1d ago

Federal Regulators Hold Celebratory Seatbelt-Cutting Ceremony

theonion.com

Show Context

82 comments

Thanks for the detailed and empathetic response. I'm going to disagree with you again here, but I don't bear you any ill will for your opinion, especially in light of your wife's experiences.
I don't think I've had any real life experience color my view on this, thankfully - I've always worn my seatbelt and have never been targeted by cops. My strong reaction to this issue (and I've had literally all of the conversations currently happening in these comments over and over for years now, on here and on the other website) is due to just how ridiculous and self-contradictory it is for people to actually support seatbelt laws based on the arguments you're seeing in these comments.
I'm pretty sure the deeper truth here is that people (or most people at least - I don't think this is true of you, based on your comments here) actually don't care about the safety and trauma they always bring up in these comment sections, not really - I think they just take it personally for some reason that someone else has the audacity to make stupid decisions (even though they themselves are also frequently making stupid decisions they don't notice, and which have their own set of externalities - those stupid decisions are fine, of course), and it makes them feel morally superior to impinge on those individuals' right to make their own choices freely, especially when they have the easy refuge of flimsy "safety" arguments to retreat to. They're moral busybodies, and it's infuriating.
And pointing to nanny state European countries infamous for "protecting" their citizens from the audacity of making their own decisions doesn't settle the argument. Two countries can do the same thing for very different reasons (and if you think European cops defend the working class and not capital I have a bridge to sell you - each of those countries' cops have their own socially acceptable groups to harass instead).
I'm also a part of the tax-paying public, and I'm not happy that seatbelt laws are strict. You spend far more of your tax money on the crazy number of people who need early, intensive medical care due to dozens of different kinds of unhealthy life choices. In fact, I'd argue that the one-time costs of car crash deaths stemming from loosening seatbelt laws is far cheaper than the years or decades of intensive, expensive treatment for preventable conditions arising from other knowingly stupid choices, and yet, once again, for some reason it's stupid choices regarding seatbelts of all things where people come out of the woodwork to be worried about the toll on people and the economy.
Or to act worried so they can feel morally justified (literally) policing the actions of others, at least.
Again, thank you for your comment and your perspective.
- You spend far more of your tax money on the crazy number of people who need early, intensive medical care due to dozens of different kinds of unhealthy life choices. In fact, I’d argue that the one-time costs of car crash deaths stemming from loosening seatbelt laws is far cheaper than the years or decades of intensive, expensive treatment for pre...
  You argument is literally whataboutism.
  
  Whataboutism is only when the topic brought up has no direct relevance and is used to distract from the conversation.
  Multiple times in this thread others have brought up tax or insurance costs, which makes discussion of those costs and people's attitudes toward them directly relevant to the conversation, especially when it comes to how contradictory and hypocritical those criticisms are in the first place.
  It sounds like you’re attempting to think critically though, which is a good starting point. If you'd like a more direct defense of the idea that lack of seatbelt use drives up insurance costs, here you are:
  We can offset that cost by only raising premiums for those who choose to drive without a seatbelt
  and
  The slight increase in cost is more than worth it either way.
  
  Whataboutism is only when the topic brought up has no direct relevance to the conversation.
  I'm afraid you made that up.
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
  it can also be used to relativize criticism of one's own viewpoints or behaviors
  Oh, and
  It sounds like you’re attempting to think critically though, which is a good starting point.
  Ad hominem.
  
  Responding with nothing but an endless list of fallacies is the clearest sign that one has no worthwhile argument to make, so I think I'll be ending my engagement with you here.
  
  Sure, let me rectify that and give you an argument.
  Driving on a road is about discipline and predictability. Discipline is following the rules, like speed limit, using specific side of the road, using blinkers, stopping on red, etc. That is all necessary, for the driver's behaviour to be predictable to the other road users, both drivers and pedestrians. I'll assume that I don't need to argue that predictability of behaviour in 1 ton caskets going 150km/h is desired?
  Given that, refusing to follow belt enforcement rule is a good indicator that the driver decided they can pick and choose which of the rules they want to follow, which makes them undisciplined and suggest to other road users they might be unpredictable.
  The law enforcement of that rule intrinsic value lies not in life saving, or monies, or whatever, but in reminding the driver that they need to follow all the rules and behave in a predictable manner.

82 comments