Honestly, who moves heavy furniture within their vehicle? I seriously can't picture a large dresser being driving about in a sedan. People get pickup trucks for those things, that's what the bed is for. Or large vans with plenty of space in the back and tied down, or even tied to the roof.

Furniture is just one example. Projectiles aren't limited to human bodies. Anything with the right shape or mass can be a projectile even deadlier than a body, yet there are absolutely no laws about this sort of thing at all. And it doesn't matter if having inanimate projectiles is a rare thing - there would still be a law about it if that was the true reason we have the seat belt law. Since when did rarity of an occurrence stop people from making laws about things?

I don't know, when didn't it?

There are tons of crazy laws. One I heard was that it's illegal to wear high heels on the sidewalk because one lady got her foot stuck in one of the cracks.

 

Just take a look at some of these. A lot of those don't happen even once, yet there are laws about them. They are much rarer than cars lugging around inanimate projectiles, which probably happens everyday.

 

No gorilla is allowed in the back seat of any car.

 

See what I mean? They don't just make laws if it is a common thing, so nothing would be stopping them from making projectile laws, if they actually even cared about projectiles in the first place that is.

That's all I was interested in, really. I still don't understand why you think seat belt laws are so awful. It isn't control in the same way your parents prohibiting you from skydiving even when you never wanted to skydive is controlling. And if everyone wears their seat belt anyway, it's a non-issue on control. Once there's something that actually interferes with normal life, you can start calling foul.

 

Also, it is apparantly illegal in California to shoot at game from a moving vehicle- unless your target is a whale. I have a sudden urge to visit California. A harpoon counts as a shooting weapon, right?

But it's not about wanting to not wear it. At least that's not what I'm arguing about. For argument sake, there are pretty legitimate reasons why your seat belt wouldn't be on. Some people forget to wear it and sometimes, when you are driving like a minute away at 20 mph, it is pretty unnecessary. But like I said, eating an excessive amount of hamburgers is pretty stupid, but do you think there should be a law prohibiting it? Or is that just breaching the individual's personal freedoms? I'm not saying there are any benefits to eating lots of hamburgers, I'm just saying the government doesn't have much business here.

 

 

I expected more from TIF. You guys aren't even debating me anymore. You just keep posting random pretentious junk trying to hurt my feelings, lol. I made this thread for a generic liberal debate, and all I get is this.

 

 

 

This is the stupidest topic I've seen in a long, long time

Coming from the guy who thinks having an outside dog is inhumane. Just shut up and go chew on a bone elsewhere. You're not helping the topic at all.

I can see that gorilla situation coming up fairly often.

Coming from the guy who thinks having an outside dog is inhumane. Just shut up and go chew on a bone elsewhere. You're not helping the topic at all.

 

That's because leaving an animal you bought and assume responsibility for outside 24/7 exposed to the elements and anything else that might be outside is [developmentally delayed]ed.

 

This topic is hopeless because it is stupid. Of all the things you could have picked you chose seat belts.

Coming from the guy who thinks having an outside dog is inhumane. Just shut up and go chew on a bone elsewhere. You're not helping the topic at all.

 

That's because leaving an animal you bought and assume responsibility for outside 24/7 exposed to the elements and anything else that might be outside is [developmentally delayed]ed.

You say this like a dog can't fend for itself in the outside world. They've been doing it for God knows how long before humans started domesticating them.

Coming from the guy who thinks having an outside dog is inhumane. Just shut up and go chew on a bone elsewhere. You're not helping the topic at all.

 

That's because leaving an animal you bought and assume responsibility for outside 24/7 exposed to the elements and anything else that might be outside is [developmentally delayed]ed.

You say this like a dog can't fend for itself in the outside world. They've been doing it for God knows how long before humans started domesticating them.

 

Thank you for proving my point. Before we domesticated them/wild dogs yes, ones that have been bred and raised in domestication will have no chance. There was actually some small USA town that didn't have enough $ to support their dog shelter, so their great idea was to just release all the dogs in the park. You are buying a dog, not a lawn ornament.

 

Sorry for the off topic

a domesticated dog probably couldnt survive though, precisely becaue it is domesticated, and not it's ancestor which was wild.

 

depends on what kind of dog though obviously

a domesticated dog probably couldnt survive though, precisely becaue it is domesticated, and not it's ancestor which was wild.

