Webmaster Forum

Webmaster Forum (http://www.v7n.com/forums/index.php)
-   Controversial Social Issues (http://www.v7n.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=49)
-   -   What Else are they going to ban ?? Wow !! (http://www.v7n.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48044)

Linda in NY 02-09-2007 12:00 AM

What Else are they going to ban ?? Wow !!
 
Hi,

I recently saw this story on one of our local news website, then another ban they want to impliment in numerous states on another story.

Here are the two links:
Our local news website story with bans for Pedestrians !

Another story of the wider bans across many states for drivers

This is really getting scary. What's next, no talking to people in your car or on the street when they are with you. Next they better start thinking of banning having children, they can be distracting too !

This is really getting scary, what's next ?

G10 02-09-2007 12:46 AM

Quote:

He said his wife recently saw a driver playing the flute, which led him to include the instrument ban in his bill.
Now how cool is that :D

Someone speeding past you whilst driving and playing the flute :P


:shock:

btw - I can understand stopping people drinking coffee whilst driving, imagine having to stop suddenly whilst holding a hot coffee.

Cricket 02-09-2007 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G10 (Post 548226)
btw - I can understand stopping people drinking coffee whilst driving, imagine having to stop suddenly whilst holding a hot coffee.

That's what lids are for. ;)

Ferre 02-09-2007 04:49 AM

All for your safety, and the safety of your children. Of course. :mrgreen:

Maybe 'they' should ban talking in the streets too. This can be very dangerous, you know.

zcoder 02-09-2007 07:55 AM

Anyone who knows the constitution will know that law will never fly.
but it makes for a good story.

Zcoder....

G10 02-09-2007 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cricket (Post 548233)
That's what lids are for. ;)

LOL, true :)

But what if you accidentally dropped the drink on your lap whilst driving in a built up area or even on the motorway? Maybe you would just have slight burns on your lap or maybe the shock would cause one to swerve the car.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferre
All for your safety, and the safety of your children. Of course. :mrgreen:

In the case of hot drinks, I believe it genuinely is, though I still don't think they should ban flute players whilst driving, thats just well cool ;)

John Scott 02-09-2007 08:39 AM

Authoritairian democracy. The majority knows best and they are going to enforce it on every one. Typically the next step after accepting socialist ideals.

salesmachine 02-09-2007 10:25 AM

It is for the good of the majority..

Linda in NY 02-09-2007 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by salesmachine (Post 548468)
It is for the good of the majority..

What if I told you the government just decided that fire supression water sprinklers systems in your home is good for you and safer for the home and good for the majority, and you'd have to add it to your home at your expense. Hmm said 10,000.00 just as a ball park figure. Would that be okay too.

zcoder 02-09-2007 10:47 AM

Is that idea any different then mandatory car insurance?
So it is possible. bad idea, but possible.

Zcoder....

John Scott 02-09-2007 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by salesmachine (Post 548468)
It is for the good of the majority..

Thank you for expressing the motto of Democrats. By that logic, we should ban cigarettes, red meat, anything that could possibly be dangerous.

Freedom vs "safety".

Linda in NY 02-09-2007 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zcoder (Post 548477)
Is that idea any different then mandatory car insurance?
So it is possible. bad idea, but possible.

Zcoder....

Well with car insurance, I pay them premiums, if anything happens, they pay to fix my car etc. With this law, they are taking away my freedoms to do what I want, inside my property (my vehicle) ??

Thats the same thing ???

zcoder 02-09-2007 12:08 PM

Yeah couse they can tack on that without it installed you also don't get
your house fixed by the insurance company.

So it's all a bad law, but knowing how some people like to protect you
from yourself, you must agree, that it's possible for them to try
to pass such a silly law.

Zcoder....

salesmachine 02-09-2007 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Linda in NY (Post 548470)
What if I told you the government just decided that fire supression water sprinklers systems in your home is good for you and safer for the home and good for the majority, and you'd have to add it to your home at your expense. Hmm said 10,000.00 just as a ball park figure. Would that be okay too.

Yeah your right, having that kind of system in your home is good for the people but do you think that the government will impose on something that not all can afford? The government is over reacting on this if they will do this.

Lets just put it up this way, the seatbelt law is imposed for what reason? To protect not only the driver but also its passengers. Am I right? I think your also obeying this law.

I think your not that stupid to use your right hand for a phone call and your left hand for your cigarette while driving..

Linda in NY 02-09-2007 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by salesmachine (Post 548556)
Yeah your right, having that kind of system in your home is good for the people but do you think that the government will impose on something that not all can afford? The government is over reacting on this if they will do this.

Lets just put it up this way, the seatbelt law is imposed for what reason? To protect not only the driver but also its passengers. Am I right? I think your also obeying this law.

I think your not that stupid to use your right hand for a phone call and your left hand for your cigarette while driving..

