Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 11-06-2019, 02:53 PM
Kearsen1 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
But someone who has studied that matter will probably know better what the actual risk is in the first place.

"ďEverybody has opinions: I have them, you have them. And we are all told from the moment we open our eyes, that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Well, thatís horsepuckey, of course. We are not entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our informed opinions. Without research, without background, without understanding, itís nothing. Itís just bibble-babble. Itís like a fart in a wind tunnel, folks.Ē -Harlan Ellison
The crux of it right there.

When it has to do with me, or any individual, I do not care how learned you are, how informed your opinion, you do not get to dictate to me what to do with my person.
Give me the research, give me your knowledge, but do not protect me from myself. That is the heart of "liberal elitism".
  #202  
Old 11-06-2019, 02:55 PM
Kearsen1 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 370
Quote:
Originally Posted by msmith537 View Post
Honestly, no offense, but what is it about conservatives that causes them to land on the "stupid" or "selfish jerk" side of every argument?

Fine. You want to argue that individuals have the right to decide what level of risk they want to accept. Well, other people don't want have to incur your risk as well. That includes first responders who must rescue you or deal with the aftermath as well as other societal costs. That's why we have licensing for driving cars or scuba diving. That's why homeowners are required to fence off their swimming pools. Presumably gun ranges are also subject to regulations so they don't pose a danger to their neighbors.





Yes, I forgot to include Hollywood. Also forgot to specifically mention sushi and fancy coffee drinks from overpriced chain restaurants.


There's an old cartoon from The New Yorker or some similar magazine that cleverly portrays how Liberals and Conservatives view each other. It consisted of two panels:

The first panel shows a somewhat overweight stereotypical Midwestern couple laughing at a pretentious hipster couple eating sushi.

The second panel shows the same sushi eating hipster couple laughing at the Midwestern couple.

The clever part is that it's the same couples in the same scene, but in each panel the laughing couple is drawn to be more normal looking and the other couple is drawn slightly more ridiculously. Haven't been able to find it online.
I don't know about the stupid side, but the selfish jerk is probably just me wanting to take personal responsibility for ME.
  #203  
Old 11-06-2019, 02:57 PM
Airbeck is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
The crux of it right there.

When it has to do with me, or any individual, I do not care how learned you are, how informed your opinion, you do not get to dictate to me what to do with my person.
Give me the research, give me your knowledge, but do not protect me from myself. That is the heart of "liberal elitism".
It's not about protecting *you* from yourself. That's the flaw in your thinking. It's about protecting society from having to pay the price for your bad choices. You want everyone else to pick up the tab when you ruin yourself. I thought conservatives were very much against that.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #204  
Old 11-06-2019, 02:58 PM
Airbeck is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
I don't know about the stupid side, but the selfish jerk is probably just me wanting to take personal responsibility for ME.
Until society has to pay you disability for the rest of your life, or pay welfare for your wife and kids if you die. How is that personal responsibility?
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #205  
Old 11-06-2019, 03:00 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,962
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
I don't know about the stupid side, but the selfish jerk is probably just me wanting to take personal responsibility for ME.
You want total autonomy? Go buy an island.
  #206  
Old 11-06-2019, 03:23 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
All of these are true, with any dangerous activity.
Are we going to ban pointy knives? How about driving after dark? Scuba Diving? Wearing a seatbelt (for yourself)
Shooting guns at a range.
Swimming pools?

I mean at some point, just because something is dangerous doesn't mean that people shouldn't get to choose for themselves the level of risk they are willing to accept to do said thing. Shit, just about everything that we do in life comes with some sort of inherent risk.

But you know better than the individual if they should have that risk in order to choose to do whatever activity?
Welcome to the wonderful world of cost-benefit analysis! Or as I like to call it, "actually thinking about things".

Some things have benefits. Some things have costs. Some risks are high. Some are low. Some corrective measures are arduous and not worth it. Some corrective measure are not arduous at all.

So yeah, let's think about things.

Sharp knives are not a problem in most places. In England they're apparently a problem. I'm not in England so I don't need to worry about that, though, so I'll just note that their usefulness seems to be significant and their level of fatality seems pretty low. (Accidental injuries that leave you able to deal with them and clean up after them yourself aren't a problem. Well, they are for you, but not for me.)

