Really? You claim to be an exception, but aren't the Finnish alcohol consumption numbers fairly high? I know there's been a thread or two discussing differences between countries.Originally Posted by Nessus
Really? You claim to be an exception, but aren't the Finnish alcohol consumption numbers fairly high? I know there's been a thread or two discussing differences between countries.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
The big picture is, if seatbelts are representative for your restriction of Freedumbs, you're doing pretty well as a country.
About the thread topic (the actual one, the one in the OP), if it's so wrong for Mr. Reid to state his believes on what should and should not be outlawed based on his religion, does that mean this is also wrong with regard to abortion, which leans heavily on the "it's got a soul at birth so it should be seen as any soul" principle.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
It is, but it always goes up when the taxes are lowered IIRC. And alcohol sale was far more restricted during the previous century. We are pretty high up on the global ranking, but I don't think it's putting the horse behind the cart to argue that this is why high taxes have been seen as a necessity.
The "average Finn" consumes roughly ten liters of 96% alcohol per year, I am pretty far from that.
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Get off my lawn
I can live without #16 and #17
He can state his religious beliefs all he likes. That's not a good reason to make them laws.
Thing is that unless you change attitudes towards prostitution it will remain in the criminal realm.And the states like the revenue from citations, whether or not there's an accident.
Some use the same logic to justify legalizing prostitution (and/or drugs): regulate and tax the industry. Make it safer for prostitutes, and get state revenue. Win/Win.
Not sure how that relates to the Freeeeedom Rah Rah angle, though.
Congratulations America
Sure! Libertarians != anarchists. Your rights end where my nose, and property, begin.
In reality, that's not what Draco and Lewk are arguing at all.Because the gist of the argument isn't that nuclear weapons are bad, but using the absurdity of the situation to demonstrate that nearly everyone places restrictions on freedoms, or at least would like the government or someone else to do so, so that Lewk and Draco will stop trotting out the debate tactic where they equate all freedoms as equal, that they stand for freedom, and its only their opponents/LIBERALS! that would like to restrict freedoms.
Simply put, they are arguing that a choice that primarily impacts themselves should fall into their sphere of personal responsibility, and not the government. And no, I don't take seriously the argument that the higher cost of insurance is an infringement on other peoples rights, or rather I take it as seriously as those saying we should consider banning alcohol and fast food for raising the cost of health insurance.
Fundamentally there is no qualitative difference between the two.
I'm guessing you are defining "Freedom! Ra ra ra!" as anarchy?Because "Freedom! Ra ra ra!" doesn't pick and choose between restrictions on the freedom to drive such as seatbelt requirements, insurance requirements, licensing requirements, and speed limits, it's against all such restrictions. If seatbelt requirements are bad for "Freedom! Ra ra ra!", insurance requirements must be devastating.
So, is a legal requirement that all drivers carry insurance an infringement on their freeeedom?
*bzzzzt* Wrong. My rights end where society defines they should end. I understand that it's hard for lolbertarians to understand that living in a society means that you'll have to give up those precious freedoms of yours - but you're perfectly free to move to some godforsaken place in Antarctica where noone will bother you.
As long as you live among humans, you'll never have that precious freedom of yours. You see, a community is about compromise, give and take and such stuff. And as seat belt laws have proven to be quite effective tools for reducing deaths and as societies usually frown upon needless deaths, this is one of those compromises where everyone with half a brain will look at you and wonder: "My god, isn't there something else he could be worried about? Like malnourished kids in the 3rd world?"
Some wars need not be fought. Or, to use Kant again, everyone who uses humans as a means to an end, rather than viewing the humans themselves as an end, is actually evil.
Because that's what you're doing here. You're positing a principle above human lives. If you abolish seat belt laws, people will die. For what reason? None. None at all. It doesn't serve a purpose other than being a callous disregard for fellow humans on the order of social darwinism: "Hey, those people are stupid! They deserve to die!"
Is that what you want to be? Someone who feels so self-righteous that he is to decide who is to live and who is to die for the sake of a principle?
Your country and mine shared the same disregard for disadvantaged people at the same time - had the nice name of "Eugenics". Your opinion is basically the same: You let people make potentially lethal decisions just so you can feel smug and superior about it.
Frankly, you sicken and disgust me. As all your ilk does.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Live Free or Die
Some people take this to its extreme. As long as they don't expect everyone else to "go down" with them on principle, or take a strict laissez-faire approach to governance, it's a good philosophical discussion.
