It is currently Mon Sep 01, 2014 6:19 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 89 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Here comes Big Mother "MADD"
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 11:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2002 11:56 pm
Posts: 757
Location: EARTH.
mathias wrote:
So you're implying someone here works for mad?


No, I'm implying that once a group or organization has been compared to A) Nazis and B) Fascists that there is little left to discuss. That is not a discussion.

Quote:
Beyonder wrote:
1. Nobody is proposing mandatory alcohol detection devices for all drivers.
Ahem...
andyb wrote:
Anyway back to the point, great idea, would love to see it on every car made from xxx year, and they would slowly filter through the system, it could also be made a compulsary test item in the annual MOT.


"Nobody" is in reference to MADD and the NYT article--sorry for not being clear on that. I find no indication from the NYT article that MADD is pushing for legislation mandating alcohol detection devices for all drivers. In all honesty, I really like the idea of being able to adopt one in my vehicle to get a break on insurance rates. I would gladly do that voluntarily.

_________________
Fun: GOLDFISHY
Work: Video Surveillance


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 11:48 am 
Offline
Patron of SPCR

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 3302
Location: Essex, England
Here is a generalisation for you.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6167726.stm

6 months per person WOW, I bet their relatives arent too happy.

Generalisations are very much like the choises a government is given on how to tak the people.

Do you do a flat-rate tax, so that everyone pays the same regardless of what they earn. This is just like current driving laws.

Do you go to the other extreme, and have the huge amount of extra cost in manpower to find out exactly how much people should be taxed, this would be like giving everyone a driving test every 6 months to make sure that they are a good driver.

Or do you build generalisations into the problem of more fairer tax, or less unfair tax. The answer would be to stop the danger groups from driving at all.

So the under 25 group wouldnt be allowed to drive, the over 70's group wouldnt be able to drive. This kind of generalisation is easy, cheap and very efficient as it generally rules out the worst drivers. But it is of course unfair to stop all of the good under 25 drivers, and the good over 70's drivers from driving.

RE: that book you read, I have heard about hardcore smokers who have eventually died aged 95 of nothing to do with the last 85 years of smoking, what was the point of that statement, except to point out that some people are lucky.

Even writing a book like that and having it published is quite stupid, I would laugh my head off if I heard that she hit a tree and died, and the post-mortem proved that she would have survived if wearing a seatbelt, but only as long as she had not brainwashed everyone else in the car to thinking that they are immortal too. She is obviously as lucky as she is stupid, and her dying in a car accident would be a fitting last chapter in her book.


Andy

_________________
Main PC, P180, CM Silent Pro 500M, i5 3570k @ 4.2Ghz, 8-GB @ 2,000MHz, 256 GB Samsung 830, 500-GB 7K500, MSI 660Ti Twin Frozr, PC is super quiet :o
Server, 6-TB RAID-5 array, + 2 x 2-TB backup drives, 380W Enermax Pro82+, 4x very quiet fans, positive pressure only, no exhaust fans
Living Room PC, 3500+, 2-GB RAM, HD501LJ


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 11:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2004 3:58 pm
Posts: 2057
Location: Toronto
I have to spell it out for you? Godwins law is about calling those you're arguing with nazis.

Other sources you say? Very well, looks like they aren't proposing such a law after all, they're already passing it! And you have to use the thing while driving, that's f*cking hillarious.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 12:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2002 11:56 pm
Posts: 757
Location: EARTH.
Quote:
I don't like forcing people to do what they don't want to do and what doesn't hurt others. If you cannot understand that, then I am truly sorry.


I pay taxes, and a substantial portion of my taxes goes to fund road construction and maintenence. A substantial portion of it goes to fund police, fire, and emergency services. My health care costs are increased by other people stupidly not wearing their seatbelt.

