jphickory
Banned
Sorry about your check - I enjoy your posts on this site Sal. None of this is personal.
Ironic Ending
- Thread starter Sal Paradise
- Start date
Sorry about your check - I enjoy your posts on this site Sal. None of this is personal.
Sal Paradise
Hooligan
I gotta say, respect you and appreciate your posts. But that dog's not gonna hunt.The slippery slope argument doesn't cut it with me. Make it a slippery slope the other way - chaos, no laws, total freedom, no speed limits or stop signs, 5 years old kid can buy whiskey. Would you support this, or do you condone cutting up your freedom into chunks and handing it over to big brother? :chin:
jphickory
Banned
OK - my last post on this topic. I am absolutely for a lawful society - I respect the law and law enforcement. My point is that the goverment should not try and cannot set itself up to protect us from ourselves. I believe seat belts, helmets etc are smart things to use. But I am against any bill that says you've got to wear one because by not wearing one you are not harming someone else.
The constitutions of most countries speak of freedoms, justice and even free speech. But there is a subtle difference between our Constitution and others. Their constitutions says goverment grants these rights. Our Constitution says we, the people, are born with these rights and no goverment can take them away from us.
Laws that insure a lawful society are needed for people to live and work and play in safety. However - laws that protect us from ourselves position the goverment as the granter of rights. Traditionally, Americans were very careful to not give the government that power - knowing that their freedom was bestowed to them by the Creator.
I hope this thread encourages people to think about our freedom and we all resolve to protect it from enemies foreign and within. Thanks for listening. JP:usa:
The constitutions of most countries speak of freedoms, justice and even free speech. But there is a subtle difference between our Constitution and others. Their constitutions says goverment grants these rights. Our Constitution says we, the people, are born with these rights and no goverment can take them away from us.
Laws that insure a lawful society are needed for people to live and work and play in safety. However - laws that protect us from ourselves position the goverment as the granter of rights. Traditionally, Americans were very careful to not give the government that power - knowing that their freedom was bestowed to them by the Creator.
I hope this thread encourages people to think about our freedom and we all resolve to protect it from enemies foreign and within. Thanks for listening. JP:usa:
Sal Paradise
Hooligan
To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.
Sal Paradise
Hooligan
Not really, I'm not really serious about this argument. I recently read a book on the human brain which basically said that our basic brain structure works by putting patterns on things. In most cases, if we hear a story like this , the emotional primitive brain "lights up" and charges us with an emotion. Then the cerebellum has to make sense of it so puts a pattern on it , an explanation if you will, and that usually becomes the person's opinion. Arguments usually just expand on or explain that. As has been stated, rarely does anyone change their mind, or really argue the actual merits of the situation.
For example, I probably revealed exactly what my emotional "light up" was in my earlier post - and I wasn't even aware myself until I wrote it ; my buddy wearing a novelty helmet, worries about families, kids, etc. Basically empathy for other riders , concern for safety and fear of injury was my main motivation. That hits me emotionally. And its not even rational because if I was really scared I would avoid motorcycles completely. I'm not just scared, I'm conflicted. I want to do this fun dangerous activity, but I want to do something to lessen the danger. It pushes my buttons.
I'll leave it for jp, or other people and the group that was protesting the helmets to explain whatever their motivations are. I get that its at least partially a fear of government invading a person's daily life or something else. I get it. Its what they feel.
I was just joking around mostly, but its a mistake to think that because we don't feel the other person's fear or whatever that they are stupid or stubborn. We aren't feeling that because of how our brain works, and so the other argument doesn't push any buttons. For instance I agree with a lot of what jp wrote but when I think of helmets, those things, like liberty or freedom are not what hits me. But that does not mean I don't share those ideals, I do - just maybe they really hit me emotionally in a different context.
For example, I probably revealed exactly what my emotional "light up" was in my earlier post - and I wasn't even aware myself until I wrote it ; my buddy wearing a novelty helmet, worries about families, kids, etc. Basically empathy for other riders , concern for safety and fear of injury was my main motivation. That hits me emotionally. And its not even rational because if I was really scared I would avoid motorcycles completely. I'm not just scared, I'm conflicted. I want to do this fun dangerous activity, but I want to do something to lessen the danger. It pushes my buttons.
I'll leave it for jp, or other people and the group that was protesting the helmets to explain whatever their motivations are. I get that its at least partially a fear of government invading a person's daily life or something else. I get it. Its what they feel.
I was just joking around mostly, but its a mistake to think that because we don't feel the other person's fear or whatever that they are stupid or stubborn. We aren't feeling that because of how our brain works, and so the other argument doesn't push any buttons. For instance I agree with a lot of what jp wrote but when I think of helmets, those things, like liberty or freedom are not what hits me. But that does not mean I don't share those ideals, I do - just maybe they really hit me emotionally in a different context.
Last edited:
Sal Paradise
Hooligan
Anti Seat Belt Activist Killed in Car Crash
http://www.snopes.com/autos/accident/seatbelt.asp
Same thing, different day,
http://www.snopes.com/autos/accident/seatbelt.asp
Same thing, different day,
B06Tang
Cafe Racer
HIGHLIGHTING a loss of life where someone, somewhere out there is experiences the pain and suffering of losing someone and claiming it as an "ironic ending" is a pretty righteous and pompous/douche bag thing to do...who gives a shit about your point. Why don't you praise the fact that he left some children fatherless or something else to show everyone how right you are. My hat is off to you...bravo!! BRAVO!!
wobblygong
Street Tracker
I have followed this thread with interest from a country on the other side of the world in which the populace, considered by some, to be the most regulated in the developed world.
I am relating the following purely as an observation and I stress I am not, in any way, being judgemental.
