• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Seat Belt Laws

Your Opinion:

  • One federal seat belt law for everyone in the vehicle

    Votes: 15 23.1%

  • One federal seat belt law, but just for children

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Leave it up to the states to decide seat belt laws

    Votes: 24 36.9%

  • There should be no seat belt laws for adults

    Votes: 20 30.8%

  • Something else

    Votes: 6 9.2%
  • Total voters
    65
misterman said:
Um, I just explained how.
Click to expand...

No you didn't. Why would they not lock you up to keep you safe? Because you personally reject it? Why would they care? You gave them permission to use preventive techniques so why not throw you all in a cell to keep you safe? Seems like the best approach to me.
 
Ikari said:
Get over yourself. Don't make retarded arguments if you don't want your arguments called retarded.
Click to expand...

You are insulting real people when you use that term. Don't be an asshole. Just debate.

I pay all sorts of **** that other people use already. What's the point? We're not buyer pays on some things, else we wouldn't be taxed for certain things and everyone would buy access when they needed access. Tax dollars support a lot of "idiocy" and people taking advantage of the system, and what have you. Doesn't distract from what I said. The government is not here to protect me from me. I can make choices, and if there are negative consequences to those choices than so be it. But just because you want to use government force here doesn't mean that you can strip taxpayers of their ability to engage in tax funded programs. As I said, that's retarded.
Click to expand...

You aren't entitled to use my tax money to subsidize being stupid. That's why I support a waiver that people like you could sign to waive all your rights to an taxpayer-supported care, from medical to welfare, in the event that you are injured or killed without wearing a seatbelt. And that includes support for your family if you die.
 
Henrin said:
No you didn't. Why would they not lock you up to keep you safe? Because you personally reject it? Why would they care? You gave them permission to use preventive techniques so why not throw you all in a cell to keep you safe? Seems like the best approach to me.
Click to expand...

Because the cost to you exceeds the benefits. I explained that clearly. I was talking about the cost to citizens, not to the government. The cost of locking you up isn't worth the benefit to you. The cost imposed on you by making you wear a belt around your waist is small though. Pretty clear.
 
Henrin said:
So they committed crimes? So why not just deal with those crimes?

No, government is the collective organization of the legal defense of our rights and liberties. How does your prevention techniques maintain liberty?
Click to expand...

Strawing up a comparison of drugs to seatbelts is ridiculous. You really need to hone your arguments, Henrin. And, by your own definition (which I do not necessary accept), if the responsibility of government is the legal defense of our rights and liberties, my right to peaceful enjoyment trumps candy up your nose.
 
misterman said:
You are insulting real people when you use that term. Don't be an asshole. Just debate.
Click to expand...

No, I was insulting your argument when I used that term. Please learn to comprehend English.

misterman said:
You aren't entitled to use my tax money to subsidize being stupid. That's why I support a waiver that people like you could sign to waive all your rights to an taxpayer-supported care, from medical to welfare, in the event that you are injured or killed without wearing a seatbelt. And that includes support for your family if you die.
Click to expand...

No. I pay so much money to keep other people's kids educated, to fund emergency agencies I don't use, some that I don't even want, to fund undeclared wars against foreign States. I subsidize married people's mortgages and a plethora of other money I pay into which goes towards government programs and societal needs. I even pay for the very agencies which would have to hose me off the road should I wreck. Done and paid. Just because you don't like the choice doesn't mean that you can try to enact government force against it.
 
misterman said:
You are insulting real people when you use that term. Don't be an asshole. Just debate.

You aren't entitled to use my tax money to subsidize being stupid. That's why I support a waiver that people like you could sign to waive all your rights to an taxpayer-supported care, from medical to welfare, in the event that you are injured or killed without wearing a seatbelt. And that includes support for your family if you die.
Click to expand...

Just plain silly. #1, a waiver would be ridiculously impossible to track; #2, nobody's going to verify if someone has signed your idiotic waiver before calling an ambulance; #3, addressing your last sentence, SURPRISE!! You can't waive someone else's rights.
 
misterman said:
Because the cost to you exceeds the benefits. I explained that clearly. I was talking about the cost to citizens, not to the government. The cost of locking you up isn't worth the benefit to you. The cost imposed on you by making you wear a belt around your waist is small though. Pretty clear.
Click to expand...

So how has this limiter of yours worked out so far? Just admit the premise is faulty. The truth is you can't stop them from doing exactly what I said and no amount of arguing over benefit to cost balances are going to make it so you can. They don't care about your balance that you personally set up. Why in the hell would they?
 
Josie said:
Not comparable. If you choose to not wear your seat belt, you aren't in danger of hurting anyone but yourself. If you do meth or heroine, it's very likely that you could hurt someone else.
Click to expand...

Simply untrue.

