DUI check points

[TheoK]

It is interesting how you completely ignore my points re doing things for *others*.

I don't do things for others. I have no moral obligation to do that. I just don't purposely cause others harm, which is the only moral obligation to others there could ever be.

So which parts of my posts do you not understand?

Accidentally being thrown out of a car when not wearing a seat belt is not to purposely cause others harm, since no one of course purposely is thrown out of a car, if they don't commit suicide that way, though then usually they drive into the front of a truck or a rock.

Bans and restrictions on things that might cause harm can and are being used to "justify" every freedom being taken away from you. Otherwise you might as well ban tooth picks, since they can actually be used for picking peoples' eyes out. Not that that happens often, but it's quite possible and has most probably happened on a few occasions.

In fact, surveilling all internet users and all phone calls abroad was "justified" with the "argument" that some of all internet users and people making phone calls to other countries might be terrorists, remember? Same twisted thinking. Treat everyone as if they were criminals, because some of them are. Never mind that 99.99% are not or that the Western main principle of justice since the Romans was that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.  

[Eclair]

It is interesting how you completely ignore my points re doing things for *others*.

I don't do things for others. I have no moral obligation to do that. I just don't purposely cause others harm, which is the only moral obligation to others there could ever be.

So which parts of my posts do you not understand?

Accidentally being thrown out of a car when not wearing a seat belt is not to purposely cause others harm, since no one of course purposely is thrown out of a car, if they don't commit suicide that way, though then usually they drive into the front of a truck or a rock.

Bans and restrictions on things that might cause harm can and are being used to "justify" every freedom being taken away from you.

You've lost me as to how it matters that you do or do not wear a seatbelt? In theory, if you want to drive without a seatbelt, sure, it's your own personal choice, and boo hoo, it sucks that you will get a ticket if you don't wear one.

By the same token, why should some public coroner clean your spilled, and very dead guts up by the road?

I could look at it in a very harsh way Lit and say it would be a saving of public money since you've been on welfare for a while?

Maybe they should give you a ticket FOR wearing a seatbelt to preserve your life, which the public funds anyway?

[Phlexor]

If you were thrown from a car in an accident because you were not wearing seatbelts, saying no one but yourself would be hurt is incorrect. What about your mother? What about your family and friends? Wouldn't they be hurt with the loss of you?

[TheoK]

It is interesting how you completely ignore my points re doing things for *others*.

I don't do things for others. I have no moral obligation to do that. I just don't purposely cause others harm, which is the only moral obligation to others there could ever be.

So which parts of my posts do you not understand?

Accidentally being thrown out of a car when not wearing a seat belt is not to purposely cause others harm, since no one of course purposely is thrown out of a car, if they don't commit suicide that way, though then usually they drive into the front of a truck or a rock.

Bans and restrictions on things that might cause harm can and are being used to "justify" every freedom being taken away from you.

You've lost me as to how it matters that you do or do not wear a seatbelt? In theory, if you want to drive without a seatbelt, sure, it's your own personal choice, and boo hoo, it sucks that you will get a ticket if you don't wear one.

By the same token, why should some public coroner clean your spilled, and very dead guts up by the road?

I could look at it in a very harsh way Lit and say it would be a saving of public money since you've been on welfare for a while?

Maybe they should give you a ticket FOR wearing a seatbelt to preserve your life, which the public funds anyway?

It's not welfare in Sweden, it's a disability pension, and it is my right to recieve it. My parents pay more in tax every year than I get in disability, btw.

[TheoK]

If you were thrown from a car in an accident because you were not wearing seatbelts, saying no one but yourself would be hurt is incorrect. What about your mother? What about your family and friends? Wouldn't they be hurt with the loss of you?

I have no obligation not to hurt others' feeelings. It's not nice but it's a fact.

[Eclair]

It is interesting how you completely ignore my points re doing things for *others*.

I don't do things for others. I have no moral obligation to do that. I just don't purposely cause others harm, which is the only moral obligation to others there could ever be.

So which parts of my posts do you not understand?

Accidentally being thrown out of a car when not wearing a seat belt is not to purposely cause others harm, since no one of course purposely is thrown out of a car, if they don't commit suicide that way, though then usually they drive into the front of a truck or a rock.

Bans and restrictions on things that might cause harm can and are being used to "justify" every freedom being taken away from you.

You've lost me as to how it matters that you do or do not wear a seatbelt? In theory, if you want to drive without a seatbelt, sure, it's your own personal choice, and boo hoo, it sucks that you will get a ticket if you don't wear one.

By the same token, why should some public coroner clean your spilled, and very dead guts up by the road?

I could look at it in a very harsh way Lit and say it would be a saving of public money since you've been on welfare for a while?

Maybe they should give you a ticket FOR wearing a seatbelt to preserve your life, which the public funds anyway?

It's not welfare in Sweden, it's a disability pension, and it is my right to recieve it. My parents pay more in tax every year than I get in disability, btw.

Just applying your fuzzy logic. So, you have no obligation to not hurt your parents feelings if you were killed, but on the other hand, it's ok for you to receive a 'pension' that is less than what they pay in tax? You've lost me.