Driving after dark - it does seem like a startling percentage of accidents happen at night. However the utility of being able to move around at night is massively high for some people, and for many of them there are no better alternatives. So there is need to continue to allow it. We mandate headlights, though, because they help and there's no damn reason not to. (Same as there's no damn reason not to mandate helmets.)

Scuba diving - I haven't run the numbers, but the activity is probably reasonably non-fatal on its own. Of course, for it to be scuba diving, it must include some of that pesky safety equivalent that you seem opposed to. For those who wish to dive without air tanks, that's got a different name, and I gather it's not a frequent enough activity for society to really care how many of them die messily. This differentiates it from motorcycling.

Wearing a seatbelt (for yourself) - It keeps you off the streets. As in, literally, by way of the windshield and leaving a nice red mess. For those in the back seats, it reduces the load on the medical system patching together your uninsured arse.

Shooting guns at a range - You wanna go there? You really do?

Swimming pools - Swimming pools tend to self-regulate for liability reasons. Stay out of the pool unless there's a lifeguard or at least an adult present! And if you croak in your own private pool, well, at least you're dying in the privacy of your own home. Better that than splattering your brains all over the road.


Seriously, this is not all that complicated.
  #207  
Old 11-06-2019, 03:27 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
Do you think that those who don't have a sense of the statistics can make an informed choice? I don't know what percentage of people know the numbers in this case, but from others I do know I doubt it is very high. These kind of crashes are not covered in the media, so due to the principle of availability I suspect people underestimate the risks. That's why most people think the murder rate is higher than the suicide rate and many people think flying is more dangerous than driving.

For informed choice, I'm of two minds. On one hand I'm against having my insurance rates go up to pay off some clown who could have survived a crash if he was wearing a helmet. On the other, we always need more organ donors.
But you didn't answer the question. As things stand right now, do you think people should be able to make the choice to not wear a helmet?
  #208  
Old 11-06-2019, 03:30 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,995

Moderating


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
Yes, NANNY
I edited this post to change the quoted material back to what it was originally. Even though you were responding to points - you are not allowed to change the text in the quote box. Don't do that.

[/moderating]
  #209  
Old 11-06-2019, 03:46 PM
Airbeck is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
But you didn't answer the question. As things stand right now, do you think people should be able to make the choice to not wear a helmet?
Do you think society should pay for the costs of those who don't and become maimed or killed as a result? Do you personally want to pay for this?
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #210  
Old 11-06-2019, 03:55 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,962
People have the right to pay for their own private roads to drive on and pay for their own private hospitals to go to when they crack open their skulls because they rode without a helmet.
  #211  
Old 11-06-2019, 03:57 PM
Airbeck is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,996
And their own first responders to scrape them off the pavement.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #212  
Old 11-06-2019, 03:59 PM
Jim Peebles is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 458
Can we say this thread is entirely off topic now?
  #213  
Old 11-06-2019, 03:59 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Do you think society should pay for the costs of those who don't and become maimed or killed as a result? Do you personally want to pay for this?
I see you answered a question with a question. Why is that?

No, I don't think society should pay, nor do I want to personally. I'm fine with not paying. That you think society should pay and also use that as justification for nannyism is part of elitism.
  #214  
Old 11-06-2019, 04:04 PM
Airbeck is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
I see you answered a question with a question. Why is that?

No, I don't think society should pay, nor do I want to personally. I'm fine with not paying. That you think society should pay and also use that as justification for nannyism is part of elitism.
You just did the same thing. Why is that?

So what do you say to the guy that now needs disability for the rest of his life because he didn't wear a helmet? Sucks to be you, just die then?

What do you say to the kids of the guy who died because he wasn't wearing a helmet? Sorry kids, guess you don't get to eat because I'm not paying for your government assistance?

It's not nannyism, its reality, it's real people's lives. It's not elitism, it's pragmatism, it's being aware how we affect everyone else. This conservative insistence that each man is an island unto himself is just lunacy.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes

Last edited by Airbeck; 11-06-2019 at 04:05 PM.
  #215  
Old 11-06-2019, 04:13 PM
Kearsen1 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
I edited this post to change the quoted material back to what it was originally. Even though you were responding to points - you are not allowed to change the text in the quote box. Don't do that.

