I think calling someone a "moron" is against the rules, ain't it? Are you going to get a warning for it? Can I start calling people morons?
Baron Max
Safety vs. Freedom
- Thread starter Roman
- Start date
I think calling someone a "moron" is against the rules, ain't it? Are you going to get a warning for it? Can I start calling people morons?
Baron Max
See, if this was 1910, I'd agree with your reflexive response. Today, however, the infrastructure of this nation virtually requires driving as a means to get around. Most people don't work within reasonable walking distance of their homes, and like I said, it's not like cities are built that way anymore. Especially if you work in any type of industrial sector of town; chances are that the housing around those industries--if there is any--is very low-income, well below what you'd make at "the plant".
So the question becomes, as you said, who has more of a right--you, who wishes to drive your car or ride your bike or motorcycle around town in any fashion you please; or me, who must drive to work, and does not wish to live with the memory of ending your existence on the hood of my car?
My opinion is that the ideology behind laws are that they should serve to protect as many citizens as possible. If that's the case, then safety laws triumph over such perceived freedoms, since your freedoms only protect you in any given situation, while safety laws protect more than you, as they protect my sensibility and your health.
But that ideology leads to all sorts of horrible things!
I think laws should serve to protect as many freedoms as possible.
"We, the people, in order to form a more perfect union, ...shall begin right now to take away all of the rights of freedom for as many of you idiots as possible so that we can all live in a perfectly happy, secure state of automatons. You, the people, can't be trusted to anything right, therefore, in the interest of peace and tran-fuckin'-quility, do hereby pass so fuckin' many laws that none of you can do anything on your own."
Baron Max
Baron Max
You could use that argument against your own stance, though. I mean, you could argue that the non-existence of any real gun laws leads to our outrageously-high violent crime rate. You could argue that no drunk driving laws would lead to ridiculously high road fatality rates. I guess you just have to decide what's more important to you.
Baron Max said:
What exactly can't you do, Baron?
Yes.
Exactly.
Thus this thread.
When do personal freedoms remove too many freedoms from other people?
Beat his slaves.
Which he can't own.
If you're asking me...I don't know. I think when you get to the point of spying on the citizenry, it's gone overboard. Like the cameras at traffic lights all over the US (probably elsewhere, I'd assume). Or the fact that they can now wiretap without a warrant, and search your home without a warrant, and arrest you without justification or due process. I believe that's when you've taken away actual freedoms, and when it's gone too far.
EDIT: I just noticed that you asked "When do personal freedoms remove too many freedoms from others" and not "When does the law take away too many freedoms from others". That's my bad. I'll have to answer that later.
You know, I thought it was something to that effect. But I always thought Tobey was his dog...
Let's be safe! Down with freedom! Please use my implant to control my mind, and implant everyone else. Let the mind control begin! A new golden age of the aristocracy and the hive minded collective of underlings... Yay!
I'm sorry, but after being shot at (on accident I might add) I can't really sympathize with gun owners. And I guess you could some how twist that event around and say it was my fault, but most people are ignorant and until you experience something first hand you don't really understand it. I think that people should be truly educated on the very real dangers of certain things. It's not a pretty sight when you people are scraped off the road, I've watched people fly out of their windshields, again glass and gravel are not kind to your body, but if you like having gravel in your face then that's your prerogative. A lot of people don't think they'll actually fly through their window or that their 4 year old isn't smart enough to remember the combination on their gun's lock box. But like sex ed, after you fly through your windshield and your 4 year old shoots the little boy next door you can't honestly say that you were completely ignorant of what could happen. People are stupid.
something to think about that someone else touched on is the harm that your own actions, even against yourself can cause to other people. One example was a train driver talking about suicides. Statistically a train driver WILL watch a person throw themselves in front of there train more than once through out there working lives. The emotional distress this causes is hard to imagin because unlike a car where there are things you can do about a potentual colision there is nothing a train driver can do. They cant surve, and with the weight behind them they cant stop. All they can do is honk the horn and hope the person choses to get up and leave. So do we have a duty of care to train drivers that they not be put in these sorts of situations through laws and technology like rasor wire and seurity cameras ect which can potentually keep people off the train tracks?
this is not about suicide per say but rather about that paticular method
The same can be said of the emergency services who have to pick up the pieces because people are to lasy (there is no other excuse) to wear a seat belt. Do we have the right to protect THESE people who spend there lives serving the community in exchange with the only harm done to the indervidual being that they are prevented from being lasy?
