lol, I suppose he is "wearing" a seatbelt

Minimum moderation and heated debates.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

lol, I suppose he is "wearing" a seatbelt

Postby kiryan » Wed Jan 19, 2011 5:01 pm

LOL, retarded, but Sarvis will appreciate his pedantic argument. This guy "made" a wearable seatbelt to avoid a traditional wearing of a seatbelt while in a car.

http://www.autoblog.com/2011/01/14/kans ... to00000002
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: lol, I suppose he is "wearing" a seatbelt

Postby Sarvis » Wed Jan 19, 2011 5:18 pm

Well, he's wrong. The defining characteristic of a seatbelt is that it holds you in place during a sudden stop (aka accident.) Since his won't do that, it's not a seatbelt... it's an ex-seatbelt if anything.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: lol, I suppose he is "wearing" a seatbelt

Postby kiryan » Wed Jan 19, 2011 5:40 pm

I'm sure he'll be overruled under a "spirit of the law" opinion.

However, if I put a seatbelt that was freshly removed from a car on a table and ask you is this a seatbelt, are you really going to say no?

More importantly, if Kiryan said this is not a seat belt would you then agree not having previously stated a position?
Kindi
Sojourner
Posts: 405
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 12:42 am

Re: lol, I suppose he is "wearing" a seatbelt

Postby Kindi » Wed Jan 19, 2011 6:32 pm

Are you bald if you shave all your hair off then put on a wig? This is getting buddhist...
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: lol, I suppose he is "wearing" a seatbelt

Postby Corth » Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:42 pm

I love it. If the statute says he must wear a seatbelt, and doesn't indicate that the seatbelt must be attached to the car, then as far as I'm concerned he is absolutely complying with the law. Just take a seatbelt and wear it around your waste like a belt and you are wearing a seatbelt. Awesome.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth

Goddamned slippery mage.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: lol, I suppose he is "wearing" a seatbelt

Postby kiryan » Wed Jan 19, 2011 9:41 pm

But realistically he's going to be guilty right Corth?

I'd say that at best you haev a 50/50 of not being convicted at trial... but having that sustained through the appeals proces... I doubt it unless they've completely invalidated "spirit of the law" precedences.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: lol, I suppose he is "wearing" a seatbelt

Postby Corth » Thu Jan 20, 2011 5:25 am

Depends entirely on how the statute is written. If the statute doesn't sufficiently define what a seatbelt is and what it means to use one then he might not be guilty.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: lol, I suppose he is "wearing" a seatbelt

Postby Ragorn » Thu Jan 20, 2011 3:38 pm

That's fantastic, I love it. I think mandatory seat belt laws are foolish, but I generally dislike nanny-state "for your own good" legislation in general.

I did know a woman once who refused to wear her seat belt, because her cousin was in an accident and thrown out of the car. And the EMT told her that had she stayed in the car, she would have died on impact. So now this woman refuses to wear a seat belt, because they're some big conspiracy to kill you or something.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: lol, I suppose he is "wearing" a seatbelt

Postby kiryan » Thu Jan 20, 2011 3:49 pm

Wow we agree on something!

Assume the law is written in best case scenario in favor of this guy and the jury finds him not guilty. Do you honestly think he'd get a not guilty verdict that wouldn't be overruled in appeal? I assume the state probably wouldn't pursue many appeals... but spirit of the law is a valid basis for a decision isn't it? I'm quite sure they could get enough lawmakers to testify their intent was to require people to wear seatbelts that made the passenger more safe. I used to think you could get away on technicalites like this over interpretation of specific words... but I haven't seen that being successful much in the last 15 years...
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: lol, I suppose he is "wearing" a seatbelt

Postby Corth » Thu Jan 20, 2011 9:31 pm

There really isn't any 'spirit of the law' when it comes to criminal statutes. Each element of the statute must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Funny you mention that Ragorn. My brother was a passenger in a car accident several years ago. He was wearing a seatbelt and the driver wasn't. The driver, a dumb teenager, was playing games swerving around at high speed, lost control, and crashed into an electric pole. The driver's side was completely obliterated. Nothing was left. If he had been wearing a seatbelt, the driver would have been crushed. However, he wasn't wearing a seatbelt and got thrown onto my brother, who was in fact wearing his. My brother had a concussion but was more or less ok. They thought the driver might die but he ended up surviving albeit with permanent physical and neurological injuries. So actually it was a best case scenario all things considered.

