Seat Belts Shouldn't Be Mandatory

[Sibirsky]

You need a confirmed death? I posted a video of a guy being thrown out of a car in an accident and almost hitting an oncoming car's windshield, before falling to the road and getting run over by another car.

That is not dangerous enough for you?

A single incident where something bad almost happened should not be the basis of law.

Of course not.

That single incident is not an isolated case.

[Jinwoy]

but... but... the state is ebul. look at how restrictive they r and how they start all wars and how everything would be just PERFECT without them. :c

I know you are being satirical, but you do realize that a war, by definition, is started by and can only be started by a state?

I know, but it doesn't mean conflict would stop altogether. We'll just see different people doing different conflicts.

[Comalander]

A single incident where something bad almost happened should not be the basis of law.

Hypothetical: A privately operated nuclear power plant has found a way to abuse the law in order to increase efficiency. In doing so, they almost cause a meltdown and could've made a major environmental catastrophe. You'd be stupid to not fix potholes in the law, and even stupider to let things that can be dangerous happen.

Major fallacy usage up in here. A man flying out of his vehicle wont destroy the environment and possibly kill millions of people world-wide.

Hypothetical: A man washing windows falls from the twentieth story of a high-rise building and almost strikes a pedestrian. Washing windows above the third story should therefore illegal.

[Comalander]

I know you are being satirical, but you do realize that a war, by definition, is started by and can only be started by a state?

I know, but it doesn't mean conflict would stop altogether. We'll just see different people doing different conflicts.

I agree. No states doesn't mean no conflict, but it does mean no war. However, I'm just arguing semantics now.

[Sibirsky]

Err, no, it wasn't. It's just that whenever I hear any complaints about "the state" I feel compelled to point that the more important concept that needs to be focused on is the content of the law.

but... but... the state is ebul. look at how restrictive they r and how they start all wars and how everything would be just PERFECT without them. :c

If you have nothing to add, don't.

Yes, states start wars and are restrictive. If you think anarchists claim that without states things would be perfect, you need to learn how to read. Considering how most anarchist writing deals with crime and punishment as well as provision of goods currently provided by the state, the claim that anarchists claim anarchy is utopia is moronic.

[Jinwoy]

Hypothetical: A privately operated nuclear power plant has found a way to abuse the law in order to increase efficiency. In doing so, they almost cause a meltdown and could've made a major environmental catastrophe. You'd be stupid to not fix potholes in the law, and even stupider to let things that can be dangerous happen.

Major fallacy usage up in here. A man flying out of his vehicle wont destroy the environment and possibly kill millions of people world-wide.

Hypothetical: A man washing windows falls from the twentieth story of a high-rise building and almost strikes a pedestrian. Washing windows above the third story should therefore illegal.

Not unless that man happened to be carrying a WMD on the back.
Either way - washing windows up the third story can be legal, just made safer to predetermined regulations ONLY if it becomes a common occurrence. People dying from not wearing seatbelts is a common occurrence. The law is there for your own safety.

[Comalander]

A single incident where something bad almost happened should not be the basis of law.

Of course not.

That single incident is not an isolated case.

Can you provide me a link to a study or credible analysis of how often drivers flung from their vehicles pose a threat to other people?

Also, I would argue that most people wear seat belts for fear of dying, not for fear of legal recourse.

[Sibirsky]

I know you are being satirical, but you do realize that a war, by definition, is started by and can only be started by a state?

I know, but it doesn't mean conflict would stop altogether. We'll just see different people doing different conflicts.

And no one has ever fucking claimed that.

Wars would be reduced however, since war is extremely expensive, and states have the power of taxation to pay for it.

[Alyakia]

but... but... the state is ebul. look at how restrictive they r and how they start all wars and how everything would be just PERFECT without them. :c

I know you are being satirical, but you do realize that a war, by definition, is started by and can only be started by a state?

"War is an organized and often prolonged conflict that is carried out by states or non-state actors."

christ that was fast

[Comalander]

Major fallacy usage up in here. A man flying out of his vehicle wont destroy the environment and possibly kill millions of people world-wide.

Hypothetical: A man washing windows falls from the twentieth story of a high-rise building and almost strikes a pedestrian. Washing windows above the third story should therefore illegal.

Not unless that man happened to be carrying a WMD on the back.
Either way - washing windows up the third story can be legal, just made safer to predetermined regulations ONLY if it becomes a common occurrence. People dying from not wearing seatbelts is a common occurrence. The law is there for your own safety.

The government (in regards to the US anyway) is not tasked with the job of protecting it's citizens from their own stupidity or ignorance. Should all objects deemed a choking hazard be banned?