The government imposed car seat laws, many poor people can't afford them to put in their clunker cars, but it's a law. Then again, the government will sometimes have carseats for needy families.

and I dont use my cell phone when I'm smoking !! I use the phone when I'm done with my smoke, DUH !

salesmachine 02-09-2007 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Linda in NY (Post 548561)
The government imposed car seat laws, many poor people can't afford them to put in their clunker cars, but it's a law. Then again, the government will sometimes have carseats for needy families.

and I dont use my cell phone when I'm smoking !! I use the phone when I'm done with my smoke, DUH !

"I think your not that stupid to use your right hand for a phone call and your left hand for your cigarette while driving.." Are you angry? Peace mate! :mrgreen: I didn't said that your doing this. I just get it from one of your resources.

Ferre 02-09-2007 02:56 PM

In many countries people must use a handsfree phone system in their cars. Problem solved.

IslaScotts 02-09-2007 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by salesmachine (Post 548556)
Yeah your right, having that kind of system in your home is good for the people but do you think that the government will impose on something that not all can afford? The government is over reacting on this if they will do this.

Lets just put it up this way, the seatbelt law is imposed for what reason? To protect not only the driver but also its passengers. Am I right? I think your also obeying this law.

Yes.. the government can, has, and will impose laws that give poor people a disadvantage.

The seatbelt law I am totally against, especially for anyone 18 or older in this country. As an adult you have the right to smoke cigarettes and drink yourself to death.. but god forbid you choose not to wear a seatbelt. The government has no right to protect me from myself. As for my passengers.. if they are a legal adult they should have a choice. Seatbelt laws aren't made for people... the law was passed due to money hungry lobbyists who could see where all the money from this law would go. If you really think the government should tell you what do with yourself.. go for it. It's my body, it's my car, it's my life. I can't believe anyone could possibly agree with seatbelt laws. So I guess I can't jump out of a plane, go free basing, climb mount everest, or go hang gliding... I mean.. they are all too risky and I might hurt myself. So lets ban all things unhealthy or risky... I am a lot more useful to the government if I am alive then dead.

zcoder 02-09-2007 04:05 PM

You can't go jump out of a plane, go free basing, climb mount everest, or go hang gliding, couse in CAL there is laws on the books that they inforce that
says if you need to be recued becouse you did these types of things, then
they can fine you.

So if you do those things you better do it and succeed or die couse if you
just happen to mess up and live but need to be rescued, your scewed.

Same goes for comiting suicide it is ilegal to comit suicide, so you better
make dam sure you succeed on that too or your scewed.

Zcoder....

IslaScotts 02-09-2007 04:26 PM

Quote:

In the U.S. suicide has never been treated as a crime nor punished by property forfeiture or ignominious burial. (Some states listed it on the books as a felony but imposed no penalty.) Curiously, as of 1963, six states still considered attempted suicide a crime--North and South Dakota, Washington, New Jersey, Nevada, and Oklahoma. Of course they didn't take matters as seriously as the Roman emperor Hadrian, who in 117 AD declared attempted suicide by soldiers a form of desertion and made it--no joke this time--a capital offense.
Well 1) if your attempt is successful... what are they gonna do throw your dead body in jail? 2) Attempted suicides haven't been enforced as a crime. If police or an ambulance is called you have a mandatory 24-72 hour suicide watch in a hospital or mental facility and are let go, unless you commit another crime whilst in the attempt (such as using a stolen gun.. what not.)

As for your scenario of parachuting and needing to be rescued you are far from even drawing a similarity. When you call an ambulance, is that service free? Nope. You get hit by a car and are rushed to the hospital, the ambulance as well as the hospital and any specialists all charge a separate fee. If you jump out of a plane and are injured and need search and rescue, it is not free. You have to pay for them finding you and helping you, you have to pay the ambulance for transporting you, and you have to pay the people who heal your injuries.

You don't have police setting up observance towers around popular jumping sites and then fining each person for jumping, just because they jumped. And boy if they get ticketed enough for jumping.. they could serve jail time or get their license taken away. That is moronic. If I don't wear a seatbelt and get injuries that I wouldn't have have gotten if I had been wearing a seatbelt, well that will be my choice and my cost. Because I will have to pay for the ambulance, the hospital, the doctors, the meds, and I will even have to pay for my car to be towed and fixed. But gee, if I wasn't wearing a seatbelt now I have to pay a fine on top of all those other expenses.. because golly gee as an adult I can't decide what risky behaviors I want to participate in.. so I will turn to dear old government daddy to tell me what is safe and what isn't. And if "daddy" sees me stepping out of line... well he will make me pay big time for disobeying him, what an awful child that would make me.. oh I mean adult citizen, not child.. oh wait... is there a difference?


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:33 AM.

3.8.7