TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- The nanny state is at it again:Transport minister eyes rule 4 mandatory life jackets
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

quote:

Originally posted by Orko And what happens when you land face down?

A properly fitted lifejacket will not allow you to stay face down

quote:

Originally posted by chinamon dont blame the government for proposing laws for common sense. if people had common sense then there would be no stupid proposed laws. blame the stupid people.

Why make laws for 99% (for ex.) of the population for the 1% of stupid people?

If the stupid people are that stupid, then natural selection should prevail, not the law.

^ agreed with Aj

if anything, people should be STRONGLY ADVISED to wear life jackets, maybe we need more advisory posters around those areas where people use big/small boats, go swimming etc

this is like making everyone wear a protective helmet while walking underneath a building which has construction going on higher up

quote:

Originally posted by Abercrombie Why make laws for 99% (for ex.) of the population for the 1% of stupid people? If the stupid people are that stupid, then natural selection should prevail, not the law.

You realize that the amount of stupid people that make up the population is infinitely larger than 1%, right? I'd say it's well over half. Lol.

The law already makes you wear a life jacket while playing water sports and I really believe in this law. I firmly follow wearing a life jacket when ever in tow behind a boat. It has come in handy more then once. Unfortunately for the people that died this past weekend in Muskoka, I don�t think a life jacket made a huge difference. the Tunnel hull boats that they made reference too are built for speed, and for it to cart wheel my educated guess would be it was going at least 70-90mph and hit a heavy gust of wind...depending on how they landed the life jacket would allow them to float, but hitting water at that speed in like getting hit by a truck and if your unconcious it really doesn't help. Another issue arises in these large bodies of water, if something does happen it is often too late by the time help arrives.

I believe education is more needed then life jackets for people in boats. Stating Sept 15th the boat drivers licenses are much over do since most people think that driving a boat is much like a car...big mistake. If people know how to opperate their boats safely, and know the laws, this will minimize accidents and promote safe boating for all. Most deaths that occur in water are by swimmers, not boaters. And when you enter the water by a dam after a rain storm, who is really to blame? Any sound person would think maybe this isn�t such a bright idea... but it is human nature to be a dare devil...and such some pay the price of their decisions. Think with you head, not your ego...

quote:

Originally posted by jennypie You realize that the amount of stupid people that make up the population is infinitely larger than 1%, right? I'd say it's well over half. Lol.

There's definitely less than 1% of all boaters that have or will die of drowning.

We need a conservative majority..

im sick of them acting like pseudo liberals.


Ive just written MP Lois Brown about this. Ridiculous!

quote:

Originally posted by Intangible My parents have lied to me my entire life... I always thought it was law to wear life jackets

LOL! Oh Barrie... you're awesome. hahahahaha

(see ya tuesday night! lol)

quote:

Originally posted by chinamon dont blame the government for proposing laws for common sense. if people had common sense then there would be no stupid proposed laws. blame the stupid people.

Yes, but then by having these laws, common sense is even further lost... to the point where we have even less (almost no) common sense collectively in the end.

Let many more �stupid ppl� die from these bad or ignorant judgment calls (which, by the way, are and should be their stupid calls to make; the government shouldn�t be protecting us from ourselves, imo!) � you'll eventually see it become more common sense to consider wearing lifejackets when out on the water...

Common sense is something that needs to return to much of the world. Making it a law doesn�t bring back our common sense... because you�re only doing it because its illegal NOT to do it, not because you see the real value and sense of it. Your fear of punishment is making you wear the jacket, not your good sense of why it could be important to wear one.

But that�s not to say the province shouldn�t do anything at all. For sure it should� how about further and better spreading the word about water and/or boating safety. Increase efforts to enlighten the public abt this issue. There�s something the government should be doing for us. Not mandating what we can and cannot do; ppl should be able to make an informed decision abt their own safety � weighing the merits how they wish, smartly or foolishly. Get the word out there�what we chose to do with it is up to us.

(This said, I can see a very good rationale and argument for mandating them for those under a certain age (14? 16? 18?), who it can be said aren�t able to make a proper informed decision on the matter because they are too young.)

quote:

Originally posted by Abercrombie Why make laws for 99% (for ex.) of the population for the 1% of stupid people? If the stupid people are that stupid, then natural selection should prevail, not the law.

