I have a question to all of you. I've been noticing in my research as of late that there are a large number of laws that hold no substantiated reason for being made a law. My question then, is, why is it some laws are drafted in that have no rational/statistical/empirical evidence backing?

This is a country of democracy. But as a democracy, and given how many people there are in the country, it becomes near impossible to pay attention to the laws being snuck in behind the publics nose. Tell me how many of you have made it a point to search for the latest laws being made? If I'm right in my assumption, very few of you (USA or not) make it a point to pay attention beyond what the TV gives you.

Because of this there are tons of absolutely ridiculous laws that were made in the past, and even more that are being made in the present. Such as the law that bans sodomy. It has absolutely no reasoning behind it other then "because it's wrong" (church circular-logic).

On a non-gay account, there are also laws that ban ridiculous things like having a blade over 3-5 inches (varying from state to state) in public. This includes swords that you'd be taking to a display, or wearing for traditional purposes.
So do tell me, when is the last time someone was held up successfully with a Katana? Y'know, before the knife law was made. None, I can most definitely assure you.

Similarly, there are laws made that directly infringe upon the overall free will of both the people and the entire country. Such as the seat belt law. Why is that even in existence? If someone wants to save their stupid life, they can wear it. If they don't want to, whose right is it to force ANYONE to wear the seat belt? Why was that law made? HOW was it made?

For further laws that don't make sense, follow google (and a few others):

Nonsensical laws (http://www.google.com/search?q=nonsensical+laws&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)

Seat belt law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_law)

Knife Laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knife_Legislation)

It would appear to me that the government largely uses scare tactics in order to sway people. This is ridiculous, and unforgivable.

...there are a large number of laws that hold no substantiated reason for being made a law.

According to whose idea of "substantiated reason"? The problem, as you might have noticed, is that just because YOU can't see a reason, or YOU don't approve of the law, is no sign that others don't.

It would appear to me that the government largely uses scare tactics in order to sway people. This is ridiculous, and unforgivable.

Some people don't think so.

You should learn to be a little more understanding and compassionate of others, it might help you in living your life more content and happy.

Baron Max

According to whose idea of "substantiated reason"? The problem, as you might have noticed, is that just because YOU can't see a reason, or YOU don't approve of the law, is no sign that others don't.


Notice how later I specifically stated a rational reason? Followed by empirical evidence, etc? It's quite obvious the majority isn't a very rational body of people. It definitely doesn't help that the government uses appeals to emotions, as opposed to giving facts when they're due.
Besides, I go out and check the reasons for these laws. I find tons of them utterly and incomprehensibly lacking. Especially when compared to overall statistics.

So no, it's not my subjective opinion. It's an objective fact.

These laws are often passed because someone wants something. Like if you want to pass a law making it illegal to beat children, you have to offer the child beating supporters something in return for their votes. So you make sodomy illegal.

These laws are often passed because someone wants something. Like if you want to pass a law making it illegal to beat children, you have to offer the child beating supporters something in return for their votes.

That was a poor example, as it's psychologically a bad thing to beat children.

So you make sodomy illegal.

...huh?

There are quite a few laws with emotional, rather than rational, reasons.
More often than not, in my opinion, they are created to appease the emotions of the populous (whether or not that's a good thing).
This does not necessarily mean that it is undemocratic - many of these laws DO have popular support (or did when they were implemented).

Seat belt laws are a perfect example.
I think seat belt laws are utterly absurd for anyone considered a legal adult.
There is no reasonably conceivable way for me to hurt anyone other than myself by not wearing my seat belt.
Laws should not be protecting me from myself.
They are an example of government treating adults as children in a society that is supposed to be "free".
I couldn't disagree with seatbelt laws any more than I do now - they disgust me.

However, they DO have popular support all over the country.
Welcome to "Democracy" - for better or for worse.

Alas, Raven, this is an ongoing problem. As they normally screw over one group or another. Democracy without protection of minorities is more like a dictatorship to them. Especially since the minorities normally don't have the funds required to sway anyone (nor do those minorities usually know when some stupid law is about to be made).

Furthermore, the fact they use emotional reasons instead of rational ones should be, in my opinion, made illegal. I personally believe it to be a flaw in the law making system.

I think seat belt laws are utterly absurd for anyone considered a legal adult.

Not completely true. You become a projectile without a seatbelt. You could, theoretically, fly out of your seat and onto another passenger inside the car. If you fell on a small child it is likely you would severely injure or kill the child. You could also, theoretically, fly out of your windshield and hit somebody on the street or in another car. And, if you become severely brain injured as a result of your accident the rest of us get to pay for your long term medical care.

Not wearing your seatbelt is just plain stupid anyway you look at it.

And it's entirely their choice if they want to or not. Making a law against it when the majority will do it anyway is just an asshole move.

It's like ordering someone off of their own property.

EDIT: I should also note that cases where someone smashed through a window due to not wearing a seatbelt and killed someone else by impact do not exist in the known history of accidents.

And it's entirely their choice if they want to or not. Making a law against it when the majority will do it anyway is just an asshole move.

It's like ordering someone off of their own property.

Actually, since seatbelt laws have been in place a record amount of people are now wearing them. So the law has done some good.

I am often against laws regulating human behavior, but i really cannot see the harm in this one. Now, if they were jailing people for not wearing their seatbelt it would be a different case.

Not completely true. You become a projectile without a seatbelt. You could, theoretically, fly out of your seat and onto another passenger inside the car. If you fell on a small child it is likely you would severely injure or kill the child. You could also, theoretically, fly out of your windshield and hit somebody on the street or in another car. And, if you become severely brain injured as a result of your accident the rest of us get to pay for your long term medical care.
What is "theoretically possible" is not the same as what is "reasonably conceivable".
Tell me, how many projectile bodies have launched through a windshield and injured someone on the street?
How often does this happen?
I know a story of a man who was on a motorcycle and turning into a driveway with a lip.
He was going at a normal, safe speed, but his bike came out from under him.
The back of his helmet clipped the lip of the driveway, and he was instantly decapitated.
Does this mean helmets should be illegal?
Of course not - it is not reasonable.

Not wearing your seatbelt is just plain stupid anyway you look at it.
Since when is it the government's job to keep people from doing stupid things that could possibly hurt them?
Climbimg mountains, skiing, unhealthy diets - do you think these things should be illegal?

Do you want the government to treat you as a child and control everything you do and keep you from doing anything they consider stupid, by whatever standards?

EDIT: I should also note that cases where someone smashed through a window due to not wearing a seatbelt and killed someone else by impact do not exist in the known history of accidents.

Thus why I said theoretically.

And highly improbably. So that's not exactly a reason to force people to wear a seat belt :/

For something realistic: on the other hand, many people die because their seat belt has trapped them in an accident. And they cannot unbuckle it.

It's also not only "theoretically possible", but there have been numerous cases in which someone would have not survived had they been wearing a seatbelt.
As a matter of fact, it happened to my mother when she was hit by a drunk driver a number of years ago.

What is "theoretically possible" is nothing to base laws on.
It is "theoretically possible" that there will be an explosion at my house, and my pool cue could be blown out a window and impale a neigbor.
Does that mean pool cues should be banned?
See how absurd that is?

What is "theoretically possible" is not the same as what is "reasonably conceivable".
Nope. But the falling on children/other passengers is actually fairly plausible in a roll over or side impact crash and does happen. How frequently I do not know, but it does happen.
Do you want the government to treat you as a child and control everything you do and keep you from doing anything they consider stupid, by whatever standards?
Nope. But I do appreciate the need for the government to regulate certain behaviors. And I do not think fining me for not wearing a seatbelt constitutes regulating "everything I do". When they start censoring my computer searches and burning books I will get more concerned. Until then I will just accept that the government has to regulate certain things because too many people choose to be idiots.

As I was saying, Jeremyhfht, popular support of such laws for emotional reason without reasonable support.

That's why we have such laws.
It's Frog Soup.

People don't care if the government is treating the populace like children if it doesn't directly impact their lives negatively.

I think seat belt laws are utterly absurd for anyone considered a legal adult.
There is no reasonably conceivable way for me to hurt anyone other than myself by not wearing my seat belt.

By not wearing a seat belt you can be thrown out of the car. Hurting someone in front of the car.

If you happen to be in the back seat without a seatbelt you will hurt the people in front of you.

Moreover, by not wearing seatbelts you will certainly increase the risk of major injury putting more strain on the medical system. More time spend on your injuries will mean less time spend on other matters, that is other people.

In fact, it is a clear cut case that not wearing seatbelts has a negative effect on other people.

By not wearing a seat belt you can be thrown out of the car. Hurting someone in front of the car.
I already addressed this.
How many times has this happend?
How much of a threat is projectile bodies, really?

If you happen to be in the back seat without a seatbelt you will hurt the people in front of you.
Seat belt laws do not include adults in the backseat, however - only front seat passengers.
Again, this is not a real threat - nor is it even covered by these farcical laws.

Moreover, by not wearing seatbelts you will certainly increase the risk of major injury putting more strain on the medical system. More time spend on your injuries will mean less time spend on other matters, that is other people.
In a country without national healthcare?
Bullshit.

In fact, it is a clear cut case that not wearing seatbelts has a negative effect on other people.
Not even close.

*sigh* this isn't entirely on topic. if you want a seat-belt debate, go make one in another thread please.

I already addressed this.
How many times has this happend?
How much of a threat is projectile bodies, really?

Once is too many. Either there is a threat to other people or there is not.





Seat belt laws do not include adults in the backseat, however - only front seat passengers.
Again, this is not a real threat - nor is it even covered by these farcical laws.


Well, didn't know American laws were retarded. Here seatbelts are obligatory for everybody. And your denial doesn't change the fact that rear seat passenger do become projectiles in a frontal collision. This is pure fact. Similarly leaving stuff on the 'hood' shelf behind the back seat has been shown to be a major risk factor because everything on the shelf becomes a projectile in a collision. Similarly dogs on back seats have been shown to become projectiles.

These are facts. Studied by engineers. Denial is ridiculous.


In a country without national healthcare?
Bullshit.

A doctor only has a certain amount of time. A hospital only has a certain amount of resources. You put extra stress on the resources by not wearing seatbelts.
This is logic. Denial is pointless.


Not even close.

denial is an ugly thing.

And let me silence you with science.

http://www.aemj.org/cgi/content/abstract/12/2/130

Unrestrained rear-seat passengers place themselves and their driver at great risk of fatal injury when involved in a crash.

fact.

In a country without national healthcare?
Bullshit.


Get severely injured in a car accident. Trust me, you'd qualify for medicaid and/or medicare and the lovely tax payers would be paying your bills. Your insurance would drop you so quick you wouldn't know what happened.

*shuts up now and hand topic back to Jeremy*

*rolls eyes* >_> lol

I've no idea why you're arguing about it. As there are few people who don't wish to wear a seat belt anyway. Aside from that, it should be legally their choice. Making a law to force everyone to conform (especially when it's such a ridiculous topic) isn't very democratic to them.

As I pointed out, backseat adult passengers are not required to wear seatbelts (in most places) in the US.
Wehere there are seatbelt laws, they are restricted to children and front seat passengers.

Show me studies that address the risks of people being thrown throught windshields and injuring people on the street.

Once is too many.
Absurd.

Did you read this:

What is "theoretically possible" is not the same as what is "reasonably conceivable".
Tell me, how many projectile bodies have launched through a windshield and injured someone on the street?
How often does this happen?
I know a story of a man who was on a motorcycle and turning into a driveway with a lip.
He was going at a normal, safe speed, but his bike came out from under him.
The back of his helmet clipped the lip of the driveway, and he was instantly decapitated.
Does this mean helmets should be illegal?
Of course not - it is not reasonable.
Or this...
It's also not only "theoretically possible", but there have been numerous cases in which someone would have not survived had they been wearing a seatbelt.
As a matter of fact, it happened to my mother when she was hit by a drunk driver a number of years ago.

What is "theoretically possible" is nothing to base laws on.
It is "theoretically possible" that there will be an explosion at my house, and my pool cue could be blown out a window and impale a neigbor.
Does that mean pool cues should be banned?
See how absurd that is?

Get severely injured in a car accident. Trust me, you'd qualify for medicaid and/or medicare and the lovely tax payers would be paying your bills. Your insurance would drop you so quick you wouldn't know what happened.
Same goes for skiing accident, mountain climbing accident, horseback riding accident or any other serious accident.
Again, these activities are not illegal, nor should they be.

*shuts up now and hand topic back to Jeremy*

Me too.:)

Jeremyhfht,
Go on.

>_> I said create a new topic you three! JEEZE!

we are not talking about pool cues. We are talking about seat belts.

I have already shown you a study that shows that not wearing seatbelts is irresponsible towards other people.

And I disagree with it, since it's blatantly obvious that the driver has a say in whether or not someone wears a seat belt.

Nice try, but no.

I have already shown you a study that shows that not wearing seatbelts is irresponsible towards other people.
You showed a study regarding back seat passengers unbelted injuring front seat passengers...
As I pointed out, backseat adult passengers are not required to wear seatbelts (in most places) in the US.
Wehere there are seatbelt laws, they are restricted to children and front seat passengers.

Show me studies that address the risks of people being thrown throught windshields and injuring people on the street.

Jeremyhfht,

I dropped it. YOU started talking about it again. :D

we are not talking about pool cues. We are talking about seat belts.
They are both "theoretically possible", they are both equally unlikely and there is no records of either happening as far as I am aware.

You showed a study regarding back seat passengers unbelted injuring front seat passengers...

I'm sure i can find something on front seat belts to. That's because not all collisions are frontal. Most are actually angled, or straight from the side. Putting that in the equation the driver or front seat passenger not wearing seatbelts can become lateral projectiles. The same principle applies.


But let me go back a level to show where I think you err.

Laws are made with the good of the public in mind. Focussing on that aspect anecdotal evidence as you presented becomes meaningless. You as an individual become meaningless. If statistics show that wearing a seatbelt dramatically decreases injury than a law making seatbelts obligatory is absolutely substantial.

As an individual you may not like the law, but you cannot make the case that this particular law is not warranted or substantial. Because laws are not about individuals. Laws are made to grease a society.

What if statistics show only 1% of all drivers/passengers/etc do not wear a seatbelt? It becomes meaningless when the majority of people would wear seatbelts anyway. It then becomes a question of personal choice.

You see, laws tend to be biased in that they only took one set of statistics into account. It's like banning guns because 0.05% of their users use them to commit a crime. Oh wait.

If statistics show that wearing a seatbelt dramatically decreases injury than a law making seatbelts obligatory is absolutely substantial.
I couldn't disagree more.
Statistics show smoking is dangerous, along with skiing, mountain climbing.
Why are these not against the law?
Laws need to take into account individual liberties when those liberties do not adversely affect the liberties or quality of life of others.

I couldn't disagree more.
Statistics show smoking is dangerous, along with skiing, mountain climbing.
Why are these not against the law?
Laws need to take into account individual liberties when those liberties do not adversely affect the liberties or quality of life of others.

Ah! Now we are getting somewhere.

Let us first remind ourselves that there is a different view on individual liberties between Europe and the USA. We will never get agreement on these views.

Secondly let us examine your other claim. Smoking is dangerous, skiiing is dangerous, mountain climbing is dangerous.

So is driving a car with a seatbelt. Wearing a seatbelt does not eliminate risk. It merely diminishes risk. And this is good for society's sake. And laws are made for society's sake. Not for the sake of you as an individual. Of course some laws guarantee you rights as an individual. Those laws however are also made for society's sake. Since in our western world we want a society with a certain amount of individual freedom.

What you want is anarchy. And anarchy is the total opposite of law. Your desire for anarchy doesn't diminish the reason behind laws like wearing seatbelts. The reason is rather substantial for our society. Society wants to dimish road carnage.

If we want to eliminate all risk alltogether we would forbid cars. period.
If we want to eleminate all risk we forbid smoking. Smoking however has been an integral part of society for centuries. Although currently smoking freedoms are being restricted. In finland it will become forbidden to smoke in bars and restaurant this june. There has to be a special cubicle or a smoking place outside. Indeed, many societies are currently making laws against smoken and their is substantial reason for it. Smoking is a health risk. Smoking less would benefit society as a whole.

What you are trying to do here is to argue from a logical perspective that the world needs to be black and white. That is a foolish endeavour when talking about human culture or the structure of human society. There is definitely a logic behind making laws. And most of them are substantial on some level. But not all. And seatbelts have a substantial reason in the larger picture of society, and the concept of law and the relationship of law regarding society.

I'm sure you would like to do whatever you want to. And you can. You can break the law. We all do at one point in time. However, you cannot sustain the argument that laws have no substantial reason because they have no substantial reason for you as an individual, because then you ignore what a law is.

*sigh* this isn't entirely on topic. if you want a seat-belt debate, go make one in another thread please.

It just seems strange to all of us that you don't know the reasons for why some laws are passed and others not passed ...even idiotic, stupid laws. That's why the topic sucks giant d***** d****, and they've turned to a more interesting topic.

Baron Max

There are quite a few laws with emotional, rather than rational, reasons.
More often than not, in my opinion, they are created to appease the emotions of the populous (whether or not that's a good thing).
This does not necessarily mean that it is undemocratic - many of these laws DO have popular support (or did when they were implemented).

Seat belt laws are a perfect example.
I think seat belt laws are utterly absurd for anyone considered a legal adult.
There is no reasonably conceivable way for me to hurt anyone other than myself by not wearing my seat belt.
Laws should not be protecting me from myself.
They are an example of government treating adults as children in a society that is supposed to be "free".
I couldn't disagree with seatbelt laws any more than I do now - they disgust me.

However, they DO have popular support all over the country.
Welcome to "Democracy" - for better or for worse.

I think seat belt laws do make sense when you take psychological biases into account. It is pretty clear that people do underestimate their own chances of getting into an accident. Humans are noticeably bad and measuring the expected risk in low probability but high cost circumstances. Sometimes people greatly overreact to a risk (for example, the average American's chance of being killed in a terrorist attack is ridiculously small...bathtubs and lightning are far more dangerous, and when was the last time the government spent billions on those issues?). Other times we greatly under-appreciate the risks (seat belts, the risks of tanning and bathtubs being prime examples of those). Possibly the "seat belt" misassessment of risk is related to the fact that, in America, 80-85% of people surveyed regularly identify themselves as being "better than average drivers." In the era before seat belt laws only about 50% of drivers were using them...even though they were shown to be remarkably effective at saving lives. Statistics were shared, but Americans proved remarkably resistant to those statistical facts, the increased perception of risk and the information about the easy way to avoid it, didn't change the percentage of people using seat belts by very much. It's not such a leap to attribute that to some cognitive bias. (In fact, researcher found a way to increase the use the seat belts--you use ads that show parents buckling up their children and make it seem like it's about protecting them, not about protecting yourself. The ads that appeal to the emotions got seat belt use up. Ads appealing to the statistics had little effect on subjects.)

Seat belt laws increase the "perception of risk" associated with not wearing a seat belt and compensate for the internal biases that lead may people to not wear them. At least that's the theory.

There is some evidence to suggest that forcing seat belt use makes drivers feel "safer" and so induces them to engage in riskier driving, but that is to say that there is a potentially countervailing consideration, not that the laws themselves have no basis in empirical evidence. A legislature is fully justified in finding the safety record of seat belts compelling and the evidence supporting the notion of "risk compensation" by engaging in riskier behaviors to be less compelling, They might be wrong in that assessment, but being wrong doesn't mean they are irrational or acting "without" evidence.

As for knife laws . . . knife violence was once a problem in some cities...sorry that there is no "katana exception," but is one really needed? The truth is, if I see some dude on the street with a katana, there's a good chance he's crazy and I want the police to have a good reason to take it from him. If he has a good reason, I trust the police to let him go about his business. If not, it's probably for the best that police relieve him of that katana. Knife laws are mainly silly no because everyone and their mother has a gun on them, so the knife is the least of your worries, but once upon a time gangs actually did have "knife fights."

I don't think any law is ever made up without some cause. Legislatures do not generally engage in rigorous scientific experiments...but they do occasionally hold hearings, or they respond to stories they've heard. That's the process. Anecdotal evidence gets weighed in the legislative process all the time and likely accounts for many of the "silly laws" (as would laws that had some basis of support a long time prior that is now forgotten, like the law forbidding one from holding a puppet show from one's own apartment window in NYC).

As for knife laws . . . knife violence was once a problem in some cities...sorry that there is no "katana exception," but is one really needed? The truth is, if I see some dude on the street with a katana, there's a good chance he's crazy and I want the police to have a good reason to take it from him.

Speaking of psychological bias...*COUGH*


If he has a good reason, I trust the police to let him go about his business.

How wrong you are. Most policemen relish the opportunity at bringing someone ELSE in. It means promotions. The law does give leeway if you're carrying it to a demonstration, but even then it must remain in a carrying case.


If not, it's probably for the best that police relieve him of that katana. Knife laws are mainly silly no because everyone and their mother has a gun on them, so the knife is the least of your worries, but once upon a time gangs actually did have "knife fights."

Yes, and once upon a time they can still have knife fights. Limiting the knife size to 3-4 inches does jack shit.

My point is, knife laws are stupid.


I don't think any law is ever made up without some cause. Legislatures do not generally engage in rigorous scientific experiments...but they do occasionally hold hearings, or they respond to stories they've heard. That's the process. Anecdotal evidence gets weighed in the legislative process all the time and likely accounts for many of the "silly laws" (as would laws that had some basis of support a long time prior that is now forgotten, like the law forbidding one from holding a puppet show from one's own apartment window in NYC).

Okay. I'm going to kill you because I feel like it. See? that has basis. Therefore I can do it!

According to your reasoning anyway. I said "no cause" because stupid reasons basically denote "no cause". And when you mentioned gangs having knife fights, that's ridiculous. Banning knives over 3 inches because a gang has a knife fight? Lets ban automobiles because gangs use them as get-away cars.

JEREMY....

these laws... are not laws... they are statutes.

statutory laws... are not real laws.

real law... is derived from the Magna Carta, and it is called the Common Law.

this is the only law which is constitutional...

its the old world... NO HARM = NO FOUL = NO CRIME.

IE... if you havent hurt anyone, or their property... then you have not commited a crime.

to carry a lb of marijuana... or even coccaine... is not a real crime.
since no one is getting hurt... its your drugs,,, you are a free man... you can do what you wish...

the reason it is now... today possible for the Government to imposes the now.. 66 million statutory laws on the books....

the reason they can do that... is because...

because...

because... we no longer have a constitutionally limited federaL GOVERNMENT.

DO YOU GET IT?

THE CONSTITUTION IS SUPPOSED TO LIMIT THE FED. thats what its for.

but it doesnt anymore... do you know why?

in 1933 they gave america a NEW DEAL.... do ya remember that from history class?

a NEW DEAL.... that established a state of emergency, using the 'war and emergency powers act of 1873'... 187??? anyway..

this act, states, that during times of emergencies, the federal government can put the constitution aside, and exercise any and all needed powers to protect the nation from whatever precieved threat.

get it?

we were in a depression.

so the fed used the emergency powers act... to put the constitution aside and ... so... IT, THE FED... COULD NOW DO ALL THE THINGS, THE FOUNDING FATHERS TRIED TO PREVENT.

UNDERSTAND?

they threw out the old common law legal system, and replaced it, with a contract / tort system of maritime admiralty law....
based on statutes...

statutes.. they could now write... in endless numbers to control us all.
66 million statute laws now exist.


they also made it illegal for americans to own and use gold as currency.
and they put us all... on a new dollar...

a dollar based on our gdp... based on our labor... and they used all the gold americans owned to pay off the interest to foriegn investors.

in this way... we can never go bankrupt... because we already are.
and always will be... the problem, is.. this bankruptcy, means our nation is financed by those who actually have the gold...

and our entire economy is used to generate the interest payments to payoff the investors who own our government.

do ya get it?

we dont have any of our constituional freedoms anymore....

why??

because after 1933.. the government forced all children born to have BIRTH CERTIFICATES... these certificates, make you all 14th ammendment citizens....

but the constitution says... 14th ammendment citizens are UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE...

WHY?

because the 14th ammendment was written for slaves... who had no rights.


so, by forcing all americans to become 14th ammendment citizens, you have been robbed of your consitutional rights.. and have been made a slave, who is then given priviledges and benefits from the new fed.

the fed that owns you and your labor.

it is estimated that each american will on average generate one million dollars worth of wealth derived from labor.

this future wealth output, is the credit apon which our nations currency is backed.
and our taxes, go to pay off the interest on the loans.


dont you get it?

you are all owned cattle... worker bees...

you lost you consittutional freedom in 1933.

free men... can own land.. without tax.. can own anything, without tax..
and none of it, even if taxed, can be taken away without being compensated for it.

in todays world... they take your land... your car.. all your belongings...

and you are not compensated for it..... ever.



you are not free... no one is.


so get back to work..

-MT

It's punishable by a $2,000 fine in Fortboro, Connecticut to attempt to bribe an elected official with less than $4,000.

This is the greatest law of all time. Fucking beautiful!

There are quite a few laws with emotional, rather than rational, reasons.
More often than not, in my opinion, they are created to appease the emotions of the populous (whether or not that's a good thing).
This does not necessarily mean that it is undemocratic - many of these laws DO have popular support (or did when they were implemented).

Seat belt laws are a perfect example.
I think seat belt laws are utterly absurd for anyone considered a legal adult.
There is no reasonably conceivable way for me to hurt anyone other than myself by not wearing my seat belt.
Laws should not be protecting me from myself.
They are an example of government treating adults as children in a society that is supposed to be "free".
I couldn't disagree with seatbelt laws any more than I do now - they disgust me.

To be fair though, if you cant get it together to take the 1 second it takes to put your seatbelt on then i think you should be treated as a child by the government.
Damn i knew to wear my seatbelt by the time i was 5.

Furthermore, the fact they use emotional reasons instead of rational ones should be, in my opinion, made illegal. I personally believe it to be a flaw in the law making system.
Well you'll always need emotions within the process of law and legislation.

The problem is if you purely use rationality to arrive at judicial conclusions then you can justify just about anything.
It would be perfectlty rational for example a government to disallow their people access to certain media out-lets and materials, as certain materials may corrupt them and make them want to rebel against their society/government.
This is in fact exactly how it works in China, and they actually do very very well as a society. You can only ever say what theyre doing is wrong because at an extra-rational level you sort of feel it isnt right to disallow freedom of information.
The one-child policy (using China again as an example) is another example of how rationalism devoid of emotion can end up with atrocities being commited.
Women have been reported in China to have had their children taken off them straight after having given birth and having them killed before their eyes.
perfectly, absolutely rational - the population in China is one billion and rising, makes total sense to kill a newborn.
Again the only thing telling you or informing your senses that 'hmm hang on though, despite being rational this still doesnt really sit right with me' is your emotionality telling you so.

The problem is if you purely use rationality to arrive at judicial conclusions then you can justify just about anything.

Sorry, you're confusing rationality with logic. Rationality uses emotions and logic to make decisions. Or rather, superrationality. Pure logic is what is in err, excepting instances of objectivity (which are few and far between).


It would be perfectlty rational for example a government to disallow their people access to certain media out-lets and materials, as certain materials may corrupt them and make them want to rebel against their society/government.

Except it isn't perfectly rational. For the greater good it especially isn't. What the fug are you on about?


This is in fact exactly how it works in China, and they actually do very very well as a society. You can only ever say what theyre doing is wrong because at an extra-rational level you sort of feel it isnt right to disallow freedom of information.

Except by rationality it isn't. Unless for a greater good of the people. In China's case, it's merely to prevent the super-mistakes of the government (and it's insane expenditures in everything but helping it's own people) from escaping into the general population.

That is not rational. That's greedy. And flawed.


The one-child policy (using China again as an example) is another example of how rationalism devoid of emotion can end up with atrocities being commited.
Women have been reported in China to have had their children taken off them straight after having given birth to them and having them killed before their eyes.

Which is a myth, actually. They're normally aborted long before birth. After they're born, the parents are merely fined heavily. The child can still be allowed life.

And actually it is rational. China currently holds just over 1/5th of the worlds population (1.3bn). It's a ginormous resource drain just to keep it's current one child policy. If parents (stupid as most are) continue to pop babies we would have a SERIOUS population boom that neither china, nor the rest of the world, is willing/capable of handling.

See, rationality is a good thing. But it's very clear you're not rational. Especially since you're botching rationality repeatedly.


perfectly, absolutely rational - the population in China is one billion and rising, makes total sense to kill a newborn.
Again the only thing telling you or informing your senses that 'hmm hang on though, despite being rational this still doesnt really sit right with me' is your emotionality telling you so.

Except my emotions don't say so. My rationality is largely dictated by both emotion and logic. My pure logic instances are rare ones, since pure logic can be quite irrational (part of the reason why humans aren't meant to think in purely logical forms).

Sorry, you're confusing rationality with logic. Rationality uses emotions and logic to make decisions. Or rather, superrationality. Pure logic is what is in err, excepting instances of objectivity (which are few and far between).
I see what youre saying, although i do read books on ethics/law which use rationality as a short-hand for non-emotionally lead reasoning, or reasoning which doesnt simply imploy emotionality atall.
Pure logic might have been a better term to use though i agree, less open to interpretation i guess.



Except it isn't perfectly rational. For the greater good it especially isn't. What the fug are you on about?
Of course its counter-rational to the masses, rationalism almost never directly appeals to the needs and wants of everyone.



Except by rationality it isn't. Unless for a greater good of the people.
From the perspective of those in power its perfectly rational. which is kind of the whole point im making, rationalism never has to include 'whats good for you'.


Which is a myth, actually. They're normally aborted long before birth. After they're born, the parents are merely fined heavily. The child can still be allowed life.
Im pretty sure its not just myth and (no pun intended) chinese whispers, infact alot of children would be killed or rather 'left to die' much latter in their lives in some instances (around 3 years old)
http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~phalsall/texts/c-wnhol.html


And actually it is rational. China currently holds just over 1/5th of the worlds population (1.3bn). It's a ginormous resource drain just to keep it's current one child policy. If parents (stupid as most are) continue to pop babies we would have a SERIOUS population boom that neither china, nor the rest of the world, is willing/capable of handling.

How far do you go to inforce such a rationale though, this is the whole point im making. Will rationality alone lead to a good descision?

See, rationality is a good thing. But it's very clear you're not rational. Especially since you're botching rationality repeatedly.
Im not sure why you think im attacking 'rationality' as a construct or process, im just illustrating its limits.

To be fair though, if you cant get it together to take the 1 second it takes to put your seatbelt on then i think you should be treated as a child by the government.
Damn i knew to wear my seatbelt by the time i was 5.

:D

People are silly. There are much better laws to fight against, like the laws in some states that allow a husband to get a court order to force his wife to leave the state. Or the laws against street soliciting unless you have some amount of money in your pocket.

Okay. I'm going to kill you because I feel like it. See? that has basis. Therefore I can do it!

According to your reasoning anyway.

Yes. If you completely misread what I said. Legislatures do *not* make up laws because some legislator says "I feel like making this illegal today. It just spontaneously popped into my head and has no basis in anything that ever happened in the real world, but it's how I feel." That would be legislating in a vacuum and *that* would be analogous to the hypothetical you have posed.

I said "no cause" because stupid reasons basically denote "no cause". And when you mentioned gangs having knife fights, that's ridiculous. Banning knives over 3 inches because a gang has a knife fight? Lets ban automobiles because gangs use them as get-away cars.

Anecdotal evidence has always been the basis of laws. Your notion of the scientific legislature engaging in statistical analysis is completely ahistorical. What legislatures actually do (and have always done) is they hear stories from their constituents like, "Some punk kid stabbed me" and they come up with laws to prevent it (like "No one can have knives on city streets.") It is legislating on the basis of anecdotal evidence, but anecdotal evidence is still "evidence", even if it's not conclusive. For the most part the system works without the need to engage in costly statistical analysis of every problem that might arise.

The reason they ban knives over a certain length is that they recognize that knives are tools and therefore useful...the 3 inch rule is intended to allow people to carry knives for utility reasons, but to eliminate the ones that people carry with the intent to use them as weapons rather than as tools. Since katanas are more often in the "weapon" category and pretty much never in the "basic tool" category, they get caught up in the ban.

This is also the reason why switch blades and gravity blades frequently get separately banned no matter what their length. Their uses as weapons tend to be more likely than their uses as lawful tools.

Likewise, the "Oh noes!!!11!! Let's ban automobiles!!111!!!" canard, fails because automobiles are primarily tools used for the lawful transportation of people and only secondarily used to facilitate the commission of crimes. The primary use is so much more pervasive than the secondary that it changes the perceived cost-benefit analysis of a "ban."

JEREMY....

these laws... are not laws... they are statutes.

statutory laws... are not real laws.

real law... is derived from the Magna Carta, and it is called the Common Law.

this is the only law which is constitutional...

its the old world... NO HARM = NO FOUL = NO CRIME.

IE... if you havent hurt anyone, or their property... then you have not commited a crime.

to carry a lb of marijuana... or even coccaine... is not a real crime.
since no one is getting hurt... its your drugs,,, you are a free man... you can do what you wish...

the reason it is now... today possible for the Government to imposes the now.. 66 million statutory laws on the books....

the reason they can do that... is because...

because...

because... we no longer have a constitutionally limited federaL GOVERNMENT.

DO YOU GET IT?

THE CONSTITUTION IS SUPPOSED TO LIMIT THE FED. thats what its for.

but it doesnt anymore... do you know why?

in 1933 they gave america a NEW DEAL.... do ya remember that from history class?

a NEW DEAL.... that established a state of emergency, using the 'war and emergency powers act of 1873'... 187??? anyway..

this act, states, that during times of emergencies, the federal government can put the constitution aside, and exercise any and all needed powers to protect the nation from whatever precieved threat.

get it?

we were in a depression.

so the fed used the emergency powers act... to put the constitution aside and ... so... IT, THE FED... COULD NOW DO ALL THE THINGS, THE FOUNDING FATHERS TRIED TO PREVENT.

UNDERSTAND?

they threw out the old common law legal system, and replaced it, with a contract / tort system of maritime admiralty law....
based on statutes...

statutes.. they could now write... in endless numbers to control us all.
66 million statute laws now exist.


they also made it illegal for americans to own and use gold as currency.
and they put us all... on a new dollar...

a dollar based on our gdp... based on our labor... and they used all the gold americans owned to pay off the interest to foriegn investors.

in this way... we can never go bankrupt... because we already are.
and always will be... the problem, is.. this bankruptcy, means our nation is financed by those who actually have the gold...

and our entire economy is used to generate the interest payments to payoff the investors who own our government.

do ya get it?

we dont have any of our constituional freedoms anymore....

why??

because after 1933.. the government forced all children born to have BIRTH CERTIFICATES... these certificates, make you all 14th ammendment citizens....

but the constitution says... 14th ammendment citizens are UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE STATE...

WHY?

because the 14th ammendment was written for slaves... who had no rights.


so, by forcing all americans to become 14th ammendment citizens, you have been robbed of your consitutional rights.. and have been made a slave, who is then given priviledges and benefits from the new fed.

the fed that owns you and your labor.

it is estimated that each american will on average generate one million dollars worth of wealth derived from labor.

this future wealth output, is the credit apon which our nations currency is backed.
and our taxes, go to pay off the interest on the loans.


dont you get it?

you are all owned cattle... worker bees...

you lost you consittutional freedom in 1933.

free men... can own land.. without tax.. can own anything, without tax..
and none of it, even if taxed, can be taken away without being compensated for it.

in todays world... they take your land... your car.. all your belongings...

and you are not compensated for it..... ever.



you are not free... no one is.


so get back to work..

-MT



COUGH... COUGH.......

...MT, when you learn to use proper english maybe, *MAYBE* I'll start replying. *bashes head into wall*


Yes. If you completely misread what I said. Legislatures do *not* make up laws because some legislator says "I feel like making this illegal today. It just spontaneously popped into my head and has no basis in anything that ever happened in the real world, but it's how I feel." That would be legislating in a vacuum and *that* would be analogous to the hypothetical you have posed.

Yes. If you completely misread what I said. To borrow that page from your book, if you don't mind.


Anecdotal evidence has always been the basis of laws. Your notion of the scientific legislature engaging in statistical analysis is completely ahistorical. What legislatures actually do (and have always done) is they hear stories from their constituents like, "Some punk kid stabbed me" and they come up with laws to prevent it (like "No one can have knives on city streets.") It is legislating on the basis of anecdotal evidence, but anecdotal evidence is still "evidence", even if it's not conclusive. For the most part the system works without the need to engage in costly statistical analysis of every problem that might arise.

Anecdotes do not make conclusive evidence. It's a logical fallacy (I'm not kidding, it's an official one. See HERE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence#Anecdotal_evidence_and_faulty_l ogic))

The system largely begins to fail when anecdotal evidence completely lies (which is happening more and more often).


The reason they ban knives over a certain length is that they recognize that knives are tools and therefore useful...the 3 inch rule is intended to allow people to carry knives for utility reasons, but to eliminate the ones that people carry with the intent to use them as weapons rather than as tools. Since katanas are more often in the "weapon" category and pretty much never in the "basic tool" category, they get caught up in the ban.

Actually, they allow you to carry knives for self defense purposes. That was not why the law was created. As any size knife can be a weapon as well, it makes no sense to ban knives over 3 inches and expect any reduction in knife crime.

Furthermore, my reference to a Katana was for traditional purposes. There are still people who would like to have one for self defense (it would probably scare off most people before they even bothered anyway), or simply because of their traditional backing. I included it because this law completely kicks those people in the ribs.

Similarly, other laws do the same to minorities with little or no reason other then that anecdotal evidence. That is somewhat of a crime against humanity, if you ask me.


This is also the reason why switch blades and gravity blades frequently get separately banned no matter what their length. Their uses as weapons tend to be more likely than their uses as lawful tools.

Likewise, the "Oh noes!!!11!! Let's ban automobiles!!111!!!" canard, fails because automobiles are primarily tools used for the lawful transportation of people and only secondarily used to facilitate the commission of crimes. The primary use is so much more pervasive than the secondary that it changes the perceived cost-benefit analysis of a "ban."

I expected this, but as I explained above the "tool" bit isn't entirely accurate. It basically relies on the belief that objects under a certain size can't be weapons.

Furthermore, you misunderstood my inclusion of the automobile ban. I included it because such a small percentage of people use them for crimes, similar to knife/gun crimes, yet they are not banned as knives are. It's hypocrisy to ban something when such a pathetic amount of people (compared to total users) commit a crime using it.


------HELIOCENTRIC-------

Of course its counter-rational to the masses, rationalism almost never directly appeals to the needs and wants of everyone.

Except for super-rationality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superrationality). Laws need to use this type of rationality because if they do not they begin to make laws that are unfair to everyone, and people who probably aren't even born yet.

One must work for the people when in government and law making. If you only work for some of the people (or just the majority) then you have forgotten what it means to make a law. When you make a law, it's a question of what is now illegal/legal, and what groups it effects. Does it effect the minority that commits crime? Or does it seriously harm the majority of that minority that does not?

Example: The majority of gun users are peaceful citizens. 0.005% of these commit gun crimes. Therefore, lets screw over 80 million+ gun owners to stop that 0.005%.

Such reasoning goes against the peaceful majority, and is in the long run only harmful to the country. As the majority of owners do not want their guns banned. Similarly, the majority of people who carry knives for self defense don't want them banned either (these people outnumber the law breakers), yet they're still banned in most places.

This is unfair lawmaking practices.


From the perspective of those in power its perfectly rational. which is kind of the whole point im making, rationalism never has to include 'whats good for you'.

If it doesn't, it's counterproductive in the circumstance of leading a country. Rationalism largely relies upon some measure of objectivity, and most assuredly not such subjective madness.


How far do you go to inforce such a rationale though, this is the whole point im making. Will rationality alone lead to a good descision?

It would vary from Chinese are a to Chinese area. Stories of babies being killed in such manner are largely specific to certain areas. Treatment most definitely varies when one changes location in China. So it's a case of subjective reasoning that brings about such cruel treatment (objective reasoning being that you have to curb the population in a peaceful manner).


Im not sure why you think im attacking 'rationality' as a construct or process, im just illustrating its limits.

I was illustrating how you are doing so improperly. You are using flawed reasoning instead of accurate reasoning to illustrate a supposed limit. I'm objecting to this in a very strong manner.

Before you illustrate rationality and it's limits, perhaps it's best to first become a highly rational being. You still have a ways to go if you call such choices "rational" (this isn't an insult, merely stating what I perceive of your current ability).

So I hope you understand why I'm objecting.

Statistics show smoking is dangerous, along with skiing, mountain climbing.
Why are these not against the law?
Laws need to take into account individual liberties when those liberties do not adversely affect the liberties or quality of life of others.


I couldn't agree more.

Very well said!

------HELIOCENTRIC-------


Except for super-rationality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superrationality). Laws need to use this type of rationality because if they do not they begin to make laws that are unfair to everyone, and people who probably aren't even born yet.

Ah ok, so super-rationality, is essentially a principle of cooperation.
I can definitely buy into that, although i think theres also alot more than comes into play.
I guess what im offering up is the idea of a fundamental intuitive morality underpinning law and legislation, without this intutive sense i think the problem is you can just end up playing a numbers game, using people as individual counters.
Its sort of like the moral dilema proposed by Philipa Foot - if im onboard a tram and i see that at the comming junction there's 5 people walking on the track up ahead (but there isnt time to stop) is it morally permissible for me to steer the tram onto the other track on which one person is walking.
Most people answer yes to that game, as 1 death is better than 5.

However if you take the same concept, with the exact same numbers and outcome involved but switch the situation - lets say a doctor is working in a hospital and there are 5 people in his ward who are about to die, each needs an urgent organ transplant, but there are not any ograns available.
Is it permissible for the doctor to grab a healthy visiter in the waiting room - kill him and harvest his organs and say the 5 people?
Most people answer no to that one, even though the outcome would be exactly the same - 5 people saved, the idea is that these sort of hypotheticals tap into our moral intuitive sense of right/wrong, and illustrate how we arnt simply playing a numbers game in which we're always going for the maximum outcome.

Im possibly preaching to the converted here though, as you did say you use logic and ethics together to arrive at your rational decsisions.
In any case, i thought it would worth illustrating exactly what im on about anyway.



Such reasoning goes against the peaceful majority, and is in the long run only harmful to the country. As the majority of owners do not want their guns banned. Similarly, the majority of people who carry knives for self defense don't want them banned either (these people outnumber the law breakers), yet they're still banned in most places.
Well i look at the situation like this - more guns within a society statistically = more murders, murder is a highly negative consequence so its sensible to have either incredibly strict gun control or outlaw guns altogether.
Of course some people arnt going to like that, but i dont see a lack of guns in a persons life as being a fundamental right, i see them as a luxory.
Therefore the gains vastly outweight the losses, or at least justify them.



If it doesn't, it's counterproductive in the circumstance of leading a country. Rationalism largely relies upon some measure of objectivity, and most assuredly not such subjective madness.
Not sure what you mean by subjective madness.



It would vary from Chinese are a to Chinese area. Stories of babies being killed in such manner are largely specific to certain areas. Treatment most definitely varies when one changes location in China. So it's a case of subjective reasoning that brings about such cruel treatment (objective reasoning being that you have to curb the population in a peaceful manner).
Yep id agree with that.



I was illustrating how you are doing so improperly. You are using flawed reasoning instead of accurate reasoning to illustrate a supposed limit. I'm objecting to this in a very strong manner.
I think the issue was really just a difference of terminology if anything, if there is a flaw to my reasoning im happy to talk about where you think it is though.


Before you illustrate rationality and it's limits, perhaps it's best to first become a highly rational being.

Hey well, maybe i will when you decide to become one too! :p


The problem with calling each other irrational is it doesnt really get you anywhere.
It just ends up as an infinite regress of me saying youre not rational and you saying im not rational. I say we ditch the silliness and talk about what rationality means to us instead.



You still have a ways to go if you call such choices "rational" (this isn't an insult, merely stating what I perceive of your current ability).

And i'll respond to your opinions once you show me why you hold them, or even better why you believe yourself to be a far more advanced rational being than i.

I guess what im offering up is the idea of a fundamental intuitive morality underpinning law and legislation, without this intutive sense i think the problem is you can just end up playing a numbers game, using people as individual counters.

And that's a good thing. Numbers are important. So far legislation seems to be going on 99.9% emotion, 0.1% numbers.


Its sort of like the moral dilema proposed by Philipa Foot - if im onboard a tram and i see that at the comming junction there's 5 people walking on the track up ahead (but there isnt time to stop) is it morally permissible for me to steer the tram onto the other track on which one person is walking.
Most people answer yes to that game, as 1 death is better than 5.

You're misapplying the moral dilemma. That dilemma doesn't take into account the specific things such legislation does. And I for one determine it by how useful the people are. If the 1 person is Einstein, and the 5 people are retarded, where do you steer?


However if you take the same concept, with the exact same numbers and outcome involved but switch the situation - lets say a doctor is working in a hospital and there are 5 people in his ward who are about to die, each needs an urgent organ transplant, but there are not any ograns available.
Is it permissible for the doctor to grab a healthy visiter in the waiting room - kill him and harvest his organs and say the 5 people?

That is not the same concept whatsoever. You're making a fool of yourself. Not only does that mean killing people directly, but it also removes other variables like *shouting a warning to the people walking in the way of the moving tram*.


Most people answer no to that one, even though the outcome would be exactly the same - 5 people saved, the idea is that these sort of hypotheticals tap into our moral intuitive sense of right/wrong, and illustrate how we arnt simply playing a numbers game in which we're always going for the maximum outcome.

Except I am. Only when the situation is rational. Yours is irrational.


Im possibly preaching to the converted here though, as you did say you use logic and ethics together to arrive at your rational decsisions.
In any case, i thought it would worth illustrating exactly what im on about anyway.

Yes, and the converted are telling you that you're preaching heresy.



Well i look at the situation like this - more guns within a society statistically = more murders, murder is a highly negative consequence so its sensible to have either incredibly strict gun control or outlaw guns altogether.
Of course some people arnt going to like that, but i dont see a lack of guns in a persons life as being a fundamental right, i see them as a luxory.
Therefore the gains vastly outweight the losses, or at least justify them.

You again completely remove other variables. I'll be posting an article on guns today.



The problem with calling each other irrational is it doesnt really get you anywhere.
It just ends up as an infinite regress of me saying youre not rational and you saying im not rational. I say we ditch the silliness and talk about what rationality means to us instead.

I'm telling you why you're irrational.


And i'll respond to your opinions once you show me why you hold them, or even better why you believe yourself to be a far more advanced rational being than i.

My responses above show you why I hold them. Your continuing to use rationally flawed instances to prove your points.

And that's a good thing. Numbers are important. So far legislation seems to be going on 99.9% emotion, 0.1% numbers.
Wow, pulling out made-up-on-spot completely devicive and unprovable statistics to make your point.
Very rational, carry on down that road and im sure i'll be shown up as quite the fool.



You're misapplying the moral dilemma. That dilemma doesn't take into account the specific things such legislation does.
If moral dilemas cant be applied to politics (where morals are at stake more than anywhere else id imagine) im not quite sure where you think they should be applied.

And I for one determine it by how useful the people are. If the 1 person is Einstein, and the 5 people are retarded, where do you steer?
yes you can quite easy interchange the person with a genius, you can even add animals and virtually anything else into the equation too, and create endless variations.

And ive no idea, which way do you steer and why?



That is not the same concept whatsoever. You're making a fool of yourself. Not only does that mean killing people directly, but it also removes other variables like *shouting a warning to the people walking in the way of the moving tram*.
No youre missing the whole point again, the point is both thought experiments are concerned with the permissiblity (or otherwise) of murder.

Arguing against the two dilemas for not being exactly the same is utterally laughabe - thats why they produce incredibly different responses in people.



Except I am. Only when the situation is rational. Yours is irrational.
Whats irrational?
Youre not one of these people who wastes others time by dancing round the specifics all day and chucking in a few ad homs here and there as a near-substitute are you?



Yes, and the converted are telling you that you're preaching heresy.
This is all really basic stuff, so again ive no idea what you think is heretic because you can never point to any specific.



You again completely remove other variables. I'll be posting an article on guns today.
And you managed to completely remove the sticky matter of high murder-rates in your polemic on the terrible abuse of gun-owners rights. Wanna call it even?



I'm telling you why you're irrational.
No youre not telling me why you think im irrational, youre just calling me irrational, there's a world of difference.

This is the problem with alot of you on sci-forums you havent learnt to reason yet, youre still in the first primal stages of play ground name calling.



My responses above show you why I hold them. Your continuing to use rationally flawed instances to prove your points.
All ive gleaned from your post is that you think im irrational (but you cant point to any specifics of why this should be) and you think moral dilemas cant/shouldnt be applied to politics.
Id argue against something if i could find it, but i just cant find anything of substance in anything youve said.
Either produce something or stop flapping, youve encountered someone well educated enough to actually calll you out on your nonsense, so im afraid what passes for 'debate' amongst your friends associates really isnt going to cut the mustrard here.

Wow, pulling out made-up-on-spot completely devicive and unprovable statistics to make your point.
Very rational, carry on down that road and im sure i'll be shown up as quite the fool.

*sigh* here we go...you missed the point of my saying so entirely. I made up that statistic because it represents what you and I both said. They're going based largely upon complete emotion instead of statistics and evidence.


If moral dilemas cant be applied to politics (where morals are at stake more than anywhere else id imagine) im not quite sure where you think they should be applied.

Quite simple: politics deal with entirely different systems then moral dilemma's. You have the majority of minorities to worry about, as well as the general majority and such. You should always make laws in favor of those majorities, and never kick them in the ribs.


yes you can quite easy interchange the person with a genius, you can even add animals and virtually anything else into the equation too, and create endless variations.

And ive no idea, which way do you steer and why?

I'd steer towards the most worthless group. Numbers mean little when overall worth is nothing.


No youre missing the whole point again, the point is both thought experiments are concerned with the permissiblity (or otherwise) of murder.

Arguing against the two dilemas for not being exactly the same is utterally laughabe - thats why they produce incredibly different responses in people.


Yes, laughable. Since they're not the same. One of which is an unavoidable instance, the second of which is an avoidable one. You can't stop the train, but you don't have to kill those people.

Entirely different backing. Yes. They are the same. HAH. I believe you missed the point entirely.


This is all really basic stuff, so again ive no idea what you think is heretic because you can never point to any specific.


...okay...so...you mean disagreeing with numerous points you made, including listing reasons for doing so, isn't "specific"? What do you want? A point-blank bullet fired into your brain?


And you managed to completely remove the sticky matter of high murder-rates in your polemic on the terrible abuse of gun-owners rights. Wanna call it even?


And you managed to be completely oblivious to the fact they're laughably low. Good show. Not.



No youre not telling me why you think im irrational, youre just calling me irrational, there's a world of difference.

This is the problem with alot of you on sci-forums you havent learnt to reason yet, youre still in the first primal stages of play ground name calling.

I can't believe anyone is so dense. I've said why you're irrational. Many times. It's because of what you keep saying. Jesus christ man you're ridiculous! IF this continues I'm simply not going to reply!

dumb..

*sigh* here we go...you missed the point of my saying so entirely. I made up that statistic because it represents what you and I both said. They're going based largely upon complete emotion instead of statistics and evidence.
Righto.


Quite simple: politics deal with entirely different systems then moral dilemma's. You have the majority of minorities to worry about, as well as the general majority and such. You should always make laws in favor of those majorities, and never kick them in the ribs.
Its perfectly acceptable to use moral dilemas in dealing with political issues, yes the numbers are larger and youre right the variables are much wider in scope. But the point is they illustrate a mental facility that under-pins a hell of alot of legislation - whats murder, whats manslaughter, whats socially acceptable, whats not.
All im really doing here is getting to grips with how we arrive at our commonly held laws, to what degree our ingrained moral sense plays a part ec. Which i sort of thought would was appropriate given the subject matter of this thread.



Yes, laughable. Since they're not the same. One of which is an unavoidable instance, the second of which is an avoidable one. You can't stop the train, but you don't have to kill those people.
You can address this problem with the next thought experiment in the series in which can 'push' someone onto the tracks to save the 5 people.
Infact you could add a nice little twist whereby the 5 people on the track about to be hit are all geniuses and the man standing by the track (the one youre going to push) is retarded.
Even given the 'greater good' outcome, people still (in very large numbers) choose not to push the man onto the tracks.
It really doesnt tell you an awful lot about our sense of permissiblity.




...okay...so...you mean disagreeing with numerous points you made, including listing reasons for doing so, isn't "specific"? What do you want? A point-blank bullet fired into your brain?
The problem is i still dont know what youre arguing in favour of - all im arguing is that emotionality plays a huge part in our decisions and our law making.
Ive seek you nit-pick over correlations of thought experiments which actually exist within the same set, and ive seen you say the word 'irrational' but i havent seen you really show why emotionality isnt or shouldnt be part of the process of judicial conclusion.



And you managed to be completely oblivious to the fact they're laughably low. Good show. Not.
Anything can be 'low' without something else to measure it against, low in comparison to what?




I can't believe anyone is so dense. I've said why you're irrational. Many times. It's because of what you keep saying. Jesus christ man you're ridiculous! IF this continues I'm simply not going to reply!

The problem is youre saying im with out rational process, if i see irrationality in someone assertions i just point out my perceived irrationality in their statement, or if im feeling abit naughty i might say that theyre being irrational (i.e. in that instance).
But youre trying to ramp it up to the degree of claiming i am entirely irrational (without rationality), You might not like where my rational process leads, and im quite sure you dont, but that is something very very different from me being irrational.

This could all have been avoided if you could reason without imploying person attacks, it really is a massive waste of time.

Its perfectly acceptable to use moral dilemas in dealing with political issues, yes the numbers are larger and youre right the variables are much wider in scope. But the point is they illustrate a mental facility that under-pins a hell of alot of legislation - whats murder, whats manslaughter, whats socially acceptable, whats not.

And normally with extreme subjective bias that shouldn't be part of the legislation. That's why a moral dilemma can't apply (see: Moral relativism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism)).


Even given the 'greater good' outcome, people still (in very large numbers) choose not to push the man onto the tracks.
It really doesnt tell you an awful lot about our sense of permissiblity.

I would. And yes, it does say a lot about our "sense of permissibility".


The problem is i still dont know what youre arguing in favour of - all im arguing is that emotionality plays a huge part in our decisions and our law making.
Ive seek you nit-pick over correlations of thought experiments which actually exist within the same set, and ive seen you say the word 'irrational' but i havent seen you really show why emotionality isnt or shouldnt be part of the process of judicial conclusion.

I thought I made it clear. In prior posts I pointed out that using emotion in the judicial process to such extents is in err. I also provided examples where the statistics show the numbers are ridiculously low given over population. Or rather, I mentioned it. Since my thread on gun violence is now up (in the politics section) you can read my examples there.


Anything can be 'low' without something else to measure it against, low in comparison to what?

Both the population and the population of owners. As well as other types of crime and/or problems. As well as with other countries in total given the large population.

one_raven:

I think seat belt laws are utterly absurd for anyone considered a legal adult. There is no reasonably conceivable way for me to hurt anyone other than myself by not wearing my seat belt. Laws should not be protecting me from myself.

You are entirely wrong.

Now I know that the US health system is very poor, but I'm not sure just how poor it is. I assume that if you're injured in a car accident you will be taken to hospital and treated for your injuries. Who pays?

In Australia, where I live, there is a compulsory contribution that every makes to the Transport Accident Commission. This is part of the registration fee for vehicles. It provides for no-fault compensation for injuries caused in vehicle accidents. Thus, if you are injured in a car crash, the government pays for ongoing costs associated with your injuries - possibly for life.

Since it is taxpayer money that funds this, it is in the interests of all taxpayers (or vehicle owners) that there should be laws mandating the wearing of seatbelts. Without seatbelts, the number of serious injuries in motor vehicle accidents is far higher than when seatbelts are mandated by law. The resulting cost to society as a whole is therefore higher, and the money could be better used for other things.

In short, if a person is too stupid to take care for his own safety, that is one thing. But to burden the rest of society is unconscionable. Hence, the small cost of enforcing seatbelt laws far outweighs the costs of failing to have such laws in the first place.

Also, seatbelt laws don't limit your democratic freedom of choice. If you don't want to wear a seatbelt, go right ahead. But be prepared to pay the fine. Chances are that this won't compensate society when you're badly injured in a car crash, but at least it's a small voluntary contribution.

As there are few people who don't wish to wear a seat belt anyway.

Historically, the introduction of seatbelt laws in many countries was met by stiff opposition from the general populace, who made exactly the kinds of stupid arguments one_raven made.

It's quite a simple compromise. If you're injured in an accident because you refused to wear a seat belt, you're exempt from the use of said tax payers money.

You're thinking a tad too closed there, James R.

one_raven:



You are entirely wrong.

Now I know that the US health system is very poor, but I'm not sure just how poor it is. I assume that if you're injured in a car accident you will be taken to hospital and treated for your injuries. Who pays?


You are quite correct. To answer that final question, everyone who eventually has a hospital stay winds up paying for that individual's stupidly in the name of "personal freedom." Yes, it's the hospital that's faced with the initial bill if Mr. Stupid doesn't have adequate insurance to pay for it (and that's too often the case since stupid in one area usually equates to stupid in other areas). But it's eventually passed along to ALL the rest of us in the from of higher health insurance rates, higher hospitalization charges, etc.

So even without a true government-sponsored healthcare plan for everyone, we - as collective citizens living in the same country - STILL wind up with the bill in the end. And ANY reduction in motor vehicle injuries is a benefit to everyone.

It's quite a simple compromise. If you're injured in an accident because you refused to wear a seat belt, you're exempt from the use of said tax payers money.

You're thinking a tad too closed there, James R.

Ha! Don't know what planet you live on but it certainly isn't in the USA on planet Earth.:bugeye:

Oh, sorry. I live on planet RATIONAL COMPROMISES. My bad.

Oh, sorry. I live on planet RATIONAL COMPROMISES. My bad.

Regardless of the label you choose to use, what you presented was sheer nonsense. And note - before you start claiming personal attacks again, I'm not attacking you but rather your absurdly stupid statement. It just doesn't fly in the real world - in ANY country in this world.

Naturally. The real world is full of fascism and stupid laws.

We apparently live in a bizarro world where any rational solution to a problem is labeled "nonsense" because there is apparently nobody in office smart enough to suggest any compromise to the situation.

If you ask me, the present law in place is sheer nonsense. Regardless of the label you choose to use.

Naturally. The real world is full of fascism and stupid laws.

We apparently live in a bizarro world where any rational solution to a problem is labeled "nonsense" because there is apparently nobody in office smart enough to suggest any compromise to the situation.

If you ask me, the present law in place is sheer nonsense. Regardless of the label you choose to use.

Of course it's nonsense to you - you want to live in a woo-woo idealistic world that doesn't exist. All the rest of us, however, live in the REAL world and understand why it works the way it does. And it actually makes sense for it to be this way, despite what you WANT it to be. Just keep getting older and one day you might understand it also.

No, I live in a world where all I see are flaws within the government. So many I'd like to see them rectified. I think of tons of solutions every day, and all of them are immensely realistic if even applied properly.

I fail to see how it makes sense for it to be that way, when all that happens is increasing corruption and internal flaws within the already broken system. It is you who live in an idealistic fantasy world if you think that age makes you realize anything, or if you think it makes sense for the human race to be screwed as it is. Albeit not very idealistic, but largely reliant on fantasy.

Keep growing, read-only. Perhaps one day you'll end up with some WRITE-ONLY software.

No, I live in a world where all I see are flaws within the government. So many I'd like to see them rectified. I think of tons of solutions every day, and all of them are immensely realistic if even applied properly.

I fail to see how it makes sense for it to be that way, when all that happens is increasing corruption and internal flaws within the already broken system. It is you who live in an idealistic fantasy world if you think that age makes you realize anything, or if you think it makes sense for the human race to be screwed as it is. Albeit not very idealistic, but largely reliant on fantasy.

Keep growing, read-only. Perhaps one day you'll end up with some WRITE-ONLY software.

No, the problem is that you cannot properly discern the difference between your half-baked thoughts and the way things really work - and why. Hopefully, you will gain knowledge and wisdom as you grow older and THAT will allow you to better understand the things that escape your limited understanding today. Note that I'm certainly NOT saying that the world is perfect - far from it!!!!! But rather that your degree of understanding is even farther from perfect. You've just barely begun experiencing life and therefore naturally know very little about it. (Despite what you THINK you know.)

...this is a waste of my time.

I fail to see how it makes sense for it to be that way, when all that happens is increasing corruption and internal flaws within the already broken system. It is you who live in an idealistic fantasy world if you think that age makes you realize anything, or if you think it makes sense for the human race to be screwed as it is.

List of great institutionalised human wrongs
-Genocide
-The Death Penalty
-CO2 Emissions
-Laws allowing "reasonable force" when disciplining a child
-Lack of affordable and accessible healthcare
-Seat Belt Laws

hmmm... that makes sense.

List of great institutionalised human wrongs
-Genocide
-The Death Penalty
-CO2 Emissions
-Laws allowing "reasonable force" when disciplining a child
-Lack of affordable and accessible healthcare
-Seat Belt Laws

hmmm... that makes sense.

Anyone who puts genocide and seat belt laws in the same list needs to put some serious efforts into understanding their faulty thought processes.

Anyone who puts genocide and seat belt laws in the same list needs to put some serious efforts into understanding their faulty thought processes.

And that was a completely and totally serious statement. Not sarcastic what so ever.

And that was a completely and totally serious statement. Not sarcastic what so ever.

If you've bothered to read this thread then you can easily see how seat belt laws are for the financial protection of the average citizen. Reducing vehicle injuries represents a savings for ALL of us. And that's a totally serious statement also.

If you've bothered to read this thread then you can easily see how seat belt laws are for the financial protection of the average citizen. Reducing vehicle injuries represents a savings for ALL of us. And that's a totally serious statement also.

Have you read the other statements I have made on this thread? I believe, although I am not certain, that I was defending seat belt laws before you entered the discussion.

I will break it down- I compared seatbelt laws to genocide because people are acting like seat belt laws are a horrible state sanctioned injustice. In reality GENOCIDE is a horrible state sanctioned injustice. I was being sarcastic and satirical.

...

Have you read the other statements I have made on this thread? I believe, although I am not certain, that I was defending seat belt laws before you entered the discussion.

I will break it down- I compared seatbelt laws to genocide because people are acting like seat belt laws are a horrible state sanctioned injustice. In reality GENOCIDE is a horrible state sanctioned injustice. I was being sarcastic and satirical.

...

I see. I failed to recognize what you were trying to do and now that I know I made a mistake I apologize. Sorry.

I see. I failed to recognize what you were trying to do and now that I know I made a mistake I apologize. Sorry.

Tis forgiven :p

...this is a waste of my time.

yes it is.
Since you do not have an mind open to learning.

you could it seems... but rage, it seems, blinds you to the truth which can only be found with calm reasoning.

dumb..

http://xs310.xs.to/xs310/06523/modhat-goat.gif

C. Stating Opinions
If you have an opinion, back it up with evidence, a valid argument and even links and references if possible.

http://xs310.xs.to/xs310/06523/modhat-goat.gif

C. Stating Opinions
If you have an opinion, back it up with evidence, a valid argument and even links and references if possible.

I wasnt talking about you.
-MT

wow is this thread still going, im glad i bailed on it when i did.

If we simply denied the person not wearing a seatbelt the taxpayer's or hospital money...

Can you imagine the litigation that would ensue from the debate on how much of the injury was caused by not wearing the seatbelt vs. how much was? I can only imagine that Jeremy's notions are oriented towards a smoother functioning society, but this one (when taken to its logical conclusion) would be a bit counterproductive.

What's that saying? An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. That’s something that we can see in both statistical and anecdotal evidence. It's also very widely applicable.

If we simply denied the person not wearing a seatbelt the taxpayer's or hospital money...

Can you imagine the litigation that would ensue from the debate on how much of the injury was caused by not wearing the seatbelt vs. how much was? I can only imagine that Jeremy's notions are oriented towards a smoother functioning society, but this one (when taken to its logical conclusion) would be a bit counterproductive.

What's that saying? An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. That’s something that we can see in both statistical and anecdotal evidence. It's also very widely applicable.

Correct, and that's precisely the WHOLE problem with his entire line of thinking - he's unequipped to carry them through to the point of seeing what the ultimate outcome would be. He's a bright kid but he simply does not (yet) know enough to fully complete those mental processes.

And while we're sort of on the subject, that's the biggest single problem with everyone his age in that they know just enough to start making noises and not nearly enough to see where those ideas would ultimately lead. And that's why I suggested he grow up and THEN come back in a few years because he (and they) will have an entirely different prospective then. ;)