Seat Belts Shouldn't Be Mandatory

[Grenartia]

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.

Except, as I said in an earlier post that you have not responded to, most of the other laws involve closing loopholes that allow people to infringe on others' rights. Also, you have not proven that most of them are inherently bad restrictions. Burden of proof is on you for that claim.

[Comalander]

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


(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.

1. The statement marked with (1.) is not about war at all, it's about the commonality of people being struck and killed by other, flying, people.

2. within a nation or state

Based on this, official, definition, one cannot have war unless one is located within the state. Also, one cannot "declare war" unless they are part of (Or the leader of) a hierarchical organization, I.E., a state.

Otherwise, the conflict is just that, a conflict.

[Grenartia]

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.

As I said earlier, it was already provided in this thread, not that many pages ago (literally less than 5). You can go and look yourself.

[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?

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

christ that was fast

You choose a wikipedia definiton over the official dictionary definiton. Ok.

[Alyakia]

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.

1. The statement marked with (1.) is not about war at all, it's about the commonality of people being struck and killed by other, flying, people.

2. within a nation or state

Based on this, official, definition, one cannot have war unless one is located within the state. Also, one cannot "declare war" unless they are part of (Or the leader of) a hierarchical organization, I.E., a state.

Otherwise, the conflict is just that, a conflict.

even chimpanzees go to war over territory. i bet they can also reach for straws. i'm no scientist though.

[Grenartia]

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.

1. The statement marked with (1.) is not about war at all, it's about the commonality of people being struck and killed by other, flying, people.

2. within a nation or state

Based on this, official, definition, one cannot have war unless one is located within the state. Also, one cannot "declare war" unless they are part of (Or the leader of) a hierarchical organization, I.E., a state.

Otherwise, the conflict is just that, a conflict.

1. Granted.

2. Except, that definition also said "nation" which does not inherently refer to a state. Also, where in that definition did it say war cannot be declared unless they were part of a state?

[Grenartia]

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

christ that was fast

You choose a wikipedia definiton over the official dictionary definiton. Ok.

Wikipedia is just as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica.

1. The statement marked with (1.) is not about war at all, it's about the commonality of people being struck and killed by other, flying, people.

2. within a nation or state

Based on this, official, definition, one cannot have war unless one is located within the state. Also, one cannot "declare war" unless they are part of (Or the leader of) a hierarchical organization, I.E., a state.

Otherwise, the conflict is just that, a conflict.

even chimpanzees go to war over territory. i bet they can also reach for straws. i'm no scientist though.

Obvs, chimps have states.

[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.

Except, as I said in an earlier post that you have not responded to, most of the other laws involve closing loopholes that allow people to infringe on others' rights. Also, you have not proven that most of them are inherently bad restrictions. Burden of proof is on you for that claim.

Again, common sense.

Laws that allow gay marriage or possession of marijuana for example, are exceptions, not the rule. They should not even be passed, because laws limiting those actions should have never existed. The fact that they do exist is evidence that most laws are damaging.

[Jocabia]

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.

It's actually usually within the same vehicle, but it's about 22% of the time. Given the number of accidents per year, it's about 2.2 million times a year where human beings collide and cause injury during automobile accidents. I provided a link a page or two ago.

[Comalander]

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.

As I said earlier, it was already provided in this thread, not that many pages ago (literally less than 5). You can go and look yourself.

I have, and I found nothing that states it is common.

[Jocabia]

So you're right. It's totally rare.

http://www.nytimes.com/1981/12/09/garde ... 24390.html

Unbelted vehicle occupants not only endanger themselves, they also can injure other passengers. A Michigan study of more than 4,000 accidents showed that occupant-to-occupant collisions caused or aggravated injuries in 22 percent of the crashes. Thirteen percent of the human collisions contributed to severe or fatal injuries.

Yup. Only 22% of the time to do the contribute to injuries. They are only severe or fatal 13% of the time. That's hardly ever.

