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 09-22-2011, 07:34 AM
 
705 posts, read 944,765 times
Reputation: 320

Advertisements

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)
Poisoning is a metaphor, but with a hint of realism, that's how I've always inferred Hitchens term. In my opinion their reasoning has been poisoned by their foolish choice Moderator cut: deleted hen one makes a decision that is so irrational so as to cast safety and sensibliity aside, they have surely been mentally poisoned. In my opinion anyway. Thats how I went from their being fools to "poisoning." It's one in the same.

Last edited by june 7th; 10-01-2011 at 01:46 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-22-2011, 10:29 AM
 
Location: OKC
5,426 posts, read 5,736,247 times
Reputation: 1770
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
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.
First, as a general matter I think we in the U.S. have traded away too much of our freedom for safety. This is a value judgement, and reasonable people could disagree. But after living in societies where there was less safety but more freedom, I found that I prefered that system over ours.

It wasn't until I was out of the U.S that I discovered just how truely oppresive our safety regime is. Growing up here, I was the proverbial frog in the slowly boiling pot of water, never realizing what was going on while it happened. I just got safer and safer until one day I was so safe I could legally do little more than stay in a locked vault in my bedroom.

Second, and more directly to the point, I don't think the government should save an individual from himself. Whether it be suicide, drugs, or driving without a seat belt, the individual should have ultimate control of his body, so long as he does not pose a threat to others.

This is based on my belief that the human being has superior jurisdiction over his own body, and the government doesn't have a legitimate basis to veto the decisions he makes that only effect himself. In Locke terms, we never put that clause into our social contract.

To your point about the rescues, as per the above I would not require safety regulations to climb mountains. Society can determine if they want to help those who get in trouble, and whether out of charitable instincts or greed for tourism dollars it may well do so. Alternatively society may just tell stranded mountain climbers they are on their own.

But nothing should prohibit a person from taking a risk with their life, so long as they are not risking the lives of others in the procees. That slope is slippery indeed, and if we don't have dominion over our own body, what can't the government do?

Last edited by Boxcar Overkill; 09-22-2011 at 10:40 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2011, 12:22 PM
 
39,255 posts, read 10,922,331 times
Reputation: 5101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill View Post
First, as a general matter I think we in the U.S. have traded away too much of our freedom for safety. This is a value judgement, and reasonable people could disagree. But after living in societies where there was less safety but more freedom, I found that I prefered that system over ours.

It wasn't until I was out of the U.S that I discovered just how truely oppresive our safety regime is. Growing up here, I was the proverbial frog in the slowly boiling pot of water, never realizing what was going on while it happened. I just got safer and safer until one day I was so safe I could legally do little more than stay in a locked vault in my bedroom.

Second, and more directly to the point, I don't think the government should save an individual from himself. Whether it be suicide, drugs, or driving without a seat belt, the individual should have ultimate control of his body, so long as he does not pose a threat to others.

This is based on my belief that the human being has superior jurisdiction over his own body, and the government doesn't have a legitimate basis to veto the decisions he makes that only effect himself. In Locke terms, we never put that clause into our social contract.

To your point about the rescues, as per the above I would not require safety regulations to climb mountains. Society can determine if they want to help those who get in trouble, and whether out of charitable instincts or greed for tourism dollars it may well do so. Alternatively society may just tell stranded mountain climbers they are on their own.

But nothing should prohibit a person from taking a risk with their life, so long as they are not risking the lives of others in the procees. That slope is slippery indeed, and if we don't have dominion over our own body, what can't the government do?
Your argument is a tempting one and letting risk takers go to hell in their own hang-glider is certainly one way to do it. There might even be a opt out clause where the person eschews any rescue measures no matter what.

But It wouldn't work, would it? What society (especially a rationalist one?) could stand by and let an opt - out rock scrambler die because he wouldn't sign up to a rescue insurance scheme? Not to mention a lot of Absolute Moralists just ready to accuse the regi..uhh.. administration of callous disregard for human compassion and the screams of professional fault - finders.

