Maine weighs revoking seat belt law days after 75-car pileup
 

http://news.yahoo.com/maine-weighs-r...195120899.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLCEUpIg8rE

Freakin' Libertarian moron.

John

If you are not ejected from a vehicle for hundreds of yards you get the option of being rattled around inside your car like a marble being shaken in a tin can. I have seen brain damaged people from that last scenario.

Like these Libertarian Bikers who won't wear a Helmet.

Then they crash, get a serious brain injury, run up a million dollars in medical costs, plus they can't work anymore. So then they turn into So************************ts overnight and want the government to take care of them for life.

Another reason I can't be a Libertarian. A principled idiot is still an idiot.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Principles can be stupid, harmful, or evil, and still be principles.....

Yep, and don't forget people getting skewered on the steering column too.


Carl

Conversation I had on NewsMax comment board;

"I'm tired of the government telling me I have to wear those stupid things. They want to run every little aspect of my life!"

"I think they're just tired of scooping brains off the road."

"I have a right to smash my brain on the road if I want to."

"In that case ma'am, I encourage you and all of your idiot friends to do so without further delay. That way we can just get this over with and be done with the lot of you."

:):p

Dave

HAR!!!! Darwin award candidates.

If I see one more dumb, fat, middle aged republican's say "nanny state" one more time I am gonna pee myself. :D

Way funny Palin types.

Need I say more?

I remember back in during the early days of Clinton's presidency. The right was up Bill's ass for his position on public education while sending his daughter to a private school. His response was to the effect that they were not going to sacrifice their daughter for principle.

That could of course be framed as a conflict of principles. Isn't it a very important principle that the well-being of one's children must be maximized? So Bill wasn't being unprincipled, he just was in a dilemma where he had to choose between principles.

An unprincipled response would have been 'The heck with her, send her to the public school, it will make me look good.'

Bill wasn't being accused of being unprincipled, he was accused of being a hypocrite. Maybe hypocrites are automatically unprincipled in the minds of some...but I've already gone more analytically deep into this than provides any enjoyment for myself.

Nope. I think you've pretty well pegged yourself.

This then is just for my own amusement, feel free to ignore. :)

A hypocrite is a type of liar--a person who pretends to principles he doesn't actually believe in. If a person does believe in a principle, but is nonetheless willing to sacrifice it to a 'higher' principle, are they still a hypocrite? Maybe a half-hypocrite? Is this where some of those famous 'shades of grey' come it?

Hypocrites tend to be more dogmatic than pragmatic and they apply their principles only on others. When it comes to themselves, they view is very different.

If a person is a liar, one can usually have a conversation regarding this. Try talking to a hypocrite regarding their principles and it will get you nowhere. But then again, we are all hypocrites to a certain degree, either from selfishness or a matter of convenience.

I know I am especially when it comes to my driving. :)

My post wasn't to debate weather or not seat belts are a good idea or if they should be worn. What I was trying to get across is, I don't think the government should be telling us that we have to wear them.

So how about consuming alcoholic beverages before or during and using handheld phone, texting and so on? Can there be limits imposed at all on personal freedom when it impacts the well being or life of others?

Unless you want to sound like Rand Paul. :)

There are harms done to others when a person doesn't wear a seatbelt. As mentioned, it's very possible that others will have to contribute to expensive medical care, and perhaps long-term disability maintenance. Also, at the time of the accident, you can lose control of the vehicle due to not being restrained in the driving position, which could lead to a further collision that injures others.

It's all a matter of what the government is requiring citizens to do, and what sanctions are threatened. in this case, if someone is too stupid or defiant to wear a seatbelt, I'm not going to feel much outrage over a minor-misdemeanor level of sanction.

Oh, you are so right. Not wearing a seat belt is just as bad as drinking while driving.

Someone who drinks while intoxicated is a danger, not only to themselves but to others. Their abaility to drive is impaired and the risk of being involved in an accident goes up. Also someone being distracted, talking on a phone or texting, is also impaired while they are trying to drive. However, how is one impaired not wearing their seat belt. The risk of being involved in an accident is the same, weather or not the driver is wearing their seat belt.

People have died while wearing their seat belt. People have become disabled while wearing their seat belt. People receive expensive medical care even though they wore their seat belt.

All true, but all much less likely than the chances of bad outcomes when not wearing the belts. So I must see these objections as simply rationalizations of a basic resentment of being told to do something. Given the level of potential harm, I don't see that the government should respect such resentment.

I know.

What you fail to recognize is that your "personal choice" has potential societal consequences. In other words, your decision to take that risk places others at risk and also risks financial costs which would be borne by society as a whole.

But that doesn't matter because FREEDOM!

So, you believe it's okay to place others in jeopardy in some ways but not in others because you believe the degree of risk is the relevant criterion?

The potential consequences of that accident to others is not the same.

It's whether.

It's about mitigation of risk, not elimination of risk.

You're just confused about the difference between libery and license.

While we are at it, why don't we outlaw cigarettes, alcohol, trans fat, soda, etc... They are all bad for us and leads to medical problems with expensive bills, that the tax payers have to pay.

I'm not resentful. I wear my seat belt without griping. If it weren't for this thread, I wouldn't have brought the subject up. Someone else started it, I posted to it that I agreed with it, and then explained why I agreed with it. I have my opinion and you have yours.

I am confused about libery

Funny how when it comes to drug testing welfare recipients, or denying women an abortion, or requiring a government issued picture ID to vote, or telling people who they can and can not marry, they are some nanny statin motherfuckers.

Because of the health risks, tobacco and alcohol are regulated, especially tobacco, and advertising of them restricted. Trans fats probably will be banned in the near future as they should be. Soda isn't bad per se but high fructose corn syrup is and should be banned, IMO.

And several of us explained why we believe you to be wrong. Feeling picked on or something?

That is the essence.

It's amazing how establishment/mainstream Republicans don't recognize that they themselves are government nannies and hypocrites.
This is why the libertarian movement will continue to gain support IMO.

I'm just trying to get at what is behind your agreeing opinion. I don't think a general dislike of being told what to do is it. People are told lots of things by lots of folks, and they mostly do them. Only some things strike folks as over the line for some reason.

I don't think the part I bolded is exactly true. As I said before, one thing seat belts do is keep you where you can control your vehicle. You cannot control your vehicle if you are bouncing around inside it, or if some or all of you has exited it. Further damage and injury can result, which might be prevented by further action by the driver, if he's there to do any more driving....

Arguing in favor of not using seat belts (whether or not the government mandates it) is idiotic.

I don't think logic prevails in this instance. I have a friend that works in the technology sector worried about the NSA and their eves dropping, even after I have pointed out to him that there is no way in hell they can make any sense out of all that information. Besides it's yet another bureaucratic govt. institution that probably has no clue what to do with all that information.

I will mention another thing, however. I had airbags deploy once, in an accident. I fishtailed on an exit ramp and wound up bouncing off the concrete railings (both of them). The second bump was the hard one, and it set off the airbags--quite uselessly, it wasn't a frontal collision and I never made contact with the bags. The thing is, I was still moving forward after the accident. But I couldn't see where I was going--the airbags were in the way. Also, the smoke was getting in my eyes. 'Airbags' is a dishonest name, they really are smokebags.

BTW, the accident did not break my windshield, but the deployment of the passenger-side airbag did....

I appreciate the debate. I know a majority of these threads tend to be a pissing contest of sort. I don't feel picked on or attacked or anything. After I logged off of here, I didn't even think twice about it.

So you're a confused, typo asshole. Gotcha. Feel attacked now? Of course not...per your last post you're already above it all.