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.
Nothing exposes the fallacy of group think and consensus opinion any better than that quote from Einstein.
What is really sad is looking up at the poll and seeing how many people think nothing of individual liberty these days. I mean, we went from a nation of individual thinkers (many of them were not even highly educated) to a nation of group thinkers (a large amount highly educated) who can't be bothered with taking the time to even verify if a claim is correct or not, which considering all the technology with information at our fingertips is absurd.
This is a very selfish reason why I get angry at the defiant anti-seatbelt users, but first-responders are sent out to tend to your remaining bits and pieces, first responders who now put their health and wellbeing on the line traveling at speed by road or in small aircraft. If a driver has done all they can to minimize injury, so be it, but to knowing engage in an activity that has a proven increased risk, and then expect others to put their lives at risk to tend to your selfish behinds ticks me off.
Yep, statistics are really a tool for deception. It is like a gun. In the hand of a honest person, it can protect and save lives, but in the hands of a dishonest person it destroys and takes life. Sad that we have quotes from long ago "lies, damn lies, and statistics" that make light of this problem and yet people worship at the altar of statistics as if it were fact.
Funny thing you mention about the vaccines, it reminds me of the flu shot garbage that goes on each year. This is anecdotal, but a long time ago, my wife and I used to get the flu shot and every year both of us would get dreadfully ill for a couple weeks each time. We finally stopped getting them and neither of us have had the flu for over 10 years. I know it isn't "significant" of anything (other than for us), but I learned a long time ago that what the "consensus" or the "authorities" say, isn't always the truth. Gotta check them and make them validate their claims or they are just as credible as the guy along the street holding up the sign about the end of the world.
You already pointed out some of the ways that statistics can be manipulated, but I don't think people are aware of just how flagrantly and frequently this is done.
I've taken it upon myself on quite a few occasions to analyze statistical results of certain studies when the conclusions seemed odd or counterintuitive, and it is amazing the type of shenanigans that go in the conduct of the MAJORITY of these efforts that people accept at face value as the gospel truth.
I've seen new drug safety studies that have excluded "deaths" of the participants when calculating the safety statistics, claiming that unless there was clear proof that the drug caused the death, including that date would compromise the "integrity" of the study!!! Of course no effort is made to actually analyze the link between the drug and the death because of "too many variables" to do that. "Heads I win, tails you lose". It's astounding.
What we actually have is rampant, wholesale corruption of immeasurable proportions, and a complete absence if integrity, that permeates our society from the top down today.
This is a very selfish reason why I get angry at the defiant anti-seatbelt users, but first-responders are sent out to tend to your remaining bits and pieces, first responders who now put their health and wellbeing on the line traveling at speed by road or in small aircraft. If a driver has done all they can to minimize injury, so be it, but to knowing engage in an activity that has a proven increased risk, and then expect others to put their lives at risk to tend to your selfish behinds ticks me off.
An emotional appeal in the absence of a legitimate argument or the ability to refute facts. One of those facts is that no one is forced to be an emergency responder ... there is no "national draft" requiring people to do these jobs. The second fact is, that there are numerous possibilities that don't require a statistical study for one to contemplate, using their own common sense. Picture yourself in an accident, mobility restricted, and a broken right arm incapable of un-clicking the safety belt. As you sit and wait the 10-15 minutes for emergency crews to come to your rescue, a tiny flame in the engine compartment becomes a raging inferno and you suffer an excruciating death because you were unable to use your legs and left arm to drag yourself to safety, held there by the safety belt that you couldn't release.
Another possibility might include not being slung out of harms way toward the passenger side of the car as impact securely locks the belt tensioner, keeping you squarely positioned in an upright posture in the driver seat, as the steering column rams through your torso, crushing your chest like a grape. And, I might add, those locking tensioners have caused numerous severe injuries to the upper torso all on their own, and is a very poorly designed feature.
Just a couple of examples that don't require much imagination or extravagant thinking, nor will you find them showing up in safety assessments.
You should be ticked off by the concerted efforts that have been ongoing for decades to train the public to abandon independent thinking, guided only by such emotional appeals as you have just presented.
Last edited by GuyNTexas; 08-22-2012 at 01:44 PM..
I plan on going to court and wasting both the judge and the officer's time. It'll be my little protest. The officer did in fact waste my time, and kicked up my anxiety levels at a time where I'm trying to launch a business. I get anxiety from stops after being unlawfully charged in IL a few years ago. Ironically, the cop justified his stop by me not wearing a seat belt. In that instance, I was actually wearing a seat belt because the passenger always made me wear one when he was in the car.
How do you argue against a seatbelt violation anyways? It's simply your word against the police officer's. In my previous case, we lost the motion to quash(sp?) evidence due to an unlawful stop. Fortunately, the case was dismissed due to the officer falsifying documents and lying during his testimony.