I see. You're right, in that you clearly don't have rights, Khen.
I'm fairly certain you don't have anything but a tenuous understanding of what libertarianism is, and what it means. Or, for that matter, what freedom is, and freedom means.As long as you live among humans, you'll never have that precious freedom of yours. You see, a community is about compromise, give and take and such stuff. And as seat belt laws have proven to be quite effective tools for reducing deaths and as societies usually frown upon needless deaths, this is one of those compromises where everyone with half a brain will look at you and wonder: "My god, isn't there something else he could be worried about? Like malnourished kids in the 3rd world?"
So, and I know you've seen this before and have yet to comment, why does this logic not extend to other spheres? Say, fast food?Because that's what you're doing here. You're positing a principle above human lives. If you abolish seat belt laws, people will die. For what reason? None. None at all. It doesn't serve a purpose other than being a callous disregard for fellow humans on the order of social darwinism: "Hey, those people are stupid! They deserve to die!"
Is that what you want to be? Someone who feels so self-righteous that he is to decide who is to live and who is to die for the sake of a principle?
If there were a law requiring people to eat healthier, lives would be saved! Heart disease is a leading killer of people in the developed world. People, Khen, not numbers or abstract figures, or meaningless principles. People.
Are you so self righteous that you, and you alone get to decide who lives and dies for the sake of some principle. Some god forsaken principle.
You disgust me.
I'm going to let this speak for itself.Your country and mine shared the same disregard for disadvantaged people at the same time - had the nice name of "Eugenics". Your opinion is basically the same: You let people make potentially lethal decisions just so you can feel smug and superior about it.
Frankly, you sicken and disgust me. As all your ilk does.
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 03-02-2011 at 01:22 AM.
Oh now come on now. You both made good points. The Oscars are over, can we do this without the drama?
I'm sorry, where did I compare somebody who believes people should be free to make decisions for themselves with Eugenicists?Oh now come on now. You both made good points. The Oscars are over, can we do this without the drama?
Or better yet, where did I call him a fascist?
See, that's where you're out-moneyed. Insurance industry rules you. Sucks to lack bucks, don't it?
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
I'm pretty cool with a clause in a policy mandating seat belt use or no medical claims are paid out.
And yet strangely enough other people's secular religious beliefs (this is fair! we have to protect the poor!) ect is perfectly acceptable to you. Why is one's moral beliefs inherently less acceptable if its "religious?"
I support letting each individual make decisions. You want to smoke? Go for it. You want to drive without a seat belt? That's fine, its your life. Want to sell your body/buy a hooker? Distasteful but that is not my business.
If you want to be governed by laws against harmful things then OK but don't force everyone else to accept your tyranny.
Ultimately liberals have nothing but contempt for people. They think that people are too stupid to manage their finances. (In favor of regulation/banning pay day advances, cash advance places, capping interest rates, support laws against credit card fees, debit card point of sale transactions, attempting to curb RAL, outlawing gambling *well except state run gambling...*)
They think people are too stupid to take care of themselves health wise. (Banning Happy Meals in SF, spending tax payer money in efforts to get people to eat "Right", banning certain types of dishes on the city level, requiring menus to display nutritional information, getting rid of vending machines in schools, raising taxes on tobacco products).
I could go on. But in the end liberals have this belief that the country is full of helpless pathetic sheep that must be led by a shepherd (government) or they will be destroyed by their own vices and roaming wolves (business). This kind of view is the polar opposite of what America stands for. America stands for freedom, rugged individualism, the freedom to try and yes the freedom to fail fantastically.
But you don't seem to understand, the laws are what made it impossible to fight in court. And I thought you were in favor of tort reform. What takes precedence in court, law or policy?
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
What? I'm in favor of tort reform of course but what does that have to do with insurance companies setting a policy on when they pay out on medical claims?
Reducing court costs, that's the whole point of tort reform. You really haven't given it much thought have you?
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
Let us not forget the emotional damage to loved ones, especially the young whippersnappers. Speaking of which, would these freedom fighters force their children to wear a seat belt?
- If so, isn't that a little hypocritical?
- If not, isn't that neglect? Being as you are not being responsible for your child's health and safety on the basis of 'freedom'?
Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose...