So out of 10 million accidents a year, that's only 2.2 million injuries. You're right. It's super rare.

This is the link I provided that explains how frequent human collisions are.

[Comalander]

You choose a wikipedia definiton over the official dictionary definiton. Ok.

Wikipedia is just as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica.

even chimpanzees go to war over territory. i bet they can also reach for straws. i'm no scientist though.

Obvs, chimps have states.

Are you aware that literally anyone with a computer, internet access, and functioning motor capabilities, can alter a wikipedia article?

[Occupied Deutschland]

Wikipedia is just as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica.



Obvs, chimps have states.

Are you aware that literally anyone with a computer, internet access, and functioning motor capabilities, can alter a wikipedia article?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee
Alter it.
Make it say 'Chimpanzees have funny butts'.

[Jocabia]

As I said earlier, it was already provided in this thread, not that many pages ago (literally less than 5). You can go and look yourself.

I have, and I found nothing that states it is common.

Yes, it's very uncommon. Only about 1 in 4 accidents result in a human collision causing injuries or fatalities.

Oh, wait, 1 in 4 isn't rare. That's pretty damn common.

[Alyakia]

Wikipedia is just as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica.



Obvs, chimps have states.

Are you aware that literally anyone with a computer, internet access, and functioning motor capabilities, can alter a wikipedia article?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/war

1.
a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.
2.
a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other.
3.
a contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battles or campaigns: the War of 1812.
4.
armed fighting, as a science, profession, activity, or art; methods or principles of waging armed conflict: War is the soldier's business.
5.
active hostility or contention; conflict; contest: a war of words.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/war



: a state or period of fighting between countries or groups

: a situation in which people or groups compete with or fight against each other

: an organized effort by a government or other large organization to stop or defeat something that is viewed as dangerous or bad

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... nglish/war

A state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/war

a. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
b. The period of such conflict.
c. The techniques and procedures of war; military science.

notice how they say parties or groups. and use words like country and nation and not only state!

[Voltzenkrad]

It is when a friend is driving, you aren't wearing a seatbelt, get flung out a window, get hit by a truck, then bleed to death on cold pavement, the your friend gets sent to jail for having a person in his car die, when this stuff becomes necessary.

[Occupied Deutschland]

I have, and I found nothing that states it is common.

Yes, it's very uncommon. Only about 1 in 4 accidents result in a human collision causing injuries or fatalities.

Oh, wait, 1 in 4 isn't rare. That's pretty damn common.

To be precise that only applies to passengers in a vehicle being hit by the occupant of that vehicle.

Unbelted vehicle occupants not only endanger themselves, they also can injure other passengers. A Michigan study of more than 4,000 accidents showed that occupant-to-occupant collisions caused or aggravated injuries in 22 percent of the crashes. Thirteen percent of the human collisions contributed to severe or fatal injuries.

Though it's worded a bit oddly in the next sentence that does make it suggest it's an inter-vehicle collision.

[Comalander]

I have, and I found nothing that states it is common.

Yes, it's very uncommon. Only about 1 in 4 accidents result in a human collision causing injuries or fatalities.

Oh, wait, 1 in 4 isn't rare. That's pretty damn common.

Wow, the source you provided in the above reply seems extremely credible.

Oh wait, no source.

[Grenartia]

Except, as I said in an earlier post that you have not responded to, most of the other laws involve closing loopholes that allow people to infringe on others' rights. Also, you have not proven that most of them are inherently bad restrictions. Burden of proof is on you for that claim.

Again, common sense.

Laws that allow gay marriage or possession of marijuana for example, are exceptions, not the rule. They should not even be passed, because laws limiting those actions should have never existed. The fact that they do exist is evidence that most laws are damaging.

Not inherently, no.

As I said earlier, it was already provided in this thread, not that many pages ago (literally less than 5). You can go and look yourself.

I have, and I found nothing that states it is common.

22% isn't common? 2.2 million isn't common? I mean, for fucks' sakes, if every person you knew were in an accident, a little more than 1 out of 5 of them would've died due to collisions with another person. If they were album sales, they'd be double platinum.

