Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Aug 12, 2008 15:57:43 GMT -5
I'm for any smoking ban so I don't have to continue to hear the lady in the cubicle next to me hack up a lung every day. Jebus. She's spreading germs, you know. Germs that almost certainly are detrimental to your health. There should be a coughing ban. God only knows by how many years my life span is shortening because of people in my office who feel they have to cough, or sneeze, or touch the same copier. We can place a cough zone out on the sidewalk for those lepers. |
|
vcjack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,875
|
Post by vcjack on Aug 12, 2008 16:00:47 GMT -5
I'm going to add a tenth just for the hell of it
10. Fireworks. HELL YES! BLOW THAT UP!
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Aug 12, 2008 16:17:01 GMT -5
Prostitution - illegal porno - status quo That is in no way an answer, it's an utter evasion. The whole point of my question is to avoid issuing a worthles "status quo" platitude and tell me if YOU THINK porn should be illegal, not confirm to me that it is. Because there is no way a sane man can actually believe that porn should be legal and prostitution illegal at the same time. So I always like to know which it is with people who think it should be illegal to do something with another consenting adult for the purposes of commerce. Do you think they should both be legal or both illegal. I am with the former camp. Both legal. You are refusing to answer the question I guess. Why reply at all then? You're an idiot. Can you not read, or are you just stupid. You asked, for those of us who think that prostitution should be illegal, whether or not we also think pornography should be I illegal. Being one who thinks prostitution should be illegal, I answered your question by stating we should keep the status quo (most pornography is legal, some is not). I fail to see how that is refusing to answer the question. Dumbass. |
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 12, 2008 16:22:45 GMT -5
Suppose you take all drivers and put a big helmet on them. What would happen to the calibre of driving? Almost certainly it would deteriorate. There would almost certainly be more accidents. Helmets are not only uncomfortable and cumbersome, but they restrict vision and hearing. You also tend to have a sort of tunnel vision type of behavior. The point is that you are automatically less aware of the goings on around you. Studies have also shown that you tend to drive faster wearing a helmet than without. In light of these facts, I find it hard to support a measure that will necessarily "cause" more accidents. anyone who thinks wearing helmets will cause more accidents is an idiot. there i said it. Really the caliber would obviously deteriorate if people wore helmets? I'd like to see a study proving that. also there are plenty of helmets that do not restrict hearing or vision . You spout bull Edited like it's absolute fact you're automatically less aware of your situation wearing a helmet? helmets will necessarily cause more accidents?! I've never once heard anyone blame an accident on a helmet. You can't seriously believe these things. I understand the whole personal freedom thing but we don't allow people the freedom to do whatever you want. I also feel that a person who isn't responsible to take care of their own safety is much more likely to act recklessly on the roads. I doubt the validity of such a study that says people with helmets drive faster because it is almost definitely a self reported study which raises questions about it's accuracy. Like you really remember how fast you were going every time you road with or with out a helmet. More likely they felt safer with the helmet so assumed they went faster then because it would be safer to do so. but it's likely they went just as fast with out a helmet but assumed they went slower since it would be more dangerous. Also correlation does not prove causation and the correlation probably works the other way more likely than not. People who naturally drive faster buy and wear helmets to protect themselves. OK, you are the one spouting rubbish. Statistics have shown that without helmet laws, the accident rate per capita goes down. The actual numbers tend to be higher but that is said to be because of much more use of bikes. Again, the illustration is perfect. If you put a big motorcycle helmet on people driving cars, what do you think would happen? I'm not making this up, but I guess it just flies in the face of what you want to be true for some reason. As for improvements in helmets, you are correct. Newer helmets are lighter and don't obstruct vision and hearing as much. Even so, there is a tendency to keep eyes forward and your head still, almost like you are having a haircut. Also, statistics have shown that people with helmets tend to drive faster on average. Is that because they feel safer? I don't know. Is it because the leisurely drive with wind blowing through your hair encourages a slower pace? Again, I don't know for sure, but for some reason that's the case. The personal freedom issue is an entirely different argument. I must have confused you, but I wasn't tying the two together. The question there is when do restrictions on personal freedoms stop? When it comes right down to it, riding a bike in the first place is an inherently dangerous activity. Why should we even be allowed to do so in the first place? Obviously, I am being sarcastic, but simply using the logic that you "must" wear a helmet because it is safer would only result in such a logical conclusion. |
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,869
|
Post by thebin on Aug 12, 2008 16:25:41 GMT -5
That is in no way an answer, it's an utter evasion. The whole point of my question is to avoid issuing a worthles "status quo" platitude and tell me if YOU THINK porn should be illegal, not confirm to me that it is. Because there is no way a sane man can actually believe that porn should be legal and prostitution illegal at the same time. So I always like to know which it is with people who think it should be illegal to do something with another consenting adult for the purposes of commerce. Do you think they should both be legal or both illegal. I am with the former camp. Both legal. You are refusing to answer the question I guess. Why reply at all then? You're an idiot. Can you not read, or are you just stupid. You asked, for those of us who think that prostitution should be illegal, whether or not we also think pornography should be I illegal. Being one who thinks prostitution should be illegal, I answered your question by stating we should keep the status quo (most pornography is legal, some is not). I fail to see how that is refusing to answer the question. Dumbass. You're an angry little elf. And persistent. You have again boldly refused to answer a very simple question but still wanted to reply for some reason. When asked if you think porn should be legal you essentially say "yes, because it is." Very deep. So you don't have the balls to state that you think porn should be illegal because it will make you look crazy. Let's assume that. Because if you really believe porn (not crazy animal stuff, normal and legal hardcore American porn that is a BILLION dollar TAXED business) should be LEGAL JUST BECAUSE IT IS NOW, but the world's oldest profession should be ILLEGAL just because it kinda sorta is illegal in most places....let's see how retarded your nonsensical "logic" actually is..... A pays B to screw C, films it, and sells it....LEGAL
A pays B to screw in private...................ILLEGAL. |
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 12, 2008 16:28:55 GMT -5
That is in no way an answer, it's an utter evasion. The whole point of my question is to avoid issuing a worthles "status quo" platitude and tell me if YOU THINK porn should be illegal, not confirm to me that it is. Because there is no way a sane man can actually believe that porn should be legal and prostitution illegal at the same time. So I always like to know which it is with people who think it should be illegal to do something with another consenting adult for the purposes of commerce. Do you think they should both be legal or both illegal. I am with the former camp. Both legal. You are refusing to answer the question I guess. Why reply at all then? You're an idiot. Can you not read, or are you just stupid. You asked, for those of us who think that prostitution should be illegal, whether or not we also think pornography should be I illegal. Being one who thinks prostitution should be illegal, I answered your question by stating we should keep the status quo (most pornography is legal, some is not). I fail to see how that is refusing to answer the question. Dumbass. In all fairness, I am going to take his side on this one. When you answered status quo, one obvious interpretation is "well, it's already legal, so I guess it will need to stay that way." I expect that was how he interpreted it as well, and therefore said your answer was a copout. His point is very valid. For someone who thinks that sex for money between consenting adults should be illegal, one could easily expect that the same people would think that pictures and videos of people doing that very activity should be illegal as well. Let's face it: Jenna Jamison and Long Dong Silver were having sex for money. You think having sex for money should be illegal. Therefore ... Don't get mad at someone else when they point out inconstencies or hypocrisies in your own thinking. As Colin Cowherd likes to point out: "That's a you problem" not a "me" problem. |
|
|
|
Post by JohnJacquesLayup on Aug 12, 2008 16:29:59 GMT -5
I'm for any smoking ban so I don't have to continue to hear the lady in the cubicle next to me hack up a lung every day. Jebus. She's spreading germs, you know. Germs that almost certainly are detrimental to your health. There should be a coughing ban. God only knows by how many years my life span is shortening because of people in my office who feel they have to cough, or sneeze, or touch the same copier. We can place a cough zone out on the sidewalk for those lepers. That was a joke, which didn't translate I guess. Not sure if you're serious or not, but the sarcastic "ban everything" arguments are just ridiculous. I always laugh at the "well why don't we ban alcohol in bars, too, since that's dangerous?" types of responses. It's not an issue of regulating people's behavior for the fun of it. Someone drinking alcohol in the same room as me doesn't impose any harm (unless you start getting overly hypothetical). Someone smoking does. On edit: It would be like saying sports should be banned because athletes tend to get injured. The point is they are making the decision to subject themselves to that risk. I just don't see being in public as some sort of waiver of the right to avoid harmful smoke. |
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 12, 2008 16:36:53 GMT -5
