Conquer Club

AAFitz wrote:

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

AAFitz wrote:

john9blue wrote:

Gillipig wrote:You guys don't have laws on wearing bicycle helmets??? That's just retarded! Do you have laws for wearing seat belt in cars or is that optional too?

here in america we enjoy a little something called FREEDOM

bald_eagle.jpg

Except....when using public property, there are many laws you must obey.

Because nothing affects the public like an unbuckled person.

-TG

Actually, and I apologize if you did previously suffer a head injury from not wearing a helmet...BBS and I, with the help of the CDC conclusively showed that those not wearing helmets, and similarly those unbuckled, very much affect the public to the tune of multiple billions of dollars.

No, not if the rider crashes. Unhelmeted riders injured in a crash have substantially higher healthcare costs than helmeted riders. When the rider is insured, these costs are passed on to others in the form of higher health insurance premiums. Unhelmeted riders are more likely to be uninsured than other riders. When the riders are uninsured, their medical expenses may be paid for using taxpayers’ funds.

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

AAFitz wrote:

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

AAFitz wrote:

john9blue wrote:

Gillipig wrote:You guys don't have laws on wearing bicycle helmets??? That's just retarded! Do you have laws for wearing seat belt in cars or is that optional too?

here in america we enjoy a little something called FREEDOM

bald_eagle.jpg

Except....when using public property, there are many laws you must obey.

Because nothing affects the public like an unbuckled person.

-TG

Actually, and I apologize if you did previously suffer a head injury from not wearing a helmet...BBS and I, with the help of the CDC conclusively showed that those not wearing helmets, and similarly those unbuckled, very much affect the public to the tune of multiple billions of dollars.

No, not if the rider crashes. Unhelmeted riders injured in a crash have substantially higher healthcare costs than helmeted riders. When the rider is insured, these costs are passed on to others in the form of higher health insurance premiums. Unhelmeted riders are more likely to be uninsured than other riders. When the riders are uninsured, their medical expenses may be paid for using taxpayers’ funds.

If this is your reasoning for supporting mandatory helmet/seatbelt laws, I expect you to likewise support mandatory diet laws, mandatory eugenics programs, and mandatory prophylactic laws. All of these things contribute to the "higher health insurance premiums" and medical expenses being paid with "taxpayers' funds."

You're confusing a sensible law (drunk driving, e.g.) with an enforced money draw (seat belt laws). I shouldn't have to wear a seat belt or helmet if I don't want to. If I crash my bike and become disabled, I or my family must pay the costs. If I had free healthcare then your argument would be valid, but as it stands the only person that pays is me (legally and morally). The fact that health insurance, a program that has ruined health care in the U.S., decides to increase their premiums has nothing to do with me, because 1) insurance is voluntary, and 2) I've lived almost my entire life without health insurance. Because you wish to buy into the scam of insurance has nothing to do with me, and I shouldn't have to accommodate your lifestyle through enforced programs.

-TG

john9blue wrote:

AAFitz wrote:
Ok...Ill accept the facetious part, but as I asked, does that mean you think that those other laws are infringements of your freedom? And if so, which ones?

Having to spend money on airbags, seat belts, proper tires, brakes, bumpers? Which are responsible laws and which tremble greatly on your false sense of freedom to choose?

As a follow up question, does the relativity of your objection not become incredibly obvious?

Sometimes, because you can make a law, it means you absolutely should.

Being against laws, just because they are laws is just an utterly ridiculous stance.

In a very real way, it is laws that give you most of your freedom.

Irony is just a big bad bitch that way.

i'm not saying that laws which limit your freedom are inherently bad (although i think the vast majority of them are)

but yeah, restrictions on car manufacturers are freedom-limiting because they only affect the customer

on the other hand, drunk driving laws (for example) ensure public safety and therefore ensure freedom rather than limiting it

so no, i'm not against laws just because they're laws... that would make me an anarchist.

you like misrepresenting my position for some reason. do you read my posts?

AAfitz wrote:Actually, you are the one confused.

You simply think new safety features are silly because you remember a time without them.

There are safety features you don't argue against, because they are so obvious and you've lived with them for so long, you would consider it stupid not to have them.

As far as insurance being a scam, it does seem that way for some who never had a claim, but I know a few people who are alive right now, that surely would have been dead without it, after millions of dollars of health care.

Statistically, it may even be a scam, much like the lottery, but if you lose the lottery you are out a buck or two. If you lose on health care, you are out....everything.

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

AAfitz wrote:Actually, you are the one confused.

You simply think new safety features are silly because you remember a time without them.

There are safety features you don't argue against, because they are so obvious and you've lived with them for so long, you would consider it stupid not to have them.

As far as insurance being a scam, it does seem that way for some who never had a claim, but I know a few people who are alive right now, that surely would have been dead without it, after millions of dollars of health care.

Statistically, it may even be a scam, much like the lottery, but if you lose the lottery you are out a buck or two. If you lose on health care, you are out....everything.

lol. I'm 25. Helmet and seat belt laws have been around for about as long as I can remember. Again, you're mistaking sensible safety features that actually provide means of protection with those that are intrusive and an excuse for cops to pull you over and give you citations, thereby also giving them an excuse to search your car. If failure to wear a seat belt or helmet is indeed the terrible public offense that you make it out to be, then one's license should be revoked instead of a $75-90 fine.

What's the single most influential factor in rising health care costs?

-TG

AAFitz wrote:Also, you are only 25, so really, you've just been lucky...and I simply suggest you continue to do so.

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

AAFitz wrote:Also, you are only 25, so really, you've just been lucky...and I simply suggest you continue to do so.

OK. Thanks! I've never, ever been out in the real world!

-TG

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

AAFitz wrote:Also, you are only 25, so really, you've just been lucky...and I simply suggest you continue to do so.

OK. Thanks! I've never, ever been out in the real world!

-TG

Army of GOD wrote:can we vote gillipig off the forum?

Lootifer wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:can we vote gillipig off the forum?

AAFitz can go first I reckon.

Lootifer wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:can we vote gillipig off the forum?

AAFitz can go first I reckon.

Do helmet laws interfere with a person’s freedom to choose whether to wear a helmet?

Yes. Many laws restrict people’s freedom to perform behaviors judged contrary to the public good. These include drunk driving laws, cellphone use laws, and infectious disease quarantine laws, to name a few. Courts usually uphold such laws as important to the nation’s well-being.

If a motorcyclist chooses not to wear a helmet, does it only affect him?

No, not if the rider crashes. Unhelmeted riders injured in a crash have substantially higher healthcare costs than helmeted riders. When the rider is insured, these costs are passed on to others in the form of higher health insurance premiums. Unhelmeted riders are more likely to be uninsured than other riders. When the riders are uninsured, their medical expenses may be paid for using taxpayers’ funds.

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

AAFitz wrote:Also, you are only 25, so really, you've just been lucky...and I simply suggest you continue to do so.

OK. Thanks! I've never, ever been out in the real world!

-TG

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:If this is your reasoning for supporting mandatory helmet/seatbelt laws, I expect you to likewise support mandatory diet laws, mandatory eugenics programs, and mandatory prophylactic laws. All of these things contribute to the "higher health insurance premiums" and medical expenses being paid with "taxpayers' funds."

You're confusing a sensible law (drunk driving, e.g.) with an enforced money draw (seat belt laws). I shouldn't have to wear a seat belt or helmet if I don't want to. If I crash my bike and become disabled, I or my family must pay the costs. If I had free healthcare then your argument would be valid, but as it stands the only person that pays is me (legally and morally). The fact that health insurance, a program that has ruined health care in the U.S., decides to increase their premiums has nothing to do with me, because 1) insurance is voluntary, and 2) I've lived almost my entire life without health insurance. Because you wish to buy into the scam of insurance has nothing to do with me, and I shouldn't have to accommodate your lifestyle through enforced programs.

-TG

Haggis_McMutton wrote:Do helmet laws interfere with a person’s freedom to choose whether to wear a helmet?

Yes. Many laws restrict people’s freedom to perform behaviors judged contrary to the public good. These include drunk driving laws, cellphone use laws, and infectious disease quarantine laws, to name a few. Courts usually uphold such laws as important to the nation’s well-being.
Notice a slight distinction between the cases they present and helmet laws? Like maybe how all of those behaviors directly impact others?

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

Lootifer wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:can we vote gillipig off the forum?

AAFitz can go first I reckon.

Yeah, seems like this was a bad thread for both of them.
I liked how fitz seamlessly went from accusing Tails of being old and stubborn to being young and inexperienced.

Btw. didn't see this on the CDC website. Is the reduction in no. of people using bikes because they won't wear helmets taken into account?

i.e. if we make it mandatory that you strap a pink dildo to your forehead while riding a bike I'm gonna bet that bike accidents are going to significantly drop. But probably not because the dildo makes you safer.

Oh, and for the record, the Q&A on the CDC website is complete bullshit.

Do helmet laws interfere with a person’s freedom to choose whether to wear a helmet?

Yes. Many laws restrict people’s freedom to perform behaviors judged contrary to the public good. These include drunk driving laws, cellphone use laws, and infectious disease quarantine laws, to name a few. Courts usually uphold such laws as important to the nation’s well-being.

Notice a slight distinction between the cases they present and helmet laws? Like maybe how all of those behaviors directly impact others?

If a motorcyclist chooses not to wear a helmet, does it only affect him?

No, not if the rider crashes. Unhelmeted riders injured in a crash have substantially higher healthcare costs than helmeted riders. When the rider is insured, these costs are passed on to others in the form of higher health insurance premiums. Unhelmeted riders are more likely to be uninsured than other riders. When the riders are uninsured, their medical expenses may be paid for using taxpayers’ funds.

