reply to post by ExCommando
I wonder if they will go and travel to biker shows with photos of his mangled head (poor guy, but really?) - to encourage bikers to wear helmets. The
same way they travel around with these mangled cars that are unrecognizeable from drunk driving accidents to convince people to not drink and drive
and wear seatbelts, etc.
Probably not, but just sayin'
Motorcyclist killed in helmet law protest, page 9
privacy
reply posted on 5-7-2011 @ 09:24 AM by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by imawlinn
You said it yourself, eventually all riders crash.
Helmet or not that same schmuck is going to be cleaning the road regardless.
There is no way to justify using force of law to mandate helmet use. It's not for safety. If safety were the issue motorcycles would be banned. The greater number of deaths lies with the bike not the helmet.
Emergency response is not the issue. Once a crash happens, helmet or not, the response is the same.
All of this "think of the children" nonsense either as witness to horror or as children left without a parent is absurd and cartoonish.
The only real measurable reasons there are for this sort of legislation are revenue, control and pacification of idiots as a method of vote buying.
Otherwise we'd see full measures like motorcycle banning. Of course the majority always tramples the minority. More people do not ride than ride. Of that number more wear helmets than not. So helmet wearers and non-riders have the might to dictate what's right.
It's only a matter of time before the non-riders push to ban the motorcycle altogether from public roads. There are more non-riders than riders after all and everyone is happy to blame anyone but themselves for accidents. You see this all the time with bicyclists. Non-cyclists constantly push to ban bicycles from public roads or put restrictions on them that make doing so prohibitive such as carrying extra insurances, mounting massive flags and alerts, none of which keeps them safe from a reckless driver.
It's only a matter of time when some mob gets it into their heads that they know what's best and the nest way to impose what they know is through force.
You said it yourself, eventually all riders crash.
Helmet or not that same schmuck is going to be cleaning the road regardless.
There is no way to justify using force of law to mandate helmet use. It's not for safety. If safety were the issue motorcycles would be banned. The greater number of deaths lies with the bike not the helmet.
Emergency response is not the issue. Once a crash happens, helmet or not, the response is the same.
All of this "think of the children" nonsense either as witness to horror or as children left without a parent is absurd and cartoonish.
The only real measurable reasons there are for this sort of legislation are revenue, control and pacification of idiots as a method of vote buying.
Otherwise we'd see full measures like motorcycle banning. Of course the majority always tramples the minority. More people do not ride than ride. Of that number more wear helmets than not. So helmet wearers and non-riders have the might to dictate what's right.
It's only a matter of time before the non-riders push to ban the motorcycle altogether from public roads. There are more non-riders than riders after all and everyone is happy to blame anyone but themselves for accidents. You see this all the time with bicyclists. Non-cyclists constantly push to ban bicycles from public roads or put restrictions on them that make doing so prohibitive such as carrying extra insurances, mounting massive flags and alerts, none of which keeps them safe from a reckless driver.
It's only a matter of time when some mob gets it into their heads that they know what's best and the nest way to impose what they know is through force.
reply posted on 5-7-2011 @ 09:45 AM by Byeluvolk
Originally posted by The_Phantom
'The common good'
TSA needs to touch people inappropriately for the common good. Guns can be used to kill people you shouldn't have them for the common good. The government doesn't work as efficiently when they have to wait for votes, so much could be done if the government just makes decisions for us for the common good. In fact they could reorganize the way everybody gets their food and homes they could end all suffering if they had just a little more control over every one's lives, its for the common good.
Common good, it sounds so innocent and helpful...but the way I see it there is a reason that the root word for Communism is common.
"The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits."-Jefferson
It is not the Job of the government to take care of the people, he should have worn his helmet but that has nothing to do with law or I should say that it shouldn't have anything to do with it.
"Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes"-Gandhiedit on 5-7-2011 by The_Phantom because: (no reason given)
You have missed the point of my post. I am not saying the common good is to remove the possibility of harm, but to lessen the harm to others. People say "It is my life who cares if I choose to endanger my life by not wearing a helmet?" My answer is; It is not just your life. If you have a wife and children specifically, who is going to take care of them in the event of your death. Or even worse, in the even of your serious injury. This causes even more hardship for them as they now have the added burden of extended medical bills on top of the daily need to survive. As I stated, I am 100% against the "Big Brother" government, but sometimes we must look at the bigger picture, it is not always about "me" it is more often than not about "we". And while people can look at this and say it still should be their choice. They then push the burden of seeing to their families survival on the rest of the community. Most will see this and accept the responsibility and wear the helmet of their own free will. However others will not and rely on the charity of others to see to their family afterwords.
