|
|
NJ Legislation Bans TSA Scanners + more
 Lakshmi.Flavin
Serveur: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 18466
By Lakshmi.Flavin 2010-12-10 14:20:40
Ragnarok.Zanno said: Lakshmi.Flavin said: Ragnarok.Zanno said: Lakshmi.Flavin said: Bahamut.Jetackuu said: Lakshmi.Flavin said: Bahamut.Jetackuu said: Lakshmi.Flavin said: Bahamut.Jetackuu said: Ramuh.Ilvex said: The laws saying that you have to war seat belts are unjust? WHAT THE *** ARE YOU SMOKING, please share! you try to tell me how the government forcing you to wear a seatbelt is just. I don't smoke, never have. The only reason wearing your seatbelt is a law is because insurance companies *** having great lobbyists apparently. Now lets work this one out together. Why would insurance companies want you to wear seatbelts? (keep in mind these are questions for Jet to guide him to the correct conclusion) profit Ok now why would they profit from it? them not having to pay for the injuries sustained = profit and yes you can argue that they'll get the money either way, but then you'd have to ask why their lobbyists pushed for the bills Yay, now we're getting somewhere. No, you were right. Insurance companies would like you to wear seatbelts as it, as you said, lowers the injury rate of those in car accidents. Now lets think about this further. Since wearing a seat belt has been proven to lower the injury rate of people in car accidents (not eliminate, lower) would you not think this a good law to enact? Since it lowers the injury rate, therefore allows more people to be healthiar and lowers the amount of money spent on medical care... that could be a good thing couldn't it Jet? I think someone mentioned earliar that the accident rate for cars is 1 in 6,000 ish? With close to 300,000,000 million people say even a quarter of them own a vehicle and take lets estimate 1 in every 6500 from 75,000,000 thats around 11,500 accidents/year or 31 ish a day. That seems like a lot of people to me and statistics to show that seatbelts help. Plus, how hard is it to put on a seatbelt? I mean cmon. Let me ask you this Jet? Should we all be allowed to drink and drive too? I mean we can drink and we can drive. Why not just mix em together and forget the outcome all together. Let the dice land where they may because if they don't allow us to drink and drive they are taking away our freedoms unjustly right? You know minus all the death and destruction and lives ruined by it. Locking people up in their houses would also lower injuries, as well as lower the chance of you getting robbed, shot, raped, victim of a terrorist attack etc etc. Then the country would fall around us if everyone were locked up in our homes. With everyone locked in their houses nothing could ever get done. The only thing I agree with you is that there would be fewer terror attacks if everyone was locked up in their houses, mainly because no one could get out to commit them. Basically though you have taken a viable solution of a statistacally proven result and compared it to an outcome that would never realistacally take place. Wearing a seat belt isn't difficult and if you think it is I sincerely hope you have an easy life. Thing is we conform to follow many laws enacted by local and federal government. We don't allow fellow citizens and ourselves to commit certain acts that we feel are harmful to the whole. It gets to become a thin line when we decide what is enough and waht is too far. Most of the arguments I hear here (in all the TSA threads) though are, remember I said most not all, blanket statements that make no real argument. In the end its not even that I necassarily disagree, my views differ a bit, but that not very many people take the time to try and cinvince you or bring you over to their side. Its mostly oh hey you dont agree with me? screw you you terrorist scum, you let the torroists win, you live in fear you pussy. you preach freedom of speech then slam people for expressing their beliefs. I'm glad you guys can form your own opions or follow others but when did it become worng to disagree and insult others for doing so? Do you have any statistics what so ever to prove that there are less terror attacks with airplanes involved in the U.S with the enhanced pat downs and new screening system, compared to the old pat down and metal detectors? I know that's a stupid question, but ypu're the one talking about statistics. Statisticly, you're more likely to get killed by walking to the grocery store than it is to have your flight hi-jacked by terrorists, with or without the new system.
Just to go on record I was talking about car accidents, not terror attacks on planes. The statistics I was referring to were to do with seat belts and how it affects injury rates in car accidents.