It is convenient to think of ourselves as islands. But if you think you're some autonomous, isolated node while driving a car down a busy road funded by, maintained, policed, and monitored by billions of dollars spent by other citizens, you are mistaken. Society as a whole funds and maintains that road, and incurs costs collectively--so it is wholly unfair, in my opinion, to frame the issue as some sort of "personal freedom" when your "freedom" to drive a car has largely been funded by the society you live in.

_________________
Fun: GOLDFISHY
Work: Video Surveillance


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 12:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 8:22 pm
Posts: 2465
Location: London
andyb wrote:
Here is a generalisation for you.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6167726.stm

6 months per person WOW, I bet their relatives arent too happy.


Did you have a point there, or are you just pointing out one occurence? Do you think I couldn't find you a link where a 40-year-old talking on a cell phone lost control of a car and killed innocent bystanders?

Quote:
Generalisations are very much like the choises a government is given on how to tak the people.

Do you do a flat-rate tax, so that everyone pays the same regardless of what they earn. This is just like current driving laws.

Do you go to the other extreme, and have the huge amount of extra cost in manpower to find out exactly how much people should be taxed, this would be like giving everyone a driving test every 6 months to make sure that they are a good driver.

Or do you build generalisations into the problem of more fairer tax, or less unfair tax. The answer would be to stop the danger groups from driving at all.

So the under 25 group wouldnt be allowed to drive, the over 70's group wouldnt be able to drive. This kind of generalisation is easy, cheap and very efficient as it generally rules out the worst drivers. But it is of course unfair to stop all of the good under 25 drivers, and the good over 70's drivers from driving.


Technically speaking, six months wouldn't turn a good driver appalingly bad any more than six months wouldn't turn a wino into an A-student.

However, I see that we have different outlooks on this issue. I'm on the "if you can't do it right, don't do it at all" side. Other sides disagree.

Quote:
RE: that book you read, I have heard about hardcore smokers who have eventually died aged 95 of nothing to do with the last 85 years of smoking, what was the point of that statement, except to point out that some people are lucky.


The point of that statement was that it personal anecdotes are not relevant to the issue at hand. You presented three people for whom wearing seat belts was a good idea. I presented five people for whom not wearing seat belts was just as good of an idea.

Quote:
Even writing a book like that and having it published is quite stupid, I would laugh my head off if I heard that she hit a tree and died, and the post-mortem proved that she would have survived if wearing a seatbelt, but only as long as she had not brainwashed everyone else in the car to thinking that they are immortal too. She is obviously as lucky as she is stupid, and her dying in a car accident would be a fitting last chapter in her book.


You're missing a point. (And becoming quite rude towards people you don't even know.) She's not telling -- I'm not telling -- people "don't buckle up, it's stupid." I'm telling people "make your own decision and get the hell out of the business of making decisions for others."

_________________
Thinkpad X200 – aging fan, T60p – Core Duo whine :(
Nothing endures but change


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 12:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2002 11:56 pm
Posts: 757
Location: EARTH.
mathias wrote:
I have to spell it out for you? Godwins law is about calling those you're arguing with nazis.


Not exactly. It simply needs to involve any comparisons to Nazis. It need not be targeted at people arguing.

Quote:
Other sources you say? Very well, looks like they aren't proposing such a law after all, they're already passing it! And you have to use the thing while driving, that's f*cking hillarious.


You have clearly not checked the validity of this slashdot article. It is operating under the same misconception that this thread had--that is that NM was/is advocating ignition locks for everyone. This is false; it is only fur DUI offenders. Read it for yourself. Or here, if you prefer.

_________________
Fun: GOLDFISHY
Work: Video Surveillance


Last edited by Beyonder on Tue Nov 21, 2006 12:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 12:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 8:22 pm
Posts: 2465
Location: London
Beyonder wrote:
Quote:
I don't like forcing people to do what they don't want to do and what doesn't hurt others. If you cannot understand that, then I am truly sorry.


I pay taxes, and a substantial portion of my taxes goes to fund road construction and maintenence.


I pay taxes too, and a substantial portion of those goes to old-age pensions. Should I suggest we cut the pensions to the absolute minimum required for seniors to survive?

Quote:
You have clearly not checked the validity of this slashdot article. It is operating under the same misconception that this thread had--that is that NM was/is advocating ignition locks for everyone. This is false; it is only fur DUI offenders.


Umm... No.

edit: what you linked to is a different act.

Quote:
No later than January 1, 2008, every new motor vehicle sold or offered for sale in New Mexico shall be equipped with an ignition interlock device.

_________________
Thinkpad X200 – aging fan, T60p – Core Duo whine :(
Nothing endures but change


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 12:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2002 11:56 pm
Posts: 757
Location: EARTH.
qviri wrote:
Umm... No.

edit: what you linked to is a different act.


Okay, I was mistaken. There was a bill to make ingnition locks mandatory. However, I can find absolutely zero information that it actually passed, nor does it seem to have much to do with MADD.

The only ignition lock bills that seem to have actually passed in NM are related to DWI offenders.

edit: HB126 did not pass in 2004. This bill was passed in 05', which is quite different--it only applies to DWI offenders. This is not surprising, because mandatory ignition locks have a substantial cost (like, $100-400 million for the state of NM alone, according to the HB126). Also,see this.

_________________
Fun: GOLDFISHY
Work: Video Surveillance


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 12:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 6:09 am
Posts: 647
Location: UK
Quote:
I appreciate that you wear a seatbelt, but why would you not force people to wear one.??? I just cant understand that at all.


You would not force them to because they could only harm themselves. You would motivate the case for seatbelts and leave them to choose.

However, it is different for things like driving while drunk or speeding because they can hurt other people.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 2:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 10:18 am
Posts: 96
I like the idea that convicted drunk drivers need an analyzer to start the car at least, assuming there was a way to prevent a market for fake canned breath to bypass it. Convicted child predators are required to register in the US wherever they live and have a variety of restrictions on what they can do and where they can go, typically limiting their access to children like around schools. Those laws are there because the public feels strongly about it, even though it can cause a lifetime of agony for the individual, even if they never go down that dark path again. People don't want them to repeat the terrible crimes they commit. Why not prevent people who have repeatedly been caught driving drunk from driving drunk in the future?

It's 1 thing to argue whether a seatbelt should be worn. People always pull the "I'll drown in a lake" response, even though most of them will die regardless because they didn't watch enough Fear Factor to know how to exit a submerged car without freaking out. Watching movies like the end of Crash only reinforce it, although the viewers don't consider the lady would likely have been dead without the seatbelt, and getting cooked after the fact makes little difference. A good friend on mine didn't wear a belt; he went through the windshield and into a tree face-first, and was allowed to die the next day when no brain activity was detected in what was left. But hey, at least he wasn't afraid of drowning in a non-existent lake he might drive into. :?

Wearing a belt can make a difference to the family and friends you leave behind, pretty selfish comparing the 2 sides there. Drunk driving however, is very much a direct impact on lots of other people. The very young and very elderly drivers have statistically proven they cause the most accidents, so maybe you require a little tougher test up front for 16-18yo drivers, and after a certain age you could require further driving tests to retain your license after retirement age.

The comment about MADD being after vengeance... the article refers to the fact that they want laws punishing drunk driving-you know, the idea that if I beat you up I get put in jail for a few days? VENGEANCE BABY!!! Instead, your sister could come over and cuddle with me to try and encourage me not to be a naughty boy, the "rehab" side of corrections.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 2:08 am 
Offline
Patron of SPCR

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 3302
Location: Essex, England
Qviri, i dont know about you, but neither you or me are going to change our minds on this subject.

I understand exactly where youa re coming from, but disagree. As "Breunor" has just made an excelent post that is on-topic, I think that we should agree to disagree and get back on topic.

Previously convicted drink drivers should have breathalysers fitted that stop the car from starting, game on.