[/moderating]
I will plead ignorance, but I won't attempt it again.
  #216  
Old 11-06-2019, 04:17 PM
Kearsen1 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 370
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Until society has to pay you disability for the rest of your life, or pay welfare for your wife and kids if you die. How is that personal responsibility?
IF is the keyword.

You automatically make the assumption that said bad thing is going to occur and then society will be left holding the bag. I suppose if you had decades of science backing up those assumptions, it MIGHT be a good law to have on the books.

Most of them do not though.

It is like future policing. You might rob that bank so we are going to forbid you to buy a gun.
You might go broke so we are going to force you to save money.

I do not disagree that we as a nation of laws look at things that hurt our nation critically and legislate accordingly. But lots and LOTS of laws do not look at much and still they want to think they know better. That is liberal elitism (in some cases), in others, it's just plain old elitism.
  #217  
Old 11-06-2019, 04:18 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
I see you answered a question with a question. Why is that?

No, I don't think society should pay, nor do I want to personally. I'm fine with not paying. That you think society should pay and also use that as justification for nannyism is part of elitism.
So we have part of the definition: elitisim is partially nannyism, which is when you think that things should be paid for.

The alternative, of course, being the belief that if a person dies in the street because they decided that helmets were for mere mortals, they should be required to remove their own corpse, via their bootstraps.
  #218  
Old 11-06-2019, 04:23 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
IF is the keyword.

You automatically make the assumption that said bad thing is going to occur and then society will be left holding the bag. I suppose if you had decades of science backing up those assumptions, it MIGHT be a good law to have on the books.

Most of them do not though.

It is like future policing. You might rob that bank so we are going to forbid you to buy a gun.
You might go broke so we are going to force you to save money.

I do not disagree that we as a nation of laws look at things that hurt our nation critically and legislate accordingly. But lots and LOTS of laws do not look at much and still they want to think they know better. That is liberal elitism (in some cases), in others, it's just plain old elitism.
The thing about dealing with things at the societal level, though is that it stops being "if" and becomes "it's happening right this second, to somebody". The argument "It might not happen to me, because I pray right or am lucky or whatever" loses all its teeth when you start talking large populations.

Sure, *you* might get lucky and survive your motorcycle ride to the corner and back. But what society sees is that people aren't surviving. It might not be you dying, but people are dying, and society has to deal with that, one way or the other.

So looking at this from a societal level, the arguement "It might not happen, so I'm going to act in a way that will make it way worse if it does happen, and believe that everybody in society should do the same" translates to "I actively seek to make things worse."
  #219  
Old 11-06-2019, 04:24 PM
Airbeck is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,996
Acknowledging reality and recognizing the effects we can have on society is not elitism or nannyism. Refusing to acknowledge those things is head buried in the sand fantasy thinking that nothing we do can possibly affect anyone else or society as a whole. Makes sense that climate change denial is a conservative thing since it relies on the same magical thinking that we can't possibly have an effect on the world.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #220  
Old 11-06-2019, 04:29 PM
Kearsen1 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 370
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
The thing about dealing with things at the societal level, though is that it stops being "if" and becomes "it's happening right this second, to somebody". The argument "It might not happen to me, because I pray right or am lucky or whatever" loses all its teeth when you start talking large populations.

Sure, *you* might get lucky and survive your motorcycle ride to the corner and back. But what society sees is that people aren't surviving. It might not be you dying, but people are dying, and society has to deal with that, one way or the other.

So looking at this from a societal level, the arguement "It might not happen, so I'm going to act in a way that will make it way worse if it does happen, and believe that everybody in society should do the same" translates to "I actively seek to make things worse."
Ok, when does "this is happening everyday, all the time" and "it rarely happens" go from sound law to nannyism?

You probably don't want to look up statistics of motorcycle crashes that result in disabilities (that society picks up the tab for)vs motorcycle crashes that don't but I can help you a bit. It doesn't happen on a very large scale.

Which is why it is Nannyism.
  #221  
Old 11-06-2019, 04:34 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
Ok, when does "this is happening everyday, all the time" and "it rarely happens" go from sound law to nannyism?

You probably don't want to look up statistics of motorcycle crashes that result in disabilities (that society picks up the tab for)vs motorcycle crashes that don't but I can help you a bit. It doesn't happen on a very large scale.

Which is why it is Nannyism.
Don't be silly - it's nannyism because it's telling people to do something that could be perceived as being good for them. The scale of it is utterly irrelevant. There are 6 million automobile accidents per year in the US alone, but being told to put your seatbelt on is still nannyism.