Bahamut.Jetackuu
Serveur: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9001
By Bahamut.Jetackuu 2010-12-10 14:24:01
Lakshmi.Flavin said: Bahamut.Jetackuu said: Lakshmi.Flavin said: Bahamut.Jetackuu said: Lakshmi.Flavin said: Bahamut.Jetackuu said: Lakshmi.Flavin said: Bahamut.Jetackuu said: Ramuh.Ilvex said: The laws saying that you have to war seat belts are unjust? WHAT THE *** ARE YOU SMOKING, please share! you try to tell me how the government forcing you to wear a seatbelt is just. I don't smoke, never have. The only reason wearing your seatbelt is a law is because insurance companies *** having great lobbyists apparently. Now lets work this one out together. Why would insurance companies want you to wear seatbelts? (keep in mind these are questions for Jet to guide him to the correct conclusion) profit Ok now why would they profit from it? them not having to pay for the injuries sustained = profit and yes you can argue that they'll get the money either way, but then you'd have to ask why their lobbyists pushed for the bills Yay, now we're getting somewhere. No, you were right. Insurance companies would like you to wear seatbelts as it, as you said, lowers the injury rate of those in car accidents. Now lets think about this further. Since wearing a seat belt has been proven to lower the injury rate of people in car accidents (not eliminate, lower) would you not think this a good law to enact? Since it lowers the injury rate, therefore allows more people to be healthiar and lowers the amount of money spent on medical care... that could be a good thing couldn't it Jet? I think someone mentioned earliar that the accident rate for cars is 1 in 6,000 ish? With close to 300,000,000 million people say even a quarter of them own a vehicle and take lets estimate 1 in every 6500 from 75,000,000 thats around 11,500 accidents/year or 31 ish a day. That seems like a lot of people to me and statistics to show that seatbelts help. Plus, how hard is it to put on a seatbelt? I mean cmon. Let me ask you this Jet? Should we all be allowed to drink and drive too? I mean we can drink and we can drive. Why not just mix em together and forget the outcome all together. Let the dice land where they may because if they don't allow us to drink and drive they are taking away our freedoms unjustly right? You know minus all the death and destruction and lives ruined by it. 1.no. 2. insurance companies want it only for a pure and simple reason; money. 3. it's not the government's place to tell adult citizens what to do when it comes to their safety, regardless of how much of a "good idea" it is. 4. you have a point on the drin/drive thing up until the point that endangers more than yourself...
1. Yes
2. I agree the insurance companies are businesses and they only want money. Other than conjecture and opinion prove to me they are responsible for enacting the laws.
3. So you beleive adult citizens should be able to do whatever they want, whenever they want?
4. Your shorsighted if you think all the actions you take only affect yourself. There are many everyday things we do that affect others.
My thing is you haven't listed any examples solutions to any of these problems. Its mostly let me do what I want and damn the consequences. Above you just agreed that I had a point with the drinking and driving but noted that that effects more than just myself. In many cases it does so are you saying that if an action we take affects more than just ourselves it is just to make a law against it? but if something only affects ourselves we should be allowed to do it no matter, and without consequence?
Not passing judgement just trying to get a feel where you stand on these issues.
Oh and one more thing like I asked before, is it really that hard or that big of an inconvenience to wear a seat belt?
if something you do affects nobody other than yourself, no other person has domain to tell you to do it or not to do it, whether or not it's hard or an inconvenience it's nobody else's business if you wear or don't wear your seatbelt.
if an adult citizen isn't affecting anyone else then yes they can and should do what they want when they want, that's how laws were originally made in this country and somewhere along the lines they went from being there to protect liberties to subjectivity, this is no exception.
Necro Bump Detected!
[74 days between previous and next post]
 Leviathan.Chaosx
Serveur: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 20284
By Leviathan.Chaosx 2011-02-22 02:59:35
So as I said earlier in this thread, I would pass on any information I receive. Well I just checked my email and I finally received a personal response from Congressman Rodney Frelinghuysen (NJ's 11th District House of Representatives)
Here is the email in its entirety I shall share with you guys:
Congressman.Rodney.Frelinghuysen said: Dear Mr. Horbatuck:
Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns about the recently adopted screening procedures in use by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) at our nation's airports. I appreciate having the benefit of your views and I apologize for the delay in my response.
It is hard to believe that the only choice is between an invasive full body scan or an intrusive hand search. To my mind, they need to develop better strategies, technologies and techniques that balance air travelers' right to privacy with the TSA's mandate to ensure security.
Having said that, any discussion of airport security measures must take place in the context of a very real threat from violent international extremists who want to attack America and Americans.
As a member of the House Appropriations Committee, which funds the TSA, I assure you that I will closely monitor the TSA's practices and ensure that they strike a more reasonable balance between personal privacy and protecting our nation's air passengers as the 112th Congress begins its legislative work for the year.
Again, thank you for contacting me.
Sincerely,
Rodney Frelinghuysen
Member of Congress
P.S. To sign up for my e-newsletter, or to learn more about issues before Congress, please visit http://frelinghuysen.house.gov/.
Leviathan.Chaosx
Serveur: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 20284
By Leviathan.Chaosx 2011-02-22 07:22:00
What's funny is my email to him was short and to the point. I basically asked him if he supported Mike Doherty's legislation and whether or not the issue would be brought up in house.
Serveur: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6558
By Odin.Zicdeh 2011-02-22 07:24:19
Probably a Jersey thing.
Serveur: Titan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 1026
By Titan.Darkwizardzin 2011-02-22 08:15:27
Odin.Zicdeh said: Probably a Jersey thing. lol
Serveur: Ifrit
Game: FFXI
Posts: 24692
By Ifrit.Kungfuhustle 2011-02-22 08:17:35
beating a dead horse with a latex gloved hand holding a portable body scanner.
|
|