Here is an interesting website I have just found, stating the usual, and max penalty's in the UK for drink driving, they even sell AA-Battery powered re-usable breathalysers for £10, its not like they are expensive, it will cost a bit more to have it fitted, and wired up to the car, but the cost is still very small, but the implications are huge, it would also help rehabilitation.


Andy

_________________
Main PC, P180, CM Silent Pro 500M, i5 3570k @ 4.2Ghz, 8-GB @ 2,000MHz, 256 GB Samsung 830, 500-GB 7K500, MSI 660Ti Twin Frozr, PC is super quiet :o
Server, 6-TB RAID-5 array, + 2 x 2-TB backup drives, 380W Enermax Pro82+, 4x very quiet fans, positive pressure only, no exhaust fans
Living Room PC, 3500+, 2-GB RAM, HD501LJ


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 7:04 am 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:11 pm
Posts: 7368
Location: Maynard, MA, Eaarth
Hello,

qviri wrote:
Quote:
I personally know 3 people who would be very much dead and buried if they werent wearing seatbelts at the time of their accidents.


And I've read an autobiography of a person who doesn't buckle up (she's still alive BTW - having driven across Europe at least half a dozen times), who advocated the right to not buckle up and provided examples of four people whose lives were saved. Personal anecdotes are meaningless.


I don't think there is any argument with the facts. The facts are that in an overwhelming majority of situations, a seatbelt will save your life. Why do race car drivers use full harnesses?

I know someone who worked as an EMT for years: he never unbuckled a corpse.

It is very hard to get thrown out of a vehicle if you are wearing a seatbelt. With the prevalence of SUV's rolling over these days, a lot of people are hurt or killed by being flung out of the vehicle. Air bags help in some situations, but not in this way in a rollover.

If you drove into deep water without a seatbelt, do you think you will still be conscious after whacking your head and slamming around inside the vehicle? If you were wearing the seatbelt, then at least you're more likely to be able to unbuckle the belt and get out.

I'm reminded of the argument over wearing a helmet when riding a motorcycle. I rode for about 15 years and have about 125,000 miles on a motorcycle. People's heads are quite fragile, and the costs to society to help the vast majority of the people who have to relearn how to walk, talk, and eat; all due to drastic brain injury because they chose not to wear a helmet! (It is also much quieter to wear a helmet!)

Gary Busey is case in point, for someone who was adamantly against requiring helmets -- until he fell off after hitting a curb at a slow speed, and got a fairly nasty knock on his noggin. It knocked some sense into him, too.

_________________
Sincerely, Neil
http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 12:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2002 11:56 pm
Posts: 757
Location: EARTH.
qviri wrote:
Beyonder wrote:
Quote:
I don't like forcing people to do what they don't want to do and what doesn't hurt others. If you cannot understand that, then I am truly sorry.


I pay taxes, and a substantial portion of my taxes goes to fund road construction and maintenence.


I pay taxes too, and a substantial portion of those goes to old-age pensions. Should I suggest we cut the pensions to the absolute minimum required for seniors to survive?


Sorry, missed this...I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I am not proposing the slashing of highway funds, nor a reduction of police/fire/emergency services.

The point I was making is that this notion of wearing seatbelts being an individual choice is false, because it has obvious consequences for society as a whole. Statistically, seatbelts save lives and prevent serious harm. This leads to a very significant savings to society as a whole.

_________________
Fun: GOLDFISHY
Work: Video Surveillance


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 23, 2006 10:33 am 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 11:24 am
Posts: 1735
Location: 'Sunny' Cornwall U.K.
qviri wrote:
How do you think a 40-year-old would feel if I told him he wasn't allowed to buy a computer because old pricks like him can't handle the newest technology?


OY!!!... Leave me out of this !!!.....


:D


Pete
(P.S. I would appreciate knowing which git let the cat out of the bag?.....)

(EDIT: For the record: the school I went to started computer lessons in the 77/78 school year... )


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 24, 2006 7:36 am 
Offline
SPCR Reviewer

Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2002 6:33 am
Posts: 8636
Location: Sunny SoCal
peteamer wrote:

(EDIT: For the record: the school I went to started computer lessons in the 77/78 school year... )


Good on ya, you young buck!