There is a debate at the moment about the wording of the 2nd amendment. The interesting thing is that few people seem willing to accept the responcability it instows upon them that in exhance for this right you have a duty to hold the goverment to account. This is not my argument (i think the whole thing is stupid and that there are better ways to hold goverments to account, strong opositions, an informed and active public and a strong court system) but this is the argument made as to the intentions of those who wrote the consitution
Challenger78
Valued Senior Member
Fortunately, Not all of us are as selfish as you.
Sometimes, I share that feeling, however, sometimes people aren't dumb, but simply ignorant. And that ignorance is not their own fault.
Are you saying that a Straight A student should be dead simply because he didn't learn gun safety ? What if it was a spur of the moment situation?, In which he had to move the gun, and was careless?
Like I said, most people using guns are smart enough to keep the gun unloaded, and the ammunition seperate. We do that here in Australia. Most people do not need automatic weapons.
You want other people to be forced to wear safety gear so that you don't have to feel bad if you kill them? That is truly a...unique perspective. :bugeye:
It sounds to me like you're saying you want to take away my freedom so that you can do bad things (like hitting people with your car) and not have to face consequences for it.
You call me selfish? ...when you're the one who's trying to control what everyone else does or wears?
An unloaded gun is nothing more than a metal paperweight. I'm sure that if you asked politely, any burglar or robber would be more than happy to wait for you to load your gun.
Baron Max
I'm ignorant, not for lack of desire to know, but lack of money for schooling. Send me some money, because it isn't my fault...
I've just sent you a blank check, Ham, use it however you wish. And if you need more, just ask and another blank check will be sent.
It's my goal in life to see that anyone and everyone in the world throw off the shackles of ignorance!
Baron Max
This is getting kind of silly. It's the job of emergency services to treat badly injured people. I can certainly imagine that many people might not want a job where they have to routinely deal with blood and mangled bodies, but those people should probably not go into emergency services. Do you really want to argue that we need to protect people who voluntarily take a job treating injured people from having to deal with injured people?
Is it signed? I promise to use it only for good... Does this mean you're my patron, now?
Challenger78
Valued Senior Member
You call me selfish? ...when you're the one who's trying to control what everyone else does or wears?
An unloaded gun is nothing more than a metal paperweight. I'm sure that if you asked politely, any burglar or robber would be more than happy to wait for you to load your gun.
Baron Max
I'm sure that if you're quiet enough, you'll be able to load the mag softly. Why do you live in this perpetual fear of attack ? In a western country, where you don't even need fences half the time?
I'm not controlling everyone and everything.
People should be smart enough to understand the consequences of their actions. Some people aren't, I'm only selfish in protecting myself and everyone else from those people, by giving up some of our freedoms. If in that process someone else gets saved, I'm all for it.
I'll say again, Some people do not comprehend the risks of their actions. They think that a loaded gun is fine around children. I'm selfish in wanting to protect myself from such people?.
It's not fear, it's being prepared. Almost everyone who is attacked or their home invaded say the same thing ....I didn't think it would ever happen to me!
Yeah, but notice that you're wanting to give up MY freedoms ..and doing so without my consent!! And you're doing it because OTHER people are ignorant or stupid!
And you call me selfish?!
And you're doing it by taking away the freedoms of others?? Yeah, I'd call that pretty damned selfish of you!
See? You can't protect yourself! But you want others, or the govenment, to protect you?!
Baron Max