The country has no obligation to fund your life. So maybe you should just be thankful for living in a country that affords you that benefit and stop whinging about wearing a fucking seatbelt?

[TheoK]

 

[odeon]

It is interesting how you completely ignore my points re doing things for *others*.

I don't do things for others. I have no moral obligation to do that. I just don't purposely cause others harm, which is the only moral obligation to others there could ever be.

So which parts of my posts do you not understand?

Accidentally being thrown out of a car when not wearing a seat belt is not to purposely cause others harm, since no one of course purposely is thrown out of a car, if they don't commit suicide that way, though then usually they drive into the front of a truck or a rock.

And what if wearing your seatbelt would give you another fraction of a second, used to turn that wheel one last time?

We were also talking about dimmed lights. Please address how those violate your personal freedoms.

Bans and restrictions on things that might cause harm can and are being used to "justify" every freedom being taken away from you. Otherwise you might as well ban tooth picks, since they can actually be used for picking peoples' eyes out. Not that that happens often, but it's quite possible and has most probably happened on a few occasions.

In fact, surveilling all internet users and all phone calls abroad was "justified" with the "argument" that some of all internet users and people making phone calls to other countries might be terrorists, remember? Same twisted thinking. Treat everyone as if they were criminals, because some of them are. Never mind that 99.99% are not or that the Western main principle of justice since the Romans was that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.  

Aside from the fact that we weren't talking about toothpicks or internet surveillance, and aside from the fact that the logic is not the same, AT ALL, I suppose we could talk about those things, too, but then we'd be more in agreement and where's the fun in that?

[Osensitive1]

If they had the sign right before the exit, then the place they would really want to watch would be the exit, since anyone who had narcotics in their car would try to turn off there.

Maybe that wasn't clear. They were on the exit, just on the other side of the slope.

[Osensitive1]

I have no obligation not to hurt others' feeelings. It's not nice but it's a fact.

Oh. Guess you meant physical harm before. That's different.

[TheoK]

And what if wearing your seatbelt would give you another fraction of a second, used to turn that wheel one last time?

If I was to kill myself in a road "acident" I would of course drive into the front of a truck or into a rock, not into an ordinary car. So it wouldn't matter anyway.

We were also talking about dimmed lights. Please address how those violate your personal freedoms.

Because by forcing me to do so, they lump me together with the morons who don't know when the lights should be on, like when there is no sunshine or in dusk or dawn. They declare the majority idiots based on what a few percents or less are doing.

Aside from the fact that we weren't talking about toothpicks or internet surveillance, and aside from the fact that the logic is not the same, AT ALL, I suppose we could talk about those things, too, but then we'd be more in agreement and where's the fun in that?

 

[odeon]

You know, I really can't be arsed to continue this argument.

[Queen Victoria]

"If I was to kill myself in a road "acident" I would of course drive into the front of a truck or into a rock, not into an ordinary car. So it wouldn't matter anyway"

There's something in the US called "suicide by cop."  It's when you force the police to shoot to defend themselves or others. It's usually done by cowards who can't kill themselves or who don't want to go to prison after committing horrific crimes.  I understand that cops usually suffer a lot of mental anguish over this.  I imagine the truck driver you pull in front of to kill yourself would also suffer anguish over your action. 

Besides even trying to kill yourself this way isn't foolproof.  Not all high-speed or truck/auto accidents are fatal.  Look at the guy that was disabled when Hulk Hogan's kid crashed the car.  I don't know whether seat belts were involved or not, but he's severely and probably permanently disabled. 

[Callaway]

I see Lit's point that a government becomes a kind of nanny state when they try to legislate common sense such as making laws forcing people to use headlights in bright sunlight or making laws regulating things that hurt only the person himself, for example, wearing seatbelts in cars or wearing helmets while riding bicycles or motorcycles.

We have a headlight law here which dictates that headlights be used half an hour before sunrise and half an hour after sunset and whenever weather conditions dictate using windshield wipers and I think that law makes sense because those are the conditions under which headlights can either help the driver see or help other drivers see them.  I see no point in requiring they be used at noon on a bright and sunny day.

[odeon]

I see Lit's point that a government becomes a kind of nanny state when they try to legislate common sense such as making laws forcing people to use headlights in bright sunlight or making laws regulating things that hurt only the person himself, for example, wearing seatbelts in cars or wearing helmets while riding bicycles or motorcycles.

We have a headlight law here which dictates that headlights be used half an hour before sunrise and half an hour after sunset and whenever weather conditions dictate using windshield wipers and I think that law makes sense because those are the conditions under which headlights can either help the driver see or help other drivers see them.  I see no point in requiring they be used at noon on a bright and sunny day.

My point is that people forget. Their eyes adapt to the light or the relative lack of it, and they forget to use the headlights. I'd much rather have them on all the time than have that fraction of a second less to avoid the danger.

It's not about nannying (even though the Swedish government does that too, and it's a real pain), it's about safety. I disagree with a lot of what they write laws about but this, to me, is pretty obvious.