Reid Goes After Brothels

Not wearing seat belts only causes possible incidental harm to others (road kill/*maybe* insurance). Ditto with incident harm caused by choosing to eat too many fatty foods.

Hookers only cause possible incidental harm to others. (Moral fiber of society blather, maybe increase STD however an argument can be made that decriminalization actually makes that less likely.)

Hookers/seat belts/drug use/gambling are all in the same category. They are banned even though the people being harmed by the activity are the ones that are taking part in that activity.

Again the argument for "it costs more to clean up the mess" opens the door to mandating all sorts of behavior just because it could potentially cost less money. Hell under that premise you could outright ban motorcycles.

There's a lot of money out there that disagrees with you, hence the laws.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Not wearing seat belts only causes possible incidental harm to others (road kill/*maybe* insurance).

---

Maybe?

Anyway, not wearing seat belts can result in the death of others.

Not making a point but: Heard a story once that my girlfriend's father lost a friend due to no seat belt. He got flung half-way through the sun-roof and his body had to be removed from getting stuck inside the sun-roof :Puke:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

They are banned even though the people being harmed by the activity are the ones that are taking part in that activity.

---

You're not talking about seatbelts here, really wish you would stay focused.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Draco

[...]I know it seems like that, and I'm inclined to agree to a certain extent, but, for me at least, it's the principle of our liberties that I'm arguing for.[...]

---

Ah, the precious principles. So, you're willing to let people DIE for your precious principles? Especially when faced with the fact that there's NO practical downside?

Principles are very nice and all. But the inability to bend or even break principles shows that you've got limited life experience. As far as I know you're quite young yet, so you'll probably did not have to face something like that yet, but there will come a point where two or more of your moral laws (or "principles") will stand in conflict with each other.

At that point you'll hopefully realize that principles are a nice thing to have - but applying them without thinking about the consequences is not a good thing to do.

That's why I try to be careful when talking about hypothetical situations - there will be always some detail which makes the whole thing completely different from the abstract thought experiment. That's why I'm using something like that more like a guideline - useful in most situations but still has to be evaluated for its usefulness in each and every one of them.

We had this same debate over here in Germany. Seat belts were not mandatory at first. Which meant that nearly no one used them and the number of deaths did not really go down. Then they promptly became mandatory and the number of deaths took a massive downswing.

Thus we can say that seat belts save lives. We also can say that they have no downsides.

In contrast, applying your "principles" would mean that people would be killed for no reason other than to support a "principle". And that's something you want?

Let me give you some food for thought: When an idea/principle/ideology becomes more important than the people it's actually intended for, then you'll have to worry. Because the same happened in Soviet Russia - the idea of socialism became more important than the people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Maybe?

Anyway, not wearing seat belts can result in the death of others.

Not making a point but: Heard a story once that my girlfriend's father lost a friend due to no seat belt. He got flung half-way through the sun-roof and his body had to be removed from getting stuck inside the sun-roof :Puke:

---

People on the backseat being flung into the people sitting in front of them comes to mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

People on the backseat being flung into the people sitting in front of them comes to mind.

---

Too common without seat belts. What's also possible (though less likely) in a head on collission is someone flung from one vehicle into or through the windscreen of the other. Either way can result in death of someone other than the human projectile.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Draco

Of course, that's why speed limits and alcohol consumption are permissible, but not when it has to do with a persons property, such as a car.

---

Your personal property [your car] has limits once you drive on a public road. Then you're interacting with other people, and they have a right to drive on a safe road.

It's not black and white---over the years we've seen how babies and children need special safety seats. Are you against a law mandating kids car seats in the privacy of your own car?

Using cell phones and texting while driving causes distracted drivers, and many accidents. Is it okay to ban hand-hell devices while driving in the privacy of your own car?

Quote:

---

I'm not familiar the insurance industry lobbying for seat belt laws (although I agree with speed limit laws), and can see their reasoning behind it, but still don't agree with it. The average citizen, these days, is smart enough to know that wearing a seat belt increases your chances of survival during an accident.

