LogFAQs > #914808028

Noop_Noop posted...

so youre just devolving to insults now.

Nope, just making an observation. If you find my observation of reality insulting, you should perhaps consider changing that reality. If my observations were incorrect, you should easily have been able to answer my invitation. The floor's still open for that, if you want to change the failure I'm perceiving.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

"Tend" is quite a way of tying irrelevant s*** to my point. What effects others is not applicable to my point and you know it.

It's not directly applicable to your point, but it is applicable to the real-world practical applications of your point. I actually happen to agree that the concept of regulations that exist purely for personal safety is overreaching into the citizenry's personal control over their lives, but in practice, there aren't many laws that are truly just for personal safety. The only one that comes immediately to mind is drug prohibition, which I do disagree with (if for no other reason than that it just doesn't work), and even that isn't necessarily the best example because personal safety isn't the only reason those laws exist (no matter what the people upholding them try to tell you).

Seatbelt laws? Being buckled up prevents further loss of control of the vehicle, prevents occupants from being ejected into other cars and causing further collisions, and reduces the severity of crashes so they can be cleaned up more quickly (helping the city's traffic function more efficiently, as well as reducing the risk to emergency personnel because they spend less time in the field). Helmet laws? Reduces the severity of crashes (see above), as well as reducing the burden on society that brain injuries can be (there are a number of studies linking brain trauma to aggressive behaviour). Most real-world examples have benefits beyond personal safety, and that does make the "invading personal freedom" less applicable for objecting to them.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

To your actual point, it's more invasive as it's more successful.

No, it's more invasive because it's more invasive. Being ticketed because a cop glanced in your car and noticed some missing seatbelts is infinitely less invasive than having a body forcibly taken away and carved up without consent.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

It also doesn't matter to you once you're dead.

That, I can actually see being an argument in favour of the idea. That does fly in the face of the accepted cultural trend of the next of kin having authority over the body, and could very easily be interpreted as a violation of the separation of church and state (since the government would be imposing the view that there's no afterlife and the person won't be able to care what's going on with their body), but I do generally agree with the idea that my body might as well be used to do the most good possible once I'm not using it anymore, and I think anyone who disagrees is being pointlessly selfish. That selfishness is their prerogative, though.