It is no different than saying "Why should the government have the right to tell me I must not kill someone I disagree with?" While most people understand this and do not act upon this urge. There are times when a law is needed to try and ensure this does not happen as often as it otherwise would. There is no way to make life 100% safe that is not my point at all. It is just that in some cases, people do not see the consequences of their actions, unless someone forces them to examine their ideals. If indeed the helmet law was only affecting the rider I would be against it as well. However the riders many times have families depending on them, and this law is more to protect them than the rider. This goes for the seat belt idea as well.
On the subject of walking down the road. Yes people do get killed just minding their own business, however I am pretty safe is saying that 99% of the time the injury was caused by someone else not following the rules. Drunk drivers, texting on cell phones while driving, speeding, etc. All of these laws could be fought on the basis of "Who cares if I crash my car? It is my life." However the sad truth is that it is not just your life, in this case it is very directly not just you. While in the case of the helmet is is not always so.
So no, I do not feel the need to ban anything that is potentially dangerous. But if people refuse to be responsible where the safety or well being of others in in question, then yes I do see that a reminder to do so may be warranted. The issue here is not the freedom of the riders/drivers, but rather what impact their actions have on others. An individual's freedoms only extend to the point that they do not adversely affect others' life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
As for TSA that is another topic for another day. I really see no need for TSA as I have stated before. There are far better ways to get their job done more effectively and far cheaper. And Guns? Well I own many guns, and do indeed support many laws concerning guns. Waiting periods for example, this in no way prevents you from buying the gun, assuming you are not a felon or something. However, it does help to mitigate the harm you may do to others with the gun, should you be so inclined.
edit on 5-7-2011 by Byeluvolk because: (no reason given)
edit on Tue
Jul 5 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: Mod Note: Big Quote – Please Review This
Link.
reply posted on 5-7-2011 @ 10:44 AM by blood0fheroes
reply to post by aching_knuckles
No, I think being forced to wear a helmet is merely evidence that we are all in fact, property. My current self-imposed servitude is irrelevant to this slavery. The government has not as you say "crossed the line" by forcing this upon us; to the contrary it is a benevolent action of our masters to force safety upon their property.
Some people simply have a problem with being property, and think that they themselves can govern their own lives, and even own themselves! Can you imagine the nerve of those cattle? Why, i'd even bet that they think they can be their own masters......
Do you at least see the point i'm trying to make here? It is simply antagonistic to force such measures upon a supposedly "free" people. But as always, there is only a small portion of the populace who see this for what it is, and it grates upon us. The rest are enchanted with their slavery, and will even defend it.
Moral of the story: Legislation, be it noble or unjust, will only EVER subjugate law-abiding citizens. If legislation has no effect on those who discard all authority regardless, then why have it? What good comes from increasingly strict legislation? What harm comes from loose but solid legislation?
The age old question: If I am truly free, and not a slave, then what business is it of ANY other person, how I treat my own self?
And yet you think you are a slave because you cant wear a helmet? LOL "My job keeps me from speaking my mind, but the government really crossed a line when they told me I have to wear a helmet!" Come on. I dont think the helmet has a thing to do with your slavery.
No, I think being forced to wear a helmet is merely evidence that we are all in fact, property. My current self-imposed servitude is irrelevant to this slavery. The government has not as you say "crossed the line" by forcing this upon us; to the contrary it is a benevolent action of our masters to force safety upon their property.
Some people simply have a problem with being property, and think that they themselves can govern their own lives, and even own themselves! Can you imagine the nerve of those cattle? Why, i'd even bet that they think they can be their own masters......
Do you at least see the point i'm trying to make here? It is simply antagonistic to force such measures upon a supposedly "free" people. But as always, there is only a small portion of the populace who see this for what it is, and it grates upon us. The rest are enchanted with their slavery, and will even defend it.
Moral of the story: Legislation, be it noble or unjust, will only EVER subjugate law-abiding citizens. If legislation has no effect on those who discard all authority regardless, then why have it? What good comes from increasingly strict legislation? What harm comes from loose but solid legislation?
The age old question: If I am truly free, and not a slave, then what business is it of ANY other person, how I treat my own self?
reply posted on 5-7-2011 @ 05:29 PM by Dasher
reply to post by dubiousone
I said that he determined his own course, not his own end.