Wikipedia is just as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica.



Obvs, chimps have states.

Are you aware that literally anyone with a computer, internet access, and functioning motor capabilities, can alter a wikipedia article?

And yet, it still maintains a level of accuracy comparable to the most reputable print encyclopedia on the planet.

[Comalander]

Again, common sense.

Laws that allow gay marriage or possession of marijuana for example, are exceptions, not the rule. They should not even be passed, because laws limiting those actions should have never existed. The fact that they do exist is evidence that most laws are damaging.

Not inherently, no.

I have, and I found nothing that states it is common.

22% isn't common? 2.2 million isn't common? I mean, for fucks' sakes, if every person you knew were in an accident, a little more than 1 out of 5 of them would've died due to collisions with another person. If they were album sales, they'd be double platinum.

Are you aware that literally anyone with a computer, internet access, and functioning motor capabilities, can alter a wikipedia article?

And yet, it still maintains a level of accuracy comparable to the most reputable print encyclopedia on the planet.

for Gods's sake, PLEASE GIVE ME A SOURCE.

Also, that is highly debatable. The TV show Tosh.0 hosted a sort of contest where people were invited to edit his page, in which they said "Tosh.0" was pronounced "Smeg-ma"

[Comalander]

Are you aware that literally anyone with a computer, internet access, and functioning motor capabilities, can alter a wikipedia article?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee
Alter it.
Make it say 'Chimpanzees have funny butts'.

How about this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_chimpanzee

First paragraph.

Edit: was removed because it contained "butt".

Any more requests?

[Sibirsky]

Again, common sense.

Laws that allow gay marriage or possession of marijuana for example, are exceptions, not the rule. They should not even be passed, because laws limiting those actions should have never existed. The fact that they do exist is evidence that most laws are damaging.

Not inherently, no.

What rights are being infringed on by using opaque plastic bags? Whats right are being infringed on by using drugs, or having consensual gay sex?

The rights of the state to ban innocent and victimless activity?

Most laws do not prohibit loopholes that have previously allowed someone to infringe on others' rights, as you have claimed.

[Jocabia]

Yes, it's very uncommon. Only about 1 in 4 accidents result in a human collision causing injuries or fatalities.

Oh, wait, 1 in 4 isn't rare. That's pretty damn common.

Wow, the source you provided in the above reply seems extremely credible.

Oh wait, no source.

Then you have trouble reading. So I have to supply a link I provide twice, once on this very page, a third time? What is supposed to make me think you'll actually be able to see it this time?

[Alyakia]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee
Alter it.
Make it say 'Chimpanzees have funny butts'.

How about this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_chimpanzee

First paragraph.

(cur | prev) 05:43, 1 May 2014‎ ClueBot NG (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (52,734 bytes) (-21)‎ . . (Reverting possible vandalism by Comalander to version by 76.232.95.39. False positive? Report it. Thanks, ClueBot NG. (1815733) (Bot)) (undo)
(cur | prev) 05:43, 1 May 2014‎ Comalander (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (52,755 bytes) (+21)‎ . . (Edited to include common appearance) (undo)

ahahaha

you had to find an unprotected article then you got automatically reverted by a bot. really proved your point there, eh?

[Comalander]

How about this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_chimpanzee

First paragraph.

(cur | prev) 05:43, 1 May 2014‎ ClueBot NG (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (52,734 bytes) (-21)‎ . . (Reverting possible vandalism by Comalander to version by 76.232.95.39. False positive? Report it. Thanks, ClueBot NG. (1815733) (Bot)) (undo)
(cur | prev) 05:43, 1 May 2014‎ Comalander (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (52,755 bytes) (+21)‎ . . (Edited to include common appearance) (undo)

ahahaha

you had to find an unprotected article then you got automatically reverted by a bot. really proved your point there, eh?

Yeah, and then it was removed because you wanted me to include a childish statement about butts.