Seat Belts Shouldn't Be Mandatory

[Senkaku]

I think it's that the state told him to do it.

That's what worries me.

Well, you know, anything the government says or does is bad. *nods sagely*


http://www.trafficsafetymarketing.gov/newtsm/tk-bua/SeatBeltTop5Flyer.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt#Legislation

I'll keep looking for more. But I'm pretty sure that since 1 in 7 people still don't use seat belts, not making them mandatory would be about the worst thing for traffic safety besides legalizing DUI that you could do. Something that is proven to save lives, in such a big way, for such a minor inconvenience, should certainly be made mandatory.

[Sibirsky]

I think it's that the state told him to do it.

That's what worries me.

Yes, being against forcing peaceful people to do something is so worrisome.

[Senkaku]

:roll:


Yes, they should. Seat belts prevent thousands of deaths and injuries every year. They're for the public good, and thus the state has made them mandatory, because it is the state's job to be concerned about the public good.

If you don't like it, you can always move somewhere else where seatbelts aren't mandatory. I don't believe they are in India.

For the public good, we could (and should, according to you) mandate all vehicles come with ignition interlocks, ban smoking, drinking, drugs (recreational and OTC), unprotected sex with the exception of procreation (we'll let you enforce that one), gambling, and many others.

"For the public good" is an insufficient argument.

Don't like it, GTFO, is not even an argument.

Seems a bit like a slippery slope fallacy? Just sayin'.

I actually would support the standardization of ignition interlocks, but that's just me. What would you deem sufficient cause to mandatorize them, then, if "for the public good" is not enough?

[Jocabia]

Firstly, that is an idiotic excuse.

What, that punishing people to ostensibly prevent them from harming themselves only is silly?

Except seat belts don't only protect you. They protect other passengers. They protect other cars on the road should you lose control in an accident that is otherwise controllable. And given that there really is no counter argument to the safety they provide, there really isn't a balance of rights to consider here.

[Senkaku]

That's what worries me.

Yes, being against forcing peaceful people to do something is so worrisome.

You make it sound like the government is forcing them to get on open boxcars to be shipped to labor camps in the Mojave for crimes they did not commit or something?

No one is forcing anyone to do anything. They're just saying, if you choose to disregard your personal well-being, and we spot it, we'll give you a light fine. And it's not like asking someone to buckle up is this huge inconvenience.


Edit: I gotta go soon.

But before I do: it seems like the only reason Sibirsky is against this is because it is a law, and thus the state is "forcing him" to do something. Thusly, it seems he dislikes laws and the state. Thusly, I think it would be safe to assume he supports the dissolution or weakening of the state. And by this, he does not support laws. So in addition to not wearing your seatbelt, Sibirsky, what else do you support? Petty theft? Felonies? You can't just hate something because it's a law. If anything, that's worse than my "for the public good" argument. "Because it's a law" is no stronger than that.

[Imperializt Russia]

That's what worries me.

Yes, being against forcing peaceful people to do something is so worrisome.

Your logic is leaving the insensible and approaching the retarded.

[Desmendura]

No, it will just reduce people's safety.

The tried and classic "safety" argument.

There are many things we can do, to make people safer. It does not mean we should do them.

Time to put my debating skills to the test:

So your implying that people shouldn't be wearing seatbelts all the time?

[Sibirsky]

For the public good, we could (and should, according to you) mandate all vehicles come with ignition interlocks, ban smoking, drinking, drugs (recreational and OTC), unprotected sex with the exception of procreation (we'll let you enforce that one), gambling, and many others.

"For the public good" is an insufficient argument.

Don't like it, GTFO, is not even an argument.

Seems a bit like a slippery slope fallacy? Just sayin'.

I actually would support the standardization of ignition interlocks, but that's just me. What would you deem sufficient cause to mandatorize them, then, if "for the public good" is not enough?

This is not a fallacy. This is an assertion that the only "for" argument we have heard is safety.

Nothing. Simply driving, is not evidence of having a drinking problem. Lots of people drive and do not drink at all. You would make it impossible for them to have even one drink with dinner, or in some cases, even eat some foods.

[Jocabia]

Yes, being against forcing peaceful people to do something is so worrisome.

You make it sound like the government is forcing them to get on open boxcars to be shipped to labor camps in the Mojave for crimes they did not commit or something?

