Goldmarble

Ah, such a lovely neighbourhood.

Good work Sir!

Your Political Ideology

Jannah said
I actually know of many anarchists. It's actually a legit and fairly sound political idea. I think most of its short-comings stem from the fact that a stateless society wouldn't last very long surrounded by countries with actual organized militaries. From my understanding anarchism advocates for militia type things rather than an actual military.

Actually, there are a few countries without militaries:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_armed_forces

Besides that, suppose if Canada disbanded its military as superfluous, would America just invade without reason? Is Russia going to hop the Arctic Circle to invade and take over Canada just cause it's defenseless?

The idea of countries simply launching campaigns to conquer other lands these days, without any reason, is kind of ridiculous.

I can't concentrate

Marik said
Wait, you don’t buy CD’s? They still sell them you know.

I'm poor. I haven't bought, or really listened to a new album in...years. I just listen to my old shit.

I can't concentrate

I miss the feeling of buying a cd and that first "pop" of the cd coming out of the case...

Your Political Ideology

Pepperm1nts said
How dare our overlords strip us of our god-given freedom to reject seat-belts.

Goes on to a lot more things than just seat belts. Seat belt laws are just a tiny fraction of the things that bother me with the idea of our current authoritarian styles of government.

I did not want to bring up larger, more polarizing issues in a thread not about them, so please, take your petty sarcasm with you.

Your Political Ideology

ShonHarris said
This is absolutely going a bit off topic, but I just wanted to point out a bit of an oversight here. The idea of a body becoming a projectile as I'd mentioned a page or two ago was more with the imagining of a person in the backseat without their belt on. You know, accident happens, the person behind you suddenly projects forward toward your seat or the back of your skull. Sure, your seat might protect you, but if a belt would protect both of you... why not make that required? And that scenario is in no way unlikely either. I'm surprised it hadn't come to mind?Anyway, I think this would be another example of how a community could create and maintain laws. Wearing a seatbelt is clearly a good idea for all parties. Law or not, people who are educated about the benefits and risks usually choose the option that maintains their health (specifically when that option is free and available).

Again, because law is not necessary. I didn't consider a person in the back seat not buckling up, because it is irrelevant....but also considered in what I am saying.

The person who owns the car/is driving the car, is the person with the choice: Either they buckle up, or they do not. It is also their responsibility to accept the consequences of their actions in setting their own law of their property: Make their passengers buckle up, or not.

Regardless of law, people drive without seatbelts anyways. Regardless of law, I chose to wear my seatbelt, and when I am driving? Everyone wears their seatbelt, regardless of their personal preferences. Yes, they have a right to their own choice, but if they chose to be my passenger, in my car? My freedom overrules as it does not endanger, nor harm them.

What I am saying, is that laws that displace the onus of responsibility and accountability (IE: Freedom) are unnecessary.

Mechwarrior Online

No.

Did.

Looks pretty, but the mechanics are poor, not at all faithful to the original games or material, the developers seem to like pissing on the actual fans of the franchise...

Your Political Ideology

Pepperm1nts said
Statistical improbability doesn't matter here. It's a danger. To you, and everyone around you. When we're talking about the chances of a mass-extinction via massive meteor or something, then yeah. We can shrug it off as improbable or impossible to prevent anyway. But when we're talking about societal issues that affect you and everyone around you - that we can prevent - it's different. It's selfish to think you ought to be allowed to drive without a seat-belt, simply because you think the chances of you flying out the windshield and causing further harm and damage are few. Prevention is a real necessity, and a priority. We don't ignore dangers to society because "eh, it's unlikely". And we don't wait for something horrible to happen before we decide "You know, maybe we should have some preventive measures."You might think something is improbable up until the point where you or someone you love is the one in danger. Then you'll be wondering, maybe even outraged, as to why no-one ever took preventive measures. And suddenly, lawsuits. Lawsuits everywhere. Or worse, you die.So let's not wait for horrible shit to happen before we put safety measures in place.As a half-joking side note: Being someone who studied, practiced, and is soon to graduate as an EMT, I'd prefer you didn't fly out the window. Makes everyone's job easier. And you know, less chance that you're dead. That would suck. For you me.

And...I disagree with you. I don't believe in a nanny state. I don't believe in trying to protect everything from the smallest of chances, if it involves giving up freedom. If 20 people in a year die, and 100 get injured, because of our current example; human body flying out of a car, strikes them....you know what? That is no reason to make a law. Shit happens.

Secondly, is if you want to make it law because that corpse might cause injury in the extremely unlikely scenario, then we might as well ban roof-racks for cars because you can stow a couple hundred pounds up there and it can fly off in an accident and cause further harm, just the same as an ejected corpse, right?

Now, again: Even if it was legal to drive without a seatbelt, I still would use one. It's my choice, my prerogative.

Your Political Ideology

I agree, someone not wearing a seatbelt can, potentially, become a hazard to others.

But is it often enough to give a shit about? In a two minute search, I found no statistics about "human projectiles" causing harm, which to me means that it is not a significant factor in accidents; otherwise pro-seat belt lobbies would have something on it.

I'm a realist, and a cold statistician when it comes to shit likes this: Yes, people may die, get injured, or otherwise be hurt by shit. They always will. But unless it is a significant risk? I feel it should not have bearing in the discussion of restricting the rights, and freedoms of the people.

Your Political Ideology

Pepperm1nts said
That's true. On the contrary to what my test results would have you believe, I'd be considered somewhat 'Authoritarian' on the basis of supporting government authority over a lot of aspects of life. I'm against it when it starts to infringe on our liberties (ie: NSA), but I trust the government to control and manage certain parts of society far more than I'd trust common people or corporations. EDIT: Prisons, for example, should not be fucking privatized. That's ridiculous.

And I am appalled at the idea, and reality, that the Government can tell me what to do, and how to live. If I don't like their ideas, their private enforcement officers will either arrest me, or try to coerce me to pay a fine, and if I refuse? Then I get arrested.

For example: Say I hate being in a car, and using a seat belt*. I'm well aware of the risks and potential hazards of not wearing it, but not wearing it endangers no one else, but my own life. I do not agree with the idea that the Government should have the authority to make laws to protect us, from ourselves. If someone chooses to do something stupid that doesn't endanger anyone else? To me, that is their prerogative, their responsibility, and their freedom to do so.

* I would wear my seat belt regardless of law or now laws to the effect of wearing it.