@Kimstu , yes of course to all that, but apparently it’s not what a lot of people seem to think. If one is going to be trapped in a crashed car, even if belted and not too badly injured, it seems more likely that it’s because the door is too crumpled up to be opened. Or, in modern cars, because you’ve totally lost power and you can’t even open the door without power. (That kind of a car is a deal-breaker for me.)
Thus, the window breaker tool.
If a person is so terrified of the remote possibility of burning to death that they’d rather dramatically increase their chances of dying another way, why not just painlessly end it and definitely avoid that fate?
I really don’t understand people sometimes.
Especially since, as noted, being unbelted in a car crash is no guarantee that you won’t burn to death anyway. But as Senegoid said, anybody who could make that kind of argument isn’t being rational about risk in the first place.
“… wherever society decides to set them” is the problem – you’re assuming society will always be rational & there’s too much history proving that’s just not so. Remember when NYC ‘society’ decided large soft drinks were unhealthy and so couldn’t be sold any more? Do you really want ‘society’ deciding those details about your life? Is Covid more serious than soft drinks? Sure, but it’s a slippery slope & once you step out there, it’s all downhill.
I think we started sliding down the slope when we decided as a society that you weren’t allowed to kill your neighbor, even though every one agrees he’s an asshole. Plus, you when we decided you couldn’t grab your neighbor’s cow, even though you really wanted it.
A main reason to belong to a society is that it sets and enforces an agreed upon set of rules.
I’ve seen it, and you’re completely missing my point. My point is that wearing a seatbelt does not affect society at large so is this an area where the government should be dictating and putting resources (law enforcement checkpoints, etc) toward controlling my behavior? China literally locked people into their homes during Covid last year, so you’ll be okay with that? Where do you draw the line at what the government controls about our lives.
I didn’t misinterpret what you said. You said
That is untrue. Now you’re saying there should be no seatbelt laws because not wearing seatbelts doesn’t affect “society at large.” Again, you are incorrect. One of the primary functions of society is to protect the welfare of its members. If you decide to drive drunk, for instance, and you cause an accident by so doing, you impinge upon the welfare of other members of society, which, directly or indirectly, affects society at large.
My state was the first to get hit hard by COVID-19. Some people were ignorant and arrogant and refused to stop gathering in groups. Because of their selfish disregard for the rights of others and the interests of society at large, 6,000 of my fellow Washingtonians died and another 29,000 have been hospitalized. It’d be much easier on all of us if people did the right thing for society at large by social distancing, wearing masks, and getting vaccinated. When people refuse to understand or consider the welfare of society at large, either society at large suffers unnecessarily or society at large more strictly regulates behavior in order to fulfill a government’s primary function.
Slippery slope is a logical fallacy, not a valid philosophy:
If we enact laws prohibiting sacrificing virgins for religious ceremonies, the next thing you know, we won’t be able to practice religion at all!
If we ban cruel and unusual punishment, the next thing you know, all punishment will be banned!
If eminent domain is recognized, the government will grab everything all of us own!
Fortunately, most of us recognize that there are lines to be drawn and can logically discuss where those lines should be.
I did not know this until recently, but the Supreme Court has upheld the rights of states to mandate vaccines.
7-2 decision. In 1905.
Seatbelt laws absolutely affect society at large. If it was just you or me, no one would give a shit.
In addition to saving hundreds of thousands of lives ( a societal impact)
- In one year alone, crash deaths and injuries to drivers and passengers cost $70 billion in medical and lost work costs. (this is also a societal impact)
bolding mine
Parents choose not to vaccinate themselves or their eligible children, and send children to Bible camp. Of course, the kids catch COVID, spread it to the parents, who BOTH DIE. The mother’s final wish is “Make sure my kids get vaccinated.” It’s unfortunate that she’s too dead to feel shame.
A few weeks ago, Lydia Rodriguez thought her body was strong enough to fight the coronavirus without the vaccine.
