Seat Belts Shouldn't Be Mandatory

[Jocabia]

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?

Oh, what do you know? It's almost like edits are actually tracked and cared for. Wikipedia is well-policed. You just proved it.

[Jocabia]

Not inherently, no.



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.



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"

I'll tell you what. I'll provide a source again if you send me 20 bucks. I'm tired of repeatedly placing this source because you refuse to keep up with the thread.

[Occupied Deutschland]

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?

Your rewriting of the rules of the challenge to make it easier, and failure anyways, demonstrates my point better than I could have ever hoped for so no, no other requests.

[Comalander]

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?

If you are referring to this article, (http://www.nytimes.com/1981/12/09/garde ... 24390.html), please note that it has no sources. What Michigan study? Source of the Reagan administration removing regulation? Leon S. Robertson, the epidemiologist who isn't quoted on saying the quote in the article anywhere else on the internet, besides a copy and pasted article from another news site?

[Jocabia]

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.

That's actually a little off. 22% is for injuries. 13% is for severe injuries or death.

[Comalander]

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

First paragraph.

Edit: was removed because it contained "butt".

Any more requests?

Your rewriting of the rules of the challenge to make it easier, and failure anyways, demonstrates my point better than I could have ever hoped for so no, no other requests.

Yes, because an already non-sourced definition is just as credible as a statement bout monkey butts.

[Comalander]

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

First paragraph.

Edit: was removed because it contained "butt".

Any more requests?

Oh, what do you know? It's almost like edits are actually tracked and cared for. Wikipedia is well-policed. You just proved it.

Well policed when it comes to butts, yes. When there is already unsourced definition, I would assume not.

[AiliailiA]

"Bills and resolutions" are not all "new laws" by any means. Furthermore, to make an existing law less restrictive or even to abolish it, you know what a state congress has to do? Pass a bill.

The numbers I quoted are laws.

Not according to Twilight Imperium's source they're not. Politifact called that claim Untrue when Ron Paul made it.

That's one source Against. Where is your source For?

The rest would only be relevant if most new bills repealed old ones. That is not the case, however.

"Bills and resolutions" are not all bills. And not all bills change a law ... for starters, TWO bills must be passed in every state that has a House and Senate (ie, all states but one) in order to change a law.

Yet tens of thousands of new laws are being passed every year.

Also, this isn't true either, though since Ron Paul said it, it's a wonder that you believe it.

It's way less than that. Here's a breakdown:

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2012/apr/27/ron-paul/ron-paul-says-40000-new-laws-were-put-books-first-/

From your source

And it could even be that states are starting to approve fewer new laws. Robinson said by telephone that according to the firm's data, more bills passed into law in the previous two odd-numbered years when every state legislature was in session -- 20,238 bills passed into law in 2009 and 21,031 bills passed into law in 2007.

Over twenty thousand and twenty-one thousand, not including the feds or local jurisdictions. That is indeed, tens of thousands.

Source that.

[Jocabia]

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?

If you are referring to this article, (http://www.nytimes.com/1981/12/09/garde ... 24390.html), please note that it has no sources. What Michigan study? Source of the Reagan administration removing regulation? Leon S. Robertson, the epidemiologist who isn't quoted on saying the quote in the article anywhere else on the internet, besides a copy and pasted article from another news site?

I don't know. Contact them. Or show a source that challenges that figure. Go ahead.

Right now, you're argument seems to be "nuh-uh".

[Comalander]

If you are referring to this article, (http://www.nytimes.com/1981/12/09/garde ... 24390.html), please note that it has no sources. What Michigan study? Source of the Reagan administration removing regulation? Leon S. Robertson, the epidemiologist who isn't quoted on saying the quote in the article anywhere else on the internet, besides a copy and pasted article from another news site?

I don't know. Contact them. Or show a source that challenges that figure. Go ahead.

Right now, you're argument seems to be "nuh-uh".

No, my argument is that you have failed to provide a credible source, yet you cite it as if you were part of the study yourself and know for a fact every word is true.

[Jocabia]

Your rewriting of the rules of the challenge to make it easier, and failure anyways, demonstrates my point better than I could have ever hoped for so no, no other requests.

Yes, because an already non-sourced definition is just as credible as a statement bout monkey butts.

Do you have an argument or are you just playing the no source is good enough game?

[Jocabia]

I don't know. Contact them. Or show a source that challenges that figure. Go ahead.

Right now, you're argument seems to be "nuh-uh".

No, my argument is that you have failed to provide a credible source, yet you cite it as if you were part of the study yourself and know for a fact every word is true.

No, I cite as if it's credible enough to worth treating as true until I either get evidence it's not or better evidence appears. Either of which, you're perfectly welcome to provide.

We have no reason to believe it's off by a factor of 10, which it would have to be before it wasn't blatantly and obviously worth it.

[Comalander]

Yes, because an already non-sourced definition is just as credible as a statement bout monkey butts.

Do you have an argument or are you just playing the no source is good enough game?

