• 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
roguenuke said:
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.
Click to expand...

Apartments are the place they are living for those people. The same exact argument you are making could be made for homes in general as other people could be living in the home. My argument stands.
 
How about this: seat belt and motorcycle helmet laws apply, but you are exempt from them if you are certified as a organ donor.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Edit: at the end of the day, seat belt laws are more about safety than anything else. That's how I see it.
Click to expand...

It's fundraising. Another law to violate, another fine to hand out. This is particularly true in places where seat belt violations are a primary law; meaning you can be pulled over merely for not having it on.
 
StillBallin75 said:
Can't believe we're having a retarded conversation about the word retard instead of the actual topic at hand.
Click to expand...

The thought police never let an opportunity go by to try to control another's thoughts.
 
rathi said:
How about this: seat belt and motorcycle helmet laws apply, but you are exempt from them if you are certified as a organ donor.
Click to expand...

Woot! I am an organ donor. Oddly, I always wear my seat belt in the car, but rarely do I wear my helmet on my motorcycle. Relatively speaking, the no helmet is far greater risk to my life than no seat belt
 
Henrin said:
Apartments are the place they are living for those people. The same exact argument you are making could be made for homes in general as other people could be living in the home. My argument stands.
Click to expand...

Not totally. You are affecting someone else's health by smoking.

Now, I don't agree with smoking bans outside. The chances of a person actually being forced to be exposed to second hand smoke from a smoker smoking outside is small. Not so for being inside and the same air basically being circulated throughout the building, even if the building is a pretty good size apartment building.
 
Ikari said:
But being outside does not mean the government can justly attach GPS devices to me to monitor my movements at all times.
Click to expand...

Okay.

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

No, but I agree that's wrong.

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.
Click to expand...

Actually, no, they seem to have fixed that law as far as I can tell. See the other threads on this subject.
 
Ikari said:
Of course it was. It being an insult doesn't mean it references mentally handicapped.
Click to expand...

Of course it does.

The insult wouldn't exist if it hadn't been first used to refer to the mentally retarded. That's where the insult came from.

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

Never said you were. I simply asked you not to use it.

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.
Click to expand...

But educating other people's kids benefits you too. Park services are open to your use as often as anyone else.

As for the other things, feel free to make a law banning those. On the other hand, the government already make plenty of laws requiring you to, for instance, keep your property in a working, safe state too in order to protect others and reduce demand on government services - do you oppose those too?
 
misterman said:
Actually, no, they seem to have fixed that law as far as I can tell. See the other threads on this subject.
Click to expand...

Yeah...they "fixed it". Sure they did. Abuse of power never happens.
 
Ikari said:
Yeah...they "fixed it". Sure they did. Abuse of power never happens.
Click to expand...

Of course abuse of power happens, but by that logic, we'd never give the government any power at all or pass any laws, since they could be abused.

It was "fixed" to not apply to U.S. citizens or on U.S. soil. I'm not saying it's a good law otherwise.
 
misterman said:
But educating other people's kids benefits you too. Park services are open to your use as often as anyone else.
Click to expand...

Then University should be free for all, yes?

misterman said:
As for the other things, feel free to make a law banning those. On the other hand, the government already make plenty of laws requiring you to, for instance, keep your property in a working, safe state too in order to protect others and reduce demand on government services - do you oppose those too?
Click to expand...

When does the government keep "property in working, safe state", have you seen Detroit? That's mostly dilapidated by this point.
 
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...

Well, you could just make just about anything illegal with that logic.
 
Josie said:
Well, you could just make just about anything illegal with that logic.
Click to expand...

This is where a cost/benefit analysis comes in handy.
 
Ikari said:
Then University should be free for all, yes?
Click to expand...

That doesn't follow.

There are community colleges open to all though.

When does the government keep "property in working, safe state", have you seen Detroit? That's mostly dilapidated by this point.
Click to expand...

Um, okay, everywhere except Detroit. Doesn't change my point that the government has all kinds of laws that require you not to do stupid things because you'd be wasting taxpayer's money if you did.
 
Josie said:
Well, you could just make just about anything illegal with that logic.
Click to expand...

As already pointed out, you simply weigh the costs. The cost of requiring someone to put a strap of fabric around their waist for a while is very very small, considering the benefit.
 
misterman said:
But you are in danger of imposing costs on your family and society if you are killed or injured or disabled.
Click to expand...

Stop trying to put everyone on the government dole and you won't have to worry about it.
 
Thunder said:
sounds like you want more people & children to die in car and motorcycle crashes.
Click to expand...

If they're not smart enough to wear safety equipment that could save their lives, then it will clean out the gene pool.
 
apdst said:
Stop trying to put everyone on the government dole and you won't have to worry about it.
Click to expand...

many life insurance policies do not cover suicide.

if someone kills themselves due to an OD on drugs, their family is left with nothing...and often has to go on public assistance.

see? drugs DOES effect everyone.
 
misterman said:
On 2 - I know you might be joking, but should little children die because their parents are stupid?
Click to expand...

I'm not saying they, "should", die.

But, at the same time, I never said anything about kids not being restrained...but nevermind that fact.
 
misterman said:
That doesn't follow.

There are community colleges open to all though.
Click to expand...

Of course it follows, educating other people benefits me, yes? Should University be free for all. Not "open to all", most are open and people may apply. If funding the education of others is a benefit to me, then obviously that follows to higher education as well. Should it be free for all?

misterman said:
Um, okay, everywhere except Detroit. Doesn't change my point that the government has all kinds of laws that require you not to do stupid things because you'd be wasting taxpayer's money if you did.
Click to expand...

Well it's not just Detroit. Many of the large cities like Chicago, LA, St. Louis, etc all have dilapidated sectors which have unsafe buildings and property in them.
 
Thunder said:
many life insurance policies do not cover suicide.

if someone kills themselves due to an OD on drugs, their family is left with nothing...and often has to go on public assistance.

see? drugs DOES effect everyone.
Click to expand...

Unemployed people effect everyone. Are we going to make it illegal to be unemployed? Are we going to cut off government programs that help drug addicts? Are we going to stop governmetn funded abortions?

BTW, I never said anything about drugs. You're arguing with a fence post, on that one.
 
apdst said:
Unemployed people effect everyone. Are we going to make it illegal to be unemployed? Are we going to cut off government programs that help drug addicts? Are we going to stop governmetn funded abortions?
Click to expand...

The government doesn't fund abortions.
 
I still don't see how you can enforce seat belts in cars and allow motorcycles on the road. It's an oxymoron.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom