Motorcycle Helmets

[BrainyBeauty]

Easy Rider

Laurel and Thumper- you're both cupcakes!

I want to admit publicly that I have been reading this thread without wearing a helmet.

In addition, I now plan on getting some Kit Kats to eat while I read the rest of the board that way too.

If you people have a problem with that then I suggest that somebody please call the food police. Because I really need someone to tie me down and force feed me their helmets. I mean... force me to wear a helmet. I mean... make me use protection. Err, eat chocolate covered rabbits?

Talk about yer twinkie defense!

 

[riff]

I'm sure it's terrible. However, legislation should not be based in emotion, but logic and reason. My father's an alcoholic. If you think that HIS personal choice to drink didn't affect those around him, then you're kidding yourself. It had as much of a negative effect on my life as if he'd sustained a serious head injury, if not more so. In all honesty, I wish he had. Yes, it was that bad.

Your argument is that the possible indirect effects of me not wearing a helmet - the sadness my death would cause my family - is enough for the government to force me to wear one. By your reasoning, we ought to illegalize alcohol - not because of the effect it may have on ME, but because of the indirect effect it MAY have on those around me. We should also illegalize smoking for the same reason. <i>And since MY dying would be traumatic to those around me - and it's their rights that count above mine - then ANYTHING that puts my life at risk or is deemed 'unhealthy' should be illegal. Am I understanding you correctly?</i> [/B]

No, you are not.

I disagree with you that emotion has no place in legislation. I would argue that emotion had a lot to do with the thirteen colonies rebellion against King George. I would argue that anger had a lot to do with the way our political system was set-up to avoid despotism.

I think that there is a place for both feeling and reason in our government and in our legislation. They tend to temper each other. I am sure you would agree that legislation based soley on emotion would produce a very confusing legal environment for us all. But it wouldn't be any crazier than one in which everything was based soley on "logic." Ever read Jonathan Swift?

Why put a guardrail on a dangerous curve? I mean, if someone is stupid enough to drive off of the curve and kill themselves, then that is their business and we won't have to look at that ugly metal sticking up out of the ground. Besides, the death of the idiot improves the gene pool. Logically, we should have done like Hitler did- go ahead and sterilize or kill them before they have the chance to reproduce. We would eliminate unfavorable genes and build a stronger nation. Natural selection makes perfect logial sense to me....

You miss my point entirely. You are the one who says that I suggest that anything unhealthy should be illegal. If you want to ride without a helmet on your own private property- well, that is your priviledge. But on the nation's roads- no. Helmets save lives. Yours, and others.

I am pro-choice, by the way.

You make some very good points and you raise the issue of where to draw the line very well. Where do we draw the line? How do we draw a line? Or, since drawing a line is problematic, should we just say to hell with drawing lines? I do not disagree with you entirely.