As an aside, I tend to be a type of fatalist, so stating that he determined his own course is me commenting more about who was "steering" than where the ability to steer originates from. But that's a deeper discussion, and you've missed my point on this more simple subject; I am just noting it for others to follow my defense against your partially formed reply.
Furthermore, repeating what happened doesn't progress the conversation.
Lastly, the "rules" (laws of physics) are only partially related to this issue since this issue does touch on the concept of self-determination and leaves what we understand to be "domino-effect" physics.
So then, more on topic; If I was in his position, I'd feel pretty stupid "in retrospect," but I tend not to get involved with dangerous situations by choice. Wisdom is greater than any law and should be legislated within our own hearts.
I said that he determined his own course, not his own end.
As an aside, I tend to be a type of fatalist, so stating that he determined his own course is me commenting more about who was "steering" than where the ability to steer originates from. But that's a deeper discussion, and you've missed my point on this more simple subject; I am just noting it for others to follow my defense against your partially formed reply.
Furthermore, repeating what happened doesn't progress the conversation.
Lastly, the "rules" (laws of physics) are only partially related to this issue since this issue does touch on the concept of self-determination and leaves what we understand to be "domino-effect" physics.
So then, more on topic; If I was in his position, I'd feel pretty stupid "in retrospect," but I tend not to get involved with dangerous situations by choice. Wisdom is greater than any law and should be legislated within our own hearts.
reply posted on 5-7-2011 @ 06:31 PM by The_Phantom
Originally posted by Byeluvolk
Originally posted by The_Phantom
'The common good'
TSA needs to touch people inappropriately for the common good. Guns can be used to kill people you shouldn't have them for the common good. The government doesn't work as efficiently when they have to wait for votes, so much could be done if the government just makes decisions for us for the common good. In fact they could reorganize the way everybody gets their food and homes they could end all suffering if they had just a little more control over every one's lives, its for the common good.
Common good, it sounds so innocent and helpful...but the way I see it there is a reason that the root word for Communism is common.
"The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits."-Jefferson
It is not the Job of the government to take care of the people, he should have worn his helmet but that has nothing to do with law or I should say that it shouldn't have anything to do with it.
"Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes"-Gandhiedit on 5-7-2011 by The_Phantom because: (no reason given)
You have missed the point of my post. I am not saying the common good is to remove the possibility of harm, but to lessen the harm to others. People say "It is my life who cares if I choose to endanger my life by not wearing a helmet?" My answer is; It is not just your life. If you have a wife and children specifically, who is going to take care of them in the event of your death. Or even worse, in the even of your serious injury. This causes even more hardship for them as they now have the added burden of extended medical bills on top of the daily need to survive. As I stated, I am 100% against the "Big Brother" government, but sometimes we must look at the bigger picture, it is not always about "me" it is more often than not about "we". And while people can look at this and say it still should be their choice. They then push the burden of seeing to their families survival on the rest of the community. Most will see this and accept the responsibility and wear the helmet of their own free will. However others will not and rely on the charity of others to see to their family afterwords.
It is no different than saying "Why should the government have the right to tell me I must not kill someone I disagree with?" While most people understand this and do not act upon this urge. There are times when a law is needed to try and ensure this does not happen as often as it otherwise would. There is no way to make life 100% safe that is not my point at all. It is just that in some cases, people do not see the consequences of their actions, unless someone forces them to examine their ideals. If indeed the helmet law was only affecting the rider I would be against it as well. However the riders many times have families depending on them, and this law is more to protect them than the rider. This goes for the seat belt idea as well.
On the subject of walking down the road. Yes people do get killed just minding their own business, however I am pretty safe is saying that 99% of the time the injury was caused by someone else not following the rules. Drunk drivers, texting on cell phones while driving, speeding, etc. All of these laws could be fought on the basis of "Who cares if I crash my car? It is my life." However the sad truth is that it is not just your life, in this case it is very directly not just you. While in the case of the helmet is is not always so.
So no, I do not feel the need to ban anything that is potentially dangerous. But if people refuse to be responsible where the safety or well being of others in in question, then yes I do see that a reminder to do so may be warranted. The issue here is not the freedom of the riders/drivers, but rather what impact their actions have on others. An individual's freedoms only extend to the point that they do not adversely affect others' life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
As for TSA that is another topic for another day. I really see no need for TSA as I have stated before. There are far better ways to get their job done more effectively and far cheaper. And Guns? Well I own many guns, and do indeed support many laws concerning guns. Waiting periods for example, this in no way prevents you from buying the gun, assuming you are not a felon or something. However, it does help to mitigate the harm you may do to others with the gun, should you be so inclined.edit on 5-7-2011 by Byeluvolk because: (no reason given)edit on Tue Jul 5 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: Mod Note: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.