I'm going to add a tenth just for the hell of it 10. Fireworks. HELL YES! BLOW THAT Edited UP! vc, that is actually an excellent example -- perfect. Fireworks are legal some places and not in others. Even more odd are the laws in some places. In Florida you can buy and use legal fireworks. You can buy, but not use illegal fireworks. That's just some screwy nonsense. I understand concerns about safety, but once again I tend to side with personal freedoms and personal responsibility. Now the difference here is that improper use of fireworks can endanger other people. But using that logic to make them illegal only opens another can of worms. That same thing could be said of guns or even cars. Improper or unsafe use of them will endanger other people as well. I just think we can't start from the position of having government protect us from ourselves. Government -- in the form of military -- needs to protect us from outside forces. Government in the form of local law enforcement, needs to protect us from citizens who legitimately violate the laws of the land. What laws "should" we have .... that is the whole question and point of this entire thread. On edit: I didn't finish the explanation. In Florida the fireworks are considered illegal if they either shoot our or go bang. I jokingly said on the radio, that mine must be legal then, because they shoot out AND go bang! |
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,988
Member is Online
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Aug 12, 2008 16:45:40 GMT -5
So, wait, Hifi, do you want authority pushed down to localities or do you want consistency?
|
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Aug 12, 2008 17:21:58 GMT -5
OK, you are the one spouting rubbish. Statistics have shown that without helmet laws, the accident rate per capita goes down. The actual numbers tend to be higher but that is said to be because of much more use of bikes. Again, the illustration is perfect. If you put a big motorcycle helmet on people driving cars, what do you think would happen? I'm not making this up, but I guess it just flies in the face of what you want to be true for some reason. As for improvements in helmets, you are correct. Newer helmets are lighter and don't obstruct vision and hearing as much. Even so, there is a tendency to keep eyes forward and your head still, almost like you are having a haircut. Also, statistics have shown that people with helmets tend to drive faster on average. Is that because they feel safer? I don't know. Is it because the leisurely drive with wind blowing through your hair encourages a slower pace? Again, I don't know for sure, but for some reason that's the case. The personal freedom issue is an entirely different argument. I must have confused you, but I wasn't tying the two together. The question there is when do restrictions on personal freedoms stop? When it comes right down to it, riding a bike in the first place is an inherently dangerous activity. Why should we even be allowed to do so in the first place? Obviously, I am being sarcastic, but simply using the logic that you "must" wear a helmet because it is safer would only result in such a logical conclusion. 1) what do i think would happen if we gave people who drive cars helmets. I think everyone would drive the same but more people would be less injured in car crashes. There's no way you can prove that people would drive worse and it doesn't make great logical sense. We should get rid of seatbelts and airbags too they make people drive recklessly because they feel too safe. In fact lets get rid of the re-enforced steal cages too. Personally I've seen too many people die from Motorcycle accidents. If i were in charge and could get it through I'd ban motorcycles all together. And where do the infringements on personal freedom end? at the point that we as a society decide they do? for the whole tunnel vision thing. Um so you're saying people who wear helmets are unable to look in their mirrors? I'm pretty sure people are supposed to spend the majority of their time staring straight ahead. It doesn't seem like that big of a problem. Is your issue they can't look around and enjoy the scenery. Or is your theory that they'll be less likely to look over their should while switching lanes cause they're wearing a helmet. Cause that just seems like bunk to me. Seems more likely they just don't look any way and has nothing to do with the helmet. ) fire works I think fireworks that are extremely safe should be available to anyone. for more dangerous fireworks I think you should have to get a permit to use them. That seems reasonable to me. |
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 13, 2008 15:05:28 GMT -5
You are missing the point entirely. Helmets, especially the full-size motorcycle helmets do impact your hearing as well as peripheral vision. Secondly, there is a very reasonable argument that people will tend to not scan around as much. Certainly that could be a good thing or a bad one. Personally, I think that was one of the more important things that I have learned. In defensive driving classes they teach scanning around and specifically recognizing potential dangers before they come to fruition. I am not talking about rubber necking as you pass an accident, just simply glancing around and knowing where potential dangers are. Cars coming out of driveways, sidestreets, parking lots etc... kids playing on the sidewalk and assorted other things are good examples. You just don't tend to be as aware of those types of things with a helmet on. I don't really understand why you would deny that much. And of course the impact on hearing can't really be denied either.
Don't get me wrong though. I am not saying that helmets should be illegal, further, I think generally they should be encouraged. But mandating them is quite different.
As for fireworks, it sounds like you want yet another excuse for government involvement. I, obviously do not.
|
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,606
|
Post by hoyatables on Aug 13, 2008 15:16:11 GMT -5
Wouldn't the drugs mentioned in #3 be considered illicit? If you want to elicit these illicit drugs, then that's a different problem. Your all morans if you dont get the affect elicit drugs have on yutes. Beautiful. I thought the same thing. |
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Aug 13, 2008 15:16:52 GMT -5
HiFi.... could you provide a link to someplace that has stats supporting your argument that wearing helmets increases the rate of Motorcycle accidents?
And... does it also include stats on the rate of fatalities or serious injuries if one wears or does not wear a helmet?
Finally, the idea of personal freedom is nice, but realistically there are all kinds of laws and regulations to protect individuals... be they seatbelt laws, or anything that has to do with driving on public roads/streets. If you want to ride your bike on your own private land, you don't need to wear a helmet.
Smoke is a problem because it annoys others at public locations and causes health problems via Second hand smoke.
Fireworks? In Hawaii, almost every year someone sets fire to someone else's house via fireworks.
They start fires, they hurt people, they scare people and dogs... hey, I like them.
But they impede on other people's rights and are not safe for use by those who set them off, those who watch, and those who have nothing whatsoever to do with them but live nearby.
We have health regulations for restaurantes mandating clean water, no rodent infestation, refrigerated food, washing hands... etc.
A regulation regarding smoking in a public place is pretty standard. Using the "personal freedoms" argument is a stretch.
|
|
hoyatables
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,606
|
Post by hoyatables on Aug 13, 2008 15:17:06 GMT -5
you know there are other states. and then other coutries. You can smoke all you want in Europe. Can you eat foi gras in Europe? Because you can't do that either in Illinois Erroneous. 1) The ban was only a local ban imposed by the city of Chicago. 2) The ban has since been lifted. |
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Aug 13, 2008 15:31:03 GMT -5
Well those of us who took drivers ed in the past ten years know you're supposed to scan for dangers as far a head as possible aka while you're looking straight ahead. I deny these things due to common sense.
Cars coming out of driveways, sidestreets, parking lots etc... kids playing on the sidewalk and assorted other things are good examples of things you should be looking out for ahead of you.
Yes there are certain Helmets that cut down too much of your peripheral vision. but they make helmets that don't so I don't see how that's an argument.
I would be pretty surprised if wearing a helmet impacted your hearing to any significant effect. Perhaps they just can't hear over the roar of their obnoxiously loud motorcycle. What sounds are they missing due to these helmets? don't tell me you think that they can't hear car horns or ambulances due to a helmet. I think the noise that a motorcycle causes is more of a problem for the drivers hearing than their helmets.
as for fireworks. An excuse for government involvement? I would say it's necessary to keep people safe. I think it'd be much better to make fireworks available but to require someone to take a course or earn a permit before being allowed to use the more dangerous ones, rather than just having an all out ban on all fireworks like a lot of states have. I don't want some yahoo blowing up with some of the crazy and dangerous fireworks that exist out there. I think who can use these things should be regulated just like fire arms. You can seriously injure someone with these fireworks if not used properly.