---

Sure, it's now common knowledge that seat belts save lives, and most folks use them automatically. Just in case, auto makers installed that irritating DING DING alarm until they're fastened. If you're involved in a car accident and someone is injured while not wearing a seat belt, insurance companies will fight in court to deny that personal injury / liability claim. Does it bother you that insurers have so much control over who pays the lifetime care of the quadriplegic?

Ooh, ooh, can we discuss drunk driving? That's always a laugh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Draco

It allows for such things because that's how you want to interpret it to suit your argument, and if you've ever read any of my previous posts, you'd know that I support a persons complete right to their own life, so long as they don't pose a threat to another persons right to life.

---

So my owning a nuclear weapon is alright in Draco's version of the United States? I'm equally as likely to pose a threat to another person's right to life with a nuclear weapon as I am a firearm, which is no threat at all, since I'm a safe and responsible citizen, who will practice proper weapons handling and safe keeping, and will never try to violate any other person's safety with them.

Also, here is a fun scenario for you. We're both driving on a road in Draco's Land, USA. We're both doing about 55 MPH, and I'm in the lane to your left. I swerve in front of you and brake hard because I wasn't paying attention, and need to make a right on that street we're about to pass. You don't really have time to brake yourself, so you hit me going about 50. I, of course, was exercising my right to not wear a seat belt, and my right to deactivate my air bags. I'm now dead, strewn somewhere in between my seat, the hood of my car, and the road in front of it. When the police arrive, they'll be arresting you on possible manslaughter charges. Since I'm dead, and you're the cause of it.

If only we had some legal way to determine that it was actually I who was in the wrong for not wearing my seat belt, and for deactivating my airbags...

Quote:

---

No actually, you're either not trying to understand my argument(s), or you don't read my posts very well. I've addressed such issues, I addressed them in the topic about the Christian hotel owners, which I remember you posting in, so it's obvious you either didn't read my posts there, or did, but find some sort of pleasure in showing how wrong I was because I misquoted two words. Only because it's the internet, so I'll make a crazy assumption and say that you don't have the confidence to do the same thing in real life.

---

Of course its not you. Several people are just having the same problem with you because you're such an eloquent and clear speaker, with well-thought out, well-argued, water-tight ideas. :bored:

Consider this, your explanations weren't good there. They still aren't here. They don't get better with age, because they are text, not cheese or wine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Illusions

Also, here is a fun scenario for you. We're both driving on a road in Draco's Land, USA. We're both doing about 55 MPH, and I'm in the lane to your left. I swerve in front of you and brake hard because I wasn't paying attention, and need to make a right on that street we're about to pass. You don't really have time to brake yourself, so you hit me going about 50. I, of course, was exercising my right to not wear a seat belt, and my right to deactivate my air bags. I'm now dead, strewn somewhere in between my seat, the hood of my car, and the road in front of it. When the police arrive, they'll be arresting you on possible manslaughter charges. Since I'm dead, and you're the cause of it.

If only we had some legal way to determine that it was actually I who was in the wrong for not wearing my seat belt, and for deactivating my airbags...

---

The law states that since Draco crashed into you from behind it would automatically be his fault and thus vehicular manslaughter. Wonder if Lewk would fry 'im?

Lewk would probably have him father children for his pastor to rape, or some such bestial thing.

Quote:

---

Source for how much that costs? I'm just wondering what dollar figure you place on freedom. After all I'm pretty sure we could save far more lives then seat belts if we mandated a 35 MPH speed limit on all highways

---

Are you kidding me? If you want to frame it that way, then we always put a price on our freedoms. Whether we say you can't go 70mph if you want to in a residential area. Or we have other laws. They are a trade off agreed upon by the community you operate in. As they say absolute freedom isn't free. We gain more freedoms and consitency by agreeing to rules. The rules take into account the values and risks associated with actions of the people involved.

So your right 35mph may save more lives, but we've agreed to up our chances of dying, as a society, in exchange for the benefit that driving 70mph offers us. It's an agreeable risk. If society deems it unagreeable on net, then it will be both illegal and immoral to drive that fast. Your placing people under a risk that they don't accept, it's their life your risking so they have entitlements.

Quote:

---

The law states that since Draco crashed into you from behind it would automatically be his fault and thus vehicular manslaughter. Wonder if Lewk would fry 'im?

---

I don't think he would fry him but that does bring interesting questions on, if we did make it optional, if that should be sufficient to constitute manslaughter. Or what if a person buys some lame small car and dies in the hit? But if you had hit a bigger car both would have lived. Is it really fair to penalize on the consequence of the action, as opposed to the statistically reasonable harm of the action? I guess on net it all levels out, but it's kinda lame to think for the same crime one person would face a heavy penalty another little by sheer luck. hmmmm...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Maybe?

Anyway, not wearing seat belts can result in the death of others.

Not making a point but: Heard a story once that my girlfriend's father lost a friend due to no seat belt. He got flung half-way through the sun-roof and his body had to be removed from getting stuck inside the sun-roof :Puke:

---

Driving large trucks and SUV's can cause deaths too. Should we ban them? The likely chance of a person being flung from a vehicle to smash into another vehicle and kill someone that way is pretty far fetched. Might as well ban all nuclear power since something "might" happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

You're not talking about seatbelts here, really wish you would stay focused.

---

Gee and I thought the OP was about brothels.... ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Driving large trucks and SUV's can cause deaths too.

---

Which is why we have laws concerning how to drive, and who is in the wrong when collisions happen, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Illusions

Which is why we have laws concerning how to drive, and who is in the wrong when collisions happen, etc.

---

Yes but the mere fact that someone is driving a massive vehicle makes them more likely to kill people even if they obey every rule of the road. Should we ban those vehicles to save lives unless they are needed for commercial purposes? After all the goal is to slave lives and freedom be damned right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

Ah, the precious principles. So, you're willing to let people DIE for your precious principles? Especially when faced with the fact that there's NO practical downside?

---

People aren't dying for his precious principles, people are dying because they lack the intelligence, foresight, or will to buckle their seat belts, regardless of whether or not there is a law on the books.

Quote:

---

Yes but the mere fact that someone is driving a massive vehicle makes them more likely to kill people even if they obey every rule of the road. Should we ban those vehicles to save lives unless they are needed for commercial purposes? After all the goal is to slave lives and freedom be damned right?

---

To be frank it's not helpful to think of terms of freedom and not freedom, but rather it is better to think of terms of degrees and tradeoffs.

I place the restirction on myself that I will not kill someone else for a certain exchange, they will do the same for me etc... and I openly and freely bind myself to this agreement, this restriction because of the benefits. That happens to be a inherantly immoral act, but some acts which aren't neccessarily inherantly immoral like the speed limit of a given street do become a moral issues when you've given your word to follow the speed limit, and are most definitely a legal issue when you've agreed to it and accepted to living in your community.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

People aren't dying for his precious principles, people are dying because they lack the intelligence, foresight, or will to buckle their seat belts, regardless of whether or not there is a law on the books.

---

You did ignore everything I posted, did you? Yes, you did.

Once more, so you won't ignore it this time:
Germany, 1970s. Seatbelts not mandatory. No impact on death rates.
Germany, 1980s. Seatbelts mandatory. Huge impact on death rates.

Now, strangely enough, the law had an impact. With that in mind, I wonder how anyone in their right mind can spout drivel like "regardless of the law", when reality clearly shows otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

You did ignore everything I posted, did you? Yes, you did.

Once more, so you won't ignore it this time:
Germany, 1970s. Seatbelts not mandatory. No impact on death rates.
Germany, 1980s. Seatbelts mandatory. Huge impact on death rates.

---

Great. Now what does that have to do with what I posted? People aren't dying for his ideology, no matter how you hard you try to twist the argument to that effect. People are dying because they make bad choices.

Quote:

---

Now, strangely enough, the law had an impact. With that in mind, I wonder how anyone in their right mind can spout drivel like "regardless of the law", when reality clearly shows otherwise.

