UPDATE x2: Could someone show me why I'm wrong?

[ThrobbingEgo]

I don't think that happiness or the pursuit of need to be justified.

Are you happy when you play video games? If so, should you have to justify your happiness while playing them? I'm not saying you can't justify it, just asking if you should have to.

I also don't think it's an arbitrarily picked line because by definition that means I picked it at random and w/o a reason.

Oh, wow, you just set yourself up. I never said happiness or the pursuit of it needs to be justified. Just that there's no link between not wearing a seatbelt and the pursuit of happiness.

Video games can be both competitive games and narrative experiences. They're a part of our urges for communicating and creating shared experiences. Experiencing, taking part in, and designing games could make sense in the pursuit of happiness- though it fits better under freedom of expression. I'm not so concerned over whether video games make people happy, as I am concerned about them as an expressive medium.

The act of not wearing a seat belt doesn't make sense in this context at all. I'm waiting for you to provide a legitimate argument here.

 

[SLy AsymMetrY]

If you exercise your personal choice to not wear your seatbelt, then during an accident, you could smash into others, killing or grievously injuring them.

Freedom is valuable, but can be dangerous without common sense. If the law wants to force you to be safe, and you want to disregard your own personal safety, you should first consider how this affects others.

Yeah, alot of laws can be intrusive and/or unnecessary. But in this instance. A law that forces you to take a second of your life to be safer, is completely justifiable. More so, when the side-effect is to also increase the safety of those around you.

 

[ZZoMBiE13]

Bottom line is, driving is a priviledge, not a right. The state has the right to enforce whatever laws they choose when you are using your priviledges. There simply is no infringment in this case.

 

[joystickjunki3]

I don't think that happiness or the pursuit of need to be justified.

Are you happy when you play video games? If so, should you have to justify your happiness while playing them? I'm not saying you can't justify it, just asking if you should have to.

I also don't think it's an arbitrarily picked line because by definition that means I picked it at random and w/o a reason.

Oh, wow, you just set yourself up. I never said happiness or the pursuit of it needs to be justified. Just that there's no link between not wearing a seatbelt and the pursuit of happiness.

Video games can be both competitive games and narrative experiences. They're a part of our urges for communicating and creating shared experiences. Experiencing, taking part in, and designing games could make sense in the pursuit of happiness- though it fits better under freedom of expression.

The act of not wearing a seat belt doesn't make sense in this context at all.

Does providing a plausible reason not count as an act of justification? Last time I checked, plausible meant seemingly reasonable or believable, which means that it subsequently seems plausible to me that providing plausibility is justification.

I didn't really need an explanation of video games as you provided, but thank you. Freedom of expression falls very neatly into the pursuit of happiness, though.

And I think you're arbitrarily drawing lines as to what is and what isn't the pursuit of happiness.

 

[Lexodus]

Slightly different. Limiting speed saves others' lives as well. If I don't put on my seatbelt, whose life am I risking other than my own?

If there are others in the car you are also risking their life, a body crashing around can be very dangerous for others in an accident.

How often does a body crash around in the car enough to harm others in the car?

Regardless of that, airbags generally minimize movement of bodies.

Very, very often... if they're not wearing seatbelts.

 

[Darkmaster127]

Recently there have been an exceedingly large amount of seatbelt commercials ("Click it or Ticket").

Now I'd like to hear a legitimate argument for pro-seatbelt laws because I find that forcing people to participate in something like that is infringing on individual freedoms.

I wear my seatbelt most of the time because it's safer in general, but shouldn't it be a personal choice?

EDIT: I suppose this argument also applies to helmets for motorcycles, etc.

EDIT EDIT: Just to make sure we're all clear, I'm not arguing about the practicality of seatbelts/helmets/etc., I'm just debating the constitutionality and implications in the long run (where to draw the line in the future) of laws forcing individuals to wear them.

My guess is that the government do it to 'show' people they 'care about our safety' in order to try and get re-elected. It also reduces 'Road' deaths' which looks good for them to say they've improved traffic safety. There's no real reason other than that to do it. As you've stated in your original post, and some of the replies, the only person you're endangering is yourself.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

I didn't really need an explanation of video games as you provided, but thank you. Freedom of expression falls very neatly into the pursuit of happiness, though.

And I think you're arbitrarily drawing lines as to what is and what isn't the pursuit of happiness.

Freedom of expression can be very different than the pursuit of happiness. After all, not all expression makes you happy, does it? Important knowledge isn't always the crap that makes us smile. The things we want to tell others, that we must express, is not always what will make them laugh. This is important.

Secondly, if you're going to use the pursuit of happiness to justify not wearing a seatbelt, which you are attempting to do, then isn't it entirely reasonable that you should explain how it facilitates your pursuit of happiness?

You're the one who asked for a legitimate argument. Now it's your turn to give one.

 

[Lexodus]

This happened several days ago.

We decided we're ok with natural selection.

