crack is more deadly/dangerous, therefore should be more harshly penalized. Cocaine is more expensive, so it's more prevalent in upper class (see: white) neighborhoods, crack is cheaper and easier to produce, so it's easier to find in ghetto's (see: predominantly black neighborhoods).. See my quote from Lee Atwater on the Southern Strategy for more info

 

[MrStickyScissors]

only for children. and it should be damn near jail time if you fail to buckle your child in. but to say that an adult has to put his seat belt on is stupid as shit

 

[Padawanbater2]

only for children. and it should be damn near jail time if you fail to buckle your child in. but to say that an adult has to put his seat belt on is stupid as shit

What's the difference?

 

[MrStickyScissors]

What's the difference?

A child doesn't know the dangers. An adult does.

 

[MrStickyScissors]

If you want to gamble with your life and you know the consequences then so be it. But you can't gamble your child's life.

 

[Padawanbater2]

A child doesn't know the dangers. An adult does.

Does that apply to things like fast food too? Kids don't know the dangers, adults do, so do you believe fast food shouldn't legally be allowed to feed to kids?

 

[MrStickyScissors]

Does that apply to things like fast food too? Kids don't know the dangers, adults do, so do you believe fast food shouldn't legally be allowed to feed to kids?

being a poor parent and feeding a kid a fast food burger is different from getting ejected out of a moving vehicle. But yeah for the sake of argument your right. Same thing.

 

[GrowUrOwnDank]

People don't go to jail for not wearing their seatbelt. Good point, but poor example

I'd cite the crack cocaine designation as a prime example to make that point. Same exact chemical substance, just put together differently, the law states crack is more deadly/dangerous, therefore should be more harshly penalized. Cocaine is more expensive, so it's more prevalent in upper class (see: white) neighborhoods, crack is cheaper and easier to produce, so it's easier to find in ghetto's (see: predominantly black neighborhoods).. See my quote from Lee Atwater on the Southern Strategy for more info

Ludicrous at best. I am talking about what is. You're trying to define what you think should be. It don't work like that. Get with the program hippy. This ain't Greece.

 

[Padawanbater2]

being a poor parent and feeding a kid a fast food burger is different from getting ejected out of a moving vehicle. But yeah for the sake of argument your right. Same thing.

I agree, we measure the opportunity benefit of a poor parent saving money against the opportunity cost of the effect of the kids health consuming fast food. So I think Mill was onto something designating different degrees of pleasure for different things. Some things are more pleasureable, or more pleasureable for longer than other things, and that has to be measured in any cost/benefit analysis

 

[Padawanbater2]

I am talking about what is.

Who's gone to jail for not wearing their seatbelt?

 

[NoDrama]

This argument could be used against any laws;

"We don't need a law making it illegal to murder people. We just need to educate people that murder is wrong."

"We don't need a law making it illegal to steal things. We just need to educate people that stealing things is wrong."

You think the people that murder other people somehow don't know it's wrong to do so? This has nothing to do with wrong or right. Laws don't make things wrong or immoral, they just make things illegal.

 

[NoDrama]

If you die because you weren't wearing a helmet, it comes out of taxpayers pockets.

Nope. If a family member of yours dies, you or some other family member will get the bill.

 

[GrowUrOwnDank]

Hippy rights. Yeah, entitled to an opinion. Entitled to eat and have a roof over your head. Entitled to not wear a seat belt. Entitled, entitled, entitled.

Bottom line. Just shut up and do what you're told. Or go to jail period. It's the law. Don't like it? Just go somewhere else. This is Murica.