Oh cool. So then if I'm insured I can ride without a helmet, correct ?
Also, when is McDonals's becoming illegal? Coke taxed like nicotine? No? Hmm, that's odd, almost like there might be a double standard there. Nah, that couldn't be it.

I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other regarding these laws, but this bullshit peddling really gets on my nerves. It smells way too much of "reefer madness" campaigns.

AntiAircraftFitz wrote:no u

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:If this is your reasoning for supporting mandatory helmet/seatbelt laws, I expect you to likewise support mandatory diet laws, mandatory eugenics programs, and mandatory prophylactic laws. All of these things contribute to the "higher health insurance premiums" and medical expenses being paid with "taxpayers' funds."

You're confusing a sensible law (drunk driving, e.g.) with an enforced money draw (seat belt laws). I shouldn't have to wear a seat belt or helmet if I don't want to. If I crash my bike and become disabled, I or my family must pay the costs. If I had free healthcare then your argument would be valid, but as it stands the only person that pays is me (legally and morally). The fact that health insurance, a program that has ruined health care in the U.S., decides to increase their premiums has nothing to do with me, because 1) insurance is voluntary, and 2) I've lived almost my entire life without health insurance. Because you wish to buy into the scam of insurance has nothing to do with me, and I shouldn't have to accommodate your lifestyle through enforced programs.

crispybits wrote:Wearing a helmet while cycling is hardly an infringement on freedom any more than people having to wear clothes in shopping malls.

crispybits wrote:Sod the financials, if I'm driving and through no fault of my own hit a cyclist wearing a helmet and he is badly injured but recovers, that will have a very different effect on me than if, through no fault of my own, I hit a cyclist not wearing a helmet and he dies. If nothing else because at least I can try and ease any (undeserved) guilt I may feel to someone who is still alive afterwards, but there's nothing I can do for someone who has died. We read occasionally about people who have killed people completely accidentally who struggle with that for the rest of their lives, with the fact that it has a profound effect on them.

Wearing a helmet while cycling is hardly an infringement on freedom any more than people having to wear clothes in shopping malls. To claim that it's "big bad government taking away my freedom!" is just plain ridiculous.

Lootifer wrote:

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:If this is your reasoning for supporting mandatory helmet/seatbelt laws, I expect you to likewise support mandatory diet laws, mandatory eugenics programs, and mandatory prophylactic laws. All of these things contribute to the "higher health insurance premiums" and medical expenses being paid with "taxpayers' funds."

Diet and prophylactic laws would be unenforcable; thus it doesnt make sense for them to be laws. I do however very much support government campaigns that educate and promote the use of healthy lifestyles and use of contreception (read: spending money on convincing people to not be fat and have unwanted pregnancies).

Eugenics is slightly different; its a grey/sliding scale in terms of ethics; telling someone they are too fat and should go on a diet is one thing, telling someone they cant have kids because their genes are a detriment to society is, for me, probably one bridge too far.

Lootifer wrote:Tangent: I see democracy as needing to intervene here (and to me should intervene only on this kind of case by case basis rather than the two horse charade we currently use): This is something we should vote on as a population and decide where, along this grey scale, we should set our ethical limits.

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

Lootifer wrote:

Army of GOD wrote:can we vote gillipig off the forum?

AAFitz can go first I reckon.

Yeah, seems like this was a bad thread for both of them.
I liked how fitz seamlessly went from accusing Tails of being old and stubborn to being young and inexperienced.

Btw. didn't see this on the CDC website. Is the reduction in no. of people using bikes because they won't wear helmets taken into account?

i.e. if we make it mandatory that you strap a pink dildo to your forehead while riding a bike I'm gonna bet that bike accidents are going to significantly drop. But probably not because the dildo makes you safer.



Oh, and for the record, the Q&A on the CDC website is complete bullshit.

Do helmet laws interfere with a person’s freedom to choose whether to wear a helmet?

Yes. Many laws restrict people’s freedom to perform behaviors judged contrary to the public good. These include drunk driving laws, cellphone use laws, and infectious disease quarantine laws, to name a few. Courts usually uphold such laws as important to the nation’s well-being.

Notice a slight distinction between the cases they present and helmet laws? Like maybe how all of those behaviors directly impact others?

If a motorcyclist chooses not to wear a helmet, does it only affect him?

No, not if the rider crashes. Unhelmeted riders injured in a crash have substantially higher healthcare costs than helmeted riders. When the rider is insured, these costs are passed on to others in the form of higher health insurance premiums. Unhelmeted riders are more likely to be uninsured than other riders. When the riders are uninsured, their medical expenses may be paid for using taxpayers’ funds.

Oh cool. So then if I'm insured I can ride without a helmet, correct ?
Also, when is McDonals's becoming illegal? Coke taxed like nicotine? No? Hmm, that's odd, almost like there might be a double standard there. Nah, that couldn't be it.

I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other regarding these laws, but this bullshit peddling really gets on my nerves. It smells way too much of "reefer madness" campaigns.