And, as noted, when people stop whining about their nannies, it really boils down to cost/benefit. It doesn't cost the state anything to order you to put on a helmet, and it makes cleaning you off the roads marginally easier, so of course they'll tell you to do it. It's simple economics.
  #222  
Old 11-06-2019, 04:39 PM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
Ok, when does "this is happening everyday, all the time" and "it rarely happens" go from sound law to nannyism?

You probably don't want to look up statistics of motorcycle crashes that result in disabilities (that society picks up the tab for)vs motorcycle crashes that don't but I can help you a bit. It doesn't happen on a very large scale.

Which is why it is Nannyism.

What would be a large enough scale for you to start to care what it costs society to care for the un/under-insured?

Let's be clear here... when we (liberal elites) talk about health insurance (who has it, who doesn't) we're not just speaking about motorcycle injuries, are we?
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #223  
Old 11-06-2019, 04:41 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
You just did the same thing. Why is that?
Are you actually reading my posts? You posed two questions and I answered each directly. Direct questions get direct answers. I note you still have chosen to not answer mine. That doesn't seem like a productive way to have a discussion.

I'll try one last time: do you think people should be able to make the choice to not wear a helmet?
  #224  
Old 11-06-2019, 04:44 PM
Kearsen1 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 370
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
What would be a large enough scale for you to start to care what it costs society to care for the un/under-insured?

Let's be clear here... when we (liberal elites) talk about health insurance (who has it, who doesn't) we're not just speaking about motorcycle injuries, are we?
It is currently against the law to operate any motorized vehicle without insurance.
What are you asking?
  #225  
Old 11-06-2019, 04:44 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
I'll try one last time: do you think people should be able to make the choice to not wear a helmet?
I'm not them, but I'll give my answer:

Do what you want on private property. On the road the rules of the road are the rules of the road. Stay in your lane, put on your seatbelt, don't speed, don't drive drunk, wear your helmet.
  #226  
Old 11-06-2019, 04:47 PM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
It is currently against the law to operate any motorized vehicle without insurance.
What are you asking?
We're not talking about property damage.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #227  
Old 11-06-2019, 04:48 PM
Kearsen1 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 370
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
Don't be silly - it's nannyism because it's telling people to do something that could be perceived as being good for them. The scale of it is utterly irrelevant. There are 6 million automobile accidents per year in the US alone, but being told to put your seatbelt on is still nannyism.

And, as noted, when people stop whining about their nannies, it really boils down to cost/benefit. It doesn't cost the state anything to order you to put on a helmet, and it makes cleaning you off the roads marginally easier, so of course they'll tell you to do it. It's simple economics.
No.
It's nannyism because you are trying to tell someone else that you know better than they do what risks to take.
  #228  
Old 11-06-2019, 04:54 PM
Kearsen1 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 370
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
We're not talking about property damage.
Insurance isn't mandated to drive, except in the case of property/health insurance of the OTHER individual you may hit. If you hit no one, then it is just property damage. It is not necessary to carry comprehensive coverage to drive. Nor medical insurance.

Nannyism would be needing to carry comprehensive coverage to care for yourself and your own property. It's a risk assessment that you would be forced out of.
  #229  
Old 11-06-2019, 04:55 PM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
No.
It's nannyism because you are trying to tell someone else that you know better than they do what risks to take.
If you want to ride without a helmet, fine. Sign the waiver at the DMV indicating that and pay a licensing premium for the cost and privilege of having ERP pick up your brains from the pavement with a spoon.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #230  
Old 11-06-2019, 04:56 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
No.
It's nannyism because you are trying to tell someone else that you know better than they do what risks to take.
No, this is demonstrably false, because at least one person in this thread says they choose to wear a helmet while still thinking that being told to wear one by the government is nannyism.

The person doesn't have to disagree with the government about the risks. The mere fact that the government is saying anything at all is nannyism, to some people.

Last edited by begbert2; 11-06-2019 at 04:58 PM. Reason: sterlized post
  #231  
Old 11-06-2019, 04:59 PM
QuickSilver is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
Insurance isn't mandated to drive, except in the case of property/health insurance of the OTHER individual you may hit. If you hit no one, then it is just property damage. It is not necessary to carry comprehensive coverage to drive. Nor medical insurance.