The cost of treating belted drivers as opposed to non-belted ones is quite less expensive. So if you choose to drive without wearing a seatbelt, you will be responsible for driving up the cost for medical services. That in turn would affect insurance rates for everyone, no?

Also, people who don't belt up often find themselves flying out of the windshield. I'd say the odds are pretty good that this alone can cause another accident.
 
Ikari said:
No, I was insulting your argument when I used that term. Please learn to comprehend English.
Click to expand...

You were using the mentally retarded as the insult though. You insult them when you say that.

No. I pay so much money to keep other people's kids educated, to fund emergency agencies I don't use, some that I don't even want, to fund undeclared wars against foreign States. I subsidize married people's mortgages and a plethora of other money I pay into which goes towards government programs and societal needs. I even pay for the very agencies which would have to hose me off the road should I wreck. Done and paid. Just because you don't like the choice doesn't mean that you can try to enact government force against it.
Click to expand...

Yes, I can. I definitely can. You are not entitled to use my tax funds to subsidize your stupidity. You want to use the roads I help pay for and the many government services provided to those disabled or killed by car accidents, you must conform to laws that keep us safe, including your own safety. Deal with it.
 
Henrin said:
So how has this limiter of yours worked out so far?
Click to expand...

Pretty well. Last time I checked, the govt. required us to wear seat belts, but doesn't require us to stay locked up in our homes.
 
MaggieD said:
Strawing up a comparison of drugs to seatbelts is ridiculous. You really need to hone your arguments, Henrin.
Click to expand...

How in the hell did I straw it up and it wasn't my comparison. Read the damn thread for once. This is the second stupid mistake you made here.

And, by your own definition (which I do not necessary accept), if the responsibility of government is the legal defense of our rights and liberties, my right to peaceful enjoyment trumps candy up your nose.
Click to expand...

What?
 
misterman said:
Pretty well. Last time I checked, the govt. required us to wear seat belts, but doesn't require us to stay locked up in our homes.
Click to expand...

But in certain states its illegal to smoke in your home, they spy on you in the streets, listen to your phone calls, can jail you without trial...should I go on?
 
misterman said:
You were using the mentally retarded as the insult though. You insult them when you say that.
Click to expand...

No, you just imagine that so as to play the "Holier than thou" card. STFU, I don't give a crap. Retarded means slowed. In relation to your argument, it means dimwitted. We use the term "retarded potential" in physics....does that make fun of the mentally handicapped as well?

misterman said:
Yes, I can. I definitely can. You are not entitled to use my tax funds to subsidize your stupidity. You want to use the roads I help pay for and the many government services provided to those disabled or killed by car accidents, you must conform to laws that keep us safe, including your own safety. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

You're not entitled to my tax funds to raise your family, yet we do it. You have no just reason to take away services I've paid for because you do not like how I exercise freedom. That level of fascism is detrimental to this very Republic.
 
So I can't choose to put myself at greater risk because that might cost taxpayers more money, but I also don't have a choice to pay taxes that might help pay for healthcare?
 
Ikari said:
Retarded means slowed.
Click to expand...

You meant it as an insult though. You don't mean that my argument is slowed. You mean it compares to someone who is mentally retarded.

In relation to your argument, it means dimwitted. We use the term "retarded potential" in physics....does that make fun of the mentally handicapped as well?
Click to expand...

No, but you're not using it that way.

Retarded is an insult because it compares you to the mentally retarded. It's not just a random word.

You're not entitled to my tax funds to raise your family, yet we do it. You have no just reason to take away services I've paid for because you do not like how I exercise freedom. That level of fascism is detrimental to this very Republic.
Click to expand...

Oh, STFU with your holier-than-thou attitude. You want freedom? You're free to pay your own way when your skull is crushed because you're too stupid to simply put on a seatbelt. You want that "freedom" to not wear a stupid belt around your waist that bad, have at it.
 
Last edited:
misterman said:
If you're in the street, it's not spying, by definition. Anyone can look at you in the street.
Click to expand...

But being outside does not mean the government can justly attach GPS devices to me to monitor my movements at all times.

misterman said:
Not without a warrant.
Click to expand...

Did you miss the whole "warrantless search" debate and how Bush used it and how Obama expanded it?

misterman said:
No they can't.
Click to expand...

Did you not just see what Obama signed into law? America is defined as a battlefield now. All the government has to do is label us as terrorist or enemy or any other definition they have which enacts their laws and we CAN be held indefinitely without trial.
 
misterman said:
You meant it as an insult though.
Click to expand...

Of course it was. It being an insult doesn't mean it references mentally handicapped. It means someone who should have the full function of their brain made and incredibly idiotic, slow, and dimwitted argument. It certainly wasn't a compliment.

misterman said:
No, but you're not using it that way.

