This is what happens when you live in a state run by Republicans

[cawacko]

Rebublicans have no compassion until something hits close to home. I guess you could call it selfish compassion ?

you are seriously an idiot sometimes. The argument is not about Republicans its about classical liberalism or libertarianism. Do you read the previous threads?

 

[Onceler]

Rebublicans have no compassion until something hits close to home. I guess you could call it selfish compassion ?

I don't see it as a compassion argument. It's dollars & cents.

To be fair, I'm not as familiar w/ the ramifications of helmet laws, but with seatbelt laws, there have been studies in states that have implemented them, & the stats are pretty overwhelming. The amount of tax money saved is hardly insignificant.

 

[Damocles]

There is the safety issue damo.

Im behind you in my tank, You go down ,your brains go splat and I hydro plane on them because you have such a huge libertarian brain and me and the whole family are sailing off a cliff.

LOL. (Seriously, probably one of the funniest things you ever wrote). Even huge libertarian brains are not enough to get you to hydroplane.

Seriously Damo a motorcycle is still a danger to a car. I am hyper aware of bikes and motorcycles because they represent fellow travelers who are very likely to break the rules and ruin my day even if they only put a dent in my tank.

I have yet to see one time that a bike caused somebody in a car to die. I have seen many times where a cage caused a biker to die.

And I am a volunteer firefighter.

 

[uscitizen]

I don't see it as a compassion argument. It's dollars & cents.

To be fair, I'm not as familiar w/ the ramifications of helmet laws, but with seatbelt laws, there have been studies in states that have implemented them, & the stats are pretty overwhelming. The amount of tax money saved is hardly insignificant.

True, but the aoumnt of money insurance companies have to pay out is greatly reduced. That is what it is all about, profit.

for the corporate good, not the individual good.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

When the jackass who is next to me swerves and hits me because he was trying to not run your ass over It does effect me dude.

Again, with or without a helmet, that jackass is still going to swerve.

 

[Damocles]

you are seriously an idiot sometimes. The argument is not about Republicans its about classical liberalism or libertarianism. Do you read the previous threads?

No, he didn't. The argument has been sidetracked into the secondary portion of the argument.

PC'ism exists, and it is what defines the differences I was highlighting with the two examples I used. They seized on one of the examples. The reality is that the "liberal" today has nothing in common with classical liberals.

 

[Onceler]

No, he didn't. The argument has been sidetracked into the secondary portion of the argument.

PC'ism exists, and it is what defines the differences I was highlighting with the two examples I used. They seized on one of the examples. The reality is that the "liberal" today has nothing in common with classical liberals.

Well, if you want to go back to what you originally said, "banning books" is much more in the realm of Republican thought (I won't say conservative, but it is definitely something that is more associated with modern-day Republicans). No doubt there are liberal "PC" examples, but Republicans, especially evangelicals, come from more of the place of fear that we see w/ attempts to ban books like Harry Potter or books that they see as promoting a "lifestyle" they don't agree with.

PMRC was not banning or censorship. It was about rating, like we do w/ movies & video games. I always hated the arguments made against PMRC; they were inaccurate & paranoid.

 

[Damocles]

Well, if you want to go back to what you originally said, "banning books" is much more in the realm of Republican thought (I won't say conservative, but it is definitely something that is more associated with modern-day Republicans). No doubt there are liberal "PC" examples, but Republicans, especially evangelicals, come from more of the place of fear that we see w/ attempts to ban books like Harry Potter or books that they see as promoting a "lifestyle" they don't agree with.

PMRC was not banning or censorship. It was about rating, like we do w/ movies & video games. I always hated the arguments made against PMRC; they were inaccurate & paranoid.

I agree that "both do it" and never tried to say that no republicans would. I said that it is silly to say that only Rs do it.

At least people on the thread use the "do it too" form of confession.

My point is that "liberals" today will and do attempt to censor and censure others for forms of speech.

 

[uscitizen]

I agree that "both do it" and never tried to say that no republicans would. I said that it is silly to say that only Rs do it.

At least people on the thread use the "do it too" form of confession.

My point is that "liberals" today will and do attempt to censor and censure others for forms of speech.

Yes damo as some of us have said.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

LOL. Driving is a privilege. You do not have a right to force me to pay for other people who use that privilege stupidly.

The reality is, motorcyclists are not going to hurt you in your cage. It is far more likely that you will, due to ignorance, hurt them.

Again. It isn't "liberal" to make such a law in any classical sense, it is only "liberal" in the present sense. That same "liberal" will attempt to make laws to censure (not censor, that is a different thing) people for using language they dislike. I have watched it happen right here on the floor of the state house.

That's populist liberals, not sane liberals.

You must admit that the populist segment of the right is just as bad, if not worse.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I've got this brush out, and I'm going to paint in very broad strokes with it.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

All infringements add up. And there is nothing trivial about protecting freedoms.