You will never be able to protect someone from themselves.

[Sibirsky]

Of course not.

That single incident is not an isolated case.

Can you provide me a link to a study or credible analysis of how often drivers flung from their vehicles pose a threat to other people?

Also, I would argue that most people wear seat belts for fear of dying, not for fear of legal recourse.

No. I would find it hard to believe that the only incident of the kind to be caught on video.

Of course. Dying is more likely. Also, the worse outcome.

[Grenartia]

So we'll sue your mourning spouse and/or kids if it in any way looks like you flew through the windshield and killed the other driver/person in the crash, especial if you weren't wearing your seatbelt.

Seriously.

Mandatory.

Please provide a source to an incident where a driver was ejected from their vehicle and struck a bystander or other driver and killed them, and an investigation confirmed that the cause of death of the victim was them being struck by a flying human being.


Just to join the thread: my belief is that seat belts should not be mandatory

Check the previous pages.

BUT MUH FREEDUMB!

But my state!

Laws are the bible. Government is god. Obama is a priest.

Let us pray.

Top fucking lel. I'm awarding you the Strawman of the Week Award, for best attack against a strawman I've seen in the last 7 calendar days. Enjoy it Sib, you've earned it.

Err, no, it wasn't. It's just that whenever I hear any complaints about "the state" I feel compelled to point that the more important concept that needs to be focused on is the content of the law.

Sure. And the content of most laws is negative to most members of the general public.

Prove it. Go through each and every law on the books in the US. Summarize what they say. Describe in detail exactly how they affect people.

but... but... the state is ebul. look at how restrictive they r and how they start all wars and how everything would be just PERFECT without them. :c

I know you are being satirical, but you do realize that a war, by definition, is started by and can only be started by a state?

Except no. Any groups can be involved in a war (see, gang wars).

[Comalander]

Can you provide me a link to a study or credible analysis of how often drivers flung from their vehicles pose a threat to other people?

Also, I would argue that most people wear seat belts for fear of dying, not for fear of legal recourse.

No. I would find it hard to believe that the only incident of the kind to be caught on video.

Of course. Dying is the more likely. Also, the worse outcome.

So why the necessity of mandatory seat belt laws? It's clear that seat belt laws act only as a revenue arm for the police department and local government.

[Comalander]

Please provide a source to an incident where a driver was ejected from their vehicle and struck a bystander or other driver and killed them, and an investigation confirmed that the cause of death of the victim was them being struck by a flying human being.


Just to join the thread: my belief is that seat belts should not be mandatory

Check the previous pages.

-snip-

I know you are being satirical, but you do realize that a war, by definition, is started by and can only be started by a state?

Except no. Any groups can be involved in a war (see, gang wars).

(1.) That has been discussed, but as I have stated:

A single incident where something bad almost happened should not be the basis of law.

(2.) war
wôr/
noun
noun: war; plural noun: wars

1.
a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state.

[Sibirsky]

Prove it. Go through each and every law on the books in the US. Summarize what they say. Describe in detail exactly how they affect people.

It's called using logic. Laws (most laws) restrict people's freedom. I explained at some length. A few of them are good restrictions (don't kill, rape, steal, assault). But most are not. We see this by the new laws being passed and by their effects on ordinary people.

It's really not that hard of concept to grasp.

You go through each and every law and prove how they are beneficial.

[Sibirsky]

No. I would find it hard to believe that the only incident of the kind to be caught on video.

Of course. Dying is the more likely. Also, the worse outcome.

So why the necessity of mandatory seat belt laws? It's clear that seat belt laws act only as a revenue arm for the police department and local government.

I have been arguing against them. You should not ask me. But the argument is that they are a small inconvenience for a larger safety benefit.

[Grenartia]

No. I would find it hard to believe that the only incident of the kind to be caught on video.

Of course. Dying is the more likely. Also, the worse outcome.

So why the necessity of mandatory seat belt laws? It's clear that seat belt laws act only as a revenue arm for the police department and local government.

To prevent human projectiles from injuring/killing others. To prevent human projectiles from causing more property damage than they would with seatbelts (hell, its practically a form of vandalism by corpse). To protect the mental health of other occupants of any and all vehicles involved (try and not get PTSD from witnessing a human projectile flying through your windshield and the associated chunky salsa effects).

[Comalander]

Prove it. Go through each and every law on the books in the US. Summarize what they say. Describe in detail exactly how they affect people.

It's called using logic. Laws (most laws) restrict people's freedom. I explained at some length. A few of them are good restrictions (don't kill, rape, steal, assault). But most are not. We see this by the new laws being passed and by their effects on ordinary people.