Retarded is an insult because it compares you to the mentally retarded. It's not just a random word.
Click to expand...

Retarded potentials are slow potentials. Your argument was as well.

Regardless, it doesn't matter. I am not bound to your thought control.

misterman said:
Oh, STFU with your holier-than-thou attitude. You want freedom? You're free to pay your own way when your skull is crushed because you're too stupid to simply put on a seatbelt. You want that "freedom" to not wear a stupid belt around your waist that bad, have at it.
Click to expand...

If everyone paid their own way without tax payer subsidy, I would have no problem with that. I do have problems with paying for other people, and then being denied access to services I already pay for because some jerk thinks his high horse on his soap box is so cool that he should be able to take away my money and give me no services merely for the choices I have made which have not infringed upon the rights of others. As soon as I'm not paying for your kids, subsidizing your mortgage, helping to educate your kids, paying for park services and roads that families use well more often than me, etc. perhaps I'll entertain your argument.
 
Josie said:
I chose that there should be no seat belt laws for adults. If you want to put yourself in danger, fine.
Click to expand...

But you are putting other people in the car in danger as well by not wearing a seat belt, especially in the back seat. If an accident occurs and you do not have a seat belt on, you now become an unsecured projectile within that car. Your body, especially your skull, can now hit others in the car, causing serious injuries, including brain damage.
 
misterman said:
Where?
Click to expand...

Belmont California. Though you have to complain about a smoker for them to show up about it.

If you're in the street, it's not spying, by definition. Anyone can look at you in the street.
Click to expand...

The camera is watching your every move. By definition that is spying.

Not without a warrant.
Click to expand...

False. Even with the warrant it is spying so it changes nothing.

No they can't.
Click to expand...

They just did it. How can they not?
 
roguenuke said:
But you are putting other people in the car in danger as well by not wearing a seat belt, especially in the back seat. If an accident occurs and you do not have a seat belt on, you now become an unsecured projectile within that car. Your body, especially your skull, can now hit others in the car, causing serious injuries, including brain damage.
Click to expand...

Not just within the vehicle, but outside of it as well, as many individuals who aren't secured are thrown from the vehicle through a door or the windshield.
 
Can't believe we're having a retarded conversation about the word retard instead of the actual topic at hand.
 
Henrin said:
Belmont California. Though you have to complain about a smoker for them to show up about it.
Click to expand...

Applies to apartments, not "homes" in general. Others living in those apartment buildings are exposed to second hand smoke just due to living in that building.
 
So if I understand the argument being put up by folks who support seat belt laws, because the desicion to not wear a seat belt could possibly result in more serious injuries that could possibly be paid for by the taxpayers government coercion is justified. If I'm wrong here, please correct me.

But assuming I understand the argument correctly, then why don't we ban alcohol? I'm sure we spend faaaaar more tax dollars dealing with the after affects of alcohol use like drunk driving, drunken crimes, and the health costs of alcohol abuse. Tobacco is also probably more costly. Unhealthy foods probably are too. Lack of exercise. Unsafe sex. Should we start regulating all of these things too in the name of keeping shared costs down? If not, where and how do you draw the line? I've always been curious as to how people who advocate more and more government regulations of our day to day lives draw the line between enough government and too much government. I've always suspected for most folks the line is right around things I like and things I don't like, but perhaps I'm wrong.

Seat belts are a good idea, but if someone choses not to wear one it does not have a major impact on the society. I'm guessing as a percentage the money spent on treating injuries seat belts could've prevented is very minimal.
 
Psychoclown said:
So if I understand the argument being put up by folks who support seat belt laws, because the desicion to not wear a seat belt could possibly result in more serious injuries that could possibly be paid for by the taxpayers government coercion is justified. If I'm wrong here, please correct me.
Click to expand...

That's part of the reason, but that's not the whole justification.

But assuming I understand the argument correctly, then why don't we ban alcohol? I'm sure we spend faaaaar more tax dollars dealing with the after affects of alcohol use like drunk driving, drunken crimes, and the health costs of alcohol abuse. Tobacco is also probably more costly. Unhealthy foods probably are too. Lack of exercise. Unsafe sex. Should we start regulating all of these things too in the name of keeping shared costs down? If not, where and how do you draw the line? I've always been curious as to how people who advocate more and more government regulations of our day to day lives draw the line between enough government and too much government. I've always suspected for most folks the line is right around things I like and things I don't like, but perhaps I'm wrong.

Seat belts are a good idea, but if someone choses not to wear one it does not have a major impact on the society. I'm guessing as a percentage the money spent on treating injuries seat belts could've prevented is very minimal.
Click to expand...

We tried that, we all know what happened.

A better analogy for the seat belt argument would be if we got rid of drunk driving laws.

Edit: at the end of the day, seat belt laws are more about safety than anything else. That's how I see it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom