Religious tolerance or safety?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by loinburger


I'm not trying to exaggerate anything, I'm trying to find out where you draw the line and why. So far your only justification has been "your argument is without reason," which to me looks like you're drawing the line wherever the dart happens to stick in the dart board.

It's difficult for me to draw an arbitrary line, I must admit. But I am still capable, as most other people are, in perceiving obvious differences between regulations on soda, and regulations on bike helmets.

Originally posted by loinburger
If a private enterprise wants to make rules and regulations in order to prevent idiot workers from suing them for their own idiocy, then this is fully within their rights. It's called "covering your ass." If the government helps private enterprise in this matter, then it simply gives the regulations added legal weight and simplifies the process for private enterprise (producing a net savings in legal costs). Industry regulations are not the same thing as these halfwit civilian regulations that try (unsuccessfully) to sterilize everybody's life, because in the latter case there is no legal ass-covering involved, only legislative coddling.

It's not individual companies that voluntarily create such regulations. There is this thing called OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration).
So OBVIOUSLY OSHA is carrying out such dreadful invasions on individual liberty. If workers want to endanger themselves, that is their right, I guess.

Originally posted by loinburger
Ah, the clever "rolleyes" argument. How foolish of me not to agree to your seemingly arbitrary opinions, but all the same I'd still like some justification.

So you've said before. Why are you choosing to draw the line where you're drawing it? Or, to repeat my previous line of questioning (that you ignored): "What level of personal responsiblity do we let people live with? Or, to put it another way, how much legislative coddling do we force down everybody's throat?"

The reason why I am drawing the line between soda and bike helmets, is because drinking soda on a regular, daily basis is not immediately dangerous as riding a bike without a helmet is.
I answered that question of yours already with this answer, in a previous post.

Another example is that because cigarette smoking is much more deadly than drinking soda on a regular, daily basis, tobacco products fall under government legislative regulation, in my opinion.

You are free to choose whether or not to be responsible in observing such rules as with bike helmets -- you will just have to suffer the consequences of a smashed head, or being fined for not following such rules/laws.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by MrFun
It's difficult for me to draw an arbitrary line, I must admit. But I am still capable, as most other people are, in perceiving obvious differences between regulations on soda, and regulations on bike helmets.

So in other words, your opinions are completely arbitrary, and you're fine with this?

It's not individual companies that voluntarily create such regulations. There is this thing called OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration).
So OBVIOUSLY OSHA is carrying out such dreadful invasions on individual liberty. If workers want to endanger themselves, that is their right, I guess.

Would you stop trying to compare industry regulations with civilian regulations? They're not the same thing, as I stated previously. How about you defend your opinions with a well-reasoned justification before pulling out your broad "you must not care about human life" brush.

The reason why I am drawing the line between soda and bike helmets, is because drinking soda on a regular, daily basis is not immediately dangerous as riding a bike without a helmet is.
I answered that question of yours already with this answer, in a previous post.

And you're still arbitrarily drawing the line. Drinking soda on a regular basis can lead to chronic health problems, while riding a bike without a helmet primarily leads to acute risks. So basically, this justification is only rational if you are generally opposed to regulating substances that can cause chronic health problems.

Another example is that because cigarette smoking is much more deadly than drinking soda on a regular, daily basis, tobacco products fall under government legislative regulation, in my opinion.

Okay, so you're in favor of regulating substances that can cause chronic health problems, but only substances that you, personally, don't like. So where do you draw the line, and why? Tobacco? Alcohol? Weed? Cocaine? Soda? Red meat? Understand that saying "soda is less dangerous than tobacco, therefore tobacco should be regulated while soda should not" is still a completely arbitrary rationale. Why not say "soda is less dangerous than red meat, therefore red meat should be regulated while soda should not"? Or "foam rubber is less dangerous than soda, therefore soda should be regulated while foam rubber is not"? Why are you drawing the line where you're drawing it?

You are free to choose whether or not to be responsible in observing such rules as with bike helmets -- you will just have to suffer the consequences of a smashed head, or being fined for not following such rules/laws.

What kind of goofball reasoning is that? What if somebody passed a law saying that public or private homosexual displays of affection are punishable by fining or imprisonment? By your own logic, you would still be free to engage in homosexual displays of affection, you will just have to suffer the consequences of being fined and/or imprisoned, so such a law would be just fine and dandy. "Oh loinburger, that's a completely different situation, because I've arbitrarily decided that helmet laws are good but that laws that restrict my own sexual freedom are bad."

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Timexwatch
.

I'm an experienced rider, but I'd never go out riding on the road without my helmet. Never, ever. Accidents happen, and people get hurt. I could've potentially been a vegatable had it not been for my helmet. So don't give kids the idea that it's not safe to ride without a helmet.

