U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-21-2011, 02:20 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,875 posts, read 31,754,043 times
Reputation: 12622

Advertisements

The sad fact though is that many people are their own worst enemy, but I guess that just thins out the flock, in a manner of speaking.

From www.darwinawards.com: "Honoring those who improve the species...by accidentally removing themselves from it!"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-21-2011, 02:38 PM
 
Location: North Beach, MD on the Chesapeake
33,881 posts, read 42,096,122 times
Reputation: 43286
Boxcar Overkill brings up an interesting point. That is, how many posters here even know what they're talking about when referencing the orange triangles in question?

My guess is that most have never seen what the issue is and reflexively responded because there was a religion angle.

For reference this is what's being discussed:

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2011, 03:03 PM
 
Location: OKC
5,426 posts, read 5,727,353 times
Reputation: 1770
I see no problem with signs such as those being required. Not because it protects the Amish, but because it protects anyone else driving down the road at night. The Amish have the right to believe what they will, and should have the right to put themselves in as much danger as they choose. But they don't have the right to endanger others on the road.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2011, 07:37 PM
 
16,300 posts, read 24,953,508 times
Reputation: 8282
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person View Post
Boxcar Overkill brings up an interesting point. That is, how many posters here even know what they're talking about when referencing the orange triangles in question?

My guess is that most have never seen what the issue is and reflexively responded because there was a religion angle.

For reference this is what's being discussed:
Not that uncommon, for they are also seen on farm equipment and other slow moving equipment that is required if it ever travels on a street or highway.

The shape and color have been selected after testing for visibility.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2011, 08:07 PM
 
Location: Earth
1,113 posts, read 1,881,826 times
Reputation: 757
Well this guy thinks they go to fast.

Amish Speed Trap - YouTube
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2011, 08:14 PM
 
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
3,381 posts, read 3,489,911 times
Reputation: 438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill View Post
I don't think the Amish, or anyone else, should be forced to wear orange safety vest.

Or wear seat belts or helmets.

This is based on my libertarian beliefs, and I don't like the big daddy government forcing people to be safe.

This is supposed to be the "land of the free," and yet the government is constantly trying to make us so safe that we are hardly free at all. It should be MY decision whether I want to wear a safety belt, and it should be the Amish decision on whether they want to wear the orange vest....

... unless it is a direct hazard to others, in which case I believe the laws would be acceptable.
If the Amish want to use taxpayer roads, they have to follow the laws. And, about the helmets and seatbelts; does it matter to you that the community pays more, in the end, for those who want to use their freedom (lack of common sense) to throw their helmets and seatbelts off into the sunset so they can......what exactly?...than those who just put on their seatbelts and get on with their unmaimed ways?

Just saw post #36. Was that you changing your mind? Couldn't quite figure it out.

Last edited by herefornow; 09-21-2011 at 08:45 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2011, 01:42 AM
 
39,033 posts, read 10,825,389 times
Reputation: 5082
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill View Post
To be clear I'm not advocating breaking the law, I'm advocating changing the law.
I agree with people's right to lobby for changing the law, if they can get enough support. I don't in principle agree with ignoring a law because it doesn't suit us. Though as pointed out there are always some cases where one has to make a moral choice.

Quote:
Nor am I for religious exemptions, whichever changes I would make to the law would apply to everyone regardless of their religion.

I value freedom over safety, so long as we are making that decision for ourselves and not for someone else. In this context it would mean people should be allowed to take any risk they choose, so long as they were only risking their lives and not the lives of others. (Even then I am for expanding the limits of the risk we are allowed to take for ourselves AND others.)
I agree. It is another matter or discussion, but I don't approve of solving problems of doing risky things by taking the easy option of forbidding them. What we should do is take precautions - which we do in any case, but only in certain things where we have an interest. Other stuff is simply neglected and we say 'don't do it'. It's frankly lazy and inconsiderate (1).

Quote:
Without seeing the safety devices in question I'm not sure whether they were designed for the safety of the Amish or the safety of other drivers. Possible both. If the safety device was designed for the purpose of the people who use it, then I don't think it should be required. If it is designed for the safety of others, then there is a stronger argument that it should be allowed.
I agree that it looks as absurd as if some committee had passed a law that a large flashing light to be put on top of every car. In a way, though, I can see that a very real chance of an accident does potentially affect others. Even if we were to say that an Amish ignoring the safely sign rule outside the Amish area (cars not being allowed inside it - or not at night, anyway - a community might be given some privileges, after all) couldn't expect any sympathy or compensation if they got hit - that could well affect the person who accidentally hit them, physically, mentally, or as regards their no - claims bonus. It comes down to a certain disregard for others by a community who think that their religious beliefs somehow exempts them from the society of the country they live in.