 

 

Uh, that's pretty much what I'm saying. I'm aware that dogs were wild and were perfectly capable of fending for themselves, but now that they're domesticated they are house pets. Although I believe there are still wild dogs in Australia, yes?

there are still wild dogs all over the world.

Oh, and I was looking for a specific picture from Australia or Africa or something. I thought it was hyena vs wild dogs, but I'm not sure if they are wild dogs. Posting because it is awesome

 

Coming from the guy who thinks having an outside dog is inhumane. Just shut up and go chew on a bone elsewhere. You're not helping the topic at all.

 

That's because leaving an animal you bought and assume responsibility for outside 24/7 exposed to the elements and anything else that might be outside is [developmentally delayed]ed.

You say this like a dog can't fend for itself in the outside world. They've been doing it for God knows how long before humans started domesticating them.

 

Thank you for proving my point. Before we domesticated them/wild dogs yes, ones that have been bred and raised in domestication will have no chance. There was actually some small USA town that didn't have enough $ to support their dog shelter, so their great idea was to just release all the dogs in the park. You are buying a dog, not a lawn ornament.

 

Sorry for the off topic

Just because they've been domesticated doesn't mean they've suddenly lost the ability to find water and food. Mid to large sized dogs would do fine in the outside world. Can't say much for the toy chiuauas and poodles though.

 

Back on topic: Why do you seem to hate everything that the government does Zierro? Ticketing for not wearing a seatbelt has no negative effects except for "it's uncomfortable". Just because it's that individual person's life doesn't mean the country can just allow them to throw it away. Part of the governments job is to make sure it's population isn't killing themselves off.

Oh, and I was looking for a specific picture from Australia or Africa or something. I thought it was hyena vs wild dogs, but I'm not sure if they are wild dogs. Posting because it is awesome

 

 

Hyenas are good, but theres no way they're gonna win against satan's best friend.

Theres a huge problem with the idea "leave people to think for themselves". Some people can't handle the responsibility of handling consequences of their actions. If no law mandates the use of seat belts, and, by some physical feat car crashes don't turn humans into projectiles both inside and outside the vehicle, accidents will happen, people will die or get seriously injured, and people will blame someone. There will be lawsuits, there will be terrible PR, and people will turn and say, why didn't the car company do something? Or, why didn't the government do something? Parents or relatives of victims of stupidity will want answers.

 

The law preemptively stops this. And, of course, people turn into projectiles without seatbelts.

 

Fun situation: There are five people in a 5-person car. The person in the back seat does not wear a seatbelt. There is an accident, the unseatbelted kid is turned into a projectile and hits someone else IN the car, killing the other person. Whose fault is it?

 

Just because they've been domesticated doesn't mean they've suddenly lost the ability to find water and food. Mid to large sized dogs would do fine in the outside world. Can't say much for the toy chiuauas and poodles though.

 

Though I disagree and have something to say to that I'll just drop it to get this horrible thread back on track.

 

 

 

Back on topic: Why do you seem to hate everything that the government does Zierro? Ticketing for not wearing a seatbelt has no negative effects except for "it's uncomfortable". Just because it's that individual person's life doesn't mean the country can just allow them to throw it away. Part of the governments job is to make sure it's population isn't killing themselves off.

 

BECAUSE MAN, ITS HIS RIGHT TO NOT HAVE TO WEAR ONE!HIS RIIIIGHHHTTT RARAWRWARWRWR THE GOVERNMENT IS EVIL1!

what kind of a cop is going to be sharp eyed to spot a missing seatbelt at X-mph anyway? Seems absurdly hard to enforce.

what kind of a cop is going to be sharp eyed to spot a missing seatbelt at X-mph anyway? Seems absurdly hard to enforce.

They get you at stoplights or when they stop you on the road for whatever reason.

not hard just to pull it on while they get out of their car surely.

Why do you seem to hate everything that the government does Zierro?

 

BECAUSE MAN, ITS HIS RIGHT TO NOT HAVE TO WEAR ONE!HIS RIIIIGHHHTTT RARAWRWARWRWR THE GOVERNMENT IS EVIL1!

 

You guys are tempting me to create a topic about the government in general.

go for it!

 

seriously, its better than having the original topic just veer way off course.