All things being equal I'll take the seatbelt over no seatbelt any day.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: lol, I suppose he is "wearing" a seatbelt

Postby kiryan » Thu Jan 20, 2011 9:56 pm

Is there a spirit of the law interpretation anywhere? I remember studying it in my business law class, maybe it was spirit of the contract interpretation of contracts and not more generically applied to criminal law?

Is your brother much younger than you are? Seems kind of strange that an adult is driving around with a kid that crazy / irresponsible. Did you represent your brother in the lawsuit LOL!
Disoputlip
Sojourner
Posts: 956
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Copenhagen

Re: lol, I suppose he is "wearing" a seatbelt

Postby Disoputlip » Thu Jan 20, 2011 10:00 pm

I don't get how you can "trick the law" like that.

If he called his pants "seatbelt" was he then wearing a seatbelt?

Could you then bring a knife into an airplane, but say you call that a sausage, and therefore you can bring it because sausages are allowed?
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: lol, I suppose he is "wearing" a seatbelt

Postby kiryan » Thu Jan 20, 2011 10:57 pm

Well... your examples are extremely subjective and outlandish... There isn't much interpretation to do on whether a seatbelt removed from a car is a seatbelt. It is, common rational people recognize it as such. It is not performing the duty of a seat belt and not holding to the spirit of the law which is to require motorists to secure themselves safely with a seatbelt while in a car, but it is literally a seatbelt and it sounds like he was literally wearing it as required by law.

We also have an innocent until proven guilty where other places.. including Europe are more somewhat guilty until proven innocent type places (from what I've read). The real thing is, we are supposed to be a land of freedom and rights which can be undermined if justice is subject to interpretation. A land of checks and balances to prevent arbitrary intrusions into people's lives. We are (at least I hope we still are) a land focused on the indivdiual's rights and not society at large's rights to its opinion.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: lol, I suppose he is "wearing" a seatbelt

Postby Sarvis » Thu Jan 20, 2011 11:01 pm

kiryan wrote:Well... your examples are extremely subjective and outlandish... There isn't much interpretation to do on whether a seatbelt removed from a car is a seatbelt. It is, common rational people recognize it as such. It is not performing the duty of a seat belt and not holding to the spirit of the law which is to require motorists to secure themselves safely with a seatbelt while in a car, but it is literally a seatbelt and it sounds like he was literally wearing it as required by law.

We also have an innocent until proven guilty where other places.. including Europe are more somewhat guilty until proven innocent type places (from what I've read). The real thing is, we are supposed to be a land of freedom and rights which can be undermined if justice is subject to interpretation. A land of checks and balances to prevent arbitrary intrusions into people's lives. We are (at least I hope we still are) a land focused on the indivdiual's rights and not society at large's rights to its opinion.



At what point does transformation make the object something else. For instance a "seatbelt" is nominally a "belt" attached to a "seat." Ok, so you say it's still recognizable as a seatbelt... but what if you remove the buckle apparatus? Still a seatbelt? If you replace the buckle apparatus with a traditional belt buckle? If you then dip it in white paint?

At what point have you turned a "belt attached to a seat" into something else?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: lol, I suppose he is "wearing" a seatbelt

Postby kiryan » Fri Jan 21, 2011 12:22 am

Well theres two ways to determine that.

1) what do the experts say.
2) what does a normal person say.

The state will undoubtedly produce its transportation experts that will testify that the thing he made is "not a seatbelt" because what they consider a seatbelt to be is a restrainign device in a car and that doesn't meet their definition. If a car manufacturer submitted a vehicle with the defendant's creation, it would be failed for "lacking a seatbelt". They will present technical documentation detailing the requirements of a "seatbelt" in manufacturing and inspaection.

The defense will counter with the obvious, ok then tell me what is it. He'll show it to the jury and ask them what would you call this. Then ask the jury to find that his client did in fact "wear" a "seatbelt" while driving.

I don't think he's guaranteed to win at all, I'd say he has at best 50/50 and even less chance in appeal.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: lol, I suppose he is "wearing" a seatbelt

Postby Corth » Fri Jan 21, 2011 1:26 am

My brother is 8 years younger than me and the incident happened about 10 years ago. So yeah. :)

There is certainly an element of the 'spirit of the law' in contract and statory interpretation. It goes to intent. With contracts, the intent of the parties and with legislation the intent of the legislators. Both of those things are taken into account regularly.