I also bicycle a lot and think that all riders should wear a helmet. I did not wear one as a child . . . but then again my parents smoked around me all the time . . . I don't see that past mistakes should mandate future behavior

A social riding group I joined had it on their form . . . .

" Helmets are mandatory. The other riders have no wish to scrape your brains off the pavement"



When I bicycle, I routinely exceed 50 km/h and often have hit 75km/h on the hills. A helmet gives me a much greater chance of surviving if I crash. .


There are really 3 issues here . . .

1. Should cyclists wear helmets ?

Clearly yes as the cost or inconvenience of using them is nothing compared to the possible benefits

2. Should governments require them ?

This depends on where you sit on the political spectrum. I see no problem with this particular infringement on a person's liberty. It is a minimal infringement for a great benefit

3. Religious freedom

I believe that Sikhs won the right in Canada not to wear hardhats on construction sites and also to wear turbans instead of regular uniforms in certain jobs. I do think though that there should be some way to accomodate a protective headgear within what is seen as a turban

Would a Sikh child want to play ice hockey without a helmet ? ( an even more dangerous example)

[Dis]

what chronic health problems does drinking soda lead to? Really, I'd like to know. I didn't know of any.

[loinburger]

Diabetes, obesity, tooth decay, spoilt appetites, shrunken testicles (Mountain Dew only).

[Dis]

my testicles are very large and I used to drink Mt. Dew like water.

sugar does not cause Diabetes. Being overweight does.

And soda does not cause people to be overweight. I know people who drink plenty of soda who are correct weight.

If you maintain your weight and excercise you should not get diabetes.

Tooth decay is the only thing soda causes.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Dissident
my testicles are very large and I used to drink Mt. Dew like water.

I know, that last one was just thrown in there because it was such a fun myth. In high school everybody called Mountain Dew "the shrinker."

And soda does not cause people to be overweight. I know people who drink plenty of soda who are correct weight.

I know people who eat at least 4000 calories per day and who are the correct weight. Hell, if anything they're underweight. I've often suspected that one of them in particular has a tapeworm, but it's probably just that he's so riddled with OCD that he burns off those extra calories by constantly washing his hands or jumping over cracks in the sidewalk.

It is more difficult to become overweight from overconsumption of soda than, say, overconsumption of butter (since soda is nothing but empty calories that are easily burned away). I suppose we ought to legislate butter consumption rather than soda consumption, in that case...

If you maintain your weight and excercise you should not get diabetes.

And if you wear your bike helmet when you need to wear it, you should not get your brains dashed out very easily. I wear mine whenever I'm mountain-biking, and I'd wear it when I rode on a busy street if I ever rode on a busy street (which I don't, because helmet or not it's not worth the risk to me to be mangled by some idiot driver). But if I were ever fined fifty bucks for not wearing my helmet while riding on a dirt/gravel bike path, you better believe that I'd be pissed as hell. I'm fully capable of assessing risks--riding without a helmet on dangerous terrain is bad, eating two pounds of butter per day is bad, etc.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by loinburger
So in other words, your opinions are completely arbitrary, and you're fine with this?

Would you stop trying to compare industry regulations with civilian regulations? They're not the same thing, as I stated previously. How about you defend your opinions with a well-reasoned justification before pulling out your broad "you must not care about human life" brush.

And you're still arbitrarily drawing the line. Drinking soda on a regular basis can lead to chronic health problems, while riding a bike without a helmet primarily leads to acute risks. So basically, this justification is only rational if you are generally opposed to regulating substances that can cause chronic health problems.

Okay, so you're in favor of regulating substances that can cause chronic health problems, but only substances that you, personally, don't like. So where do you draw the line, and why? Tobacco? Alcohol? Weed? Cocaine? Soda? Red meat? Understand that saying "soda is less dangerous than tobacco, therefore tobacco should be regulated while soda should not" is still a completely arbitrary rationale. Why not say "soda is less dangerous than red meat, therefore red meat should be regulated while soda should not"? Or "foam rubber is less dangerous than soda, therefore soda should be regulated while foam rubber is not"? Why are you drawing the line where you're drawing it?

What kind of goofball reasoning is that? What if somebody passed a law saying that public or private homosexual displays of affection are punishable by fining or imprisonment? By your own logic, you would still be free to engage in homosexual displays of affection, you will just have to suffer the consequences of being fined and/or imprisoned, so such a law would be just fine and dandy. "Oh loinburger, that's a completely different situation, because I've arbitrarily decided that helmet laws are good but that laws that restrict my own sexual freedom are bad."

Why do you perceive as differentiating between two items on the level of health/safety risk, too arbritrary??
Such evalutation on the risk to health/safety with a specific product to me, seems to be based more on objective facts about how they affect people, and not based on personal dictation of likes/dislikes.

