View Single Post
Old November 19th, 2012 (8:13 PM). Edited November 19th, 2012 by TRIFORCE89.
TRIFORCE89's Avatar
TRIFORCE89 TRIFORCE89 is offline
Guide of Darkness
  • Gold Tier
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Temple of Light
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Posts: 8,128
Originally Posted by Toujours View Post
Doesn't that go down a dangerous road though? The economic challenges would still be the same if a person was killed riding a motorcycle or overeating. But these are seen as personal freedoms. You said yourself you're against banning larger soft drinks, but those larger soft drinks are unhealthy in every sense of the word, empty calories. And there are plenty of economic challenges if the breadwinner of the family dies. So logically, we should ban large soft drinks. It becomes a slippery slope when you decide that one thing is unsafe enough to force people to change by law, but another thing isn't. You have to be really careful that your arguments are very narrowly tailored to a specific situation.
Overeating is different. The other things I mentioned are more like accidents. You want to mitigate the impact of the accident, not prevent them from occurring. So, don't ban a motorcycle. But have motorcycle helmets. I think a better analogy might be cross-walks. We're not banning walking, we're facilitating safe walking. You not use the cross-walks and cross in the middle of the road or not follow the traffic lights, but you may be putting your life in danger. You can if you want, but the safe option is there.

Anyway, helmets, seatbelts, jaywalking, whatever, you shouldn't get imprisoned. You may get ticketed though. So, just like speeding, go ahead if you want to risk getting ticketed. There are speed limits for a reason too (although they should be raised). Here in Toronto, we recently made texting while driving against the law. Get caught, get a ticket. I don't see that as really preventing something. And as such, it isn't government control. More like encouraging or reinforcing safe behaviour. Don't follow if you want, but just know it isn't safe and you may get a ticket.

If you don't want such things to be something enforced, policed, or ticketed. That's fine too. Then the government should invest in educational campaigns instead. Not against the law to not use a seatbelt, but there may be commercials to encourage their use for instance. Knowledge is power XD

Originally Posted by Toujours View Post
I appreciate the children argument though. Would it be a better law to require all children to wear seatbelts and helmets, so as to eliminate parental influence, but allow adults to act as they please?
Sure. And by having that behaviour reinforced early on, they'll probably maintain it in adulthood.

Originally Posted by von Weltschmerz View Post
And just because some people fail to do something does not mean everyone should be forced to. By such logic... we should make it the law to drink water. Because you need to keep hydrated. And not EVERY parent tells their kid that...
See, no, that's not what I'm arguing. If it's coming across that way, then I'm not conveying it properly or something.

To use your water analogy though, I would see the equivalent to what I was proposing as the government providing clean water through your taps. Want to drink it? Go ahead. Want dirty water? Go to a lake. Want to buy water? You can do that too. Options. But, by the presence of the clean water they're encouraged to use it over lake water should they want a drink of water. Don't want to wear a helmet, okay. Go ahead. But through the presence of a law (even if it isn't enforced), you're encouraged to wear one. It's suggesting, not forcing. It's against the law here to drive without wearing a seat belt, but I'm not being forced to wear it. I can pull out of my driveway without it and likely no one will know. I have that freedom. But the threat or risk of a potential ticket encourages me to wear my seat belt (along with other better reasons).
Reply With Quote