Went I went to school we used slide-rules. There weren't even "pocket calculators" back then, well nothing that was available to the public at least.

_________________
Main Box: Intel i3-3225, Intel DH77EB, 16GB Corsair RAM, 256GB Samsung 830, SS360GP PSU, CM PS07 case.
Music Server: Intel DH77EB + i3-3220, 2xSamsung 2TB F4, Pico PSU, Fractal Define Mini, 2xScythe Fans @250 rpm.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Here comes Big Mother "MADD"
PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 10:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:58 pm
Posts: 561
Beyonder wrote:
First off, this entire thread should be locked on the grounds of Goodwin's Law. We've now had multiple references to Fascism and Nazis, so it seems like this post is hardly about discussing the respective merits and flaws of MADD.


It's damn near impossible NOT to link MADD to Fascism, Nazism, and Big Brother.

And by the way, it's Godwin's Law, not "Goodwin's Law."

_________________
~mar.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 10:17 am 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 6:21 pm
Posts: 4247
Location: Undisclosed but sober in US
jaganath wrote:
a recent survey found that the British are the most spied-upon nation on earth:


Well the current administration here has decided the hell with our Constitution so we are pushing forward to be #1 here as well.


"Warrants? I don't need no stinkin' warrants."
Dielbold results of 2000 and 2004.

_________________
People who put money and political ideology ahead of truth and ethics are neither patriots nor human beings.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 10:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:58 pm
Posts: 561
Beyonder wrote:
The point I was making is that this notion of wearing seatbelts being an individual choice is false, because it has obvious consequences for society as a whole. Statistically, seatbelts save lives and prevent serious harm. This leads to a very significant savings to society as a whole.


That statement is highly reliant on the belief that socialized healthcare is the way to go, since in a capitalist society, this point is moot as seat belt laws only serve to raise the prices of vehicles required to have seat belts(albeit very slightly).

You've actually pointed out pretty well how socialism eventually leads to a loss of social freedom. Good job.

_________________
~mar.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 11:04 am 
Offline
Patron of SPCR

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 3302
Location: Essex, England
Seatbelts are cheaper than windshields, why not loose those as well, its really fun having stones whack you in the face constantly, and is far less painfull when you hit something, as you wont headbutt the windscreen either :P sounds like a win win situation to me.


Andy

_________________
Main PC, P180, CM Silent Pro 500M, i5 3570k @ 4.2Ghz, 8-GB @ 2,000MHz, 256 GB Samsung 830, 500-GB 7K500, MSI 660Ti Twin Frozr, PC is super quiet :o
Server, 6-TB RAID-5 array, + 2 x 2-TB backup drives, 380W Enermax Pro82+, 4x very quiet fans, positive pressure only, no exhaust fans
Living Room PC, 3500+, 2-GB RAM, HD501LJ


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 1:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 4:36 am
Posts: 497
Location: Linköping, Sweden
Mar. wrote:
Beyonder wrote:
The point I was making is that this notion of wearing seatbelts being an individual choice is false, because it has obvious consequences for society as a whole. Statistically, seatbelts save lives and prevent serious harm. This leads to a very significant savings to society as a whole.


That statement is highly reliant on the belief that socialized healthcare is the way to go, since in a capitalist society, this point is moot as seat belt laws only serve to raise the prices of vehicles required to have seat belts(albeit very slightly).

You've actually pointed out pretty well how socialism eventually leads to a loss of social freedom. Good job.

Actually, it will raise the costs for health and/or traffic insurance, since the insurance companies are there to make a profit, just as any other company (in a pure capitalistic society, of which there are exactly 0 in the world today).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 11:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2002 11:56 pm
Posts: 757
Location: EARTH.
Mar. wrote:
Beyonder wrote:
The point I was making is that this notion of wearing seatbelts being an individual choice is false, because it has obvious consequences for society as a whole. Statistically, seatbelts save lives and prevent serious harm. This leads to a very significant savings to society as a whole.


That statement is highly reliant on the belief that socialized healthcare is the way to go, since in a capitalist society, this point is moot as seat belt laws only serve to raise the prices of vehicles required to have seat belts(albeit very slightly).

You've actually pointed out pretty well how socialism eventually leads to a loss of social freedom. Good job.


My comments have absolutely nothing to do with socialized healthcare, so I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about.

If you're refering to a utilitarian evaluation of seatbelts (in other words, how does the cost of seatbelts compare with the savings they provide), then I believe that's a no-brainer. I believe you're attempting to argue that installing seatbelts is more costly than the benefits they provide, which is very, very unlikely. According to the NHSTA:

  • In 2000, the economic cost to society was more than $977,000 for each crash fatality and an average of $1.1 million for each critically injured person. (Given 40,000+ traffic fatalities a year in the US, you do the math--it's 9/11 several times over, and on a yearly basis. Based on that, I believe states have an obligation to citizens to reduce that amount as much as possible. This is not an issue of "social freedoms"; this is about preventing obvious waste)
  • The general public pays nearly three-quarters of all crash costs, primarily through insurance premiums, taxes, delays and lost productivity. (In other words, we're already paying for other people's negligence)
  • In the past 26 years, safety belts prevented 135,000 fatalities and 3.8 million injuries, saving $585 billion in medical and other costs. If all vehicle occupants had used safety belts during that period, nearly 315,000 deaths and 5.2 million injuries could have been prevented — and $913 billion in costs saved.

_________________
Fun: GOLDFISHY
Work: Video Surveillance


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 11:36 am 
Offline
Patron of SPCR

Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:00 pm
Posts: 3302
Location: Essex, England
Well done Beyonder, those are some pretty impressive figures you have dug up.


Andy

_________________
Main PC, P180, CM Silent Pro 500M, i5 3570k @ 4.2Ghz, 8-GB @ 2,000MHz, 256 GB Samsung 830, 500-GB 7K500, MSI 660Ti Twin Frozr, PC is super quiet :o
Server, 6-TB RAID-5 array, + 2 x 2-TB backup drives, 380W Enermax Pro82+, 4x very quiet fans, positive pressure only, no exhaust fans
Living Room PC, 3500+, 2-GB RAM, HD501LJ


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Here comes Big Mother "MADD"
PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 11:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2002 11:56 pm
Posts: 757
Location: EARTH.
Mar. wrote:
It's damn near impossible NOT to link MADD to Fascism, Nazism...


Yes, because an organization attempting to prevent the senseless wasting of lives and money is clearly equivalent to a political movement that resulted in the most ghastly conflict in the history of man. :roll:

_________________
Fun: GOLDFISHY
Work: Video Surveillance


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Here comes Big Mother "MADD"
PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 2:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:58 pm
Posts: 561
Beyonder wrote:
Mar. wrote:
It's damn near impossible NOT to link MADD to Fascism, Nazism...


Yes, because an organization attempting to prevent the senseless wasting of lives and money is clearly equivalent to a political movement that resulted in the most ghastly conflict in the history of man. :roll:


I was talking about Nazism as a form of government, not the Third Reich and certainly not the Holocaust and World War II.

The level at which MADD completely disregards personal freedom to further their own agenda is pretty close to that of Fascism or Nazism. Just because their agenda seems to have a pretty ribbon on it doesn't make my point any less valid: left unckecked, MADD's madness would lead to censorship, prohibition, and all sorts of other naxty things.

_________________
~mar.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 4:36 am
Posts: 497
Location: Linköping, Sweden
I wasn't aware MADD was some kind of government, they look more like a typical special interest group to me, which means that they don't make any policy decisions, your elected politicians do. And since MADD does not have any formal power, it's hard to "leave their madness unchecked". Complain to your politicians if you are worried, they are the ones who have the possibility to implement MADD's policy suggestions.

Oh, and you should probably read up a bit on nazism: It's an ideology, not a form of government, much like liberalism isn't a form of government. As for associations to Third Reich, it's the only time nazism has become more than a fringe element of politics, so you shouldn't really be surprised if someone wonders about the connection.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 10:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 1:00 am
Posts: 247
Okay, what do you guys think about this one:

Drunk driving is no problem anymore with this solution. Anyone who is drunk and steps into his car has to put an orange rotating light on the roof of his car. This way everyone can see he's drunk and adjust to that.

The rules:

1. You must be able to walk to be allowed to drive and go straight home.
2. No drunk driving before 22.00 PM. At night there are less cars on the road which makes it easier to drive whilst drunk.
3. You must drive a lot slower because of slower reaction time etc. So a speed limit of 80 mph on a freeway would become 40 mph for drunk drivers. If you concentrate while being drunk, it's not very difficult to drive straight forward. And all the other people on the road see you're drunk because of the rotating light, so they can be cautious, honk and holler: You drunk, buddy?
4. If you drive while drunk and don't have the rotating light on your roof, you're in a lot of trouble. Andyb will then decide what your punishment will be. :wink:

etc, etc, the possibilities are limitless. Instead of trying to condition everyone into 'responsible' behavior you actually let them think on what they're doing and thus make better decisions. And god, wouldn't it be funny? I know I would start drinking again.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:58 pm
Posts: 561
Palindroman wrote:
Okay, what do you guys think about this one:

Drunk driving is no problem anymore with this solution. Anyone who is drunk and steps into his car has to put an orange rotating light on the roof of his car. This way everyone can see he's drunk and adjust to that.

The rules:

1. You must be able to walk to be allowed to drive and go straight home.
2. No drunk driving before 22.00 PM. At night there are less cars on the road which makes it easier to drive whilst drunk.
3. You must drive a lot slower because of slower reaction time etc. So a speed limit of 80 mph on a freeway would become 40 mph for drunk drivers. If you concentrate while being drunk, it's not very difficult to drive straight forward. And all the other people on the road see you're drunk because of the rotating light, so they can be cautious, honk and holler: You drunk, buddy?
4. If you drive while drunk and don't have the rotating light on your roof, you're in a lot of trouble. Andyb will then decide what your punishment will be. :wink:

etc, etc, the possibilities are limitless. Instead of trying to condition everyone into 'responsible' behavior you actually let them think on what they're doing and thus make better decisions. And god, wouldn't it be funny? I know I would start drinking again.


Or just save yourself any trouble at all and get a rotating red light. Totally legal, and nobody would ever pull you over.

_________________
~mar.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 8:22 pm
Posts: 2465
Location: London
Palindroman wrote:
Drunk driving is no problem anymore with this solution. Anyone who is drunk and steps into his car has to put an orange rotating light on the roof of his car. This way everyone can see he's drunk and adjust to that.


That won't work as well for people who get T-boned because the drunk ran a red light.

_________________
Thinkpad X200 – aging fan, T60p – Core Duo whine :(
Nothing endures but change


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 11:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 1:00 am
Posts: 247
qviri wrote:
Palindroman wrote:
Drunk driving is no problem anymore with this solution. Anyone who is drunk and steps into his car has to put an orange rotating light on the roof of his car. This way everyone can see he's drunk and adjust to that.


That won't work as well for people who get T-boned because the drunk ran a red light.


No, the drunk won't do that because he's fully conscious that he's drunk and driving. The reason drunk people cause so many accidents is because they get reckless while drunk (especially young people) and don't realize their reflexes are much slower because of the ecstatic feelings. But you're not reckless when you put a rotating light on the roof of your car thereby acknowledging the adjusted rules for drunk drivers. It will change the way you drive.

Don't you realize the psychological strength of my concept?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 12:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 6:55 am
Posts: 5085
Location: UK
You're joking, right? :?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 89 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group