• Welcome to The Cave of Dragonflies forums, where the smallest bugs live alongside the strongest dragons.

    Guests are not able to post messages or even read certain areas of the forums. Now, that's boring, don't you think? Registration, on the other hand, is simple, completely free of charge, and does not require you to give out any personal information at all. As soon as you register, you can take part in some of the happy fun things at the forums such as posting messages, voting in polls, sending private messages to people and being told that this is where we drink tea and eat cod.

    Of course I'm not forcing you to do anything if you don't want to, but seriously, what have you got to lose? Five seconds of your life?

Homosexuality

Status
Not open for further replies.
Eevee said:
That's what a nanny state is.
Click to expand...
Perhaps; I wouldn't consider it a nanny state, though, if it's just small things...

Eevee said:
I draw it at people who fundamentally cannot be expected to be responsible for themselves, which is pretty much children (however you may want to define that) and the brain-damaged.
Click to expand...
...like these. This is pretty much where I draw the line, too. Still, my point stands: it's not necessarily wrong to prevent people from -

Eevee said:
For the record I oppose suicide laws, seatbelt laws, drug laws, a drinking age over the age of majority, etc etc.
Click to expand...
That's good. I like that.

To be honest, I've always been very torn when it comes to this topic. I sure as hell wouldn't want to have my freedom taken away "for my own good", but I am also well acquainted with the dangers of leaving an irresponsible person to his own devices.

Why do you think what you think?

ultraviolet said:
Okay, well what sealtbelt laws do you oppose then?
Click to expand...
I think he's opposed to the enforcement, rather than the seatbelts themselves.
 
Oh. Another damn 'Homosexuality is bad, because my religion and my parents and early training say so' thread.

*yawns*

I thought you guys would have gotten past this one by now.
 
Music Dragon said:
No offense - but if by "you guys" you mean "mankind", then frankly, you could learn to be a little more misanthropic.
Click to expand...

I could, but I don't think I'll bother. You hairless monkeys are amusing enough as it is.
I will not reply to this one again, since I have nothing to contribute but sarcasm.
 
i wondered why you started posting in the first place because I haven't seen you around since the IF days
 
Eevee said:
Then if that's a concern for you, insist that everyone else in the car wear a seatbelt, or refuse to go with them (or at least refuse to sit up front). You have very simple and direct control over this.
Click to expand...

Un-seatbelted people can also pose a threat to people outside the car; a windscreen isn't going to stop a fully-grown human travelling at 60MPH from doing serious damage when they're propelled out of the car and into whatever's in front.

Wearing a seatbelt is a responsibility for anyone riding in a car.

(apologies for how off-topic this is, but I feel strongly about seatbelts)
 
ultraviolet said:
Okay, well what sealtbelt laws do you oppose then?
Click to expand...
Ones requiring me to wear a seatbelt?

Not wearing a seatbelt is stupid, but I should be allowed to be stupid. Unless of course it actually endangers someone else needlessly.

Dannichu said:
Un-seatbelted people can also pose a threat to people outside the car; a windscreen isn't going to stop a fully-grown human travelling at 60MPH from doing serious damage when they're propelled out of the car and into whatever's in front.
Click to expand...
I am.. having difficulty envisioning a car hitting another car or something near pedestrians at a 60mph difference in velocity and a front-seat passenger retaining enough momentum from the dashboard/wheel, windshield, and possibly back window of the other car to do much damage to anything. Has this actually been shown to happen?

Maybe we need stronger windows.
 
Eevee said:
Not wearing a seatbelt is stupid, but I should be allowed to be stupid. Unless of course it actually endangers someone else needlessly.
Click to expand...

I agree with this, but I have to mention my frustration with how people treat laws like this. I really get tired of people mentioning "if drugs were legal you would/should totally do them xdddd" about as much as I get sick of people mentioning "drugs are against the law you shouldn't do them xddddddddddddddddd"

I guess that kinda sucks. Point is, people seem to really get it in their head that the law should influence exactly how everyone thinks and that deviating from that is some heinous act.

This is seemingly unrelated, but dammit it's annoying. Seriously. Surprise! It seems like everyone wants to control what everyone else does so that it mirrors what they do themselves.

