no helmets for michigan. what do you think?

A few have mentioned "individual choice" & "responsibility" in this thread. To bad we can't combine the two "INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY"! Something thats disappeared from this country a long time ago. Which is why our beloved lawmakers take away our "INDIVIDUAL CHOICE".

Can I move to the UFRR?

 

Doesn't matter what perspective you take. Left, right or middle. Constitutional protection/relevance is THE issue for creating any law. Whether or not I agree witih you will depend on your INTERPRETATION of the Constitutionally protected freedom for which you are trying to prevent violations. I am not some crackpot anarchist, nor some fundamentalist wacko. We are a land of laws and that is how it should be, but the laws MUST be based on solid principles. Please explain what Constitutionally protected freedom a helmet, seatbelt or gun control policy addresses. You can't, because it is a slippery slope argument at best. The logic is dubious and the rationale is emotional.

A law shouldn't just satisfy your biased "pet" needs at the expense of someone else's rights and responsibilities. Gun laws, seatbels laws, helmet laws, etc. are social engineering with NO Constitutionally protected freedom being violated and in point of pure logical argument, the do the contrary. They violate principles of choice and responsibility. On the other hand civil rights, women's suffrage and abortion laws are directly related to protecting innate rights and responsibilities.

Jose

 

Instead of copying quotes, one of my points is we are losing the ability to discuss matters in clear terms. Our last election was a blessed and great example of this point. Romney lost because he did not differentiate himself by articulating deep well thought out positions from Obama. He peddled hyperbole and bullshit and it wasn't bought by the market place. But whats scary in that is he tried to use that to win! I can't imagine what people would think if Ronald Reagan were running now. Such a candidate would be so foreign to us, even those of us who remember him and lament those days are gone...at least for the moment.

Everything is discussed in terms of extreme when we live in anything but extreme times. It is my hope and prayer that we get away from sound bites for information and delve deep into matters and rally flash them out for solutions and if needed...compromise.

Also, wasn't trying to change Tinks mind LOL! Just making points.

BZ

 

But it does matter Jose if its a left, right or middle because thats how the interpretation starts.

And abortion, as you brought it up, protects the rights of who the women to choose or the fetus? Seems the fetus, or voiceless, got the bum rap on that 'rights' deal.

BZ

 

Oh, and if you think women's suffrage and civil rights weren't also driven by 'emotion' as you clearly deem irrelevant and they were only logically driven movements I guess you hail from the plant Vulcan?

BZ

 

Now I am in Tinks position and I have to use his quote early LOL!

I am out of time, but Jose, with gun control, not letting the mentally ill have guns is just such an illogical and emotionally driven idea that damn, whats wrong with BZ! Those mental patients show such 'personal responsibility' when handling guns in society.

Can't belief they haven't paroled John Hickley yet. He was just exercising his 1st and 2nd amendment rights when it came to President Reagan correct?

(notice the proper use of hyperbole to make appoint in joking form...Fox News has forgot this).

BZ

 

And the problem with discussing helmets laws is sooner or later your talking politics, abortion, gun control..... Loud pipes anyone?

 

That is a fundamental problem you illustrate, Bubba. You are telling me that position would drive your interpretation and skew your logic, leading to a fallacious argument.

Your position has NO effect upon the Constitutionality of proposed legislation. It stands alone, on its own merit.

It's not about being emotionless or not having emotion spur people to action. Passion is key to achieving anything. It is about the problem created when short sigthed emotion is the root of an idea that leads to a push for an emotional and non-Constitutionally based law.

As to your argument about mentally ill people owning guns ... I do not have the time to explain how far in outer space you just launched this discussion. Talk about apples to cubic zirconium arguments.

Well ... enough as they say. Arnzinator is very right. Forums aren't a good place to "discuss". Turn based environments are not conducive to real communication. What they are really good for is to exchange bits of information.

LOUD PIPES RULE!!!! I'll put my Supertrapp up against any other pipe out there. My shizzle is SUPER SWEET!!!!!!

Jose

 

I was using hyperbole to make a joke Jose. How hyperbole is supposed to be used.

What I was going after in your initial post is you talk about Constitutional Relevance in what appears to be absolute terms. Therefore I went after that by stating the mentally ill are just exercising their 2nd amendment rights. Since a rule is absolute, it is absolute to all under the rule of law. Be careful in such application because under our constitution, nothing is absolute as the people have the ability to change the government anytime ;-) (Just read down a few more lines).

Oh, and I can eat a bowl of alphabet soup and shit a better argument than you.

Your right, a forum isn't always easy to discuss such matters but that doesn't mean it can't be done. Take care guys, thanks for the fun

BZ

 

Hmmmmmm...... This could be a slippery slope.

 

What was that BP?

I was captivated by Bubba's elocutions and didn't catch what you ....WHOOOOOOAAAA....... hey, there's some alphabet soup down here.

I think I'll go poop some Shakespeare.eace:

SUPERTRAPP RULES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jose

 

I've fallen & I can't get up!

 

I quote a former co-worker, "Loud pipes get me pulled over!"

 

oh... ya. the one i forgot to mention...... my wife read an article about a girl who is mentally retarted in some way or another living in a group home. she got pregnet and her parents are now fighting in court because someone, im not sure who, is trying to force the girl into an abortion.

i think the slippery slope is true. it just doesnt happen over night.

 

turtle wants to get in on this

 

Fallacy: Slippery Slope



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also Known as: The Camel's Nose.

Description of Slippery Slope
The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form:


Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.

Examples of Slippery Slope

"We have to stop the tuition increase! The next thing you know, they'll be charging $40,000 a semester!"

"The US shouldn't get involved militarily in other countries. Once the government sends in a few troops, it will then send in thousands to die."

"You can never give anyone a break. If you do, they'll walk all over you."

"We've got to stop them from banning pornography. Once they start banning one form of literature, they will never stop. Next thing you know, they will be burning all the books!"

 

I completely disagree. The reason Romney lost is simple: there are now so many people in the USA who are receiving some sort of government handout that it was inevitable that the Great Enabler would be re-elected.
Also, the GOP has strayed too far from its conservative roots; their problem is not that they are too conservative, it is that they are not conservative enough!
If Reagan ran today he would win in a landslide (again) and the world would be much better off for it.

 

Our hearts go out to that poor girl who is mentally retarded, no one should ever have to go through getting fucked by a computer and becoming pregnet.

 

There is some joy in this landslide defeat. The Republican Party will be running Regan in 2016.

 

Since I have a few minutes to kill.

Re: Slippery slope

If you recall from some of our conversations a while back, I was not arguing that we were somehow in eminent danger of motorcycles being banned due to large piles of dead Harley riders blocking traffic due to their head injuries.

I was posing the question "Why dont we ban motorcycles?" As in, its an inherently dangerous activity. As in, at least in this country, they are not a necessary mode of transportation for most people. As in, they're waaaay too fucking fast for people to be playing with and if you fall off you are most likely going to get hurt.

Do I think this ban on motorcycles is likely? Nope

Have I ever argued against the efficacy of proper gear? Nope

This usually brings up a comparison with guns, another inherently dangerous machine that many argue should only be in the hands of those highly trained and trusted individuals. Like fighter planes. Or nuclear submarines. Etc.

Which then circles around to the culture in this country, which you and I have discussed at length more than once. The good and the bad.

There's a number of reasons for Americans being the way they are, some would argue that we don't give a shit about anyone but ourselves, which is a flaw you do not have, and I suspect is the reason why you are such a staunch supporter of helmet laws.

Interestingly enough I recall one of your arguments for such laws is that clowns running around without helmets is an example of self absorbed nihilism giving all of motorcycling a black eye.

That slope is lacking grip.

Your problem is you do give a shit about others, specifically, other bikers. What an asshole, you need to quit that right now. Stop hating the nanny state. Wait, when it comes to helmet laws, you have.

Now I'm going to release myself from the vortex of a Birdseed thread.