Helmets seatbelts and maybe something to do with age(thrip)

[Oxigen_Waste]

It's against the law to buy them, not to play them. Don't know why I typed that.

 

There's a difference between being sheltered, and allowing parents to make an informed decision. If he's playing those games without his parents knowing what they are, then he's clearly not been properly educated on the matter.

 

That's better, then. Would be weird if it was illegal... Oo

I get what you mean with the "informed decision" thing, but unfortunately most parents nowadays have no idea what they're doing. They just use the herd mentality and raise their kids to question nothing and go on perpetuating the current system of global parasitism. As long as we have our high standard of living, people just don't care. Violent videogames are bad and children shouldn't play them... but on the other hand it's ok (and the norm) to raise entitled kids who have no problem with living in a system that prospers off the misery of others. Double standards annoy the fuck out of me. I hate that we try to solve irrelevant problems but never question or act on the real ones.

 

Just gonna leave this bit here.

 

I'm a sociopath in the sense that I don't conform to social norms unless they make sense to me. I'm not a psycho... I'm completely harmless. oO

 

Uh oh, here come the anecdotes. Let's leave it to the professionals to decide whether it's generally a bad thing to assume all young people ever are ok with this sort of thing, eh?

 

I know it has absolutely no weight as an argument, but it's true.

 

There was a huge thread on GAF about this a couple of months ago, and the sad truth is there's no conclusive evidence, either way. The "professionals" are more often than not biased, be it a positive or negative verdict. It's a hot button social issue, and thus, just like what happened with the music industry with the 80s (or what's happening with cannabis now), there's too much misinformation being spread from both sides of the problem.

 

Just gonna come back to this point. You can't seriously compare GTA to Terminator 2. T2 is a 15. Additionally, T2 doesn't glorify the role of the bad guy. Are you seriously suggesting that an 11 year old is mature enough not to be influenced by the fun times had by murdering passers by and stealing shit?

 

I think Terminator 2 is way more violent than GTA. GTA is violent in a gratuitous, cartoony and over the top way, T2 has people being graphically mutilated (and losing limbs), for fuck's sake. Plus, it has one hell of a scary villain, especially for a child. I reckon it would disturb a kid alot more than any GTA game ever could.

 

I'm suggesting an 11 year old has most likely already been exposed to all of that before and even worse.

 

Will you let them watch any film they want? Playing games is probably worse because you actually carry out the acts you want. Parents are there to supervise their kids. Kids shouldn't be allowed to see or hear absolutely everything, there needs to be a filter of some sort. These government approved age ratings are the filter.

 

They should be ALLOWED to see or hear everything. Which doesn't mean you should be letting them watch anything and everything, but the freedom to do so should never be called into questioning. Nanny states are great up to a certain point, but when they start invading your personal liberties, it pisses me off.

 

Especially with self-harm laws. Oo It makes no sense to have mandatory seatbelt / helmet laws. You obviously should wear them, but the decision should be up to you and nobody else. It's your body.

[Sheikah]

No evidence either way is pretty fucking terrifying, Oxigen. A drug wouldn't be licensed for use if there was no evidence either way for its safety. Just saying, there are genuinely scary/dubious scenes in some games that could be bad for some impressionable young people. I absolutely agree there are large numbers of people who would be fine. But other than a blanket age ban it'd be too hard to regulate.

[bluey]

It makes no sense to have mandatory seatbelt / helmet laws.

 

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand i'm out.

[Jonnas]

Especially with self-harm laws. Oo It makes no sense to have mandatory seatbelt / helmet laws. You obviously should wear them, but the decision should be up to you and nobody else. It's your body.

 

If you don't wear a seatbelt, your body can be flung in case of an accident, and hit others. Just saying.

 

Also, it should be noted that certain laws exist just to remind us of basic safety measures more than anything else. From personal experience, policemen warn people about seatbelts more often than they fine someone over it, for example.

[Oxigen_Waste]

No evidence either way is pretty fucking terrifying, Oxigen. A drug wouldn't be licensed for use if there was no evidence either way for its safety. Just saying, there are genuinely scary/dubious scenes in some games that could be bad for some impressionable young people. I absolutely agree there are large numbers of people who would be fine. But other than a blanket age ban it'd be too hard to regulate.

 

Yeah, I can agree with that. I'm just insubordinate by nature and this type of thing kind of pisses me off.

 

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand i'm out.

 

Think about it. I'm not saying you shouldn't wear them, as you obviously should. My point is that legally obliging you to do it is an invasion of your freedom. If it hurts nobody but yourself, it should be your decision and nobody else's. Laws should exist to protect us from each other, never ourselves.

 

If you don't wear a seatbelt, your body can be flung in case of an accident, and hit others. Just saying.