Compulsory wearing of seat belts was introduced nationwide in Australia in 1970. Australia was the first country in the world to introduce this nationally as legislation. (Source Wickipedia)
We were also one of the first countries to introduce the nationwide compulsory wearing of helmets on motorcycles.
Some states trialed legislation earlier than others but I am quoting nationwide trends here.
In 1997, following a mass shooting in Port Arthur, Tasmania, the National Liberal Govt. of Aust. introduced legislation for all persons in Australia, who did not have a valid reason to possess a firearm, to surrender their firearm(s) to the Govt. for destruction. Farmers, members of Shooting Clubs etc. were allowed to possess a class of firearm suitable to their particular interest. All autos and semi-auto rifles, pump action shotguns were completely banned. Hundreds of thousands of firearms were "bought back" by the Govt. and melted down in furnaces all over the country. The "buyback" cost the country millions of dollars.
As far as handguns are concerned, I won't even go there. Handguns have never been held by the general populace. Pistol club members, of which there are few, possess handguns but are very strictly controlled.
As from 1993, smoking is banned in the Australian workplace. Special designated smoking areas were applied which are usually outside and away from other workers. Smoking is now prohibited inside pubs, clubs and resturants, again only in outside designated areas. Some councils are moving to ban smoking completely in public parks and on public beaches. The world famous Bondi Beach will be the first, I understand. In some states, it is an offence to smoke with a child in the vehicle. The reason here being that the "rights" of the innocent should not be impinged upon by another person whilst exercising his/her personal "rights".
I could go on but I am pointing out these are particular "acts" imposed by the elected Government of a country to govern, enhance or restrict the lives of the people of that country. In Australia the government is elected by a majority where voting is compulsory. (There's that word again). The main point here being that if the majority of the voting public (read every person over 18) don't like the behaviour of the elected government, they can vote them out in the next election.
Sals original "Ironic Ending" post certainly raised the whole subject of the wearing of helmets on motorcycles but, in my view, it took the natural path of opening up the discussion to the, might I say, sensitive issue of the imposition of restrictions on the "freedoms of the individual" by Government bodies.
Of course I am aware there exists here some "cultural" differences between our two nations which mould the way we view our way of life but I thought if I could throw in my non-judgemental 2 cents worth, it might throw a new slant on the subject. See it from another angle if you will.
Ride on,
Wobbly
I am relating the following purely as an observation and I stress I am not, in any way, being judgemental.
Compulsory wearing of seat belts was introduced nationwide in Australia in 1970. Australia was the first country in the world to introduce this nationally as legislation. (Source Wickipedia)
We were also one of the first countries to introduce the nationwide compulsory wearing of helmets on motorcycles.
Some states trialed legislation earlier than others but I am quoting nationwide trends here.
In 1997, following a mass shooting in Port Arthur, Tasmania, the National Liberal Govt. of Aust. introduced legislation for all persons in Australia, who did not have a valid reason to possess a firearm, to surrender their firearm(s) to the Govt. for destruction. Farmers, members of Shooting Clubs etc. were allowed to possess a class of firearm suitable to their particular interest. All autos and semi-auto rifles, pump action shotguns were completely banned. Hundreds of thousands of firearms were "bought back" by the Govt. and melted down in furnaces all over the country. The "buyback" cost the country millions of dollars.
As far as handguns are concerned, I won't even go there. Handguns have never been held by the general populace. Pistol club members, of which there are few, possess handguns but are very strictly controlled.
As from 1993, smoking is banned in the Australian workplace. Special designated smoking areas were applied which are usually outside and away from other workers. Smoking is now prohibited inside pubs, clubs and resturants, again only in outside designated areas. Some councils are moving to ban smoking completely in public parks and on public beaches. The world famous Bondi Beach will be the first, I understand. In some states, it is an offence to smoke with a child in the vehicle. The reason here being that the "rights" of the innocent should not be impinged upon by another person whilst exercising his/her personal "rights".
I could go on but I am pointing out these are particular "acts" imposed by the elected Government of a country to govern, enhance or restrict the lives of the people of that country. In Australia the government is elected by a majority where voting is compulsory. (There's that word again). The main point here being that if the majority of the voting public (read every person over 18) don't like the behaviour of the elected government, they can vote them out in the next election.
Sals original "Ironic Ending" post certainly raised the whole subject of the wearing of helmets on motorcycles but, in my view, it took the natural path of opening up the discussion to the, might I say, sensitive issue of the imposition of restrictions on the "freedoms of the individual" by Government bodies.
Of course I am aware there exists here some "cultural" differences between our two nations which mould the way we view our way of life but I thought if I could throw in my non-judgemental 2 cents worth, it might throw a new slant on the subject. See it from another angle if you will.
Ride on,
Wobbly
Last edited:
Sal Paradise
Hooligan
If you didn't give shit, you would leave it, and wouldn't bother insulting me wouldn't you? I don't need you to tell me what to praise or not because its clear you didn't even care enough to read the article because if you did you would see the guy in the article above had no kids..
.I'm not even trying to make a specific point... its a discussion going on all over many MC forums and Facebook. If it upsets you so much, don't read it.
You don't like ironic? Its a correct use of the word. Maybe you can review all my posts before hand to see if you agree with my diction.
Sorry ,in the future if I want to discuss the news, I will run it past you first to see if its okay with you.. (psst..thats sarcasm)
Or maybe you can just click and go to another thread if I accidentally offend you.
Happy?
Last edited:
B06Tang
Cafe Racer
You know what...you're right and I apologize. It is a little too much on the rough side and I don't know everyone's situation in here. I'm going back to delete it. Once again...I'm sorry.