seat belts

[dairygirl4u2c]

Dave's response ironically sounds a lot like people who are for banning sodomy. Not interested in logic, they know what they know. If it's okay for people to want to ban sodomy, why isn't it okay for people to want to ban not wearing a seatbelt?

Also I see that the no's are staying level and the yes's incrasing. I hope people here voting without reading the thread; i want unique votes to the person at the time i ask.

Edited December 22, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[Dave]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Dec 22 2005, 05:48 PM']Dave's response ironically sounds a lot like people who are for banning sodomy. Not interested in logic, they know what they know. If it's okay for people to want to ban sodomy, why isn't it okay for people to want to ban not wearing a seatbelt?
[right][snapback]834069[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I can definitely give logical reasons why seatbelts should be required by law, much like I can give logical reasons why sodomy should be banned, thank you very much. However, I didn't post what I posted to argue or continue a discussion. I said that earlier, but you apparently ignored it.

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Dec 22 2005, 02:48 PM']Dave's response ironically sounds a lot like people who are for banning sodomy. Not interested in logic, they know what they know. If it's okay for people to want to ban sodomy, why isn't it okay for people to want to ban not wearing a seatbelt?
[/quote]

Are you saying that Dave was almost killed in a horrible sodomy accident (Dave, you sick bleepity), and he's only in favor of banning butt piracy because he's all emotional from his experience?

I must admit to having convoluted logic, but this is ridonkulous.

Edited December 27, 2005 by Cow of Shame

[God the Father]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Dec 21 2005, 06:27 AM']I haven't given it much thought, but I'd like to hear a good argument as to why it should be considered criminal in the first place,
[right][snapback]832572[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It's quite simple really. If your body is hurled through the windshield, it could make high-velocity impact with someone in the area. This impact would kill or injure the unsuspecting target, and then the authorities are left with two bodies to dispose of. Even worse, your body could hit a deer, or a gopher. I can't begin to imagine the uproar if a flung body struck and killed a tree.

[dairygirl4u2c]

God the Father... that's a funny response, I can give you that. It's also possibly a reason. I doubt that's the reason people have for banning not wearing seat belts... no one mentions that, they only mention some notion of freedom.

Cow... I do see that sodomy isn't the same as not wearing a seat belt. It's called an analogy. I am not here for you to state the obvious... that they're ipso facto not the same. I am here though for you to show how my analogy is not the same at a deeper level. Pointing out that Jesus often used analogies that strictly speaking weren't the same isn't detracting from the message he had. And yes you can now point out humorously how I am equating myself with Jesus. Now that I've beat you to the punch, maybe you'll provide something more substantive. But seriously, props for the humor.. I can give you that too.

Also note that the other poll said people would still be for banning sodomy but still for allowing the choice of seat belt use, even without considering the impact of health insurance issues that might hurt the community. Again, the only reason people state is because of notions of freedom.
This issue hasn't gotten a decent response yet. Something doesn't add up...
(if it's me, explain)

Edited January 8, 2006 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

AP had a somewhat decent response below in another thread. I'll respond to it again, only more direct in my message. Last time I was trying to draw an analogy in everything he said, and I'm sure many didn't want to try to follow.

[quote]1. Sodomy doesn't just hurt the individuals engaged in it physically, but also morally. They are misusing the sacred gift of their sexuality. Each and every time they do it, guaranteed, they not only expose themselves to disease but they also damage their character. In contrast, though a driver may expose himself to risk by not wearing a seatbelt, the vast majority of the time there is no actual harm.

2. Recall that probably 95% of all acts of sodomy are heterosexual. So, this is not an attack on those with same-sex attractions. Sodomy harms not just the individuals (physically and morally) but also society because it weakens the link between procreation and sexual activity. So sex is seen simply as a recreational pleasure, disconnected from its central purpose of participating in the perpetuation of the human race.

3. Not wearing a seat belt is not an intrinsically immoral act, thus it doesn't always harm a person's virtue. One could imaging situations where driving without a seatbelt is the most prudent choice. That is never the case for sodomy.

4. Finally, I think most people intuitively know that seatbelts are for our own good. But most would disagree that sodomy (especially heterosexual sodomy) is bad. Thus, an anti-sodomy law would have a special teaching function, communicating the idea that that behavior is unhealthy and damaging. Society doesn't need to encourage acts of obvious self-preservation, but it does need to encourage acts that can seem counter-intuitive or that are difficult. A gentle reminder to put on your seatbelt is probably sufficient in 99% of the cases. But, sexual perversion is much more difficult, requiring the force of law to eradicate.

(now, I don't necessarily take this line of thinking, most notably because of the difficulty in enforcing anti-sodomy laws, but I think they are reasonable points and it is not absurd to support anti-sodomy laws but not seat-belt laws. The two behaviors are not equivalent. [/quote]

Not wearing a seat belt. Everytime you do it, you hurt yourself morally. You are abusing God's gift of life, because there's always the potential for harm or death. So yes, everytime you do it, you expose yourself to the risk of injury or death.

Not wearing a seatbelt always hurts the person's virtue because it's immoral as I've explained. If you want to argue exceptions, then remember that not wearing a seat belt usually kills and only very marginally injures. If you want to give people hat option, you're probability by far speaking allowing them to injury or death. If the numbers of those saved by not wearing were higher, you might have a point. Any other benefits you're getting at by not wearing (since you didn't mention any but assuming there might actually be some) might be able to be made exceptions in the law.

It seems odd you'd not want to punish those who do something that you yourself admit they know is wrong, but you don't want to punish someone who thinks doesn't see it as clearly that it's wrong. You might say that since they don't see it, they need the impetus, but that doesn't explain why you don't punish those who we all know knows better at least at the same time still.

Lastly you mention how most of it's against heterosexuals, but there are some men who are homosexauls, and you didn't address them.

[God the Father]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Jan 7 2006, 06:31 PM']You are abusing God's gift of life, because there's always the potential for harm or death. So yes, everytime you do it, you expose yourself to the risk of injury or death.
[right][snapback]849103[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I'm not sure I agree with that logic. According to that (unless I'm mistaken), anytime you take a risk that could end your life, you're abusing the gift. Like climbing mount everest, or jumping off the roof of your own house. These are clean, wholesome, activities, and I fail to see the harm that could come from them, unless someone happened to be on the spot you were planning to land when you hopped from your roof. However, with careful planning, that situation could be avoided.

[dairygirl4u2c]

That's somewhat of a good point. But as you noted, those are things people do for leisure and noble pursuits etc. Not wearinga seatbelt doesn't match that. Also, when these people did that, they took precaution. Not wearing a seatbelt does not take precaution. I might wonder if a lot of people would be against allowing climbers to climb without gear etc.

[Semalsia]

[quote name='God the Father']It's quite simple really. If your body is hurled through the windshield, it could make high-velocity impact with someone in the area. This impact would kill or injure the unsuspecting target, and then the authorities are left with two bodies to dispose of. Even worse, your body could hit a deer, or a gopher. I can't begin to imagine the uproar if a flung body struck and killed a tree.[/quote]

Actually, if you sit in the back and don't wear a seat belt, you'll be likely to crush the person in front of you.

[Captain_Fantastic]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Dec 21 2005, 06:27 AM']I haven't given it much thought, but I'd like to hear a good argument as to why it should be considered criminal in the first place, and why there should be a fine at all. [/quote]

I concur. Same with motorcycles and helmets.

Captain