No one is forcing anyone to do anything. They're just saying, if you choose to disregard your personal well-being, and we spot it, we'll give you a light fine. And it's not like asking someone to buckle up is this huge inconvenience.

It says, we're going to fund the social cost of your selfish behavior with your money. And I'm totally for it. Otherwise, other people would be taking on the cost of your bad behavior. Why do you hate freedom, Sib?

[Imperializt Russia]

Seems a bit like a slippery slope fallacy? Just sayin'.

I actually would support the standardization of ignition interlocks, but that's just me. What would you deem sufficient cause to mandatorize them, then, if "for the public good" is not enough?

This is not a fallacy. This is an assertion that the only "for" argument we have heard is safety.

Nothing. Simply driving, is not evidence of having a drinking problem. Lots of people drive and do not drink at all. You would make it impossible for them to have even one drink with dinner, or in some cases, even eat some foods.

There are 112 million instances of self-reported drink-driving in the US every year. There are 1.4 million arrests for drink driving.

Four point six million people are injured in auto accidents, and drink driving deaths are higher than firearm homicides.
There's definitely a problem here.

[Sibirsky]

Yes, being against forcing peaceful people to do something is so worrisome.

You make it sound like the government is forcing them to get on open boxcars to be shipped to labor camps in the Mojave for crimes they did not commit or something?

No one is forcing anyone to do anything. They're just saying, if you choose to disregard your personal well-being, and we spot it, we'll give you a light fine. And it's not like asking someone to buckle up is this huge inconvenience.


Edit: I gotta go soon.

But before I do: it seems like the only reason Sibirsky is against this is because it is a law, and thus the state is "forcing him" to do something. Thusly, it seems he dislikes laws and the state. Thusly, I think it would be safe to assume he supports the dissolution or weakening of the state. And by this, he does not support laws. So in addition to not wearing your seatbelt, Sibirsky, what else do you support? Petty theft? Felonies? You can't just hate something because it's a law. If anything, that's worse than my "for the public good" argument. "Because it's a law" is no stronger than that.

Well... incentivising. How about that? I never claimed that it is a major inconvenience. That is not the point.

Oh boy. My argument is not "because it's the law." Try to pay attention.

Most felonies have victims. Not wearing a seat belt does not have a victim. Is that clear enough for you?

[Sibirsky]

Yes, being against forcing peaceful people to do something is so worrisome.

Your logic is leaving the insensible and approaching the retarded.

Your debate tactics are approaching flaming.

[Sibirsky]

The tried and classic "safety" argument.

There are many things we can do, to make people safer. It does not mean we should do them.

Time to put my debating skills to the test:

So your implying that people shouldn't be wearing seatbelts all the time?

I am saying that it should be up to them. They (should) know the risks and dangers of not wearing them. They should make that decision.

[Imperializt Russia]

You make it sound like the government is forcing them to get on open boxcars to be shipped to labor camps in the Mojave for crimes they did not commit or something?

No one is forcing anyone to do anything. They're just saying, if you choose to disregard your personal well-being, and we spot it, we'll give you a light fine. And it's not like asking someone to buckle up is this huge inconvenience.


Edit: I gotta go soon.

But before I do: it seems like the only reason Sibirsky is against this is because it is a law, and thus the state is "forcing him" to do something. Thusly, it seems he dislikes laws and the state. Thusly, I think it would be safe to assume he supports the dissolution or weakening of the state. And by this, he does not support laws. So in addition to not wearing your seatbelt, Sibirsky, what else do you support? Petty theft? Felonies? You can't just hate something because it's a law. If anything, that's worse than my "for the public good" argument. "Because it's a law" is no stronger than that.

Well... incentivising. How about that? I never claimed that it is a major inconvenience. That is not the point.

Oh boy. My argument is not "because it's the law." Try to pay attention.

Most felonies have victims. Not wearing a seat belt does not have a victim. Is that clear enough for you?

Her Majesty's Government disagrees.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKHY69AFstE

[Jocabia]

You make it sound like the government is forcing them to get on open boxcars to be shipped to labor camps in the Mojave for crimes they did not commit or something?

No one is forcing anyone to do anything. They're just saying, if you choose to disregard your personal well-being, and we spot it, we'll give you a light fine. And it's not like asking someone to buckle up is this huge inconvenience.