A criminal statute is a statute like anything else. However there are some unique considerations when it comes to criminal laws. When you are talking about penalizing someone's conduct you have to be very sure that it is clear what conduct isn't allowed. The intent of the legislature is largely irrelevent as the statute is generally given a strict textural interpretation in that context.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: lol, I suppose he is "wearing" a seatbelt

Postby Ragorn » Fri Jan 21, 2011 3:54 pm

And I imagine that the word "seatbelt" is defined somewhere. It's certainly defined in the legislation that stipulates what kinds of seatbelts car manufacturers must put into their automobiles. I don't think Toyota has any wiggle room to put fashionable hemp belts into their cars and call them "seatbelts." I imagine there's a requirement for material, construction, locking mechanism, etc.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Disoputlip
Sojourner
Posts: 956
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Copenhagen

Re: lol, I suppose he is "wearing" a seatbelt

Postby Disoputlip » Fri Jan 21, 2011 5:28 pm

Ok,

Lets take the extreme example:

A group of 10 1st graders are asked if he is wearing a seatbelt.

A group of 10 lawyers are asked if he is wearing a seatbelt.

Who would you beleive? If the law says you need to wear a seatbelt, then there is no spirit of the law because everybody knows what: "wearing a seatbelt" means.

All else is just chewbacca defense aka. red herring.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: lol, I suppose he is "wearing" a seatbelt

Postby Corth » Fri Jan 21, 2011 6:22 pm

I think the point, Dis, is that people shouldn't go to jail on the basis of the 'spirit of the law'. Granted we are talking about a minor violation where nobody would ever be incarcerated. But as a general rule, where you are talking about criminal laws the burden is on the legislature to make sure it isn't vague or full of loopholes. As a lawyer and a human being I am all for that. The last thing we want are criminal statutes that are so vague that nobody really knows if they are committing a crime or not.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: lol, I suppose he is "wearing" a seatbelt

Postby kiryan » Fri Jan 21, 2011 9:30 pm

Interesting, thanks for the perspective Corth. I've only studied business law (and juvenile delinquency).

Diso, I wouldn't expect europeans to agree with this approach because as a whole you guys are so much more focused on the rights of the public overall instead of the individual. Its not outrageous to us for a bad guy to go loose once in a while to prevent another person's rights from being trampled. Look at OJ simpson, presumably guilty, but while there was some outrage... it wasn't a crisis by any stretch of the imagination.
Disoputlip
Sojourner
Posts: 956
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Copenhagen

Re: lol, I suppose he is "wearing" a seatbelt

Postby Disoputlip » Fri Jan 21, 2011 10:30 pm

kiryan wrote:..Diso, I wouldn't expect europeans to agree with this approach because as a whole you guys are so much more focused on the rights of the public overall instead of the individual...


I don't think this is a US <-> European division. As far as I recall we don't have "the spirit of the law" here in Denmark, and the reason US have it is because of legacy from the British.

But I still dislike the red herring. Lets say an old law had the term "hold your tongue", and then someone held a cow-tongue in his hand, would that be ok? In denmark it ofcourse wouldn't, and no lawyer would begin to question what "hold your tongue means", I think it is a wierd slope that is happening in the US, because I doubt this kind of "cunning" was accepted 100 years ago.
Ashiwi
Sojourner
Posts: 4161
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 5:01 am

Re: lol, I suppose he is "wearing" a seatbelt

Postby Ashiwi » Sat Jan 22, 2011 7:01 pm

A belt is a belt. When it was removed from the car it stopped being a seatbelt; it is an ex-seatbelt. When he put it around his waist to hold up his pants, it became a pants belt. Yes, if I saw it laying on the ground all alone I would probably say "Hunh, what's a seatbelt doing out here?" but that's because it's missing the seat it's supposed to be attached to that qualifies it as a seatbelt.

A seatbelt serves a purpose. It is attached to a car seat for the purpose of reducing risk in the event of a collision. A detached seatbelt is not serving its purpose, because it is not offering any increased safety or security. A lawyer that argues that this guy should get off because he didn't violate the seatbelt law is a pretty good example of what's wrong with lawyers, and a judge that listens to him is a pretty good example of what's wrong with our legal system.