Quote:
I don't think it is the proper role of government to protect us from ourselves.
I have come to the conclusion that it is, if we don't do it for ourselves. It's like a lot of things like armies, police, hospitals, schools and work. It would be nice if we didn't need them to protect us from enemies, criminals, disease, ignorance and no income, but we do. And we have to have it done at government level because we can't be relied upon to do it voluntarily. It's the same with safety (2).

I'm glad to discuss these ideas as I am hardly an expert in law or politics or sociology and I would like to see them put under scrutinty. So scroot away, mate.

(1) got to give an example. There have been regular rumbles about the expense of rescuing people who get into trouble. Some say they should pay for the helicopter or rescue mission or whatever. The answer seems to me to be regulation - sorry! But people can't be relied upon to lake precautions so, when they do risky things like caving or mountain climbing, they should be obliged to prepare for eventualities. perhaps by doing it as part of an organization which has insurance if any participants get trapped and have to be rescued. It is possibly giving up a freedom to do what we damn' well like but then, if we live in a compassionate world, we are going to have to rescue them at our own expense? Consideration goes two ways.

(2) I sometimes have toyed with the idea of outlawry or 'voluntary bond' - not to use the term slavery - for those who will not or cannot observe the law or run their own affairs. The society will withdraw from them the benefits of the law they disregard when it suits them and run the affairs of those who cannot manage their affairs themselves - with subsequent detriment to society as a whole. But I do realize that a prejudiced (in the literal sense of the word) society will scream in horror at the idea of such barbarism just as they do at the idea of a legalized sex industry.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-22-2011 at 01:50 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2011, 03:24 AM
 
Location: 30-40N 90-100W
13,856 posts, read 22,958,982 times
Reputation: 6679
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
No. His stand was on a moral basis. While one might take issue with the reasoning, it was not done simply because of some rather pointless religious tradition.
Do any of us know enough about their tradition on this matter to say it's "pointless" or "not reasoned"? Sometimes saying a tradition is "pointless" is kind of just a way of saying you don't know the point of it. And do we know for certain bright orange is the only way to go here? It does sort of clash with how they dress or live. So could some kind of negotiation or compromise be possible? Like is there a different bright color they could tolerate having on their buggies? Or would some kind of reflective material work and be okay by them?

Also even if one thinks their fools I'm not sure how the OP went from that to this "poisoning" anything. Traffic deaths concern me too, but how major is this on that problem? Is there clear evidence they've endangered the lives of others? (Maybe there is, I could see it but I don't know)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2011, 03:39 AM
 
Location: Florida
19,786 posts, read 19,886,317 times
Reputation: 23202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas R. View Post
Traffic deaths concern me too, but how major is this on that problem? Is there clear evidence they've endangered the lives of others? (Maybe there is, I could see it but I don't know)
We don't have an Amish population here but we do have farm vehicles.
While they are less likely to be out on the roads at dusk/dark when it is even a bigger danger, the situation is the same.
Have you ever seen road signage is pastel pink or ecru?
There's a reason for the colors.
Running into one of them isn't just going to endanger them...it's going to hurt my car and has the potential to injure me and/or my passengers too.
Do you suppose these buggies carry liability insurance?In some states, I know, they are not required to,

Last edited by old_cold; 09-22-2011 at 03:50 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2011, 04:33 AM
 
39,033 posts, read 10,825,389 times
Reputation: 5082
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas R. View Post
Do any of us know enough about their tradition on this matter to say it's "pointless" or "not reasoned"? Sometimes saying a tradition is "pointless" is kind of just a way of saying you don't know the point of it. And do we know for certain bright orange is the only way to go here? It does sort of clash with how they dress or live. So could some kind of negotiation or compromise be possible? Like is there a different bright color they could tolerate having on their buggies? Or would some kind of reflective material work and be okay by them?

Also even if one thinks their fools I'm not sure how the OP went from that to this "poisoning" anything. Traffic deaths concern me too, but how major is this on that problem? Is there clear evidence they've endangered the lives of others? (Maybe there is, I could see it but I don't know)
I take your point. I am of course arguing from the point of view of there being no sensible or practical reason for not displaying safely triangles of vehicles. From what limited knowledge I have of the Amish I may be forgiven that it is all part of their rather retrospective traditional lifestyle, which is their choice and does have its merits and attractions, I don't deny.

If you can suggest a good reason why they ought not to be required to comply with road safely regulations, I should love to hear it.

As to 'poisoning'. It may seem overdone - I wouldn't use Hitchin's terms myself, but I can see how the insistence on being allowed to claim possibly unsocial rights and privileges on the basis of religion - based tradition is the thin edge of a rather toxic wedge.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top