I'm not sure why you're screaming the word arbitrary over and over like a crow.
I don't understand why you see objective evaluation of products as too arbritrary.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by MrFun
Why do you perceive as differentiating between two items on the level of health/safety risk, too arbritrary?? Such evalutation on the risk to health/safety with a specific product to me, seems to be based more on objective facts about how they affect people, and not based on personal dictation of likes/dislikes.

Why do you misrepresent my arguments? I granted that soda is objectively less dangerous than tobacco. I granted that foam rubber is objectively less dangerous than soda. There is very little that is arbitrary in the classification of two items as "less dangerous" and "more dangerous."

You are, however, arbitrarily drawing a line and saying "everything on this side of the line is dangerous and therefore we must enact legislative coddling for said items," and "everything on the other side of the line is clearly safe." You can't offer any kind of an objective justification for why you're drawing the line where you're drawing it.

I'm not sure why you're screaming the word arbitrary over and over like a crow.
I don't understand why you see objective evaluation of products as too arbritrary.

Your evaluation of products' risks may be objective, but your evaluation of necessary legislative action is arbitrary. On the spectrum of products, ranging from "safe" to "dangerous," you pick a danger level seemingly at random and declare "people must be protected from products that are more dangerous than this level by legislative coddling, but products that are less dangerous are just fine and dandy." Yet you can't say why you've chosen that particular danger level, and apparently you see nothing wrong with this.

"Soda is less dangerous than tobacco" may be an objective statement, but "soda is less dangerous than tobacco, therefore soda should not be legislated against while tobacco should be legislated against" is an arbitrary statement hidden within an objective statement. You could just as easily say "foam rubber is less dangerous than soda, therefore soda should be legislated against."

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Dissident
of course. If I rode on the road I'd wear a hemlet. It's just too close to traffic.

I usually ride on the sidewalk . Who cares about the pedestrians.

I ride down Montreals central streets, weaving in and out of traffic, not wearing a helmet...

[MrFun]

Originally posted by loinburger
You are, however, arbitrarily drawing a line and saying "everything on this side of the line is dangerous and therefore we must enact legislative coddling for said items," and "everything on the other side of the line is clearly safe." You can't offer any kind of an objective justification for why you're drawing the line where you're drawing it.

Your evaluation of products' risks may be objective, but your evaluation of necessary legislative action is arbitrary. On the spectrum of products, ranging from "safe" to "dangerous," you pick a danger level seemingly at random and declare "people must be protected from products that are more dangerous than this level by legislative coddling, but products that are less dangerous are just fine and dandy." Yet you can't say why you've chosen that particular danger level, and apparently you see nothing wrong with this.

"Soda is less dangerous than tobacco" may be an objective statement, but "soda is less dangerous than tobacco, therefore soda should not be legislated against while tobacco should be legislated against" is an arbitrary statement hidden within an objective statement. You could just as easily say "foam rubber is less dangerous than soda, therefore soda should be legislated against."

I cannot think of my justification yet.

So you're arguing that we should regulate everything the same way, because to draw the line between certain products is arbitrary??

For instance, that firearms are more dangerous than soda, but since it is arbitrary to legislate firearms differently, we should regulate firearms and soda in the same manner??

[loinburger]

Originally posted by MrFun
So you're arguing that we should regulate everything the same way, because to draw the line between certain products is arbitrary??

No, I'm saying that we should regulate everything in the same fashion unless there's a non-arbitrary justification for regulating something differently. It would be fine, f'rinstance, to draw a distinction such as "tobacco can cause harm to others through second-hand smoke while soda has no second-hand effects, therefore it behooves us to regulate tobacco in the interest of non-smokers while it would not behoove us to regulate soda in a similar fashion." That's an objective distinction between tobacco and soda that does not require an arbitrary "danger line" to be drawn. The fact that both are dangerous to their users is irrelevant, because tobacco is being regulated for a property it possesses that soda does not possess.

For instance, that firearms are more dangerous than soda, but since it is arbitrary to legislate firearms differently, we should regulate firearms and soda in the same manner??

No, firearms and soda have the same difference as tobacco and soda--firearms users endanger others besides themselves, soda consumers do not. If use of a product will endanger others besides the user, then the product requires regulation. Somebody's right to use a product does not trump somebody else's right to not be endangered by a jackass.

However, I see no real distinction between soda and bicycle helmets, only that one falls below an arbitrary danger line while the other does not.

[Boris Godunov]

Bumped for MrFun's benefit.

[loinburger]

You're cruel, Boris...

[Kontiki]

Holy threadjack, Batman.....

I guess I should have seen this coming, but I really didn't intend for this to get into a debate over the merits of helmet laws. MY main question was/is, is it ok for some cultural/religious groups to be exempt from certain laws and if so, where do you draw the line?