^Win

Seriously though, people die. It's in the government's best interest (mostly) to make sure its people are safe. Also, each person is worth something to the governemnt in tax money and for economic reasons. If people started to die left right and centre all the time on the roads because of no seatbelt then the government is losing out on money.

But, then again, seeing the image of a baby being torpedoed out of a windscreen is too beautiful to miss.

WIN. Sick, but win.

 

[Iron Mal]

Slightly different. Limiting speed saves others' lives as well. If I don't put on my seatbelt, whose life am I risking other than my own?

Surely saving your own life should be more than enough incentive to get you to wear a seatbelt?

It's a hassle and a pain in the ass but if you'd rather be an unrecogniseable, bloody smear on the road then by all means feel free to drive seat-beltless.

I'll see you when I'm walking in the Cemetary on Sunday.

 

[dontworryaboutit]

This happened several days ago.

We decided we're ok with natural selection.

Thats a good reason to not make it a law in my opinion. But I still think there should be a law that forces it, just because I cant help thinking of the people that have to clean up otherwise. Sure, they probably chose to take the job, but that alone deserves respect and this is only a small way of supporting them. Even though more seatbelts and helmets means less work for them.

Again, talked about last week. The clean-up crew was brought up. Also someone mentioned that they asked a senior officer of the law this exact question and he said it wasn't for their safety it was for the people who were in the accident that might blame themselves for the death.

 

[joystickjunki3]

I didn't really need an explanation of video games as you provided, but thank you. Freedom of expression falls very neatly into the pursuit of happiness, though.

And I think you're arbitrarily drawing lines as to what is and what isn't the pursuit of happiness.

Freedom of expression can be very different than the pursuit of happiness. After all, not all expression makes you happy, does it? Important knowledge isn't always the crap that makes us smile. The things we want to tell others, that we must express, is not always what will make them laugh. This is important.

Secondly, if you're going to use the pursuit of happiness to justify not wearing a seatbelt, which you are attempting to do, then isn't it entirely reasonable that you should explain how it facilitates your pursuit of happiness?

You're the one who asked for a legitimate argument. Now it's your turn to give one.

I thought I already had. I never said I was the end-all, be-all to this dilemma, I just presented an argument that I thought to be the right one. If "legitimate" means it has to be right in each others' worlds, then I'm not so sure any us can actually be legitimate.

You're right, expression doesn't always make people happy per se, but if they choose to express then they choose to put happiness at risk. Pursuit of happiness is a 2-way street. And I don't think it's entirely reasonable in every situation to be forced to explain anyone's pursuit of happiness or their actual happiness.

Slightly different. Limiting speed saves others' lives as well. If I don't put on my seatbelt, whose life am I risking other than my own?

Surely saving your own life should be more than enough incentive to get you to wear a seatbelt?

It's a hassle and a pain in the ass but if you'd rather be an unrecogniseable, bloody smear on the road then by all means feel free to drive seat-beltless.

But that's the point. I'm choosing to not protect my own life. I wear my seatbelt most of the time, but should I have to if I'm in the car by myself and I know what I'm giving up by doing so?

 

[Lexodus]

As we're on the subject, is it true or just an urban myth that American cars' airbags are more powerfull than european ones, and when wearing a seatbelt in one of those that you won't be able to click your seatbelt open if the airbag is 'deployed'?

read it once a very long while back. Just curious.

You know, there's this lovely thing called "the internet" where people can search out answers to basic fact-driven questions, there's even this site called "Google" which helps people to do exactly that if they're not so lazy they figure they'll just ask a random forum and hopefully have the information served directly up to them.
http://www.google.com/search?rls=en&q=how+does+an+airbag+work

If you're under the age of 18, then using Google is illegal, biatch. Read the T&C.

Funny thing is, I didn't know this until I Googled it

 

[Lexodus]

I didn't really need an explanation of video games as you provided, but thank you. Freedom of expression falls very neatly into the pursuit of happiness, though.

And I think you're arbitrarily drawing lines as to what is and what isn't the pursuit of happiness.

Freedom of expression can be very different than the pursuit of happiness. After all, not all expression makes you happy, does it? Important knowledge isn't always the crap that makes us smile. The things we want to tell others, that we must express, is not always what will make them laugh. This is important.

Secondly, if you're going to use the pursuit of happiness to justify not wearing a seatbelt, which you are attempting to do, then isn't it entirely reasonable that you should explain how it facilitates your pursuit of happiness?

You're the one who asked for a legitimate argument. Now it's your turn to give one.

I thought I already had. I never said I was the end-all, be-all to this dilemma, I just presented an argument that I thought to be the right one. If "legitimate" means it has to be right in each others' worlds, then I'm not so sure any us can actually be legitimate.

No, you're saying that something is going against your right to try and be happy, and not giving any explanation as to WHY it is stopping you from trying to be happy. Key word in the constitution is 'pursuit'. Wearing a seatbelt cannot stop you from *trying* to be happy, no matter if it may stop you from *being* happy.

 

[TheBarefootBandit]

Because I don't want to be cleaning your ass off my windshield.

Love it and the avatar.

 

[joystickjunki3]

I didn't really need an explanation of video games as you provided, but thank you. Freedom of expression falls very neatly into the pursuit of happiness, though.

And I think you're arbitrarily drawing lines as to what is and what isn't the pursuit of happiness.

Freedom of expression can be very different than the pursuit of happiness. After all, not all expression makes you happy, does it? Important knowledge isn't always the crap that makes us smile. The things we want to tell others, that we must express, is not always what will make them laugh. This is important.

Secondly, if you're going to use the pursuit of happiness to justify not wearing a seatbelt, which you are attempting to do, then isn't it entirely reasonable that you should explain how it facilitates your pursuit of happiness?

You're the one who asked for a legitimate argument. Now it's your turn to give one.

I thought I already had. I never said I was the end-all, be-all to this dilemma, I just presented an argument that I thought to be the right one. If "legitimate" means it has to be right in each others' worlds, then I'm not so sure any us can actually be legitimate.

No, you're saying that something is going against your right to try and be happy, and not giving any explanation as to WHY it is stopping you from trying to be happy. Key word in the constitution is 'pursuit'. Wearing a seatbelt cannot stop you from *trying* to be happy, no matter if it may stop you from *being* happy.

I see your point, but it seems like you're just arguing semantics. If it stops me from being happy, then it has effectively prevented me from pursuing happiness.

 

[Lexodus]

I didn't really need an explanation of video games as you provided, but thank you. Freedom of expression falls very neatly into the pursuit of happiness, though.

And I think you're arbitrarily drawing lines as to what is and what isn't the pursuit of happiness.

Freedom of expression can be very different than the pursuit of happiness. After all, not all expression makes you happy, does it? Important knowledge isn't always the crap that makes us smile. The things we want to tell others, that we must express, is not always what will make them laugh. This is important.

Secondly, if you're going to use the pursuit of happiness to justify not wearing a seatbelt, which you are attempting to do, then isn't it entirely reasonable that you should explain how it facilitates your pursuit of happiness?

You're the one who asked for a legitimate argument. Now it's your turn to give one.

I thought I already had. I never said I was the end-all, be-all to this dilemma, I just presented an argument that I thought to be the right one. If "legitimate" means it has to be right in each others' worlds, then I'm not so sure any us can actually be legitimate.

No, you're saying that something is going against your right to try and be happy, and not giving any explanation as to WHY it is stopping you from trying to be happy. Key word in the constitution is 'pursuit'. Wearing a seatbelt cannot stop you from *trying* to be happy, no matter if it may stop you from *being* happy.

I see your point, but it seems like you're just arguing semantics. If it stops me from being happy, then it has effectively prevented me from pursuing happiness.

No, it hasn't. Not in the slightest. You can TRY and be happy in a situation that you have no possibility of happiness in, F/E, at the death of a loved one, you can say that they're in a better place and all that shit, but it doesn't stop you from being upset.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

I thought I already had. I never said I was the end-all, be-all to this dilemma, I just presented an argument that I thought to be the right one. If "legitimate" means it has to be right in each others' worlds, then I'm not so sure any us can actually be legitimate.

You're right, expression doesn't always make people happy per se, but if they choose to express then they choose to put happiness at risk. Pursuit of happiness is a 2-way street. And I don't think it's entirely reasonable in every situation to be forced to explain anyone's pursuit of happiness or their actual happiness.

Super. That's irrelevant though because, as I've argued, not wearing a seatbelt has nothing to do with the pursuit of happiness. Please, explain how being forced to wear a seatbelt prevents you from pursing happiness.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

I thought I already had. I never said I was the end-all, be-all to this dilemma, I just presented an argument that I thought to be the right one. If "legitimate" means it has to be right in each others' worlds, then I'm not so sure any us can actually be legitimate.

If that's the case then this entire thread is an exercise in futility, isn't it?

Why start a thread entitled "Could someone provide a legitimate argument here?" and then argue that it'd be impossible for you to present a legitimate argument.

I think I'm finished with this thread.

Edit: If you're in the car by yourself, go crazy.

 

[Maynia]

Far as I can see, this is pretty straightforward.

Even if you're alone in a car, not wearing a seatbelt can make you a danger to others. In the event that you have to brake hard or take avoiding action while not wearing a belt, the car will stop or turn, but you'll keep going on the same vector as before to some degree no matter how hard you try to stop it - simple physics, it's near-impossible to hold yourself in place alone in any significant deceleration, this is why seatbelts were invented.

Moving on, if that happens, your mind will be on holding yourself in place, you will no longer be in full control of what is a very dangerous piece of machinery, and you will put others at risk.

You do have the right to risk your own life through gross acts of stupidity in your 'pursuit of happiness'. You do not, under any circumstances, have the right to endanger anyone else, and not wearing seatbelts on a public road breaches the latter in so many ways.