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
You are acting exactly like that. The moral belief derived from Reid's religion, brothels should be closed is anti-freedom, but the moral belief derived from your own religion that abortions should be banned is ... ok?
Could you please stop being such an enormous dickhead?
edit: On the other hand ... did you mean "people like me", because that would make sense and I'd apologize for my remark.
Last edited by Ziggy Stardust; 03-02-2011 at 09:29 AM.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
Great, then the only people who suffer are the stupid poor.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Look, it's been proven that very many people make decisions that harm them and for no good reason, eg. not doing something so trivial as wearing a seatbelt. In retrospect, someone who's fucked up for life for not wearing a seatbelt probably wishes he wore a seatbelt. Mandating the wearing of seatbelts is a way to protect the rights and the integrity of that future paraplegic as well as his family.
I get it, you have this fantasy of Amewrica that focuses on punishment, for some reason you seem to get off on the concept of people being punished heavily for unnecessary mistakes, but not everyone shares these wet dreams of yours
I'm not sure where you get this stuff about "beliefs" from. You believe in a fantasy, we know for a fact that, sheep or not, very many people make very unfortunate choices, and it costs very little to prevent those outcomes. Since you don't want to help people by eg. enabling a life for them in which they can and are willing to make healthy and intelligent choices, you should at least be okay with guiding them without straining their impaired wills. Unless you hate them I mean
I also don't know why you hate America so much that you want to run it into the ground by encouraging people to die, it's frankly a little creepy.
"What America stands for," pah, what a load of tosh.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I blame drugs, mmm'kay!
Not just individualism mind you ... rugged individualism. Like carpets.
By the way Lewkieboy. You go after Reid because he's a democrat, that's it. You didn;t make the topic about prostitution or freedumbs. Just you aimlessly (no person intended) nagging about libruls. nag nag nag. But it has been the family value political nutcases you supported who have been most active in trying to ban this stuff. But noooo, now a democrat says something about it you go apeshit. Be a lad and get your head out of your arse will you. Do you want to make a case for freedumbs and legalising prostitution, fine. But don't go bellyacking how it's always those gashdarned liberals who are ruining everyone's freedumbs, because it's a lie, it's bullshit, it's arsegravy and stoolwater of the most smelly kind.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
The problem with Scotland is that it is full of Scots.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
*bzzt* Maybe you should look up the definition of fascism before you make yourself look like even more than a fool.
And yes, your attitude is Eugenicist only by different means. Stupid people make stupid decisions. We have the means to protect them from that.
So, why on earth shouldn't we? The only reason I can think of is that you think that stupid people should be punished for being so, so we can get rid of stupid people in some kind of social darwinistic experiment - "only the clever survive" and all that.
Here's the kicker, though: Stupid people don't necessarily stay stupid. Just look at teenagers - they make stupid decisions by the wagonload - and yet most of them become responsible adults.
Oh, and your stupid example about food and heart attacks? That only shows your inability to think. Your "counter argument" is a clear example of someone not being able to think in degrees of moderation - everything has to be black and white, a clear-cut issue with clear-cut answers, no deviations, no margin for errors.
Because, y'see, not everyone can eat the same stuff. Not everyone will eat the same stuff. Not everyone will digest the same stuff with the same efficiency. Some people are sick and thus gain weight. Others are sick and don't gain weight at all. Some have genetic dispositions. Some can eat like a horse. And so on and so forth.
Which means, for this multitude of possibilities, you can't derive a clear rule. What works for one, doesn't necessarily work for the other, or is even harmful.
It's different in the case of seat belts. They work for everyone equally, they don't have disadvantages, they save lives indiscriminately, you don't need special rules.
Which means that your "counter argument" isn't one for the reason that the underlying issues are vastly different. You can't compare the situation because the effects from which the condition arises are quite different.
In essence, it's an issue of weighing. Namely, weighing the positive effects against the negative effects. And I'm talking about REAL, substantial and measurable effects here, not some pie-in-the-sky concept which does not even exist save in the minds of some sociopathic morons.
The real and measurable positive effect is: It saves lives by the bucketloads.
The real and measurable negative effect is: Umm. I'm drawing a blank here.
So, please refrain from using strawmen when trying to dig your way out of the hole oyu dug for yourself.
Last edited by Khendraja'aro; 03-02-2011 at 12:38 PM.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
"I ain't looking at no fascism, fool!"
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