I'm playing the only credible sources are good enough game.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use

(from the above link)


"Wikipedia is not considered a credible source. Wikipedia is increasingly used by people in the academic community, from freshman students to professors, as an easily accessible" tertiary source for information about anything and everything. However, citation of Wikipedia in research papers may be considered unacceptable, because Wikipedia is not considered a credible or authoritative source.[1][2][3]
This is especially true considering anyone can edit the information given at any time, and although most errors are immediately fixed, some errors maintain unnoticed"

[Comalander]

No, my argument is that you have failed to provide a credible source, yet you cite it as if you were part of the study yourself and know for a fact every word is true.

No, I cite as if it's credible enough to worth treating as true until I either get evidence it's not or better evidence appears. Either of which, you're perfectly welcome to provide.

We have no reason to believe it's off by a factor of 10, which it would have to be before it wasn't blatantly and obviously worth it.

The evidence IS there. The evidence shows that nothing in the article, which could easily be cited if it were true, in fact has not been cited. Therefore the article is false until proven true. The burden of proof falls with author, not the audience.

[Jocabia]

Do you have an argument or are you just playing the no source is good enough game?

I'm playing the only credible sources are good enough game.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use

(from the above link)


"Wikipedia is not considered a credible source. Wikipedia is increasingly used by people in the academic community, from freshman students to professors, as an easily accessible" tertiary source for information about anything and everything. However, citation of Wikipedia in research papers may be considered unacceptable, because Wikipedia is not considered a credible or authoritative source.[1][2][3]
This is especially true considering anyone can edit the information given at any time, and although most errors are immediately fixed, some errors maintain unnoticed.

So not good enough for research papers. Good enough for internet arguments. How do we know it's reliable. Because it pretty quickly made you look silly didn't it.

As far as my source, here's another.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1730165/

Exposure to unbelted occupants was associated with a 40% increased risk of any injury.

Yep. Totally and incredibly rare.

Now, you said you found it to be rare. Where was it you found it to be rare? Oh, right, you didn't provide a source for that claim you totally and entirely made up.

What's amusing about your wikipedia claim is that you cannot possibly be so ignorant that you aren't aware of the idea that war can exist without a country a starting it. You just can't be that ignorant. Which makes the wikipedia argument just nonsensical.

[Jocabia]

No, I cite as if it's credible enough to worth treating as true until I either get evidence it's not or better evidence appears. Either of which, you're perfectly welcome to provide.

We have no reason to believe it's off by a factor of 10, which it would have to be before it wasn't blatantly and obviously worth it.

The evidence IS there. The evidence shows that nothing in the article, which could easily be cited if it were true, in fact has not been cited. Therefore the article is false until proven true. The burden of proof falls with author, not the audience.

How's your source for your claim that it's a rare occurrence coming? Oh, right, you made that up.

[Grenartia]

Not inherently, no.



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.



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"

SOURCE HAS ALREADY BEEN GIVEN.

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?

And our point has just been proven.

Not inherently, no.

1. What rights are being infringed on by using opaque plastic bags? 2. Whats right are being infringed on by using drugs, or 3. having consensual gay sex?

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

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

1. Pointless statement. Its like asking "what's wrong with using a book's dustcover to hide a child porn mag?". As has been pointed out in this thread before, the incident you're referring to wasn't just because some guy stuffed a bunch of lobsters into opaque plastic bags, but rather was violating the laws of two nations protecting an entire species and both nations' respective industries which responsibly harvest said species. You can't sell me your bullshit, Sib.

2. None, as far as light drugs are concerned, while there is a justification for banning hard drugs (such as meth, bath salts, etc.).

3. Strawman.

4. Except, not all of your supposed "innocent" and "victimless" activities that are restricted by the state are actually such. In fact, I'd have a hard time believing most of them are "innocent" and "victimless".

5. Source?

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

First paragraph.

Edit: was removed because it contained "butt".

Any more requests?

Oh, what do you know? It's almost like edits are actually tracked and cared for. Wikipedia is well-policed. You just proved it.

OMG U GUISE! MY WORLD IS SHATNERED!

[Comalander]

The evidence IS there. The evidence shows that nothing in the article, which could easily be cited if it were true, in fact has not been cited. Therefore the article is false until proven true. The burden of proof falls with author, not the audience.

How's your source for your claim that it's a rare occurrence coming? Oh, right, you made that up.

Where did I say it was rare? I just asked for proof that it was common.

[Comalander]

I'm playing the only credible sources are good enough game.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use

(from the above link)


"Wikipedia is not considered a credible source. Wikipedia is increasingly used by people in the academic community, from freshman students to professors, as an easily accessible" tertiary source for information about anything and everything. However, citation of Wikipedia in research papers may be considered unacceptable, because Wikipedia is not considered a credible or authoritative source.[1][2][3]
This is especially true considering anyone can edit the information given at any time, and although most errors are immediately fixed, some errors maintain unnoticed.

So not good enough for research papers. Good enough for internet arguments. How do we know it's reliable. Because it pretty quickly made you look silly didn't it.

As far as my source, here's another.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1730165/

Exposure to unbelted occupants was associated with a 40% increased risk of any injury.

Yep. Totally and incredibly rare.