I'd say to let him get away with it and hopefully he would get into an accident and serve as an example for why we should wear seatbelts, but he'd probably sustain traumatic injuries that would put him in the hospital for months. People like that are probably afraid of carrying health insurance, too, and everybody else would have to pay for his stupidity.
Gormal tells you 'im a dwarven onion'
Gormal tells you 'always another beer-soaked layer'

Inama ASSOC:: 'though it may suit your fantasies to think so, i don't need oil for anything.'

Haley: Filthy lucre? I wash that lucre every day until it SHINES!
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: lol, I suppose he is "wearing" a seatbelt

Postby Corth » Sun Jan 23, 2011 4:22 am

everybody else would have to pay for his stupidity


I suppose if we are going to socialize healthcare costs then requiring seatbelts is probably justified. At this point I'm wondering why mountain climbing, extreme skiing, and trans fat are not yet banned.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Ashiwi
Sojourner
Posts: 4161
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 5:01 am

Re: lol, I suppose he is "wearing" a seatbelt

Postby Ashiwi » Sun Jan 23, 2011 6:09 pm

It doesn't require fully socialized healthcare for us to pay for that kind of stupidity. The system we have right now works just fine for that. Better, even.
Gormal tells you 'im a dwarven onion'
Gormal tells you 'always another beer-soaked layer'

Inama ASSOC:: 'though it may suit your fantasies to think so, i don't need oil for anything.'

Haley: Filthy lucre? I wash that lucre every day until it SHINES!
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: lol, I suppose he is "wearing" a seatbelt

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Sun Jan 23, 2011 6:25 pm

Umm.. making the stupids buckle up won't save us from their stupidity. It'll just generate some more tickets.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: lol, I suppose he is "wearing" a seatbelt

Postby Corth » Mon Jan 24, 2011 2:39 pm

Ashiwi wrote:People like that are probably afraid of carrying health insurance, too, and everybody else would have to pay for his stupidity.


Ashiwi wrote:It doesn't require fully socialized healthcare for us to pay for that kind of stupidity. The system we have right now works just fine for that. Better, even.


Explain how healthcare costs aren't being socialized if society has to pay for the healthcare of an individual that gets hurt in a car accident.

It actually took quite a bit for me to come around on the seatbelt argument. For years I used it as the best available example of government overreaching. But you make a good point. If society has to pay for the cost of healthcare for individuals who do stupid things, then it's a pretty good justification to ban those stupid things. Like driving without a seatbelt, mountain climbing, eating fatty foods, etc.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: lol, I suppose he is "wearing" a seatbelt

Postby Sarvis » Mon Jan 24, 2011 3:04 pm

Corth wrote:
Ashiwi wrote:People like that are probably afraid of carrying health insurance, too, and everybody else would have to pay for his stupidity.


Ashiwi wrote:It doesn't require fully socialized healthcare for us to pay for that kind of stupidity. The system we have right now works just fine for that. Better, even.


Explain how healthcare costs aren't being socialized if society has to pay for the healthcare of an individual that gets hurt in a car accident.


That's not what she said...
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: lol, I suppose he is "wearing" a seatbelt

Postby Corth » Mon Jan 24, 2011 4:26 pm

I think you're right Sarvis. But now that I look at it closer I think she may have misunderstood what I said as well.

I wasn't bringing up 'Obamacare' or implying that it was any more socialized than the system we are accustomed to. Under either the old or new versions of healthcare, the rationale that seatbelt laws should be required to save society's money can also be applied to such things as mountain climbing, extreme skiing, fast food etc. And that raises an issue of individual freedoms that many advocates of socialized healthcare would probably prefer not to consider.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: lol, I suppose he is "wearing" a seatbelt

Postby kiryan » Mon Jan 24, 2011 6:35 pm

Corth, I really really really really really hate that argument, but I can't disagree with it.

If we have to bail out banks, then we have to regulate them.
If we require hospital to treat people who don't have money, we have to regulate their behavior the case for which is easily made for seatbelts.

I was going to start an entirely new thread on this, but I'll just tack it in here...

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/lack-weeke ... 677&page=1

Its a crappy study, but it got me thinking of the ramifications. Basically it says kids not getting enough sleep are obese at a rate 4x higher than other kids. lets assume thats true or maybe even more lopsided, say 10x higher rate when controlling for all factors.