Nannyism would be needing to carry comprehensive coverage to care for yourself and your own property. It's a risk assessment that you would be forced out of.
I'm fine with taking a chance with your own property and its destruction. I think medical should be compulsory, FWIW.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #232  
Old 11-06-2019, 05:37 PM
Airbeck is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Are you actually reading my posts? You posed two questions and I answered each directly. Direct questions get direct answers. I note you still have chosen to not answer mine. That doesn't seem like a productive way to have a discussion.

I'll try one last time: do you think people should be able to make the choice to not wear a helmet?
I didn't answer because the question is designed to eliminate all of the other elements of the discussion and focus on the only thing you think matters, therefore the question seems ill suited to move any part of this debate forward.

So I'll answer it this way. Yes, if those people will waive any ability to claim any public assistance for themselves or their family for as long as they want to ride on public roads without a helmet. If they want to assume all of the risk themselves, then fine, but don't try to push any of that onto society when things go wrong.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes

Last edited by Airbeck; 11-06-2019 at 05:41 PM.
  #233  
Old 11-06-2019, 06:01 PM
ASL v2.0's Avatar
ASL v2.0 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Various
Posts: 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
So I'll answer it this way. Yes, if those people will waive any ability to claim any public assistance for themselves or their family for as long as they want to ride on public roads without a helmet. If they want to assume all of the risk themselves, then fine, but don't try to push any of that onto society when things go wrong.
First of all, I know youíre mostly just advocating this is a sort of reduction to the absurd. With that out of the way, lest anyone agree with you too readily... I do not support you waving liability for your family. This isnít the book of Job, your family isnít chattel, your children shouldnít have to starve just because youíre stupid.

I would, however, support increased registration fees or mandatory survivor benefit insurance in exchange from being able to ride helmet-less (or assume other risks that would normally be prohibited). Thatís fair.
  #234  
Old 11-06-2019, 06:09 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASL v2.0 View Post
First of all, I know youíre mostly just advocating this is a sort of reduction to the absurd. With that out of the way, lest anyone agree with you too readily... I do not support you waving liability for your family. This isnít the book of Job, your family isnít chattel, your children shouldnít have to starve just because youíre stupid.

I would, however, support increased registration fees or mandatory survivor benefit insurance in exchange from being able to ride helmet-less (or assume other risks that would normally be prohibited). Thatís fair.
The practical problem with this approach is enforcement. There's nothing stopping a person from getting the cheaper helmeted insurance and then refusing to wear a helmet anyway but the law, and the law won't know this is happening unless it pulls over every helmetless rider and checks his insurance, constantly. in a world where we decided to legalized helmetless riding, this would be an undue hardship on those who were doing it legally.

(Does worrying about this make me elite?)
  #235  
Old 11-06-2019, 06:10 PM
msmith537 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 27,708
1) I don't think helmet laws are one of those critical societal issues.

2) It's a trick question. The "Liberal Elite" don't ride motorcycles.
  #236  
Old 11-06-2019, 06:12 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by msmith537 View Post
2) It's a trick question. The "Liberal Elite" don't ride motorcycles.
Obviously. It's private helicopters to go to the corner store, and private jets for anything further.

(You might see people in Priuses and the like pretending to be liberal elites, but they're nothing but posers.)
  #237  
Old 11-06-2019, 06:51 PM
Airbeck is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 2,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASL v2.0 View Post
First of all, I know youíre mostly just advocating this is a sort of reduction to the absurd. With that out of the way, lest anyone agree with you too readily... I do not support you waving liability for your family. This isnít the book of Job, your family isnít chattel, your children shouldnít have to starve just because youíre stupid.

I would, however, support increased registration fees or mandatory survivor benefit insurance in exchange from being able to ride helmet-less (or assume other risks that would normally be prohibited). Thatís fair.
Yes of course I'm not being literal.

And I think that's fair also.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #238  
Old 11-06-2019, 07:23 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
So I'll answer it this way. Yes, if those people will waive any ability to claim any public assistance for themselves or their family for as long as they want to ride on public roads without a helmet. If they want to assume all of the risk themselves, then fine, but don't try to push any of that onto society when things go wrong.
The logical follow up is to ask if you would support people being able to opt out in this fashion. Because currently it's not possible to do this. The fact that people can't opt out is the lever to intrude further into the decision making process of individuals.