I understand what your saying, but it is not the job of the Government to tell people how to live their lives, even for the common good.
"It is no different than saying, 'Why should the government have the right to tell me I must not kill someone I disagree with?'"
It's very different then that, one is self determination the other is directly determining someone else's life, two very opposite things.
Most actions effect other people though in one way or another, for instance when a business sells it's company and lays off workers many people are left with very little. That's just the way a free society works, you loose security in exchange for liberty. I think you've missed the point of my argument. You can not have both, the government can either 'keep you safe' or you can be free and it's your job and if others around you are kind enough theirs as well. Maybe you don't like the all of the burdens that go along with freedom, that's fine, if you want to be kept safe by your government I understand, if you want the government to be involved with every little tiny detail of our lives, that's up to you. But we just celebrated Independence Day and I'm feeling pretty Independent. I really don't want anything to do with a society that has a government that acts for the 'common good' I would much rather live in a country that had a government that acted very little and deal with the inconveniences that come with liberty.
reply posted on 5-7-2011 @ 10:21 PM by The_Phantom
reply to post by Byeluvolk
Yeah, and I can see where you are coming from, it's all good that we have different opinions on the subject. I think anarchy and Anarchy are two different things though. Most 'Anarchists' however don't even know the difference. Anarchy or the lack of law doesn't mean might is right, a successful one would mean that everybody must be responsible for their actions, public opinion is every bit as powerful as making something legal or illegal. What makes something legal, that it is written on a piece of paper? So because it is written on paper somewhere it makes people do something that they should be doing anyway? I don't really think that 'laws' have an effect on what the average person does, knowing right and wrong is what does in my opinion. It just means that people who believe that piece of paper with the 'law' written on it is sacred, have power over you and can punish you for being disobedient. We both agree that wearing a helmet is a good idea, but your right we will probably never agree on the government having the power to punish someone for not doing what they are told. But I appreciate the way you defend your points, and it's just a friendly disagreement.
Yeah, and I can see where you are coming from, it's all good that we have different opinions on the subject. I think anarchy and Anarchy are two different things though. Most 'Anarchists' however don't even know the difference. Anarchy or the lack of law doesn't mean might is right, a successful one would mean that everybody must be responsible for their actions, public opinion is every bit as powerful as making something legal or illegal. What makes something legal, that it is written on a piece of paper? So because it is written on paper somewhere it makes people do something that they should be doing anyway? I don't really think that 'laws' have an effect on what the average person does, knowing right and wrong is what does in my opinion. It just means that people who believe that piece of paper with the 'law' written on it is sacred, have power over you and can punish you for being disobedient. We both agree that wearing a helmet is a good idea, but your right we will probably never agree on the government having the power to punish someone for not doing what they are told. But I appreciate the way you defend your points, and it's just a friendly disagreement.
edit on 5-7-2011 by The_Phantom because: (no reason given)
reply posted on 5-7-2011 @ 11:55 PM by Byeluvolk
reply to post by The_Phantom
Yes, there is no animosity here. That is the very reason I waited something like 3 years to actually create an account and post. I very rarely see "Debate" what I see is "Hate." However recently some posts have hit close to home as they touch on the plight of the homless so I felt compelled to create the account and post.
On this topic of motorcycle helmets, I would not have posted other than as I mentioned, I saw a very real incident where one mans desision to not wear his helmet directly affected other people. As in reality I do not have any desire to promote wear the helmet laws. It was just the topic of the day that caught my eye.
Yes, there is no animosity here. That is the very reason I waited something like 3 years to actually create an account and post. I very rarely see "Debate" what I see is "Hate." However recently some posts have hit close to home as they touch on the plight of the homless so I felt compelled to create the account and post.
On this topic of motorcycle helmets, I would not have posted other than as I mentioned, I saw a very real incident where one mans desision to not wear his helmet directly affected other people. As in reality I do not have any desire to promote wear the helmet laws. It was just the topic of the day that caught my eye.
reply posted on 6-7-2011 @ 06:21 PM by aching_knuckles
Originally posted by blood0fheroes
reply to post by aching_knuckles
And yet you think you are a slave because you cant wear a helmet? LOL "My job keeps me from speaking my mind, but the government really crossed a line when they told me I have to wear a helmet!" Come on. I dont think the helmet has a thing to do with your slavery.
