Sin, what you’re saying is true, and I had honestly not thought about this in that close a detail. I simply viewed facts and applied them, like I said, as a devil’s advocate type of thing. This thread had only one side of an issue going, so I chose to throw in the other side, just in case.
Sin, don’t be a dick. He didn’t deserve to die. Buckle your seatbelt.
I’m not being a dick :P. The moron should’ve thought more about this.
And Arac, its not because an issue may be 1 sided that its ALWAYS a bad thing. While it is good to ask if something is bad, presenting a false argument doesn’t help the debate because it doesn’t help disprove the point being made. Arguing for the sake of arguing is pointless. In this case, seat belts are not something that’s smart to argue from an injury stand point. You can be free to take a civil liberties stance on it and then it becomes a debate about your right to put yourself in a situation that very well may get you killed or severely injured and we’re all jacking off at our own opinions.
But your point doesn’t stand. Sure, it might hurt in a minor accident, but when you end up in a serious accident and just get badly hurt, you’ll be quite thanful for the seatbelt.
For those who still believe that a minor “civil liberty”, which in this case isn’t even an issue, well… they can go do us all a favor and earn themselves a Darwin Award.
Unless, of course, you’re in the back seat. Then you have a good chance of taking someone with you. That’s pretty damned selfish. Risking other’s lives for your own “principles” for what is essentially a minor issue? If someone’s going to do that, sorry, they have no right to life. And I’ll be quite happy that they’re dead.
Take it how you will. I’m not going to soften my views over it. It’s not like we’re being oppressed here.
I agree that Sin’s not being a dick.
Howver, I wasn’t really arguing for the sake of arguing. I was more placing in other facts I could find against the main arguments because many people are too wrapped up in their own beliefs to find the counter-arguments, and thus never know an unbiased view. I thoughtI would put up the best counter-arguments I could find (as you said, these aren’t very good. This is because there were no good counter-arguments to waering them, except for a chance of severe injury in rare circumstance, apparently, which may not even been correctly taken data), so that people would at least see the other side. I’m not trying to convince anybody, just trying to point out another view; ‘You never understand your side until you stand inside your opponents,’ as Confuscious said it. This may not make much sense, but what I’m trying to say is, I’m not really trying to argue, just trying to point out another set of ‘facts’ to the topic.
EDIT: Just for the record, I personally wear a steat-belt, and believe in them, however strongy disagree that people should be required by law to wear them.
Well, chew on this, Arac. If a the person in the driver or passanger seat isn’t wearing a seatbelt, they might hurt other people. It would not be that hard for a person without a seatbelt to go flying backwards into the people in the back seat (or people in the back flying forwards into the front seat) causing injury or death to those who are buckling their seatbelts and, in all likelihood, the people that aren’t. To say that seatbelts infringe on someone’s civil liberties is like saying that swinging a gigantic hammer around aimlessly is your right, if you so choose to.
In a crowded mall even.
Fine, but I strongly disagree with my insurance going up because of the increased number of injuries sustained by people not wearing seatbelts. I also strongly disagree with the increased risk of injury or death at the hands of another driver who is too busy trying to maintain his position in his seat after he lost control of his car, rather than try to fix the situation. I also strongly disagree with having to wait through masses of traffic because of what may have originally been a crash resulting in a damaged car has turned into a fatality and backed up the highway for miles.
Okay, what’s something you believe strongly about?
Your asking him that so you can use whatever he says he feels strongly about to say it could cause his death like this guy, right? I might be wrong thouth, but if I’m not, then it doesn’t change anything, it’s his choice.
Personally, I do think it’s more tragic than ironic…it really is sad. No matter what the guy thought, it’s still a terrible thing. However, I can see why Sin would response like that. I mean, my Dad might say the same thing. It’s his fault. He might be being slightly insensitive but, well, he’s right. I’m one to just see the whole sadness revolving around the ordeal. 4.0, likes to debate, smart kid, dead, just because…that’s what he chose. He knew the risks, and this guy was being pretty insensitive about the subject of seat belts as well.
“It only saves 6,500 lives a year.” I mean, why would anyone say something like that?
Evolution.
meow?
I know. Seriously dude 
Completely without sarcasm, I can say I agree with this statement whole-heartedly.
Not only is there the fact that almost no one will choose to do so, others will have rights to protect themselves (if hammer boy’s a threat to your life…), and, finally, if you aren’t wary of someone entering a room with a gigantic hammer, and don’t know to get away from them when they raise it, chances are, you wouldn’t survive long anyway, given the complete lack of instinct and observation skills.
Some rich asshole who I didn’t even get a fucking choice in the empowerment of should not, and does not, make my decisions. Nor should he make the decisions of anyone else who is not EXACTLY like him, unless they specificalyl tell him to do so. A large group of this type of person is even worse for making my decisions, because any group of more than three people will disagree on such trivial points that the decisions made will make no fucking sense, and be incredibly, flexibly, restrictive.
I believe very, very strongly, that no government, or any body of people, should be able to decide things for another body of people.
So, anarchy.
Ah yes. Let’s not get into the “there’s a government but there’s no government” deal, ok?
The fact is, that the descision’s made because people are too self-centered to think that “hey, maybe it’s not my right not to wear a seat belt because I could put others at risk.”
I could use that same line of thought to justify driving down I-75 high, drunk, and at 100 miles an hour in the weather I’m in, despite the fact that I have no liscense. After all, it’s my right to drive a car, right?
If you’re driving alone, that’s one thing. You’re just wasting taxpayer dollars or causing unnessecary grief at that. It’s another thing when you’re driving with others. Now you’re putting others at risk, wasting more taxpayer dollars, and causing more unnessecary grief. Joy. If you’re really that selfish, go kill yourself plzkthx. Save others the trouble of mocking your stupidity.
Of course, this is if you get into an accident. And chances are, you will at some time in your life, so why argue against it? The descision’s been made because it’s just stupid not to do it, for yourself and others.
Well yes, but the fact is, I shouldn’t have to worry about someone coming in with said hammer. Or a gun. Or whatever. That’s why such laws are in place.
I don’t, anyways, because if it happens, it happens. People are jackasses like that. But that’s beside the point.
It’s not your right to swing the hammer around aimlessly like a maniac in a crowded mall, because you’re quite simply a public threat.
I shouldn’t have to worry about someone coming in and not buckling up, because it’s common sense, and not doing so is making yourself a threat to others and yourself, for no reason at all than “well, it’s my RIGHT.”
I could deal with your argument that if it hadn’t been shown that seatbelts DO save lives, in pretty much ALL situations. But it has, so there’s no argument besides the specious and selfish “It’s my right not to wear one.”
Notice how many people still ‘come in’ with a hammer, a gun, or whatever? Those laws work damn well. The truth is, people don’t obey laws, they obey their morals, and a fear of consequence. Knowing that someone would defend themself seems like consequence as much as arrest (edit: does). If I want to drink, the law isn’t going to stop me. If I really, deeply, want to kill someone, the law wouldn’t stop me. In the case of killing someone, my morals would probably stop me, but the law sure as hell wouldn’t.
Arac, find a book called Leviathan by a guy called Hobbes.
You don’t seem to realize that laws are simply a formalized set of morals. Thirty years in prison makes you think twice about killing someone, doesn’t it? You’d have to be really motivated to actually kill someone, wouldn’t you? That is the reason why laws are in place.
No, but as you mentioned, people do fear consequence, and that is what the laws are for. “You do this, you get this.” Not to mention an organized way to enforce it.
So, we should abandon the law because some people refuse to follow it?
Fine, I now refuse to follow murder laws. Let’s abandon them too.