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.
I think people should be able to make their own decision on seat belts. I also think insurance companies should be able to say, "If you have an accident without your seat belt, you are on your own, and no the citizens won't pay your hospital bill either".
I think people should be able to make their own decision on seat belts. I also think insurance companies should be able to say, "If you have an accident without your seat belt, you are on your own, and no the citizens won't pay your hospital bill either".
You mean they should charge higher premiums to drivers who don't wear seat belts. Similar to smokers who know of the risk of cancer. They're charged higher premiums because of the higher risk.
I'd be more predisposed to that happening than seat belt laws. Premiums are already supposed to be adjusted for risks.
seriously what part of Driving is a privlege do you knuckleheads do not get?
You want to drive, then obey the fracking laws. If the law says you must wear a seatbelt, then too bad, YOU wear that damn seatbelt.
You can always choose to take the bus, walk, bike, taxi or bum a ride with a friend (in the backseat).
Otherwise, you obey the laws. That's why you were given a license.
END THREAD.
Really, it did not need to go to 8 pages of BS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus
Its apparent that you don't know what that fallacy is. I suggest you look it up before trying to say something is fallacious when it's not
Pointing out that Driving is and WILL always be a privilege is not an appeal to tradition.
It's an appeal to tradition because your phrase of "driving is a privelege" is an appeal to old values. If driving was classified as a right, then your whole argument would fall apart. Our argument would be valid, and you'd be on the other side of the argument.
Just because something is law, or things have been a certain way in the past, does not mean its justified or "right."
Many of us need to drive to get to work no? If a person's only viable mode of transportation is a car, then it's their "right" to drive.
right [rahyt] Show IPA adjective, right·er, right·est, noun, adverb, verb.
adjective
1.
in accordance with what is good, proper, or just: right conduct.
2.
in conformity with fact, reason, truth, or some standard or principle; correct: the right solution; the right answer.
3.
correct in judgment, opinion, or action.
4.
fitting or appropriate; suitable: to say the right thing at the right time.
5.
most convenient, desirable, or favorable: Omaha is the right location for a meatpacking firm.
It's an appeal to tradition because your phrase of "driving is a privelege" is an appeal to old values. If driving was classified as a right, then your whole argument would fall apart. Our argument would be valid, and you'd be on the other side of the argument.
Just because something is law, or things have been a certain way in the past, does not mean its justified or "right."
Many of us need to drive to get to work no? If a person's only viable mode of transportation is a car, then it's their "right" to drive.
right [rahyt] Show IPA adjective, right·er, right·est, noun, adverb, verb.
adjective
1.
in accordance with what is good, proper, or just: right conduct.
2.
in conformity with fact, reason, truth, or some standard or principle; correct: the right solution; the right answer.
3.
correct in judgment, opinion, or action.
4.
fitting or appropriate; suitable: to say the right thing at the right time.
5.
most convenient, desirable, or favorable: Omaha is the right location for a meatpacking firm.
Driving has never been classified as a "right" therefore your entire argument has never had a solid ground.
I really don't understand if you all know that there have been tons of different laws and traditions throughout time. Laws vary by state, by country. They've varied over different time periods as well. Arguing that I should follow this current seat belt law because "its the law" makes no sense whatsoever.
What makes sense is a law that protects citizen's from other citizens. Not citizens, from themselves. Especially when the law requires the individual to wear a device that could potentially cause harm to the user in certain situations.
You can talk about "opinions" all you want, but we also have a thing called a Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and they're more valid than any "law" on the books when it comes to dictating this country's policies. Your just missing the big picture again.
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.