Do we ask/expect/allow the government to start regulating sleep? Do we start opening up DHS investigations when kids complain about being tired at school?

One of the largest contributers to healthcare cost increases has been obesity and type 2 diabetes (attributed to excessive sugar consumption). There is your financial link and under the same argument that you can require seatbelts, can we now require children to receive a consistent xyz amount of sleep every night?
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: lol, I suppose he is "wearing" a seatbelt

Postby Corth » Tue Jan 25, 2011 1:38 pm

Kiryan,

I came to the same conclusion as you with respect to regulation of financial institutions.. if, as a society, we choose to socialize the losses of financial institutions (bailouts), then it behooves us to closely regulate them. That just stands to reason.

As you know I am a free market Libertarian - so why am I advocating regulation? Because you can't have it both ways. If you want free markets then you have to allow them to regulate themselves by letting businesses go under when they fail. If you want to interfere with the way free markets regulate themselves, then something needs to fill that void.

I didn't realize before you mentioned it Kiryan, but this does have a lot of similarities to the seatbelt issue. In my mind, ideally people pay for their own expenses. But if, as a society, we choose to socialize healthcare costs, which we have been doing and apparently will continue to do - then how can you argue against regulating behavior that will increase such costs?

But unlike the regulation of a bank, this one hits home. We're used to being told that seatbelts are required. How are we going to react when they tell us we can't eat a slice of cheesecake. It's basically the same thing as far as I can tell...
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: lol, I suppose he is "wearing" a seatbelt

Postby Ragorn » Tue Jan 25, 2011 2:18 pm

I'm not really sure why you're panicking about this all of a sudden, health-based food regulation has been on the books for decades. Why do you think your hamburger is made of cow and not pigeon? Left to its own devices, the free market would be serving you food made from the cheapest animal, probably cats from the local animal shelter (they're free!).
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: lol, I suppose he is "wearing" a seatbelt

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Tue Jan 25, 2011 4:26 pm

Ragorn wrote:I'm not really sure why you're panicking about this all of a sudden, health-based food regulation has been on the books for decades. Why do you think your hamburger is made of cow and not pigeon? Left to its own devices, the free market would be serving you food made from the cheapest animal, probably cats from the local animal shelter (they're free!).

Doubtful. The cow was chosen as a food source initially, in the absence of regulation because the market demanded it. Economics and scale would have dictated cow regardless of regulation. Liability would have prevented strays from having ever ended up in food - as it never really was in food when regulation was not in place.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: lol, I suppose he is "wearing" a seatbelt

Postby Ragorn » Tue Jan 25, 2011 6:10 pm

Considering Taco Bell is being sued because their "taco beef" is only 36% beef, I have a hard time agreeing with you.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: lol, I suppose he is "wearing" a seatbelt

Postby Sarvis » Tue Jan 25, 2011 6:24 pm

Ragorn wrote:Considering Taco Bell is being sued because their "taco beef" is only 36% beef, I have a hard time agreeing with you.


Technically it's Taco Meat.

Of course, the actual requirement for "Taco Meat" is 40% beef so they're still screwed...
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: lol, I suppose he is "wearing" a seatbelt

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Tue Jan 25, 2011 6:41 pm

Ragorn wrote:Considering Taco Bell is being sued because their "taco beef" is only 36% beef, I have a hard time agreeing with you.

Considering that they are using a significant amount of beef, and the fact that you were talking about hamburger using pidgeon, and cat, you don't have a leg to stand on.

Furthermore, the lawsuit is not about what is in the food, but that they called it "seasoned ground beef" without meeting the criteria for saying so.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: lol, I suppose he is "wearing" a seatbelt

Postby kiryan » Tue Jan 25, 2011 8:11 pm

We're freaked out about it because be believe in Freedom. The arguments for socialism are already accepted, the logical results just haven't been implemented pervasively yet. It happens more every year, it happens in the school and on TV. Our grand parents refused "prohibition", today we increasingly accept the concept via massive taxes and even more massive personal restrictions on Tobacco because its good for us.

Freedom is no longer good for us, freedom to make bad choices, including bad health choices, is increasingly something the government must regulate under the justification that society pays for it.

