Conquer Club

PLAYER57832 wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:UPDATE: In Minnesota we have repealed the part of the law that allows law enforcement to set up seat belt stings. Major victory here

Also, for states that have camera radar enforced tickets, look how these guys are fighting back, within the law

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGPt-AzyTcg

Power to the People

Fine, as long as the rest of us don't have to pay your medical bills when you get in an accident and don't have to support you and your kids if you become disabled.

Wait - according to you in assorted other posts,"the rest of us" are already paying your (children's) medical bills.

Do you support a reproductive ban on people at or below your income bracket so "the rest of us don't have to pay your medical bills?"

As soon as you are willing to pay for my husband's fire service, both of our various community volunteer work, etc.

Oh, yes, and we have applied for insurance, but pre-existing conditions mean the companies refuse us, never mind that we paid into them for 30 years.

One system being broken doesn't justify keeping another one broken.

If society is paying for your children's medical care isn't your volunteer work actually payment for services rendered?

Following that line of logic, can I be exempt from the seat-belt law in exchange for community service? I'm cool with that. Can I buy exemptions from other laws, too? How much time do I have to spend sorting clothes at the Salvation Army to be able to murder someone? My neighbour has really been pissing me off lately.

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:people are always going to forget

No. Once the habit is established, forgetting really doesn't happen. It's automatic.

Phatscotty wrote:and people are always going to say to themselves "but I'm just going 2 blocks" people are always going to say "I dont feel like wearing my seatbelt right now".

Then they suffer the consequences regarding the law.

Okay, but what about the point that it was focused on, that the regulation should be on the corporation to install built in auto-seat belts, not regulating the people driving to the corner store.

I'm playing a bit advocate here, but if wearing your seat belt is a law, should we allow a car to be sold that gives drivers the option of buckling up?

Because there are very real safety problems with auto-buckling seat belts. This has caused manufacturers to actually move AWAY from them. You don't fix a safety problem by creating a larger safety problem.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:In a few cases the public good does justify sting-type action. Drunk drivers, people who don't put their kids in car seats and those who don't wear seatbelts.. are among them.

I don't agree with stings in those instances either.

To raise money, no. To increase safety/compliance when people are engaging in risky behavior, yes. It is a subtle, but very important distinction.

A distinction which unfortunately does not exist in the real world.

jay_a2j wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:We just have to learn to accept that some people desire to live in freedom and
others would rather have government dictate their lives for them. (that way they don't need to think for themselves as much)

Pretty ironic for you crow about thinking for yourself! You have made it plain too many times you do not truly think for yourself.

Oh shut up and bow down to the government you serve! Your hypocrisy is astounding!

The irony is palpable. You'd make a fine Stormtrooper.

Phatscotty wrote:I think compliance with the seat belt law has far less to do with intelligence level than it does with human error.

I disagree completely. Probably due to my experience with both my father and father-in-law who BY GOD WILL NOT BUCKLE, PERIOD! Even when it's a pain in the ass for them because they can't ride in our car.

It's almost always a conscious decision...those who accidentally forget are rare, because the habit has been formed.

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:I think compliance with the seat belt law has far less to do with intelligence level than it does with human error.

I disagree completely. Probably due to my experience with both my father and father-in-law who BY GOD WILL NOT BUCKLE, PERIOD! Even when it's a pain in the ass for them because they can't ride in our car.

It's almost always a conscious decision...those who accidentally forget are rare, because the habit has been formed.

just like being late to work. The habit has been formed to show up on time, but still people are late, for many reasons...being late is likewise a conscious decision?

Phatscotty wrote:just like being late to work. The habit has been formed to show up on time, but still people are late, for many reasons...being late is likewise a conscious decision?

Showing up on time is not a habit. However, a culmonation of many habits. And, many things can interfere with those many steps/habits. Whereas putting on a seatbelt is a single, for most people simple, act.

Seatbelts make me nauseous.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:just like being late to work. The habit has been formed to show up on time, but still people are late, for many reasons...being late is likewise a conscious decision?

Showing up on time is not a habit. However, a culmonation of many habits. And, many things can interfere with those many steps/habits. Whereas putting on a seatbelt is a single, for most people simple, act.

I think buckling your seat belt is also a culmination of many habits. Such as opening the door, starting the car, hitting the defrost, setting your coffee down, scraping the windows, hurrying back into the car, then buckling up. Someone might need a jump, interfering with those habits.

Phatscotty wrote:I think buckling your seat belt is also a culmination of many habits. Such as opening the door, starting the car, hitting the defrost, setting your coffee down, scraping the windows, hurrying back into the car, then buckling up. Someone might need a jump, interfering with those habits.

Clarification:

Putting on your seatbelt involves reaching to grab the seatbelt end, inserting it in the connector. It sometimes involves adjustment, but that's it.

If you think all those other things are required, maybe that is part of the problem?

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:I think buckling your seat belt is also a culmination of many habits. Such as opening the door, starting the car, hitting the defrost, setting your coffee down, scraping the windows, hurrying back into the car, then buckling up. Someone might need a jump, interfering with those habits.

Clarification:

Putting on your seatbelt involves reaching to grab the seatbelt end, inserting it in the connector. It sometimes involves adjustment, but that's it.

and being on time to work involves leaving your home by a certain time

Phatscotty wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:I think buckling your seat belt is also a culmination of many habits. Such as opening the door, starting the car, hitting the defrost, setting your coffee down, scraping the windows, hurrying back into the car, then buckling up. Someone might need a jump, interfering with those habits.

Clarification:

Putting on your seatbelt involves reaching to grab the seatbelt end, inserting it in the connector. It sometimes involves adjustment, but that's it.

and being on time to work involves leaving your home by a certain time

Which, if you take a car, should include putting on a seatbelt, along with many, many other steps.

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:In a few cases the public good does justify sting-type action. Drunk drivers, people who don't put their kids in car seats and those who don't wear seatbelts.. are among them.

I don't agree with stings in those instances either.

To raise money, no. To increase safety/compliance when people are engaging in risky behavior, yes. It is a subtle, but very important distinction.

A distinction which unfortunately does not exist in the real world.

I disagree. Sometimes (not often), the ends do justify the means.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:In a few cases the public good does justify sting-type action. Drunk drivers, people who don't put their kids in car seats and those who don't wear seatbelts.. are among them.

I don't agree with stings in those instances either.

To raise money, no. To increase safety/compliance when people are engaging in risky behavior, yes. It is a subtle, but very important distinction.

A distinction which unfortunately does not exist in the real world.

I disagree. Sometimes (not often), the ends do justify the means.

I'll hold you to that (not often)

Incentives and disincentives are required to promote personal responsibility.

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:I think compliance with the seat belt law has far less to do with intelligence level than it does with human error.

I disagree completely. Probably due to my experience with both my father and father-in-law who BY GOD WILL NOT BUCKLE, PERIOD! Even when it's a pain in the ass for them because they can't ride in our car.

It's almost always a conscious decision...those who accidentally forget are rare, because the habit has been formed.

just like being late to work. The habit has been formed to show up on time, but still people are late, for many reasons...being late is likewise a conscious decision?

You're actually trying to compare a very simple action that takes no time at all with something that takes anywhere from 10-60 minutes to complete? Really?

Phatscotty wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:just like being late to work. The habit has been formed to show up on time, but still people are late, for many reasons...being late is likewise a conscious decision?

Showing up on time is not a habit. However, a culmonation of many habits. And, many things can interfere with those many steps/habits. Whereas putting on a seatbelt is a single, for most people simple, act.

I think buckling your seat belt is also a culmination of many habits. Such as opening the door, starting the car, hitting the defrost, setting your coffee down, scraping the windows, hurrying back into the car, then buckling up. Someone might need a jump, interfering with those habits.

Is this another example of your quality responses to people shooting down your arguments? Because it looks like your kind of quality to me.

Phatscotty wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:I don't agree with stings in those instances either.

To raise money, no. To increase safety/compliance when people are engaging in risky behavior, yes. It is a subtle, but very important distinction.

A distinction which unfortunately does not exist in the real world.

I disagree. Sometimes (not often), the ends do justify the means.

I'll hold you to that (not often)

Like you hold yourself to being satisfied with Obamacare because he was the one that was elected with that promise going in? (because you provided one of your high-quality responses to that point earlier, so I thought I'd get some clarification)

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:I think compliance with the seat belt law has far less to do with intelligence level than it does with human error.

I disagree completely. Probably due to my experience with both my father and father-in-law who BY GOD WILL NOT BUCKLE, PERIOD! Even when it's a pain in the ass for them because they can't ride in our car.

It's almost always a conscious decision...those who accidentally forget are rare, because the habit has been formed.

just like being late to work. The habit has been formed to show up on time, but still people are late, for many reasons...being late is likewise a conscious decision?

You're actually trying to compare a very simple action that takes no time at all with something that takes anywhere from 10-60 minutes to complete? Really?

Oh, come on Woody. I religiously wear my seat belt, but every once in a while I forget. You do too whether or not you will admit it here.

I always buckle up before the key is even in the ignition, frankly I don't see how you could fail to notice that you didin't buckle up. Granted we used to have a car that made an anouing beeping noise if you didin't buckle up so maybe that's got me trained.

jay_a2j wrote:We just have to learn to accept that some people desire to live in freedom and others would rather have government dictate their lives for them. (that way they don't need to think for themselves as much)

You are a hypocrite - Isn't it your job to actively deny freedom to many people who the government has deemed 'criminal'?

saxitoxin wrote:If society is paying for your children's medical care isn't your volunteer work actually payment for services rendered?

I was being specious, as I believe you were. My husband (each) and I paid into insurance companies for over 30 years. Now, we have been without for just 6. However, the rules are such that we will not be covered except for entirely new illnesses and injuries -- per the insurance definition, not much. Thankfully, our kids are covered and will continue to be covered, but there is nothing OK or good about that system.

In truth, I believe we need a system where ALL kids are covered and all adults have access to reasonable health insurance. However, we have debated that a plenty in other threads.

saxitoxin wrote:Following that line of logic, can I be exempt from the seat-belt law in exchange for community service? I'm cool with that. Can I buy exemptions from other laws, too? How much time do I have to spend sorting clothes at the Salvation Army to be able to murder someone? My neighbour has really been pissing me off lately.

You can prevent injuries in a car accident by putting on a seatbelt. So, to impose a charge to encourage you to be responsible and not charge society is reasonable. My kids, no one, can prevent all illness and injury.

And murder.. is almost always highly preventable, so no dice there, either.

edocsil wrote:
Oh, come on Woody. I religiously wear my seat belt, but every once in a while I forget. You do too whether or not you will admit it here.

You are missing a point. For us, putting on a seatbelt is an ingrained HABIT. There is therefore no thought involved. In fact, I find myself buckling up even when I am not planning on driving, such as when I just go sit in my car to get out of the rain at my son's baseball game.

radiojake wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:We just have to learn to accept that some people desire to live in freedom and others would rather have government dictate their lives for them. (that way they don't need to think for themselves as much)

You are a hypocrite - Isn't it your job to actively deny freedom to many people who the government has deemed 'criminal'?

I'll speak slowly....


I don't deny anything, a judge has. Why? So idiots like yourself are safe.

jay_a2j wrote:

radiojake wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:We just have to learn to accept that some people desire to live in freedom and others would rather have government dictate their lives for them. (that way they don't need to think for themselves as much)

You are a hypocrite - Isn't it your job to actively deny freedom to many people who the government has deemed 'criminal'?

I'll speak slowly....


I don't deny anything, a judge has. Why? So idiots like yourself are safe.

No, when you insist that your interpretation of morality, Christianity, etc is not only the only correct interpretation, but that your interpretation gives you the right to impose those rules upon other people who don't even share the faith... THAT is imposing.

And it has nothing to do with keeping people safe and EVERYTHING to do with a narrowness of thinking that you mistake for justification to impose YOUR will upon others. And no, that is NOT Christianity. Christ did not do as you, not at all.