It's really not that hard of concept to grasp.

You go through each and every law and prove how they are beneficial.

So you believe that without the state all clearly immoral actions would be permissible and would increase in occurrence? Normal, psychologically stable people don't think "Oh I better not murder or rape that woman over there, because I would go to jail!" They think "Oh I better not murder or rape that woman over there, because that is immoral and despicable, regardless of if I would face punishment!".

To get back into the context of the thread:

If the law prevents murder, Why are people still murdered? And if the law forces safety belt usage, why do people not wear safety belts?

[Comalander]

So why the necessity of mandatory seat belt laws? It's clear that seat belt laws act only as a revenue arm for the police department and local government.

To prevent human projectiles from injuring/killing others. To prevent human projectiles from causing more property damage than they would with seatbelts (hell, its practically a form of vandalism by corpse). To protect the mental health of other occupants of any and all vehicles involved (try and not get PTSD from witnessing a human projectile flying through your windshield and the associated chunky salsa effects).

As I stated earlier, can you provide me with a study that shows it is common for people to be struck by "human projectiles", and killed by said projectiles.

[Alyakia]

It's called using logic. Laws (most laws) restrict people's freedom. I explained at some length. A few of them are good restrictions (don't kill, rape, steal, assault). But most are not. We see this by the new laws being passed and by their effects on ordinary people.

It's really not that hard of concept to grasp.

You go through each and every law and prove how they are beneficial.

So you believe that without the state all clearly immoral actions would be permissible and would increase in occurrence? Normal, psychologically stable people don't think "Oh I better not murder or rape that woman over there, because I would go to jail!" They think "Oh I better not murder or rape that woman over there, because that is immoral and despicable, regardless of if I would face punishment!".

To get back into the context of the thread:

If the law prevents murder, Why are people still murdered? And if the law forces safety belt usage, why do people not wear safety belts?

you do realize that sibirsky is an anarcho-capitalist, right?

[Comalander]

So why the necessity of mandatory seat belt laws? It's clear that seat belt laws act only as a revenue arm for the police department and local government.

I have been arguing against them. You should not ask me. But the argument is that they are a small inconvenience for a larger safety benefit.

I apologize, I didn't understand what you were arguing in favor of.

[Grenartia]

Check the previous pages.

-snip-



Except no. Any groups can be involved in a war (see, gang wars).

(1.) That has been discussed, but as I have stated:

A single incident where something bad almost happened should not be the basis of law.

(2.) war
wôr/
noun
noun: war; plural noun: wars

1.
a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state.

1. You did not state that in context of war. That statement had nothing to do with war.

2. Note the enlarged portions of the definition, and note how nothing after the "or" indicates that the state has anything to do with the war going on, other than taking place within its jurisdiction. Gangs qualify as different groups within a nation or state. Nothing in that part of the definition says the state inherently has to have started or helped start the war. Nice try with the cherry picking, though.

[Comalander]

So you believe that without the state all clearly immoral actions would be permissible and would increase in occurrence? Normal, psychologically stable people don't think "Oh I better not murder or rape that woman over there, because I would go to jail!" They think "Oh I better not murder or rape that woman over there, because that is immoral and despicable, regardless of if I would face punishment!".

To get back into the context of the thread:

If the law prevents murder, Why are people still murdered? And if the law forces safety belt usage, why do people not wear safety belts?

you do realize that sibirsky is an anarcho-capitalist, right?

I recognized his flag, but his arguments (That I saw) seemed to counter that, and I have retracted by arguments against him

[Sibirsky]

It's called using logic. Laws (most laws) restrict people's freedom. I explained at some length. A few of them are good restrictions (don't kill, rape, steal, assault). But most are not. We see this by the new laws being passed and by their effects on ordinary people.

It's really not that hard of concept to grasp.

You go through each and every law and prove how they are beneficial.

So you believe that without the state all clearly immoral actions would be permissible and would increase in occurrence? Normal, psychologically stable people don't think "Oh I better not murder or rape that woman over there, because I would go to jail!" They think "Oh I better not murder or rape that woman over there, because that is immoral and despicable, regardless of if I would face punishment!".

To get back into the context of the thread:

If the law prevents murder, Why are people still murdered? And if the law forces safety belt usage, why do people not wear safety belts?

No, I believe laws for punishing "clearly immoral actions" have almost no effect on their occurrence.

At no point did I claim that laws prevent anything.

[Sibirsky]

you do realize that sibirsky is an anarcho-capitalist, right?

I recognized his flag, but his arguments (That I saw) seemed to counter that, and I have retracted by arguments against him

I have been arguing that most laws are detrimental to the general public.