I am sorry if you felt that you were so hedged around with safety regulations that you didn't dare go out of your front door. I'd say that the matter was wrongly approached. As these matters very often are and are more to do with covering City Hall against any blame that improving the quality of life.

I'm sure that there is a better way of letting people take those adrenaline rush risks without hitting the rest of us in the purse when the bungee breaks.

Again there are pros and cons. and cons invited, unless we are getting off topic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-22-2011, 01:55 PM
 
Location: OKC
5,426 posts, read 5,736,247 times
Reputation: 1770
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
Your argument is a tempting one and letting risk takers go to hell in their own hang-glider is certainly one way to do it. There might even be a opt out clause where the person eschews any rescue measures no matter what.

But It wouldn't work, would it? What society (especially a rationalist one?) could stand by and let an opt - out rock scrambler die because he wouldn't sign up to a rescue insurance scheme? Not to mention a lot of Absolute Moralists just ready to accuse the regi..uhh.. administration of callous disregard for human compassion and the screams of professional fault - finders.

I am sorry if you felt that you were so hedged around with safety regulations that you didn't dare go out of your front door. I'd say that the matter was wrongly approached. As these matters very often are and are more to do with covering City Hall against any blame that improving the quality of life.

I'm sure that there is a better way of letting people take those adrenaline rush risks without hitting the rest of us in the purse when the bungee breaks.

Again there are pros and cons. and cons invited, unless we are getting off topic.
No reason to be sorry, and of course I wasn't being literal.

It's not just the adrenaline rush, it's the offensiveness of having that much government control over my body that I reject.

For example, in many cities a private business person can NOT have a private business where he allows willing customers to smoke cigarettes. While I don't happen to like cigarettes, and I might not want to go to that resturant, I resent the government for forcing that decision on me. After all, if they can regulate that, what CAN"T they regulate?

The government is not wise enough to be my parent, and the government should not rightfully be entitled to make those sorts of decisions for me.

I don't argue out of practicality. Certainly, society benefits, at least in some sense, if we are forced to wear seat belts and denied other liberties. Further, society would benefit as a whole if we imposed a nation wide curfew past 8pm. But the benefits don't outweight the cost, in my estimation. I prefer freedom over safety.

My arguement is philosophical, rather than practical, and it is also my personal preference. I don't think the government's role is to act in place of our parents, and I don't happen to like it when the government tries to act like a parent.

During the cold war, we American's used to pride ourselves in the amount of freedome we had. Rightly or wrongly, we described ourselves as the free-est country in the world. We were ready to fight the soviets - not on their economic policies, but against their authoritarian regime policies.

Now, we in no way can say we are the free-est country in the world. Not even close. That burns me a bit, because as a cold war kid that was part of my self-identity. Why were we so quick to fight for freedom if we were just going to let our own government turn into a police state? (Poetic license there.)

So both as a philosophical matter, and a matter of personal preference, I reject governmental interferance with the risk we choose to assume.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2011, 01:40 AM
 
39,255 posts, read 10,922,331 times
Reputation: 5101
Ok. I rather suspected that it was a bit of hyperbole. And I do understand the point that you are making and I agree. Not because we can't or shouldn't have after all in place safety measures for ourselves to which we should all agree, nor that people couldn't have an opt - out clause from democracy and society, though I suspect they would still expect a helping hand in difficulty (1).

Where I think we could come to agree is that the safety rules are indeed needed for all our good but this is often done in a heavy handed, quick fix and on the cheap way. E.g. Some kiddies on the swings are mucking about as we all did and they fall and bruise their fat little heads. Joe public screams about 'they' who are responsible (not the parents who should have been looking after the little darlings) and so should provide full time carers (at someone else's expense, mind (2) to ensure that kids are prevented from smacking their heads on the tarmac while the parents go down the garden centre. Actually the best idea was to replace the tarmac with rubber (3) but that cost money so the simplest idea was to take the swings away.
That's what I mean by the cheap and lazy approach. I appreciate your view on not having a smoking area. It's a bit too easy to just have across the board banning. But let's say that so -one is stopping the Amish smoking. Just they are not supposed to do it outside of the smoking area and having a religion or tradition that says they have to do so is no valid excuse.