No, I think being forced to wear a helmet is merely evidence that we are all in fact, property. My current self-imposed servitude is irrelevant to this slavery. The government has not as you say "crossed the line" by forcing this upon us; to the contrary it is a benevolent action of our masters to force safety upon their property.
Some people simply have a problem with being property, and think that they themselves can govern their own lives, and even own themselves! Can you imagine the nerve of those cattle? Why, i'd even bet that they think they can be their own masters......
Do you at least see the point i'm trying to make here? It is simply antagonistic to force such measures upon a supposedly "free" people. But as always, there is only a small portion of the populace who see this for what it is, and it grates upon us. The rest are enchanted with their slavery, and will even defend it.
Moral of the story: Legislation, be it noble or unjust, will only EVER subjugate law-abiding citizens. If legislation has no effect on those who discard all authority regardless, then why have it? What good comes from increasingly strict legislation? What harm comes from loose but solid legislation?
The age old question: If I am truly free, and not a slave, then what business is it of ANY other person, how I treat my own self?
Its nice to see that you have a nice big self righteous speech whipped up, but it means nothing....by your own admission, you refuse to act on your principles. You wont become politically involved.....but sure dont mind being an internet windbag.
If you felt so strongly about being property, Id think you would do something about it, besides of talk in anonymity online. That was my point.
Carry on.
edit on 6-7-2011 by aching_knuckles because: (no reason given)
reply posted on 6-7-2011 @ 08:37 PM by blood0fheroes
reply to post by aching_knuckles
While you, on the other hand, seem to have a remarkable ability to insinuate and hear words never spoken.
Most of your post is nothing more than inflammatory, however I will not respond in kind. I will however, try to correct your assumptions. It's not that I will not become involved, it's that I cannot, legally. Big difference.
The helmet issue is merely the symptom of a larger problem, and so long as I wear this uniform, there are certain issues that I cannot speak out on. I am not, as you say, talking in anonymity online. My "employer" regularly utilizes "middle management" to keep tabs on various "workers" for various reasons. What I would like to say, I cannot even speak of online without reprisal.
Hopefully that clears this up for you. With that being said, you're free to think of me whatever you please; it's no sweat off my back.
While you, on the other hand, seem to have a remarkable ability to insinuate and hear words never spoken.
Most of your post is nothing more than inflammatory, however I will not respond in kind. I will however, try to correct your assumptions. It's not that I will not become involved, it's that I cannot, legally. Big difference.
The helmet issue is merely the symptom of a larger problem, and so long as I wear this uniform, there are certain issues that I cannot speak out on. I am not, as you say, talking in anonymity online. My "employer" regularly utilizes "middle management" to keep tabs on various "workers" for various reasons. What I would like to say, I cannot even speak of online without reprisal.
Hopefully that clears this up for you. With that being said, you're free to think of me whatever you please; it's no sweat off my back.
Critical Mass Has Arrived: Fast & Furious Scandal - Dems Join With GOP
Posted 18 days ago with 32 member flags
Posted 18 days ago with 32 member flags
Ron Paul, Adam Smith Push To End Indefinite Detention Of Americans
Posted 13 days ago with 20 member flags
Posted 13 days ago with 20 member flags
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
Ancient Photographic Evidance of Angels. The Real Anunnaki
Conspiracies in Religions: 23 minutes ago
Conspiracies in Religions: 23 minutes ago
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
10-year-old deaf girl hears herself for the first time-Must See!!
Science & Technology: 16 hours ago, 32 flags
Science & Technology: 16 hours ago, 32 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
Aussie Gov Says They'll Fine Anyone Who Blames Carbon Tax For Price Increases, Despite Carbon Tax C
Breaking Alternative News: 16 hours ago, 63 replies
Breaking Alternative News: 16 hours ago, 63 replies
Who is the very top leader of the world elite/Illuminati? who is the real Power Behind the Elite?
New World Order: 17 hours ago, 35 replies
New World Order: 17 hours ago, 35 replies
Fury as school girls forced by teachers to lift up their tops to prove they aren’t hiding mobile p
Other Current Events: 15 hours ago, 28 replies
Other Current Events: 15 hours ago, 28 replies
Security backdoor found in China-made US military chip
Breaking Alternative News: 15 hours ago, 28 replies
Breaking Alternative News: 15 hours ago, 28 replies
Syrian diplomats ordered to leave Australia in next 72 hrs.
Breaking Political News: 10 hours ago, 27 replies
Breaking Political News: 10 hours ago, 27 replies
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.395 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.395 seconds