|
|
vcjack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,875
|
Post by vcjack on Aug 13, 2008 15:42:42 GMT -5
Can you eat foi gras in Europe? Because you can't do that either in Illinois Erroneous. 1) The ban was only a local ban imposed by the city of Chicago. 2) The ban has since been lifted. 1) If there are French resturants beyond the Chicago area in Illinois, I don't want to go to them 2) Figgured as much as most of the resturants decided to defy the ban, some pizza places even offered foi gras pizza the day it was enacted And HSB, what if us yahoo's only want to blow up our own things with dangerous fireworks? I think I know I'm qualified to set up a lot of explosives in the middle of a field and then run |
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 13, 2008 15:51:03 GMT -5
sir, I will find the link for you. The study analyzed areas that had either instigated a helmet law or removed it to see if there was a statistical difference. It was slight, but the accident rate was slightly higher when a helmet law was put into effect. When helmet laws were removed, the overall number of motorcycle accidents went up however. The theory to explain that was that people who are used to riding without helmets are somewhat uncomfortable at first; essentially saying that you have to "get used to it." As for the second case, while the overall numbers of accidents rose, the motorcycle registrations rose as well. The theory in that case was that the actual rate was probably lower as there were more bikes and they were being used more.
As for injuries, there is certainly no argument that IF you are in an accident that you are better off with a helmet on.
Secondly, you mention seatbelt laws. I am pretty much all alone on this one. I think there shouldn't be seat belt laws. I think it is totally wise to wear seat belts religiously, but I don't think that government should be involved. In this case my opposition is twofold. The first is once again simply personal freedom. But the second is purely anecdotal but entirely true.
My step mom (at the time) was in an accident about 25 years ago. She ran a stop sign and got slammed into. She was hit right on the drivers side. The driver's door was crunched in a V-shape. The "point" of the V was a good foot or so above the driver's seat. There was no seat belt law at the time and she was not wearing a seat belt. As a result, she ended up essentially in the passenger seat. Knowing her, had there been a seat belt in effect, then she would have had one on. Now again, I still think it is wise to wear one and I would never use this reasoning to tell other people that they shouldn't wear one. But still, the way the door was dented in, had she had a seat belt on then it would have almost certainly dug into her left leg. As it worked out, she essentially had no injuries. She was very sore and had bruises and the sort, but nothing beyond that. Was she lucky? Absolutely. But my point is that if there is even one instance like that where having a seat belt would have made the accident and resulting injuries worse, then I don't think the government should be forcing you to such a position.
|
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Aug 13, 2008 15:53:01 GMT -5
You go out get a license to use fireworks and then have at it. I just want the people to do it to have some sort of training/firework safety under their belt before they do it.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Aug 13, 2008 16:43:10 GMT -5
sincebirth, I don't want to beat a dead horse here. Like I said, I think that wearing a seat belt and wearing a helmet when on a bike is a wise choice. The "pros" outweigh the "cons." But that ignores the fact that there are some cons. Thus I don't think the government should be simply playing the percentages with respect to me. That should be my choice.
I think we have covered this tangent enough.
Getting back to the smoking issue, I think that as far as private businesses are concerned, it should totally be up to the owners. If there are enough people opposed to encountering second hand smoke, then there will be enough smart entrepreneurs capitalizing on that market. Again, I don't smoke cigs. I don't really enjoy other people smoking them. But I still think that we have a terrible law. Telling someone who has their own money and time invested in their pub that they can't allow smoking is just wrong in my opinion. It's that simple.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Aug 13, 2008 17:11:53 GMT -5
Getting back to the smoking issue, I think that as far as private businesses are concerned, it should totally be up to the owners. If there are enough people opposed to encountering second hand smoke, then there will be enough smart entrepreneurs capitalizing on that market. Again, I don't smoke cigs. I don't really enjoy other people smoking them. But I still think that we have a terrible law. Telling someone who has their own money and time invested in their pub that they can't allow smoking is just wrong in my opinion. It's that simple. OK, so if they have their own money to invest in their own pub, should they be able to tell the fire marshall to buzz off when he limits the amount of people who can be in the place at any one time? (Remember the fire in the RI club with White Stripe that killed scores of people?) SHould they be able to tell the health dept. to take a hike when they look into how the food is stored and prepared? Should they be able to tell the liquor commission to beat it when they determine the age of people who can buy alcohol and what hours it can be sold? Should they be able to shut out OSHA and others who look out for workers' safety? (including second hand smoke?) SHould they be able to tell the building commission they don't give a flying fig about building codes, electical system safety, structural integrity? I think you get the idea. |
|