(1) I was going to go onto an idea of opters - out being allowed to do so and the first time they press the panic button, they have opted in and (to get back to the Amish) to what extent are they expecting to pick and choose what they want from the wider society and what they choose not to buy into. There's an element of the tail not only wagging the dog but leading it about by the nose - the same as the 'I won't sell bacon' or 'I won't marry gays' fraternity and it must be said those who play the race or 'evicting me from my squat is ethnic cleansing' card. It's a try -on.

(2) under the 'we pay our taxes, don't we?' abrogation of responsiblity clause. I can get an adreniline rush, too, about the Nimby and 'they' should do this' - always 'someone else's problem' attitude steams me.

(3) until the little buzzards got the brilliant idea of digging bits up and eating it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2011, 06:01 AM
 
Location: Tampa, FL
2,637 posts, read 10,953,555 times
Reputation: 3548
Quote:
(to get back to the Amish) to what extent are they expecting to pick and choose what they want from the wider society and what they choose not to buy into.
This was my question, too. It seems like there should be no issues with whether or not to use safety triangles because it seems like they wouldn't even be using public roads. Public roads made with modern techniques by giant machines... with big immodest reflective signs, electric lights... I don't understand why they reject machinery and electricity and reflective paint, but not so much as to avoid using roads that are made, maintained, and marked with these technologies? Aren't they partaking of the modern society they decry every time they use one of those roads?

Of course they have a right as fellow citizens to use those roads, but they don't have a right to endanger other citizens by driving a vehicle without proper safety equipment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2011, 02:57 AM
 
39,255 posts, read 10,922,331 times
Reputation: 5101
I suppose that I would support a case for an Amishland theme park where cars are not allowed inside and the only mode of transport is Amishmobile. I'd be quite charmed by it. In that case there would be no danger of a car - crash and any demand that safely triangles must be attached would strike me as applying the law over legalistically and some effort could surely be made to accommodate their customs. My only objection is if they want to sideline traffic safety laws outside their own area where I am sure there really is a safety issue, quite apart from the sheer insolence of it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2011, 12:24 AM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
15,314 posts, read 10,363,469 times
Reputation: 2614
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
My only objection is if they want to sideline traffic safety laws outside their own area where I am sure there really is a safety issue, quite apart from the sheer insolence of it.
I agree entirely professor. Either be a part of society or don't but if you chose to be, then abide by the rules. As stated by another poster, these jerks are happy enough to use the benefits of society like driving their carts on tarmac roads, to the shops where they buy provisions grown commercially and brought there by trucks. Off with their heads I say!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2011, 09:17 AM
 
361 posts, read 292,106 times
Reputation: 676
I think it is best not to push the safety triangle issue any further. The next thing you know the Amish will demand to be exempt from social security taxes. One must always consider the consequences
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2011, 10:27 AM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 11,385,753 times
Reputation: 3735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill View Post
√ It wasn't until I was out of the U.S that I discovered just how truely oppresive our safety regime is. Growing up here, I was the proverbial frog in the slowly boiling pot of water, never realizing what was going on while it happened. I just got safer and safer until one day I was so safe I could legally do little more than stay in a locked vault in my bedroom.

To your point about the rescues, as per the above I would not require safety regulations to climb mountains. Society can determine if they want to help those who get in trouble, and whether out of charitable instincts or greed for tourism dollars it may well do so. Alternatively society may just tell stranded mountain climbers they are on their own.