For consistency, I'll assume that you would be okay with people opting out, else the above answer wouldn't make sense. The reason I'm continuing on this line is because it applies to other more significant things that people are forced to do - like contribute to Social Security. That's pure elitism - thinking that the government knows better than the individual. The same argument you are making in favor of helmet laws could be applied to Social Security. Would you be in favor of someone being able to opt out of Social Security, as long as they waive any ability for assistance? Because I would in a heartbeat and take that 14% payraise.

This type of thinking - that people know better, or because of public costs that gives rise to being able to dictate behavior - that's also elitism.
  #239  
Old 11-06-2019, 07:39 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,518
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
The logical follow up is to ask if you would support people being able to opt out in this fashion. Because currently it's not possible to do this. The fact that people can't opt out is the lever to intrude further into the decision making process of individuals.

For consistency, I'll assume that you would be okay with people opting out, else the above answer wouldn't make sense. The reason I'm continuing on this line is because it applies to other more significant things that people are forced to do - like contribute to Social Security. That's pure elitism - thinking that the government knows better than the individual. The same argument you are making in favor of helmet laws could be applied to Social Security. Would you be in favor of someone being able to opt out of Social Security, as long as they waive any ability for assistance? Because I would in a heartbeat and take that 14% payraise.

This type of thinking - that people know better, or because of public costs that gives rise to being able to dictate behavior - that's also elitism.
Similarly, the fire department - opt out and fight your fires yourself. And similarly, the police - a person should be able to opt out and defend their domain themselves, imprisoning and executing criminal trespassers by right of their independent will.

"Elite" = "not an anarchist", apparently.
  #240  
Old 11-06-2019, 07:56 PM
ASL v2.0's Avatar
ASL v2.0 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Various
Posts: 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
Similarly, the fire department - opt out and fight your fires yourself.
Actually, in some places, thatís a thing. The fire department is not funded to cover a (usually rural) area through normal taxes, and so instead you have to "opt in" for protection.

We had a thread on snopes a while back (may it rest in peace) about an instance where a family lost its home as the fire department stood by and watched it burn, and the son of the owner assaulted one of the firefighters because they refused to do anything even after they offered to pay the past due bills for coverage. Which makes sense, because obviously you canít just excuse people from paying for coverage, or else everyone will opt out and only then offer to pay the hundred bucks or so to get coverage.

For the record, I would prefer to default to a "basic services, along with social safety net, to include healthcare" should be covered by taxes. Any sort of opt out with appropriate waivers/fees would be acceptable to me, but only provided the opt out system is not itself detrimental to society. In the case of motorcycle or bike helmets, I think society would get by. In the cases of fires that are allowed to burn out of control, though, and the potential for low income families to bear the burden of that and underfunded public schools disproportionately... yeah, Iím not okay with that.

Last edited by ASL v2.0; 11-06-2019 at 07:58 PM.
  #241  
Old 11-06-2019, 08:31 PM
Chingon is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: the hypersphere
Posts: 698
Discussing this topic with libertarians is like discussing steak preferences with vegans.
  #242  
Old 11-07-2019, 02:18 AM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,681
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
But you didn't answer the question. As things stand right now, do you think people should be able to make the choice to not wear a helmet?
I'd be fine with them not wearing a helmet if they also agree not to be a drain on society when they splatter their brains on the pavement. If they want to socialize the cost of their accident, they should be forced to wear a helmet to reduce the risk.
Now, they should have the opportunity to purchase special, and probably expensive, insurance if they can find someone to sell it to them.
  #243  
Old 11-07-2019, 02:37 AM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,681
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
No.
It's nannyism because you are trying to tell someone else that you know better than they do what risks to take.
The experts probably do know better. Sorry. I figured that motorcycles were more dangerous than cars, but I had no idea of how much more dangerous.
From a quick Google of motorcycle accident rates vs. car
Quote:
According to the U.S. Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), you are 37 times more likely to die in a motorcycle accident than a car accident Ė and nine times more likely to become injured while riding a motorcycle than while driving a car.
I wonder how many non-helmet advocates know this.