 

Also, it should be noted that certain laws exist just to remind us of basic safety measures more than anything else. From personal experience, policemen warn people about seatbelts more often than they fine someone over it, for example.

 

Of course it can hit others. Everything you do can potentially affect others negatively without you meaning it. If you start going down that road, everything would be tightly regulated to the point of insanity.

 

Again, reffer to the post above, I'm not against safety measures, I just don't think it's right to make them compulsory. It should be up to each and every individual wether or not they want to use it. Inform the population, don't treat them like sheep.

[bluey]

no no... you misunderstand...

 

Irrelevant arguing. ^^

 

^ that's why i'm out.

you're right, your opinion is vastly different from mine and neither of us is going to change their opinion any time soon, so let's not waste anymore time on this.

 

it would be a waste.

...an oxygen waste.

[EEVILMURRAY]

Think about it. I'm not saying you shouldn't wear them, as you obviously should. My point is that legally obliging you to do it is an invasion of your freedom. If it hurts nobody but yourself, it should be your decision and nobody else's. Laws should exist to protect us from each other, never ourselves.

Legally enforcing some semblence of protection in a fast moving metal machine is wrong?

[Oxigen_Waste]

Legally enforcing some semblence of protection in a fast moving metal machine is wrong?

 

I think it is. It's infringing upon my personal liberty. What if I don't want to be protected? I can't see why anyone wouldn't want to use a seatbelt, but it should be their decision to wear it, not the government's. As for helmets, I see why one wouldn't want to wear one... I myself only wear one when riding around town because it's compulsory, otherwise I'd only wear it when speeding. I understand the risk and I think it's worth it, so it should be my decision. It hurts me and me alone.

 

Hell, there are several states in the US without such laws who do just fine, and the people there haven't stopped wearing seatbelts/helmets en masse just because they don't need to. They understand they should (key word) wear them, but ultimately the decision is left to them, as it should be. Is it that hard to comprehend where I'm coming from, here? The state should never have any authority over what one does as long as it has no consequences to anyone else. What I do to myself concerns me and me alone. It's a matter of principle.

[bob]

Although it may just hurt you physically alone, the mental pain you cause someone when your skull explodes apon their windscreen is a lot greater than if you just bounce your helmet off.

[Goafer]

Maybe we should just go back to discussing how stupid customers are...

 

Fairly sure Oxigen_Waste has been a customer at some point...

[Ashley]

Let's not get catty.

[Sheikah]

I think it is. It's infringing upon my personal liberty. What if I don't want to be protected? I can't see why anyone wouldn't want to use a seatbelt, but it should be their decision to wear it, not the government's.

 

What if the government doesn't want healthcare resources wasted / police time and money spent dealing with your mangled slurry of a carcass?

 

What if you kill the person sitting in front?

 

Just think how your liberty can actually impinge upon others, and it's not hard to see why there are laws enforced.

[bob]

I was going to suggest a thread rip, but a thread title change might be easier.

[bluey]

I was going to suggest a thread rip, but a thread title change might be easier.

 

y'know, i was originally going to post my story as a "was this the right thing to do" kinda thread... but then i decided that would be BORING and thought stupid customers would be a way more fun.

O_W is always going to be entitled to his opinion, even if i think he's bloody crazy. As i previously stated my opinion is very different to his, as are a lot of people's - none of us are going to shift on this opinion either so it's all just pointless arguing in a thread that was made for a different reason, which is incredibly tedious.

 

let's draw the line here, and get on with the important and righteous task of bitching about idiot customers.

 

here is a physical LINE for those who need a visual prompt.

________________________________________

I made it pink for added seriousness.

[Oxigen_Waste]

What if the government doesn't want healthcare resources wasted / police time and money spent dealing with your mangled slurry of a carcass?

 

What if you kill the person sitting in front?

 

Just think how your liberty can actually impinge upon others, and it's not hard to see why there are laws enforced.

 

My tax money helps pay for that, so it's only fair that I should get to use those services, should I need them. Isn't that what they're there for? Corpse or not.

 

If there is a person in front it's no longer about you, is it? If you're likely endangering someone else in the event of a crash, it's no longer about self-harm and you have a moral responsability to look out for their well-being. Make backseat seatbelts mandatory, if it bothers you that much.

 

Everything you do can potentially harm others (hell, the entire foundation of the first world we live in is based on the concept of harming the rest of the world so we can keep our high standards of living...). Driving in general is already infinitely more dangerous to others than you not wearing a seatbelt could ever be. With everything, there are risks... should we make everything as sterile and PC as possible just to preserve our safety?