Music Dragon said:
Perhaps; I wouldn't consider it a nanny state, though, if it's just small things...
Click to expand...
Wikipedia said:
Its usage varies by political context, but in general it is used in reference to policies where the state is characterized as being excessive in its desire to protect ("nanny"), govern or control particular aspects of society. Which particular aspects are considered to be excessively protected depends on usage.
Click to expand...

Seems like the definition of this term doesn't care whether things are "big" or "small." But now we are arguing semantics.

your name is not worth typing said:
I could, but I don't think I'll bother. You hairless monkeys are amusing enough as it is.
I will not reply to this one again, since I have nothing to contribute but sarcasm.
Click to expand...
Wow.

Dannichu said:
Wearing a seatbelt is a responsibility for anyone riding in a car.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone is saying it isn't. That's.. kinda what it seems like Eevee is arguing. It is the responsibility of each individual. That means it is their choice. It shouldn't be the government's choice.
 
Hang on a minute. Why and how the hell has a debate about Homosexuality transformed into a discussion about seatbelt laws?
 
What VPLJ said.

Time Psyduck was arguing that gay marriage should not be allowed because it might put the two gays getting married in danger of hate crimes. Eevee said that the government should not interfere in actions that, when harmful, are only harmful to yourself. He then cited seatbelt laws as an example of one of these interferences that he opposed. Then, Dannichu argued that not wearing a seatbelt does hurt others, and the debate spun off from there.

Really, those of you who are asking could have found this out yourselves.
 
Eevee said:
Ones requiring me to wear a seatbelt?

Not wearing a seatbelt is stupid, but I should be allowed to be stupid. Unless of course it actually endangers someone else needlessly.


I am.. having difficulty envisioning a car hitting another car or something near pedestrians at a 60mph difference in velocity and a front-seat passenger retaining enough momentum from the dashboard/wheel, windshield, and possibly back window of the other car to do much damage to anything. Has this actually been shown to happen?

Maybe we need stronger windows.
Click to expand...

Even in the absence of actual danger, people should wear them so the paramedics who arrive at the scene of a car crash don't have to wipe the remains into a body bag. And limited resources like blood transfusions are given to people who didn't care enough about their safety to protect themselves - it'd be better and fairer to just make everyone wear them.

Same with suicide laws; my sister's train journey was delayed by three hours today because someone killed themselves. That train driver has to go home tonight with the mental images of hitting a human being at 70+ MPH. Paramedics have to pick up people that jumped from the 30th floor of some building, and all the people that saw it happen will never forget it.

I understand how you hate laws preventing people from doing things that don't affect anyone but the person concerned, but they do affect other people.
 
Dannichu said:
I understand how you hate laws preventing people from doing things that don't affect anyone but the person concerned, but they do affect other people.
Click to expand...

In Kentucky, it's against the law to not wear a seat belt, but I still don't.

I think laws like this are pointless; they don't solve the problem, it's better to have stuff like that "Think! wear your seat belt!" ad, because they don't limit your freedom, but tell you why you should wear your seat belt.

Reminds me of drug laws; they don't work, and criminalize people for stupid reasons.
 
If drugs, prostitution were legal and taxed, maybe america wouldn't be buttfucked by debt. Churches too, that'll clear it up fast.
 
Amsterdam has legal prostitutes and soft drugs and it's a pretty shitty place.

That's mostly due to irresponsible people though I guess. Prostitution's a risy business anyway because lots of women get forced into it so I'm not sure where I stand on that. Prostitutes usually depress the hell out of me.
 
BCM said:
I think laws like this are pointless; they don't solve the problem, it's better to have stuff like that "Think! wear your seat belt!" ad, because they don't limit your freedom, but tell you why you should wear your seat belt.
Click to expand...

What kind of freedom is the freedom to be spread across the road in a car accident? Why would you want that? It's not as if putting your seatbelt on is a particularly hard thing to do. Sure, it's your right to do so (I guess) but why would you want to assert that right?

How do they not solve the problem? My uncle was killed in a car accident; if it weren't for the seatbelt he was wearing, he would have been unidentifiable. My friend (who is a 'little person') was in a car accident and would have gone straight through a window if it weren't for her seatbelt. Neither of them would have worn a seatbelt if it wasn't a legal requirement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom