Reid Goes After Brothels

[Lor]

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.

[Ominous Gamer]

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?

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.

[Khendraja'aro]

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?

[Aimless]

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.

[Aimless]

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

[Aimless]

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

[Lor]

Oh man imagine the picket lines and slogans!

Sluts for Justice - "Over shagged and under paid"

[Hazir]

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.

[Lewkowski]

OG:

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.

[Khendraja'aro]

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.

[Lewkowski]

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.

[Being]

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.

[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.

[Ominous Gamer]

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.

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.

[Hazir]

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.

[Being]

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?

[Lor]

(...) 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?

[Being]

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

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

[Khendraja'aro]

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.

[Enoch the Red]

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.

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.

[Being]

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.

That wouldn't be "Freedom! Ra ra ra!" now would it?

[Enoch the Red]

That wouldn't be "Freedom! Ra ra ra!" now would it?

Why wouldn't it? I'm not opposed to requiring drivers licenses for driving, why would ownership of a fission bomb be any different?

[Illusions]

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.

So your rebuttal to the idea that everyone allows for the placement of restrictions on certain freedoms in order to keep society safe, is to point out that you'd be okay with someone owning said nuclear device I'd used in my earlier example that Khen was citing...but only so long as there are certain restrictions that render it safe to society...

Why wouldn't it? I'm not opposed to requiring drivers licenses for driving, why would ownership of a fission bomb be any different?

Because the gist of the argument isn't that nuclear weapons are bad, but using the absurdity of the situation to demonstrate that nearly everyone places restrictions on freedoms, or at least would like the government or someone else to do so, so that Lewk and Draco will stop trotting out the debate tactic where they equate all freedoms as equal, that they stand for freedom, and its only their opponents/LIBERALS! that would like to restrict freedoms.

[Veldan Rath]

Can we just go back to talking about whores again?

[sheadunne]

Can we just go back to talking about whores again?

Can't we call them companions and let them start their own guild?

[GGT]

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

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

And the states like the revenue from citations, whether or not there's an accident.

Some use the same logic to justify legalizing prostitution (and/or drugs): regulate and tax the industry. Make it safer for prostitutes, and get state revenue. Win/Win.

Not sure how that relates to the Freeeeedom Rah Rah angle, though.

[Veldan Rath]

Can't we call them companions and let them start their own guild?

Shiney!

[Being]

Why wouldn't it? I'm not opposed to requiring drivers licenses for driving, why would ownership of a fission bomb be any different?

Because "Freedom! Ra ra ra!" doesn't pick and choose between restrictions on the freedom to drive such as seatbelt requirements, insurance requirements, licensing requirements, and speed limits, it's against all such restrictions. If seatbelt requirements are bad for "Freedom! Ra ra ra!", insurance requirements must be devastating.

Oh, and I vote for whorederves.

[Nessus]

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.

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.

At least over here booze is pretty heavily taxed, which limits people's willingness to consume large amounts of it. It is of course possible to become a full blown alcoholic even in Finland as you can see from my example, but society does try to limit people making a bad choice when it comes to alcohol use. I'm pretty sure you have some restrictions on who to sell booze to and that you can't drive drunk and so on. Of course as both our countries noted in grotesque social experiments, out-right banning booze has too many negative side effects to make the health benefits worthwhile.

The negative impact of forcing people to wear a seat belt seems to be people complaining about it on the Internet. Am I missing others?

The morality of a nation state has to be different from the morality of one individual human.

[Veldan Rath]

Eh, I'm not big (13% ) on morals.


More hip to ethics.