--

Heres the deal with cat meat. Lets say you're really poor, why shouldn't you be able to buy and eat cat meat? Its better than starving to death right? Why can't poor people eat at Taco Bell where "meat" is only 35% "meat"? Does anyone actually think taht when you go to Taco Bell you are getting high quality grade A food? Now I'm 100% against false advertising, but if all you can afford to eat is dog food... then you should be able to buy and eat dog food. Hell there are countrines in Africa where they import and eat canned cat food because its cheap "meat". What is wrong with that? Individuals making a decision on how to survive based on their specific circumstances.

Your conjecture that cow would not have become the primary meat without government is ridiculous. A cow is a huge walking slab of flesh that grows by eating one of the most prolific and inexpensive to produce vegetation around and reproduces and grows quickly. That just isn't true about cats or dogs or pidgeons.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: lol, I suppose he is "wearing" a seatbelt

Postby Ragorn » Tue Jan 25, 2011 8:19 pm

Teflor Lyorian wrote:
Ragorn wrote:Considering Taco Bell is being sued because their "taco beef" is only 36% beef, I have a hard time agreeing with you.

Considering that they are using a significant amount of beef

In this thread, Teflor believes 36% beef should be sufficient to call a product "beef taco filling," and kiryan supports businesses killing cats for their meat.

This is why we have government regulation. To protect my kids from people like you. And thank god for it.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: lol, I suppose he is "wearing" a seatbelt

Postby kiryan » Tue Jan 25, 2011 8:29 pm

You have regulation so you can enforce your moral standards on everyone else. Just like Christians want to legislate morality in terms of abortion, you want to legisliate moral standards of deceny for food, living conditions everything else.

Koreans eat dog and have for hundreds of years. Why shouldn't American's be able to? English eat all sorts of little game birds, might as well be pidgeons, why not Americans? Frogs, snails and fish eggs are a delicacy and legal. You can sell cow stomach and intestine for consumption, but not a cat? Why is it ok to eat these disgusting things but not a cat, horse, monkey?

I'm 100% in favor of regulations on advertising. I agree you can't grind up dolphin and call it tuna. I don't agree with 36% meat being advertised as meat. I am ok with someone selling tacos made up of 35% meat and someone knowing that buying it and eating it because they want to. This is a matter of truth, not a matter of you telling me what i can and can not buy or eat.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: lol, I suppose he is "wearing" a seatbelt

Postby Ragorn » Tue Jan 25, 2011 8:47 pm

I have regulation so people like you don't poison my children. That goes for your pigeon meat AND your religion. Keep both to yourself, please.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: lol, I suppose he is "wearing" a seatbelt

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Tue Jan 25, 2011 8:55 pm

Ragorn wrote:I have regulation so people like you don't poison my children. That goes for your pigeon meat AND your religion. Keep both to yourself, please.

I have neither pigeon meat, religion, or poison to spare. You're kind of ridiculous accusing me of any of it. FYI, your precious regulations _allow_ for all of the above.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: lol, I suppose he is "wearing" a seatbelt

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Tue Jan 25, 2011 8:57 pm

Ragorn wrote:
Teflor Lyorian wrote:
Ragorn wrote:Considering Taco Bell is being sued because their "taco beef" is only 36% beef, I have a hard time agreeing with you.

Considering that they are using a significant amount of beef

In this thread, Teflor believes 36% beef should be sufficient to call a product "beef taco filling," and kiryan supports businesses killing cats for their meat.

This is why we have government regulation. To protect my kids from people like you. And thank god for it.

Oooh, and out of context quote that leaves off the main argument. Congratulations on your intellectual integrity.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: lol, I suppose he is "wearing" a seatbelt

Postby Corth » Wed Jan 26, 2011 5:23 am

Pigeon and cat.. not my cup of tea. Though I'm not sure why it scares Ragorn so much. Dead cow is somehow less dangerous to his children... ?
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Ashiwi
Sojourner
Posts: 4161
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 5:01 am

Re: lol, I suppose he is "wearing" a seatbelt

Postby Ashiwi » Sat Jan 29, 2011 9:47 pm

On one extreme side of the spectrum is the rule of the iron fist, on the other is chaos. Somewhere between the two ends are the rules and regulations passed by the United States government.

