And this doesn’t bother you?!?
But if you aren’t wearing your seatbelt and get pulled over for it, then it’s not without cause. I agree with Askance on this one: seatbelt laws have no more inherent connection to the abuse of police power than any other piece of law, whether it’s about jaywalking or spitting on the sidewalk or carrying half the GDP of Colombia in your trunk. Police overreaching is a real issue, but it’s a different issue than the nanny-state issue many here are griping about.
Yes, it DOES bother me; but unless you can show that seatbelt laws are significantly more likely than other laws to result in cops arbitrarily pulling over motorists, then you haven’t made much of a point against seatbelt laws.
I don’t agree. Yes, if I get pulled over not wearing a seatbelt, fine. The point is that seatbelts are almost impossble to see from a distance. Between window glare, poor eyesight, varying car designs and a million other factors the odds of a cop being able to see if you are or are not wearing a seatbelt are practically nil. With the obvious exceptions of them sitting next to you at a light or in a staged “seatbelt enforcement blockade”. However, if a motorist who happened to be a minority got pulled over and was found to be in compliance with all laws, a cop would easily state that he thought it looked like he wasn’t wearing his seabelt. All of a suden this is perfectly legal and just.
I choose not to fight against police overreaching after the fact, lets just not put laws on the book which help to propogate it.
Well, being that it hasn’t been primary enforcement for very long the odds of anyone having any data on it is unlikely. Nevertheless, we don’t operate on a mindset of “lets outlaw everything, and if it turns out to be a bad law we’ll undo it”. I think the legislation which passed these laws was flawed from the start. Something can be inherently and fundamentally wrong even before the costs of it are known. In this case, that applies IMO.
At the risk of seeming argumentative, I’ll just say that the horse left that particular barn a long time ago. If the police are truly determined to pull you over, they can always say something like, “I thought he was driving erratically.” The issue remains, seat-belt laws or no seat-belt laws.
Don’t patronize me.
I’ve been participating in the thread from the outset. I’ve read every post and being that close to 20% of them are mine feel like I have a pretty good take on what the arguement is. I don’t see anyone treating my point as a hijack, except those unwilling to debate it.
Who exactly is trotting out libertarian dogma which you seem to be arguing against? I suppose Unregistered Bull’s whopping 4 sentence post could be construed as that. I’d say my arguement has at least as much merit as any other.
I don’t recall anyone spouting off about how they are better off not wearing those seatbelts even though they don’t, so that musn’t be the arguement at hand…
I don’t see anyone decrying the nanny-state we live in except as it applies to certain hypocrisy in peoples arguement (which you may justifiably disagree with). Can’t say I’d call this a libertarianism arguement…
I suppose if someone feels that I’m mischaracterizing their arguement against seatbelt laws in accordance with my views, I suppose it’d behoove them to clarify that…don’t see that you have a standing to do so for them, being the opponent and all.
Dang, I’ve been Great Debated. Oh well - it’s a fair cop at this point.
Let’s look at the “pull you over for no reason” argument. In my nearly 20 years of driving, I’ve been pulled over for a drunk driving checkstop once, and pulled over for no reason, let’s see, never. My government-controlled country seems to be doing pretty fairly in leaving my civil liberties alone - how about yours?
You’re right, I just don’t choose to throw up my hands a give up because things are already fucked up…maybe I’m an idealist. But I think you’d admit that the seatbelt law offers the most leeway in that you couldn’t get corroborating evidence to the contrary. If a cop wanted to claim that I didn’t signal a turn or that I was driving erratically, I could at least call a witness to the contrary. As far as him “not seeing a seatbelt”, well you can’t hope to prove or disprove that.
Well, perhaps you should inquire with one of the varied minorities in the US before you make that uninformed presumption.
Oh, and for the record, as a white middle class male I’ve been pulled over and given field sobriety tests 9 times in a span of 4 years. All of which were unfounded mind you, and in one case led to a dubious “the light changed to red while you were still in the intersection” citation. This entirely discounts the number of time in high school where a group of teenage males sharing a car were pulled over just to see what we were up to at a late hour.
I’m going to go on a limb and guess that a Arab-American or a African-American might have it a little tougher than me.
I will treat you exactly as you present yourself. In claiming that a few - one endorsed in many if not most of the posts in the thread - had not been argued at all, you demonstrated that you haven’t read the thread thoroughly enough to discuss it. Should you be willing to remedy that, I have no doubt that our discussion will be a fruitful one.
Now you’re not even reading my posts. I never said your point was unworthy of debate - in fact, I agreed that it has far more reason backing it than, for instance, vetbridge’s (several) posts about how the state just doesn’t have the right. Nevertheless, while you have certainly posted prolifically, your argument is not the argument because there are multiple arguments in the thread - of which yours is only one, and you are the only endorser. The argument you claim not to have seen except in Unregistered Bull’s post is actually one of the major points being discussed in the thread, and I originally posted in order to respond to that.
That doesn’t mean I don’t understand your argument (who’s patronizing here again?), just that I chose not to address it in my original few posts, because instead I chose to argue with the much more popular view that Sal Ammoniac aptly described as “doctrinaire libertarianism.” You have every right to set the terms of what you’re willing to defend; you do not get to decide that other arguments are irrelevant and that I may not address them.
Who claimed your argument had no merit? Certainly not me - are you this upset that I chose to argue another point rather than debate what you wanted? This isn’t a one-on-one televised debate. If I chose to address others’ arguments, that’s my perogative.
And as I said before, I’m not going to name the posters who’ve decried a “nanny-state” because their posts are simply so numerous that you can find them yourself by glancing through the thread far quicker than I can cite them in a post. If you’re not willing to look at the thread, then - again - it is not worth my time to discuss with you.
Hmm? This sentence makes no sense. I’m assuming you’re stating that no one has argued that not wearing seatbelts is better than wearing them. While hlanelee’s post came close, it is indeed the only one endorsing that viewpoint. Naturally it’s not a popular one.
Again, you need to express yourself more clearly. I can’t even guess at what you intended to say with this sentence.
Your argument is not the only one that is relevant. I’m sorry you react so badly to discussions of others’ viewpoints. I hope you improve at some point.
And there’s only one “e” in “argument”.
WTF? I am stopped at a red light and I decide to change CDs and that is wrong? I’ve never been in an accident that has occured due to my own negligence.
In case you’re wondering, though, Omniscient, twelve posters in the thread (out of 63) plus you endorsed the notion that seatbelts are a good idea but government enforcement is not. You’re the only one who’s mentioned police harassment. The rest don’t believe the government has the right. Look for phrases like “mommy state” and “nanny state”. Note that the thread’s second most prolific poster endorses this view.
I must have too much time on my hands that I’m actually bothering to talk to someone who either hasn’t bothered to read the thread or simply is willing to do whatever it takes to prevent anyone else’s view from being discussed.
You initially quoted me within a reply in which you denigrate the mindset of people who want to exhibit “person stupidity” and quote a post which discusses some sopposed “Frontier” mentality which responded partly to posts I made regarding the nature of seatbelt laws. Those are two perspectives which I have not offered agreement with. Seems perfectly reasonable for me to assume that you were misconstruing my argument to suit the arguement you wanted to make. If you retorting the comments of other posters viewpoints perhaps you should have quoted their posts to crystalize your point, then I won’t take your condescending arguments as being directed at me.
Sorry to continue to waste your precious time.
Pretend like I proofread that before posting…
“Person stupidity”? What, may I ask, are you even talking about at this point?
I responded to two quotes within one post. You were posting silly slippery-slope arguments, and I took a sentence to point that out right after responding to something featherlou said. I had the quotes to separate them - you could not possibly have been confused over which section referenced you. It was a sentence, and it was directly below your quote box. The above paragraphs - below a quotebox of featherlou’s, was responding to featherlou. The fact that I put my replies to people under quoteboxes with their words is not an eerie coincidence. It is a deliberate choice done to make it clear who I’m speaking to at any time.
Later you claimed that no one was arguing a point that - actually - over 20% of the posters in the thread are arguing. Why would you do that? Did you think you’d fool me? What’s the point of claiming that no one’s arguing a point when in reality it’s a very popular one?
You certainly did waste my time. I thought you wanted to discuss seatbelts. Actually you just wanted to instigate arguments.
Here’s your quote. That is what I was quoting above, though admittedly I did it poorly by not proofreading.
featherlou’s post which you quoted, as I read it, was following up a comment which I made. It was also a comment which I quoted subsequently before your post. Your quoting the same comment in full agreement with her with an even more condecending tone seemed to me to be an implicit retort to my comments.
The last quote potshot you made towards me was just emphasising the fact.
If that is wrong, so be it, but don’t act like your dismissing my argument and focusing on the “nanny-state argument” proponents is any more inclusive a debating style than mine is.
To the point, the laws are a dangerous precedent no matter what your viewpoint. You may see it as a slippery slope, I don’t. Or I should say that I do think it’s a growing infringement on our liberty, not just a weak fallacy.
I’m not sure why you wanted to read an insult into what I said. I was discussing something she’d said about folks who have endorse kneejerk doctrinaire libertarianism. Perhaps she’d inadvertently placed you in that category, but I hadn’t, and I don’t understand why you thought I had. I didn’t address you at all - why would you think I was talking to you when I was plainly addressing someone else?
Frankly, I thought you were arguing by slippery slope, and I don’t think it’s valid. Like I said, I think your argument is a valid one - just not one I’ve seen adequately proven. I had very similar concerns, in fact, when Michigan’s seatbelt laws were toughened.
The more than 20% of the posters in the thread who shared such kneejerk libertarian sentiments are merely what I chose to respond to first. I never had a chance to discuss your points, because you leapt into this multi-page tangent. Which is why I have no intention of returning to this thread - I have no desire to discuss the matter further. Like I said, I came for a discussion about seatbelts. I’m uninterested in your arguments about how people choose to argue, and I’m even less interested in being blamed for your bizarre misinterpretations of my posts.
Well, it exists. It’s called having a cultural and collective sense of responsibility.
It’s rare to see the police on the roads here. Except in extreme situations, they have nothing to do with speed limit enforcement. They’ll generally pay attention only if your driving gives ‘cause for concern’ (i.e. you’re possibly drunk).
Does this mean that we could get away with a helluva lot? Yes. Do we take advantage of this? No. As I’ve pointed out earlier, seatbelt compliance here is pretty much universal, and nobody questions it. We accept that rules are made for the general good - call it nannying if you wish.
Clearly, there’s parts of the USA where our nannying policies wouldn’t work. But I suspect there’s also places it would. America’s a big place, and so is Europe (Italy only introduced its bike-helmet law fairly recently, with much opposition).
(BTW, I don’t think anybody’s mentioned the issue of what impression or influence is made on children when they see adults choosing to both ignore the law and risk injury…)