Edit: I gotta go soon.

But before I do: it seems like the only reason Sibirsky is against this is because it is a law, and thus the state is "forcing him" to do something. Thusly, it seems he dislikes laws and the state. Thusly, I think it would be safe to assume he supports the dissolution or weakening of the state. And by this, he does not support laws. So in addition to not wearing your seatbelt, Sibirsky, what else do you support? Petty theft? Felonies? You can't just hate something because it's a law. If anything, that's worse than my "for the public good" argument. "Because it's a law" is no stronger than that.

Well... incentivising. How about that? I never claimed that it is a major inconvenience. That is not the point.

Oh boy. My argument is not "because it's the law." Try to pay attention.

Most felonies have victims. Not wearing a seat belt does not have a victim. Is that clear enough for you?

Yes, there are victims of not wearing seat belts. This has been explained to you.

[Imperializt Russia]

Your logic is leaving the insensible and approaching the retarded.

Your debate tactics are approaching flaming.

Cure your logic, I'll cure my debate tact.

[Sibirsky]

This is not a fallacy. This is an assertion that the only "for" argument we have heard is safety.

Nothing. Simply driving, is not evidence of having a drinking problem. Lots of people drive and do not drink at all. You would make it impossible for them to have even one drink with dinner, or in some cases, even eat some foods.

There are 112 million instances of self-reported drink-driving in the US every year. There are 1.4 million arrests for drink driving.

Four point six million people are injured in auto accidents, and drink driving deaths are higher than firearm homicides.
There's definitely a problem here.

How many of those instances would be below the legal limit?

[Jocabia]

Time to put my debating skills to the test:

So your implying that people shouldn't be wearing seatbelts all the time?

I am saying that it should be up to them. They (should) know the risks and dangers of not wearing them. They should make that decision.

And that the decision might end up harming other people is irrelevant, right?

[Sibirsky]

Well... incentivising. How about that? I never claimed that it is a major inconvenience. That is not the point.

Oh boy. My argument is not "because it's the law." Try to pay attention.

Most felonies have victims. Not wearing a seat belt does not have a victim. Is that clear enough for you?

Her Majesty's Government disagrees.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKHY69AFstE

Are you claiming that everyone who does not wear a seat belt will be involved in an accident?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Time to put my debating skills to the test:

So your implying that people shouldn't be wearing seatbelts all the time?

I am saying that it should be up to them. They (should) know the risks and dangers of not wearing them. They should make that decision.

Sib, it isn't as simple as saying it should be up to them. Not wearing a seat belt isn't a victimless happening.

[Imperializt Russia]

There are 112 million instances of self-reported drink-driving in the US every year. There are 1.4 million arrests for drink driving.

Four point six million people are injured in auto accidents, and drink driving deaths are higher than firearm homicides.
There's definitely a problem here.

How many of those instances would be below the legal limit?

None, because that's not what "drink driving" is.

Strictly speaking, the number would be much higher for people who aren't aware of where the limit is, people who don't want to admit to it, and would technically be lesser for people who were concerned they may be over the limit and are not.

But chances are, you wouldn't self-report it to the CDC unless you were concerned that's what you had done.

[Desmendura]

Time to put my debating skills to the test:

So your implying that people shouldn't be wearing seatbelts all the time?

I am saying that it should be up to them. They (should) know the risks and dangers of not wearing them. They should make that decision.

Fair point.

[Sibirsky]

Well... incentivising. How about that? I never claimed that it is a major inconvenience. That is not the point.

Oh boy. My argument is not "because it's the law." Try to pay attention.

Most felonies have victims. Not wearing a seat belt does not have a victim. Is that clear enough for you?

Yes, there are victims of not wearing seat belts. This has been explained to you.

It has been pointed out, many times, that in the case of an accident, there could be victims, other than the person not wearing the seat belt.

Unless not wearing seat belt causes accidents, that is not sufficient.

[Sibirsky]

Your debate tactics are approaching flaming.

Cure your logic, I'll cure my debate tact.

My logic does not need curing.

[Sibirsky]

I am saying that it should be up to them. They (should) know the risks and dangers of not wearing them. They should make that decision.

And that the decision might end up harming other people is irrelevant, right?

Many decisions make end up harming other people.