Helmets vs no helmets:
Quote:
Riders without helmets are roughly 40 percent more likely to suffer fatal head injuries in a crash than those wearing them. So whether or not your state mandates helmets, protecting your head while riding is always a brainy idea.
Motorcycle helmet myths - Esurance
https://www.esurance.com õ info õ motorcycle õ 6-myths-about-helmets
From here
Quote:
Motorcycle Helmet Laws

Motorcycles are the most hazardous form of motor vehicle transportation. In 2017, 5,172 motorcyclists were killed. Additionally, 88,000 were injured on our nationís roads in 2015, the most recent year injury data is available. NHTSA estimates that helmets saved the lives of 1,870 motorcyclists in 2017 and that 750 more lives in all states could have been saved if all motorcyclists had worn helmets. The number of motorcycle crash fatalities has more than doubled since a low of 2,116 motorcycle crash deaths in 1997. All-rider helmet laws increase motorcycle helmet use, decrease deaths and injuries, and save taxpayer dollars.
I'm sure that all the people killed while not wearing helmets were sure they weren't going to get into a fatal accident.
  #244  
Old 11-07-2019, 02:51 AM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,681
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
For consistency, I'll assume that you would be okay with people opting out, else the above answer wouldn't make sense. The reason I'm continuing on this line is because it applies to other more significant things that people are forced to do - like contribute to Social Security. That's pure elitism - thinking that the government knows better than the individual. The same argument you are making in favor of helmet laws could be applied to Social Security. Would you be in favor of someone being able to opt out of Social Security, as long as they waive any ability for assistance? Because I would in a heartbeat and take that 14% payraise.
And would you put that 14% into a retirement account? Would everyone? Especially those who are just making ends meet, or who just got laid off. You know, the ones whose 401Ks are in bad shape because they drained them to keep their homes.

We are wired to consider immediate gratification above long term gratification, and the discount rates on delaying gratification are nothing like what interest rates are. Go look at the research on how people decide stuff like this. If you are unaware of it, your position on Social Security comes from the very ignorance of the facts I mentioned before.

Plus you need to tell us what you'd do with the people who reach retirement age with nothing. Let them die on the street? Or would we wind up paying for them anyway.
Look up the number of people today who take their Social Security early and give up the 8% a year increase in benefits you get if you delay. How do you explain that decision. You think they'd be rolling in money if they weren't forced to participate?
Yeah, the conservative elites would be - or they think they'd have all that money. Remember Joe the Plumber (not quite a plumber, actually) who was for policies that screwed him because he was convinced he'd be rich sometime in the future? He was normal. Stupid, but normal.

Some years back we had a libertarian doper who was dead set against the FDA because he was convinced that he could evaluate drug risks far better than those liberal elite doctors. Is that where you're coming from?
  #245  
Old 11-07-2019, 03:13 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
I wonder how many non-helmet advocates know this.
Of course it's more dangerous without a helmet - I don't think anyone is disputing this. And I also don't see anyone advocating for non-helmet wearing. Whereas you seem to be engaging in an outcome based argument - that the results of non-helmet wearing is worse than the outcomes of helmet wearing when measured by injury severity. But the argument in the context of elitism is not outcome based, at least not precisely.

Because you can't measure the utility derived by an individual by not wearing a helmet, I don't think you can say that they are better off. Sure, they are more likely to die and if that's something they want to avoid, they should wear a helmet. Actually, if that's the case they shouldn't ride a motorcycle at all.

Allowing people to make that choice is a principled position, independent of the outcomes. More people will die. Let them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
And would you put that 14% into a retirement account? Would everyone? Especially those who are just making ends meet, or who just got laid off. You know, the ones whose 401Ks are in bad shape because they drained them to keep their homes.

We are wired to consider immediate gratification above long term gratification, and the discount rates on delaying gratification are nothing like what interest rates are. Go look at the research on how people decide stuff like this. If you are unaware of it, your position on Social Security comes from the very ignorance of the facts I mentioned before.

Plus you need to tell us what you'd do with the people who reach retirement age with nothing. Let them die on the street? Or would we wind up paying for them anyway.
The response to this is similar. You are focused on outcomes - what are the returns available vs. investment opportunities and which is a better outcome, etc. I don't think it much matters if people are better or worse off from a financial measure. The idea of elitism is exactly what you are demonstrating - that people don't know and someone else should decide for them.