No it is not. Public Transportation, and even private driving services can get you around where you need to go. If you need to be somewhere at a certain time, plan ahead/
That would be discriminatory against individuals who, by their location, have no access to such services, or that when access is provided, it is less economical or inconvenient to them to use such services. It's a big, diverse country, and life isn't linear.
The courts ultimately disagrees with you, and they are the final authority. They have already determined that Driving is a privilege and not a right.
Laws can be overturned as unconstitutional.
I lived for 20 years without driving a car. I was able to get to my doctors appointments, my work, my vacation spots and the lot without needing a car.
City, country, or suburb?
yet you are driving your car on public property governed by laws.
Drive on your own private property as recklessly as you want. As soon as your "private" property touches "public" property, you are beholden to follow the laws.
I would argue that you can set certain limits on "how to drive," as that can impact others. Wearing a seat belt doesn't apply if you are not carrying any other passengers, particularly minors.
MILLER v. REED, No.
Speculating here, but all it might take is one individual who could prove that none of the options were available to them and then sue to get the law changed.
Mine in blue.
Quote:
the Supreme Court held that a state could summarily suspend or revoke the license of a motorist who had been repeatedly convicted of traffic offenses with due process satisfied by a full administrative hearing available only after the suspension or revocation had taken place. The Court conspicuously did not afford the possession of a driver's license the weight of a fundamental right.
Part of the decision you quoted here is made using arguments from individuals who committed traffic offenses, none of which are involved in the issue of wearing a seat belt. Sure, okay, SCOTUS.
What is really sad is looking up at the poll and seeing how many people think nothing of individual liberty these days. I mean, we went from a nation of individual thinkers (many of them were not even highly educated) to a nation of group thinkers (a large amount highly educated) who can't be bothered with taking the time to even verify if a claim is correct or not, which considering all the technology with information at our fingertips is absurd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
<---- sheep room that way.
If I could rep you again for these quotes, I would.
I've taken it upon myself on quite a few occasions to analyze statistical results of certain studies when the conclusions seemed odd or counterintuitive, and it is amazing the type of shenanigans that go in the conduct of the MAJORITY of these efforts that people accept at face value as the gospel truth.
It's also fascinating how every poll always seems to come to such a close divide, varying little more than 5 points one way or the other. 49 in support, 51 opposed. 46 opposed, 54 in support. I'd like to see a statistical breakdown of all recent polling data and parse through the data for statistical impossibilities and anomalies. It would be fascinating.
That would be discriminatory against individuals who, by their location, have no access to such services, or that when access is provided, it is less economical or inconvenient to them to use such services. It's a big, diverse country, and life isn't linear.
The courts have already ruled that its not a right. It isn't discriminatory at all. Individuals can call a cab, ask a friend, have their relative drive them. They could walk, ride a bike, or get a moped (in states that do no require you to have a license). Last I looked even in rural America, there's at least a CAB or TAXI company that can take you places, if you just happen to place a call.
Public transportation and even taking a TAXI once in a while, is actually far cheaper to do than to own your own car, pay insurance, gas, and repairing it over the years.
I lived in an area where we were only serviced by a TAXI company for 5 months during my college days (project required me to travel to rural Wisconsin). I was still able to get to my appointments, get to shopping, buy food and get around just fine. I decided to by a bicycle when I needed to get to places for cheaper. I also relied on my classmates and friends to provide transportation when I asked them to.
Quote:
Laws can be overturned as unconstitutional.
Yet the court ruled that it was constitutional .
Quote:
City, country, or suburb?
Country and suburb. Country - relied on Taxi, and then bought my own bike.
Suburb - relied on public city bus system.
Quote:
Speculating here, but all it might take is one individual who could prove that none of the options were available to them and then sue to get the law changed.
If you live next to someone or are friends with someone, have a neighbor, more than like you have many options available to you to get around. so unless the you in the middle of the Antarctic in a shed alone, I doubt that would ever happen.
Quote:
Part of the decision you quoted here is made using arguments from individuals who committed traffic offenses, none of which are involved in the issue of wearing a seat belt. Sure, okay, SCOTUS.
and you miss the the point of the argument being made. The court found that even with all the arguments, driving is still a privilege by virtue of the fact that your license can be revoked , if you chose to violate the laws involving driving on our public streets.
It's also fascinating how every poll always seems to come to such a close divide, varying little more than 5 points one way or the other. 49 in support, 51 opposed. 46 opposed, 54 in support. I'd like to see a statistical breakdown of all recent polling data and parse through the data for statistical impossibilities and anomalies. It would be fascinating.
You would be surprised at how much statistical analysis is being done by those who have little more than a couple semesters in mathematics and a basic statistics course. It is all too common, and while I respect that someone may be a specialist in their given focus (climate, medicine, politics, etc...), if they aren't well learned in the mathematics of statistical analysis, they make all kinds of bumbling errors in their methodology and testing evaluation. That is the honest comment on some of the research out there, others simply lie through their teeth about it and it is extremely obvious in how they form their evaluations.
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.
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.