---

Sure, laws can have impacts. There are any number of things you can ban that would probably save lives, starting with banning alcohol and ending with outlawing pointy sticks.

The efficacy of a law exists outside of and apart from its morality.

A discussion on prostitution and seatbelt laws - A strange combination. Perhaps brothels should exchange a whip for a seatbelt for someone like Draco, it might make him feel extra horny knowing he's being erotically stimulated by the government. If all else fails, he'd be a good poster child for safe sex. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Yes but the mere fact that someone is driving a massive vehicle makes them more likely to kill people even if they obey every rule of the road. Should we ban those vehicles to save lives unless they are needed for commercial purposes? After all the goal is to slave lives and freedom be damned right?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

There is such a black and white disconnect here...it feels like I'm conversing with a grade schooler who just finished watching their first episode of School House Rock.

Supporting laws that protect people from others who want to act like morons, no matter how personal, does not mean you have to support the government controlling everything.
Selt belts save lives and money, and not just of the user. You don't see anyone here that supports seatbelts advocating that fast cars should be outlawed, or even RPM limited. Supporting emissions testing does not mean you support outlawing the top x% of polluters (even though the USA does that).
No one here (besides Rand) has supported outlawing smoking, but its still easy enough to support laws that protect the innocent from having to deal with 2nd hand smoke.
Its about the citizen's ability to make a personal, wise, decision about themselves and/or property. Drinking, smoking, guns, they all count. Seatbelts don't, because no one gets up in the morning and decides "hey, today I feel like T-Boning someone at that annoying intersection". You don't get to decide in the middle of an accident if you want to try out that government required seatbelt or not.

tl;dr:
Stop acting like an idiot.

---

Its almost as if you're actively trying to be a moron, and you're doing it so hard, that you're ignoring posts that already address these weak ass statements you're making.

Dangerous doesn't mean illegal. Everything to some degree can be deemed dangerous in some capacity, so lets nip that thought in the bud before you start thinking its a valid rebuttle. Why do you think we have classes, certifications, laws? People can make wise decisions on how to merge their 4 ton truck into traffic without killing someone. You can't make a wise decision on the best way to get thrown from an accident.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

Great. Now what does that have to do with what I posted? People aren't dying for his ideology, no matter how you hard you try to twist the argument to that effect. People are dying because they make bad choices.

---

You still do not understand it. Yes, people make bad choices. HOWEVER, with such laws, they make LESS bad choices. Capiche?

It also has been demonstrated in this very thread that going "Freedom! Ra ra ra!" is a very moronic thing to do because we also accept restrictions to other "freedoms" without such moronic complaints.

Or do you really want your neighbour to have a fission bomb in his backyard?

God damn it, if I build a road then I should damned well be allowed to demand that anyone who uses it wears a seat-belt. If you have a problem with that, if you for some reason value your freedom from belts so greatly (you goddamned teen rebel) then you're free to build your own goddamned road.

Now hand over your bottle of shampoo and prepare to be groped, for freedom :up:

I'll allow hookers if you allow hooker-unions and make membership mandatory.

Oh man imagine the picket lines and slogans!

Sluts for Justice - "Over shagged and under paid" :up:

Well, no matter how liberal you are you can't deny the sex industry is problematic. Even in those parts of the world where prostitution is legal it is still not a business like any other. And that means it attracts people whose work ethics are not exactly standard. It means that there are still a lot of people around those who do the actual work are profiting from it and it also means that workers are forced to do it.

OG:

Quote:

---

People can make wise decisions on how to merge their 4 ton truck into traffic without killing someone. You can't make a wise decision on the best way to get thrown from an accident.

---

Ah so people can make wise decisions now? That kind of throws out the argument that we need laws for seat belts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

OG:


Ah so people can make wise decisions now? That kind of throws out the argument that we need laws for seat belts.

---

Strangely enough, this particular wise decision on how to merge their truck into traffic is helped along by several laws on how to drive a truck safely.

Ball's in your court.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

Strangely enough, this particular wise decision on how to merge their truck into traffic is helped along by several laws on how to drive a truck safely.

Ball's in your court.

---

Reckless driving endangers others. Laws therefore on that are acceptable. Not wearing your seat belt does not endanger others in a realistic way. Sure a one in a million chance could exist of someone being thrown through their vehicle to hit someone else but we can't make laws on super rare unlikely occurrence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Reckless driving endangers others. Laws therefore on that are acceptable. Not wearing your seat belt does not endanger others in a realistic way.

---

You don't believe laws should exist to protect the insurance provider from financial harm? You advocated a death penalty to protect proprietors and homeowners from theft. Surely you can see how that might be construed as inconsistent.

I also don't think there should be a law obliging adult people to wear seatbelts. I could imagine an insurer demanding it in its policy, or the law requiring it for minors in your car. But there is no reason why the state should impose using seatbelts on adults.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

That kind of throws out the argument that we need laws for seat belts.

---

only if you're an idiot and missed the point.

Merging a vehicle into traffic is the government trusting their citizens to operate their vehicle in a safe and friendly way. The citizen is making a decision, completely on their own, not to ram the shit out of the mini cooper doing 25 mph in front of them.
There is no trust, no decision making, no control, displayed when someone is ejected from an accident. You're injurying innocent people for something that is uncontrollable, unpredictable, random. The laws regarding seatbelt use are there to reduce the randomness of innocents getting injuried because of something outside of their control.

Quote:

---

Not wearing your seat belt does not endanger others in a realistic way.

---

two classic Lewks in one sentence, amazing! Blowing off concepts he is unable to mentally process or understand, and selective reading; guess you missed all the talk about how people riding in the backseat become human pinball missiles in an accident. Sorta the reverse of this:



Going from front to back, you end up with some broken noses and ackward landing positions. Going from back to front, you end up snapping some fucking necks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Being

You don't believe laws should exist to protect the insurance provider from financial harm? You advocated a death penalty to protect proprietors and homeowners from theft. Surely you can see how that might be construed as inconsistent.

---

No, those companies are perfectly capable of securing their own interests.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

I also don't think there should be a law obliging adult people to wear seatbelts. I could imagine an insurer demanding it in its policy, or the law requiring it for minors in your car. But there is no reason why the state should impose using seatbelts on adults.

---

The state does it at the behest of the insurance lobby. Are you saying that legislators should confound their constituents?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

(...) Sure a one in a million chance could exist of someone being thrown through their vehicle to hit someone else but we can't make laws on super rare unlikely occurrence.

---

What about the other prospects? Being ejected from your seat will screw you up one way or another regardless. It's a seat belt, it takes a few seconds to put on .... what is the issue?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

No, those companies are perfectly capable of securing their own interests.

---

Law leaves no room for mitigating the offence and reduces court costs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lor

What about the other prospects? Being ejected from your seat will screw you up one way or another regardless. It's a seat belt, it takes a few seconds to put on .... what is the issue?

---

It's plain stupidity. They're willing to sacrifice human lives for their almighty God "Freedom".

Besides, they're still free not to wear a seat belt. Before the law there was one possible result: They could die. After the law there are now two possible consequences: They could die or be fined.

Which means that the decision of not wearing a seat belt does not really yield different consequences - you still may be punished for it, just not necessarily with your life. Which means that you have shifted a certain percentage of the punishment from lethal to fiscal.

Or, to use a popular slashdot meme: And nothing of value was lost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

You still do not understand it. Yes, people make bad choices. HOWEVER, with such laws, they make LESS bad choices. Capiche?

---

I guess it's easier to not read the entire post.

Quote:

---

It also has been demonstrated in this very thread that going "Freedom! Ra ra ra!" is a very moronic thing to do because we also accept restrictions to other "freedoms" without such moronic complaints.

Or do you really want your neighbour to have a fission bomb in his backyard?

---

If my neighbor could reasonably secure the bomb, get the right permits, and demonstrate that there was no threat to myself, or those in the blast radius, then sure, have at it.