Now, you said you found it to be rare. Where was it you found it to be rare? Oh, right, you didn't provide a source for that claim you totally and entirely made up.

What's amusing about your wikipedia claim is that you cannot possibly be so ignorant that you aren't aware of the idea that war can exist without a country a starting it. You just can't be that ignorant. Which makes the wikipedia argument just nonsensical.

1. (wikipedia) his source literally says that it is not credible. If you still take said course as credible, you may want to reevaluate your life choices.

2. in 2009, 1,216 passengers died in cars. (https://www.census.gov/compendia/statab ... ities.html). Also, risk of death does not equal death.

and injury happens all the time. Tons of people injure themselves slipping in the bath tub, so should bath tubs be banned?

[Jocabia]

How's your source for your claim that it's a rare occurrence coming? Oh, right, you made that up.

Where did I say it was rare? I just asked for proof that it was common.

Okay, so are we done. I showed it's not only common but that it gravely increases the risk of injury to other passengers who are being responsible.

So what was your argument again? Oh, right, anyone can edit Wikipedia except you. And war is only committed by countries unless you actually read more than one definition. And people not wearing seat belts don't effect other people who chose to wear seat belts except when they do that a lot.

Anything else you care to be wrong about this evening?

[Comalander]

-snip-

You sure do like showing up late and selectively reading posts, don't you?

[Comalander]

Where did I say it was rare? I just asked for proof that it was common.

Okay, so are we done. I showed it's not only common but that it gravely increases the risk of injury to other passengers who are being responsible.

So what was your argument again? Oh, right, anyone can edit Wikipedia except you. And war is only committed by countries unless you actually read more than one definition. And people not wearing seat belts don't effect other people who chose to wear seat belts except when they do that a lot.

Anything else you care to be wrong about this evening?

You are right, everything can be proved without evidence and without a source. Even if there is a source, it can be false and even blatantly state that, yet it can still be taken as true. Also, you can disregard as many of your opponents points as you want, or you can just simplify them and make them sound incredible.

[Jocabia]

So not good enough for research papers. Good enough for internet arguments. How do we know it's reliable. Because it pretty quickly made you look silly didn't it.

As far as my source, here's another.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1730165/



Yep. Totally and incredibly rare.

Now, you said you found it to be rare. Where was it you found it to be rare? Oh, right, you didn't provide a source for that claim you totally and entirely made up.

What's amusing about your wikipedia claim is that you cannot possibly be so ignorant that you aren't aware of the idea that war can exist without a country a starting it. You just can't be that ignorant. Which makes the wikipedia argument just nonsensical.

1. (wikipedia) his source literally says that it is not credible. If you still take said course as credible, you may want to reevaluate your life choices.

2. in 2009, 1,216 passengers died in cars. (https://www.census.gov/compendia/statab ... ities.html). Also, risk of death does not equal death.

and injury happens all the time. Tons of people injure themselves slipping in the bath tub, so should bath tubs be banned?

Um, where do you think only 1216 people died in car accidents? Not in the US. In 2009, 23,382 people died who were occupants of passenger vehicles (that's passenger cars and light trucks). Nearly 2 million were injured. In 2009, 12,432 of those that died were unrestrained.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811363.PDF

That's almost like 1,216 except well, just about 20 times larger.

EDIT: I did read your source by the way. It also says you were off by about a factor of 20.

[Jocabia]

Okay, so are we done. I showed it's not only common but that it gravely increases the risk of injury to other passengers who are being responsible.

So what was your argument again? Oh, right, anyone can edit Wikipedia except you. And war is only committed by countries unless you actually read more than one definition. And people not wearing seat belts don't effect other people who chose to wear seat belts except when they do that a lot.

Anything else you care to be wrong about this evening?

You are right, everything can be proved without evidence and without a source. Even if there is a source, it can be false and even blatantly state that, yet it can still be taken as true. Also, you can disregard as many of your opponents points as you want, or you can just simplify them and make them sound incredible.

If you have a source that argues for different numbers let's see it.

And some things, apparently, can be proved by just posting a source and saying something completely different than it says, like you just did. As credible goes, not you is a pretty good place to start.

[Comalander]

1. (wikipedia) his source literally says that it is not credible. If you still take said course as credible, you may want to reevaluate your life choices.

2. in 2009, 1,216 passengers died in cars. (https://www.census.gov/compendia/statab ... ities.html). Also, risk of death does not equal death.

and injury happens all the time. Tons of people injure themselves slipping in the bath tub, so should bath tubs be banned?

Um, where do you think only 1216 people died in car accidents? Not in the US. In 2009, 23,382 people died who were occupants of passenger vehicles (that's passenger cars and light trucks). Nearly 2 million were injured. In 2009, 12,432 of those that died were unrestrained.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811363.PDF

That's almost like 1,216 except well, just about 20 times larger.

EDIT: I did read your source by the way. It also says you were off by about a factor of 20.

You are correct, I misread the source.

However, were injured doesn't prove that human projectiles commonly kill people. The fact that 23,000 people (Both drivers and passengers included) died doesn't prove that human projectiles are a common cause of death in car accidents

A 40% increase in risk of death doesn't mean death.