But nothing should prohibit a person from taking a risk with their life, so long as they are not risking the lives of others in the procees. That slope is slippery indeed, and if we don't have dominion over our own body, what can't the government do?
My son is poised to {possibly...} become a helo-certified "flight nurse" ParaMedic. The excitement appeals to his youthful immortality, but I, having spent altogether too much time kiting about in these aerodynamically improbable devices, am one to seriously caution him about those wire strikes, and heroic flights in utterly horrid weather. But still, as a society, we do it because we can, because we have the now-easily demonstrated technology, and in the main, we survive. Mostly.

As do the Amish in their rides down the gravelly side of some Indiana high-speed highway. Anecdotal fairy-tales ("I for one have never seen an Amish car-buggy crash, so obviously it doesn't happen!") doesn't really cut it here. Esp. in a legal arena.

The answer is simple: If your vehicle does not comply with the necessary safety/emission regs, you cannot use it on our thusly designed roadways. Stay over on the adjoining meadow.

And now, for the pure sake of enjoying the higher use of our language, I point out these classics....

Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
√ ...letting risk takers go to hell in their own hang-glider is certainly one way to do it.

√ What society (especially a rationalist one?) could stand by and let an opt - out rock scrambler die because he wouldn't sign up to a rescue insurance scheme?

√ I'm sure that there is a better way of letting people take those adrenaline rush risks without hitting the rest of us in the purse when the bungee breaks.

√ There's an element of the tail not only wagging the dog but leading it about by the nose.

(rflmn's ed-note: and in a mildly obtuse acknowledgement of District 9 ...those who play the race of 'evicting me from my squat is ethnic cleansing' card.
As for our Gov'mint's safety standards...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill View Post
√ The government is not wise enough to be my parent, and the government should not rightfully be entitled to make those sorts of decisions for me.

I don't argue out of practicality. Certainly, society benefits, at least in some sense, if we are forced to wear seat belts and denied other liberties. Further, society would benefit as a whole if we imposed a nation wide curfew past 8pm. But the benefits don't outweight the cost, in my estimation. I prefer freedom over safety.

During the cold war, we American's used to pride ourselves in the amount of freedome we had. Rightly or wrongly, we described ourselves as the free-est country in the world. We were ready to fight the Soviets - not on their economic policies, but against their authoritarian regime policies.

Now, we in no way can say we are the free-est country in the world. Not even close. That burns me a bit, because as a cold war kid that was part of my self-identity. Why were we so quick to fight for freedom if we were just going to let our own government turn into a police state? (Poetic license there.)

So both as a philosophical matter, and a matter of personal preference, I reject governmental interferance with the risk we choose to assume.
Wholly agreed, Boxcar, but I do want to posit one additional Big Q: what, in your opinion, is the free-est country now extant? I may wanna move there. I might suggest, on the surface, Australia? (though their firearms restrictions get my Nimrodian goat..). Any of the Scandinavian countries? Iceland mayhaps? Canada (no no NO! No frickin' way on that one!). The Bikini Atolls? (Uhhhmmmm...just ignore those 3 headed iguanas; after all, they're free....).

Quote:
Originally Posted by tilli View Post
This was my question, too. It seems like there should be no issues with whether or not to use safety triangles because it seems like they wouldn't even be using public roads. Public roads made with modern techniques by giant machines... with big immodest reflective signs, electric lights... I don't understand why they reject machinery and electricity and reflective paint, but not so much as to avoid using roads that are made, maintained, and marked with these technologies? Aren't they partaking of the modern society they decry every time they use one of those roads?

Of course they have a right as fellow citizens to use those roads, but they don't have a right to endanger other citizens by driving a vehicle without proper safety equipment.
I'm also curious if this particular tribe of the Amish faith also decry modern metallurgy (as in a oil-hardened chisel, or a file or even a hand-turned (or via belt to the donkey-driven turntable), or metal hinges on their doors, or Amsoil synth-grease on the axles of said modest buggies. Or do they use hand-rendered bear grease? Or if they deny our humble organic-oil-based fuels for their lamps, or a nice antibiotic salve for that truly nasty laceration they sustained with their Buck™ knife?

I suppose one must pick one's absolute totems, huh?
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