Those who are willing to give up freedoms for such a minimal return have sold their most valuable possession for pennies.

Few would touch 99% of freedoms, or freedoms that have even trivial benefit. Like free speech, obviously. But what about stealing? You say that isn't a freedom. It is. It's a freedom that should clearly be restricted.

How do people who don't wear their motorcycle helmets victimize us? Well, to use cold conservative logic, they cause economic damage because it takes more time to clear out the dead body from the street. The police will come, there will likely be courts brought in, any damages and perturbances to the economy will be far more pronounced, whenever someone dies. A funeral will have to be held, if the man has little money, it will be held at state expense, unless libertarians are now into dumping the bodies of poor people into the oceans. This will far exceed the costs of any treatment we'd need to perform on a person who had injuries with death that was prevented because of a helmet.

Also, they steal from their mothers and the family the water that drains out of their tear ducts. Libertarians don't count emotional damage into their vastly simplified equation of life. But it does matter something big. The biggest cost of death isn't nearly just the economic ones.

And what do we get out of all this? The freedom to not wear helmets? A huge loss, for a nothing return.

 

[Damocles]

Few would touch 99% of freedoms, or freedoms that have even trivial benefit. Like free speech, obviously. But what about stealing? You say that isn't a freedom. It is. It's a freedom that should clearly be restricted.

How do people who don't wear their motorcycle helmets victimize us? Well, to use cold conservative logic, they cause economic damage because it takes more time to clear out the dead body from the street. The police will come, there will likely be courts brought in, any damages and perturbances to the economy will be far more pronounced, whenever someone dies. A funeral will have to be held, if the man has little money, it will be held at state expense, unless libertarians are now into dumping the bodies of poor people into the oceans. This will far exceed the costs of any treatment we'd need to perform on a person who had injuries with death that was prevented because of a helmet.

Also, they steal from their mothers and the family the water that drains out of their tear ducts. Libertarians don't count emotional damage into their vastly simplified equation of life. But it does matter something big. The biggest cost of death isn't nearly just the economic ones.

And what do we get out of all this? The freedom to not wear helmets? A huge loss, for a nothing return.

Endorsing the government as the standard of what level of "safety" to enforce on you is more than the sum of the helmet law. The helmet law is only one MORE thing, it isn't the sum of all things.

You again miss the forest for the trees.

 

[Damocles]

That's populist liberals, not sane liberals.

You must admit that the populist segment of the right is just as bad, if not worse.

Read the thread. You will find that the "they do it too" 'argument' is actually a form of confession.

As a child did it ever serve you to use this defense?

 

[uscitizen]

Read the thread. You will find that the "they do it too" 'argument' is actually a form of confession.

As a child did it ever serve you to use this defense?

LOL, nope did not help a bit, Just likely got me whacked. But it seems to help the brats more now. And has become the cry of the bushies lately. Look at all the wars the dems caused, etc....

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Read the thread. You will find that the "they do it too" 'argument' is actually a form of confession.

As a child did it ever serve you to use this defense?

Yeah, I think the argument was dumb too, honestly.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Endorsing the government as the standard of what level of "safety" to enforce on you is more than the sum of the helmet law. The helmet law is only one MORE thing, it isn't the sum of all things.

You again miss the forest for the trees.

That's a perfectly legitimate viewpoint, Damo. I just don't think it overrides the argument against the helmet laws. The helmet laws don't hurt many people, and while the fines may not eliminate going without helmets, I think it is fine to want to reduce the amount, even with coercion.

Now, I'm usually not a fan of "for your own good" laws either.

 

[Damocles]

That's a perfectly legitimate viewpoint, Damo. I just don't think it overrides the argument against the helmet laws. The helmet laws don't hurt many people, and while the fines may not eliminate going without helmets, I think it is fine to want to reduce the amount, even with coercion.

Now, I'm usually not a fan of "for your own good" laws either.

And thus we sell our most valuable asset piecemeal and for cheap. We are such government sluts.

 

[uscitizen]

Lucky ag workers do not have such a loss of freedom. You don't have to have seat belts on em.
And you can haul them in the back of pickups and such.

Just further proof it is finiancial and not for your own good.

Also in KY child restraints are not required if you are in a pickup with 3 adults in the seat.....
Might have interferred with truck sales.

Never stand between a redneck and their truck !

 

[Socrtease]

If I ran an insurance company I would have very low rates for people who wore helmets. If you were in a motorcycle accident and were not wearing your helmet I would not pay out a dime to cover medical injury. My contract would state this clearly and I would make wearing a helmet worth it by the savings I would pass on to you by agreeing in writing that you would always wear a helmet. If EVERY insurance company did this. they would save on thousands of claims per year one way or the other. The state would not have to be involved at all. And I say all this as a long time motorcycle rider who only wore helmets when states made me for a very long time. I now wear a helmet anytime I am on a motorcycle.