I'm well aware that a great many people make poor choices. People should be able to make those choices, suffer the consequences for bad choices, and reap the rewards for good ones. Taking away those choices because someone knows better than the individual themself represents a type of liberal elitism.
  #246  
Old 11-07-2019, 03:29 AM
Isamu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Osaka
Posts: 6,624
Just a quick observation: The danger and the burden on the public by allowing helmetless riding is not zero. I know outcomes don't matter much vs the principle, in your view.

Last edited by Isamu; 11-07-2019 at 03:34 AM.
  #247  
Old 11-07-2019, 03:50 AM
Isamu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Osaka
Posts: 6,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
The crux of it right there.

When it has to do with me, or any individual, I do not care how learned you are, how informed your opinion, you do not get to dictate to me what to do with my person.
Give me the research, give me your knowledge, but do not protect me from myself. That is the heart of "liberal elitism".
Maybe they're not trying to protect you from yourself but they just don't want to deal with the mess you leave? Isn't that fair?
  #248  
Old 11-07-2019, 05:16 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,931
It's not about knowing better, it's about utility and harm. Helmet laws result in a more prosperous society with less suffering. That's worth the tradeoff against the freedom to choose this kind of really stupid decision, IMO. This is how I judge this sort of thing, and not everything is worth this kind of tradeoff. But some things are (how do you feel about mandatory education for kids, Bone?). YMMV.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #249  
Old 11-07-2019, 06:44 AM
epbrown01 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 3,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
No. It's nannyism because you are trying to tell someone else that you know better than they do what risks to take.
My take on this, as someone that's ridden since the 1970s, is that helmet laws are just as sensible as seatbelt laws. And I'm all for nannyism because far too often the counter-argument is simply reiterating that the most cherished human right is not guns, or voting, or reproduction - it's the right to be stupid; that hallowed right, flowing downstream into the others mentioned, is how we get the shitshow you see in the news everyday.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
The experts probably do know better. Sorry. I figured that motorcycles were more dangerous than cars, but I had no idea of how much more dangerous.
Following on with the above point - motorcycles are not inherently more dangerous than cars. In an accident, you're definitely more likely to be seriously hurt due to the lack of protection. But the reality - and people hate hearing this - is that the bulk of motorcycle riders are stupid, poorly trained, and woefully inexperienced and that's why you get so many accidents. The US is pretty much the only first-world nation that will let some idiot with two afternoons of training hop on a 200-hp motorcycle wearing flip-flops, shorts and a bandana. Most people injured riding motorcycles aren't just not letting someone tell them to wear a helmet - they're not letting you tell them a bike is too powerful and/or heavy for a new rider, or that they shouldn't drink and ride (50% of accidents involve alcohol), or drive at ridiculously unsafe speeds.

For a span there, say mid-80s to almost 2000, the accident rate dropped because the amount of new riders had dropped like a rock, and the bulk of people riding were experienced - the remaining 2000 accidents were just the idiots weeding themselves out of the gene pool. When the Boomers got to empty-nest age, a lot returned to riding or decided to finally take it up, and by gum they'll do it their way because they're rebels or pirates or something. So you get people riding too much bike too little time (sunny weekends from May to September) with no safety gear, and so poorly-trained that you'd be hard-pressed to find a motorcycle dealer in the US that doesn't have a story of someone crashing a bike they just bought before they got home - often in the dealership parking lot.
  #250  
Old 11-07-2019, 08:32 AM
ASL v2.0's Avatar
ASL v2.0 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Various
Posts: 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
It's not about knowing better, it's about utility and harm. Helmet laws result in a more prosperous society with less suffering. That's worth the tradeoff against the freedom to choose this kind of really stupid decision, IMO. This is how I judge this sort of thing, and not everything is worth this kind of tradeoff. But some things are (how do you feel about mandatory education for kids, Bone?). YMMV.
I would also dare say that, as long as no one is being arrested for not wearing a helmet, you are still free to ride without a helmet.

And societyówhich actually ought to know best whatís good for societyóis free to see you ticketed for your decision. I wouldnít go so far as I think that offers a perfect solution, but Iíd go so far as to say itís really not that much different than the idea that you can opt out, provided youíre willing to pay for it. My biggest concern with such an ad hoc sort of arrangement, whereby tickets are viewed as the "fee" would simply be that I doubt the money from tickets is being used to care for the orphans of those who die from preventable injuries.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:55 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017