Saying that the regulation of seatbelts should lead to the regulation of skiing, eating fatty foods or holding your breath while having a difficult bowel movement leads to the all-or-nothing argument. Things you do in this life are going to hurt you. If you choose to drive a vehicle on a public road then you legally have to wear a seatbelt, which can not only prevent you from being permanently disabled or killed in a relatively minor fender bender, but can also aid you in maintaining your position in the vehicle while in an accident and contribute to the driver keeping some kind of control over the vehicle.

In the event of a blowout a car can lurch violently, moving the occupants of the vehicle some distance in their seats. If restrained by a seatbelt the driver has a far greater possibility of retaining control of the vehicle before collision with others on the road. It's not just for your safety.

Pigeons are foul, nasty rodents of the air (those living in human residential areas), but it's not illegal to serve them for dinner. The passenger pigeon used to be quite the delicacy, from what I've heard. It would, however, be illegal to serve pigeon and call it quail.
Gormal tells you 'im a dwarven onion'
Gormal tells you 'always another beer-soaked layer'

Inama ASSOC:: 'though it may suit your fantasies to think so, i don't need oil for anything.'

Haley: Filthy lucre? I wash that lucre every day until it SHINES!
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: lol, I suppose he is "wearing" a seatbelt

Postby Kifle » Sat Jan 29, 2011 10:42 pm

I think being a passenger on a pigeon would be fantastic. We would fly through rainbows and frolic with the butterflies. Would you eat my pigeon, Ashiwi?! Would you eat my vehicle of sublime fantasy? I would hope you dare not, for I would come down upon you like the hammer of justice, swift, bold, and sometimes arbitrary; yet, you would but taste only the fragrance of endless joy, not yet close to the mechanism of destruction, before my searing anger thrust it's mighty weight to crush the offending anatomy.

Your move, joy killers!
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Ashiwi
Sojourner
Posts: 4161
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 5:01 am

Re: lol, I suppose he is "wearing" a seatbelt

Postby Ashiwi » Sat Jan 29, 2011 11:14 pm

Kifle wrote:Would you eat my pigeon, Ashiwi?!


And lick my fingers clean afterward.
Gormal tells you 'im a dwarven onion'
Gormal tells you 'always another beer-soaked layer'

Inama ASSOC:: 'though it may suit your fantasies to think so, i don't need oil for anything.'

Haley: Filthy lucre? I wash that lucre every day until it SHINES!
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Re: lol, I suppose he is "wearing" a seatbelt

Postby Kifle » Sat Jan 29, 2011 11:24 pm

That's it. I just sent a prayer text to david blaine (you probably know him as god). He texted back, "I put on my rob and wizard hat." I'm pretty sure that means business, and I would not be surprised if you were singing a different tune pretty quickly. Checkmate!
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Pril
Sojourner
Posts: 1834
Joined: Sat May 11, 2002 5:01 am

Re: lol, I suppose he is "wearing" a seatbelt

Postby Pril » Mon Jan 31, 2011 5:04 pm

kiryan wrote:You can sell cow stomach and intestine for consumption, but not a cat? Why is it ok to eat these disgusting things but not a cat, horse, monkey?



Kiryan that is just foul! You should know that horses can not be eaten they are reserved for glue factories! Then when ragorns kids eat the horse glue... er... Elmers glue they are no longer eating straight horse and everything is fine!
The best of WTF statments of '06
--------------------------------------------------------
Danila group-says 'afk, machine gun in backyard started shooting cats'
Danila group-says 'afk a sec, 3 horned monkeys trying to steal hose'
Danila group-says 'afk, koala bear trying to mount my car'
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: lol, I suppose he is "wearing" a seatbelt

Postby Ragorn » Mon Jan 31, 2011 5:38 pm

Horse Pepsi ok?

NEIGH.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: lol, I suppose he is "wearing" a seatbelt

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Fri Feb 11, 2011 4:16 am

Ragorn wrote:
Teflor Lyorian wrote:
Ragorn wrote:Considering Taco Bell is being sued because their "taco beef" is only 36% beef, I have a hard time agreeing with you.

Considering that they are using a significant amount of beef

In this thread, Teflor believes 36% beef should be sufficient to call a product "beef taco filling," and kiryan supports businesses killing cats for their meat.

This is why we have government regulation. To protect my kids from people like you. And thank god for it.

Image
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)

Return to “Current Events & Politics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests