As is your method of debate. I've mentioned that earlier. These things are generally covered by taxes and are acceptable to me (but who am I to judge?) because most people will undertake a reasonable degree of personal and societal responsibility whilst partaking. Willful disregard of one's personal safety and the consequences for society are not acceptable to me (cue Godwin's Law) from a purely logical/financial point of view. Taxes cover that (for the philosophy of it). You don't believe that stupid people make bad choices? Um, you remember where you said, and I quote, 'Nevertheless, every single loss of personal freedom is regrettable' then changed your mind? Make a decision, please. Distraction tactics. And your opinion is flawed. And there you go again, telling me what I think.[/QUOTE]
Can't we just get a 'Grumpy bastards' section of the forum where we can let these people moan at each other or did we already have one and some escaped?
Really? You went there? LOL Freedom to disagree. Agreed. It doesn't make you correct for the greater good, though. There you go again, telling me what I do/do not/am, and twisting the logic for your audience... At the time the laws were written, it was a different time for society and people had a better sense of societal right, wrong, equanimity and justice generally. c.f. 'Look at what the world has become'. I don't imagine anybody riding a bike at high speed back then thought that not wearing all the available protection was even an issue. PPE has developed a lot since then - it seems self-defeating and socially unconscionable, now, to not take advantage considering the parallel development of bikes. If you were to ride at high speed in shorts and flip-flops, then yes, I would think you a cretin. But from what you've said, you clearly wouldn't. I understand where you think my opinions would lead but I don't agree that they would. Seat belts were not introduced for the protection of others (notwithstanding others in the same car as the driver).
Thanks. It is important to be able debate and not stink. Not judging, mind. So, as long as things are acceptable to you, you are OK with them. And if they are not acceptable to you, there should be a law against them? Are you certain you want to go there? Well, they go some way towards it, philosophically speaking. So. Just as long as activities are acceptable to you, you are OK with them. And if they are not acceptable to you, there should be a law against them. (Oh My Goat, he is going there.) Uh ... what? Regrettable, yes. Where your own personal options are taken from you, it is regrettable. Necessary when protecting third parties, of course. You remember that bit, right? I'm kinda telling you what you said and then what you drifted off into, on matters where we are broadly in agreement. Of course, if you would like to argue about things we agree upon ... er, OK then!
There you go again. Are you even capable of following an argument, or must you twist everything for 'point scoring' whilst avoiding what's actually being said?
Well, you did sort of start it : o ) I don't believe either of us should be pretending we are "correct". My weighing up of society is that there should be as much freedom as possible whilst protecting the rights of individuals, your opinion is somewhat South of that. If there was a "correct opinion", I am certain we would both share it. You seem a reasonable chap (if a little misguided). You seem to be arguing in a circular, self-referential fashion here. Society was one thing now apparently it is another (without establishing whether this is true) and then you build your argument on that. You are saying that technology, of PPE, of societal development, has changed therefore certain freedoms are no longer acceptable. Who is twisting logic here? Wait. There's an audience? I haven't trimmed my hair or put on a nice shirt, why wasn't I told? I see the problem here now. You cannot understand what I have been saying. Oh boy. I believe that people who ride in shorts and flip-flops, apart from having heroically tough feet, are foolish and cannot see what could happen to them personally. That's my opinion. Where we differ is that I do not labour under the illusion that my opinion must, or should, become Law. I respect the rights of others to make their own (damned fool) decisions. Any desire on my part to impose my opinion would be wrong (in my opinion). It should be a choice. Seat belts were indeed introduced into cars to protect the occupants. I support this. The decision to force all adult car occupants to wear said seat belts is a regrettable loss of personal freedom. It has saved countless lives but it is also a foundation upon which to build further restrictions on personal freedom. I am uncertain that one is worth the other. Lucky taxi drivers, etc can get away without wearing seat belts in many cases but do I hear you arguing for their safety? No, I do not. You only think about yourself.