 

I wear a seatbelt. But this is a matter of principle. The bottom line is, it's wrong for the government to tell me what I can and can't do with myself. They don't own me and as such should have no authority over my actions unless someone else's liberty is being violated.

 

I agree with bluey, there's nothing left to say here. This is a cultural discussion, and as such there is no wrong or right. There is only the will of the majority. I am and have always been a libertine, so these types of laws have always bothered me... but they're so irrelevant and minor that they only bother me on a conceptual level, I have no real problem abbiding by them.

 

Unreasonable and authoritarian stuff like road or property tax are what REALLY bothers me... (and I'm VERY pro-taxation)

 

Edit:

 

@bluey, sorry for crossing your nice line, but this is basically just a final nail in the coffin on what I hope is a dead topic. ^^

Edited October 20, 2013 by Oxigen_Waste

[bob]

Well i suppose the reason why they enforce these things are that they (the Government) are under pressure to reduce the road death statistics, and that is the easiest way of doing it. The best way would be to limit all road vehicles to <40mph, but thats never going to happen.

[Cube]

I think it is. It's infringing upon my personal liberty. What if I don't want to be protected? I can't see why anyone wouldn't want to use a seatbelt, but it should be their decision to wear it, not the government's.

 

The problem is that people are dumb and lazy. If everyone was intelligent, laws like that wouldn't need to exist.

 

It's something everyone should be doing anyway, it doesn't restrict your life in any way and it saves lives. There's no negative to the law existing.

[Sheikah]

My tax money helps pay for that, so it's only fair that I should get to use those services, should I need them. Isn't that what they're there for? Corpse or not.

 

Absolutely not. Your tax money helps pay for a variety of things and it's doubtful the tax you pay would go anywhere towards the expense incurred if you got yourself in a serious injury while also paying for other services you need.

 

Even if your tax did stretch that far, it's the fact you're using life saving services that are needed elsewhere to help people in unavoidable emergency situations, which renders your argument moot. You can never, ever claim that using a seatbelt should be a matter of personal choice. You would affect so many people through your foolishness.

[gaggle64]

Just going to post this because it's still just such a brilliant little piece of film and messaging.

 

[Jamba]

I wear a seatbelt. But this is a matter of principle. The bottom line is, it's wrong for the government to tell me what I can and can't do with myself. They don't own me and as such should have no authority over my actions unless someone else's liberty is being violated.

 

I think this has far more to do with your interpretation of what law is and what it's for. You dislike people controlling you so you interpret law as being a set of "dos and don'ts" created by a group of people you have never met telling you what to do.

 

Equally you could view it (as I do) as framework built upon a set of values that creates a nationally agreed standard for responsibility and accountability. If someone does something to break the law then their is a legal structure to define that they should be held accountable.

 

Obviously some (usually the worst) laws are implemented to be deterrents or as @Cube put it, mandatory rules for the uninformed/great unthinking. But at the same time if those laws didn't exist, you could even have a smart person who simply decided that the probability of them being in an accident was very low so they would take the risk today. If they were in an accident then it would be less clear legally speaking that they would be accountable for causing injury to themselves or others by not wearing a seat belt.

 

That would mean either that they wouldn't be held accountable at all or you would have to default to using broader, less specific laws which would require vastly greater periods of time to process and charge if necessary because it would be a less black and white situation for the courts.

 

So in short, yes I can see where O_W is coming from and I understand that he doesn't care that much about this law in particular but it really does seem like the argument against is perception rather than a definable problem.

[MoogleViper]

What if you kill the person sitting in front?

 

a la

 

[Mr-Paul]

Oxigen Waste - I'm interested to hear your views about driving licences. A good thing, or an infringement on a person's right to do what they want without state interference?

[Oxigen_Waste]

Absolutely not. Your tax money helps pay for a variety of things and it's doubtful the tax you pay would go anywhere towards the expense incurred if you got yourself in a serious injury while also paying for other services you need.

 

Even if your tax did stretch that far, it's the fact you're using life saving services that are needed elsewhere to help people in unavoidable emergency situations, which renders your argument moot. You can never, ever claim that using a seatbelt should be a matter of personal choice. You would affect so many people through your foolishness.

 

It helps pay for every civil service, therefore, it helps pay for that too. Pretty simple, no?

 

Of course it's a matter of personal choice! So much so that loads of places don't have seatbelt laws and do absolutely fine without them. Massachussets and Pennsylvania are doing absolutely fine without mandatory seatbelt laws, and guess what... most people (that I noticed, at least) were wearing them anyway. We're not sheep, it's our decision.

 

Also, you're blowing this way out of proportion, too, there's enough gear/personel to respond to any normal amount of emergencies, not to mention that even if you're wearing a seatbelt and crash, you'll have to use those same services anyway. Which makes YOUR point moot, not mine. oO

 

I think this has far more to do with your interpretation of what law is and what it's for. You dislike people controlling you so you interpret law as being a set of "dos and don'ts" created by a group of people you have never met telling you what to do.

 

Equally you could view it (as I do) as framework built upon a set of values that creates a nationally agreed standard for responsibility and accountability. If someone does something to break the law then their is a legal structure to define that they should be held accountable.

 

Obviously some (usually the worst) laws are implemented to be deterrents or as @Cube put it, mandatory rules for the uninformed/great unthinking. But at the same time if those laws didn't exist, you could even have a smart person who simply decided that the probability of them being in an accident was very low so they would take the risk today. If they were in an accident then it would be less clear legally speaking that they would be accountable for causing injury to themselves or others by not wearing a seat belt.

 

That would mean either that they wouldn't be held accountable at all or you would have to default to using broader, less specific laws which would require vastly greater periods of time to process and charge if necessary because it would be a less black and white situation for the courts.

 

So in short, yes I can see where O_W is coming from and I understand that he doesn't care that much about this law in particular but it really does seem like the argument against is perception rather than a definable problem.

 

I agree with the bolded part, actually. I understand the purpose of laws. I just hate it when they unnecessarily restrict my freedom. I get that they prevent unnecessary risks... but those are MY risks to take.

I guess I have a libertarian streak, when it comes to some social issues (though I should clarify I'm a hardcore socialist liberal, when it comes to wellfare / healthcare / education... it's a shame there aren't more countries that follow the Scandinavian model).

 

The thing that bothers me the most is that there are quite alot of places that do absolutely fine without such laws.

 

Oxigen Waste - I'm interested to hear your views about driving licences. A good thing, or an infringement on a person's right to do what they want without state interference?

 

Of course not, driving licenses are a must. A car is a deadly weapon in the wrong hands, and we can't have that. I'm all for tightly regulated administration, in general... I just don't like being told I can't kill myself.

[Sheikah]

Also, you're blowing this way out of proportion, too, there's enough gear/personel to respond to any normal amount of emergencies, not to mention that even if you're wearing a seatbelt and crash, you'll have to use those same services anyway. Which makes YOUR point moot, not mine. oO

 

Oxigen your very argument is ridiculous! Of course there could be a situation where there are limited healthcare personnel or a close by ambulance visits you instead of someone else seriously injured. Or maybe there's even limited availability of, say, a rare blood type in a specific hospital/clinic and you use it up. Or the team tasked with fixing you up in hospital will be engaged and unable to treat anyone else.

 

The point is that there is no such thing as selfless non use of seatbelts. It will always have an impact on other people... enforcing these laws makes it much less likely the worst case scenarios (however unlikely you think they are) will come to fruition.

 

When your argument comes down to "probably I won't affect anyone else too drastically" then if pretty much falls on its arse. Prank calling 999 to get an emergency service sent out "probably" won't affect a genuine call out made at the same time. Yet it's illegal since in rare situations it could impede other call outs.

Edited October 20, 2013 by Sheikah

[Oxigen_Waste]

Oxigen your very argument is ridiculous! Of course there could be a situation where there are limited healthcare personnel or a close by ambulance visits you instead of someone else seriously injured. Or maybe there's even limited availability of, say, a rare blood type in a specific hospital/clinic and you use it up. Or the team tasked with fixing you up in hospital will be engaged and unable to treat anyone else.

 

My point is... seatbelt or not, they will be there. I had a violent crash a couple of years ago on a highway and got away scotch free but the cops still called and ambulance to check up on me. This is standard procedure.

 

The point is that there is no such thing as selfless non use or seatbelts. It will always have an impact on other people... enforcing these laws makes it much less like the worst case scenarios (however unlikely you think they are) don't come to fruition.

 

Of course it will always have an impact on other people... If I die, my loved ones will be devastated and all of that. But that's just life! Oo

And yes, there's a ridiculously small chance my body could be flung into someone and cause them harm, but that's no reason to pass a law (otherwise you'd have to prohibit stuff like tobacco or alcohol as well). It's overprotectiveness and an invasion of my personal freedom, and as such, I don't like it. I'll always wear seatbelts, but I'll still defend my right to not wear them if I so choose.

 

Again, there are alot of places that don't still have these laws and who have yet to experience any problems. I'd say 40 years is a good enough sample interval. As long as the population is informed, this law shouldn't be necessary.

 

By the way, the helmet law bothers me a hell of a lot more than the seatbelt one. :P

 

By the way 2, what's your take on buses (since they have no seatbelts)?

Edited October 20, 2013 by Oxigen_Waste
Automerged Doublepost