But after a week-long church camp, she and other members of her family tested positive for the coronavirus. By the time Rodriguez, 42, changed her mind and asked for the shot, it was too late, her doctor said.
That wasn’t “society,” it was Mike Bloomberg, and the regulation really didn’t last long.
EVERYTHING has a ‘societal impact’! Following your logic, there should be laws against alcohol, smoking, obesity, fast food, Snickers bars, all sports, crossing the street, pretty much any activity. And there will need to be regulations on how much sleep you’re required to have before you can drive. Because car crashes are not caused by a failure to wear a seat belt, they’re caused by driver error/exhaustion/distraction/etc. I noted in my first comment that seatbelts save lives, that’s not in doubt, I’m questioning just how far we want the government involved in our personal choices.
Bloomberg was an elected official when he made that decision. Elected officials are the people society puts in charge of writing and implementing laws. Who do you think will be making the decisions if government gets to decide what we’re allowed to eat and why do you assume they will be rational and make decisions you agree with? Don’t be naive.
If they could kill and maim in an instant , yes.
Plus, pretty much all sports have rules and restrictions and there are laws about crossing the street, buying and consuming cigarettes and alcohol.
I’m saying that seatbelt laws are the government dictating what should be my choice. Me dying without a seatbelt is NOT the equivalent of me visiting a nursing home and hugging the residents without being vaccinated. You’re saying we should subjugate personal choice for the good of society. So you support China’s ‘one child per family’ policy. And of course you approve of yard darts being outlawed because they did kill one child. And it’s perfectly reasonable to lock people up if they won’t stay home when you think they should. You seem to think that ‘society’ would never pass any irrational laws, meaning laws you disagree with. Obviously, you’re not a female in Alabama who needs an abortion. While it may sound like a great idea to throw out civil rights to beat Covid, and it would be easier, it’s important to remember ‘society’ may not be the same next year (especially if Republicans take control) and precedents matter.
And don’t get started on speed limits and stop signs! Just who does society think it is telling me I have to stop at intersections! AmIright @Ziberian?
I’m not naive, and I’ve lived in NYC for more than sixty years, and I’ve seen mayors come and go. You can eat anything you want here, the big bottle ban was was completely ignored, even to the minimal extent it was actually enacted, because it turned out that a lot of the outlets at which those bottles were sold were regulated by the State of New York, not the City of New York, and Mike didn’t have the authority to ban the bottles except maybe in bodegas.
The regulation disappeared pretty quickly.
It was a huge nothing.
And you’re wrong. You don’t have the right to endanger others through your choices, full stop. Look up “social contract theory.”
There you go with that slippery slope nonsense again. It’d be ridiculous and illogical for me to say, “So, Ziberian, you don’t think the government should be able to regulate behavior! Therefore you believe there should be no laws against rape, murder, or theft! And you want us to become like Somalia in the Nineties and early 2000’s and have total anarchy!” I’d be very wrong. Slippery slope doesn’t work.
No, because that didn’t happen (as Saintly_Loser noted). A regulation capping the commercial portion size of sugared soft drinks at 16 ounces one pint was proposed to the New York City Board of Health in 2012 and accepted by the Board, but it was blocked from implementation by the New York courts, and never took effect.
In other words, what happened is that NYC as a society considered capping the commercial portion size of sugared soft drinks (which are indeed unhealthy, that’s medically not in dispute), but ultimately rejected the measure. That’s a perfectly fine debate for a society to have, and it would have been fine if they’d ended up accepting the measure too.
Saying that a commercial establishment can’t sell larger prepared individual portions of sugared soft drinks than one pint is not a draconian restriction on anybody’s freedom. People who want to drink more than one pint of a sugared soft drink at one sitting can still buy larger amounts of the stuff in many readily available forms.
The fact that this is the best you can come up with as an example of the dangers of “slippery slope” in health and safety regulations just shows how ridiculous your fearmongering is.
I think I understand exactly where you are coming from.
You are a Freedumb Fighter.