THANK YOU! On both parts! Exactly.

quote:

Originally posted by Jem_hadar Yes, but then by having these laws, common sense is even further lost...

you cannot lose something that was not there to begin with.

quote:

Originally posted by chinamon you cannot lose something that was not there to begin with.

Fair enough, that is why I'm in the frame of mind that I understand rules are there for our protection however there IS such a thing as too much control for that sake. People will do what they do regardless so having a billion rules just defeats the purpose.

quote:

Originally posted by Endlesswave Fair enough, that is why I'm in the frame of mind that I understand rules are there for our protection however there IS such a thing as too much control for that sake. People will do what they do regardless so having a billion rules just defeats the purpose.

just because there is a law to do something does not mean that you have to follow it (ie. seatbelts) but it is a good way to remind people to put it on. i am all for this proposed life jacket law.

quote:

Originally posted by chinamon you cannot lose something that was not there to begin with.

well then, you dont "gain" common sense, let's say.

these laws stop us from largely having to think for ourselves, imo.

quote:

Originally posted by Jem_hadar well then, you dont "gain" common sense, let's say. these laws stop us from largely having to think for ourselves, imo.

i disagree. many of these laws were never in place and we stopped thinking for ourselves automatically (taking things for granted i guess). the laws appeared when the government noticed that we were no longer thinking.

edit: i dont see what is so wrong with having a mandatory life jacket law anyway. the life jacket can save lives but some of us were too stupid to put one on while boating and died. the law jumped in when they noticed a common trend.

quote:

Originally posted by chinamon if people had common sense then there would be no stupid proposed laws.

There's a lot of evidence to support the general hypothesis that making some behaviour mandatory actually erodes the intrinsic motivation behind said behaviour that most people normally have. In other words, people are more likely to do the thing you don't want them to do if the enforcement isn't tight enough (and it almost never is).

Drunk driving is one example. Most people are smart enough not to do this, and the ones who aren't, do it anyway in spite of it being illegal. The problem lies in the gray area. Everybody who has ever driven to any party involving alcohol before will know what I mean when I say that we tend to worry more about getting caught than getting killed. It's completely irrational - the legal fear displaces the safety fear. And so, when we think we're less likely to get caught (say, because it's 4 in the morning), we're more likely to make a stupid decision. Instead of thinking about whether or not we can see straight, we try to count the number of drinks we had and figure out if it's going to be over the legal limit or not. The result is you get more people taking these risks, but you don't find out about it as much, because everybody tries to hide it.

You could say the exact same thing about bike helmets, seat belts, speed limits, drugs, even performance reviews at work. In every one of these cases, people do the right thing when they are genuinely worried about getting caught, but as soon as they stop worrying about that, they'll start doing the wrong things when they'd ordinarily be smart enough not to.

In many ways, society's lack of common sense is because of our common-sense laws. If you treat people like children, they act like children. If you make a law against everything under the sun, then people start to assume that anything there isn't a law against must be perfectly fine, and where there is a law, they start to forget why the law is there.

In essence, when you tell people that they can't think for themselves, they will stop thinking for themselves.

quote:

Originally posted by chinamon dont blame the government for proposing laws for common sense. if people had common sense then there would be no stupid proposed laws. blame the stupid people.

I hate how this society is always trying to save the incompetent. I mean really...what good are they? If anything THEY'RE the biggest safety hazard to the rest of us and should be promptly disposed of. This would totally improve all facets of our life if we didn't have the idiots holding us down.

Remove the warning labels and let it all work itself out (Pretty sure Carlin was the one that suggested this).

And we'd solve the overpopulation problem!

win-win!

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut There's a lot of evidence to support the general hypothesis that making some behaviour mandatory actually erodes the intrinsic motivation behind said behaviour that most people normally have. In other words, people are more likely to do the thing you don't want them to do if the enforcement isn't tight enough (and it almost never is). Drunk driving is one example. Most people are smart enough not to do this, and the ones who aren't, do it anyway in spite of it being illegal. The problem lies in the gray area. Everybody who has ever driven to any party involving alcohol before will know what I mean when I say that we tend to worry more about getting caught than getting killed. It's completely irrational - the legal fear displaces the safety fear. And so, when we think we're less likely to get caught (say, because it's 4 in the morning), we're more likely to make a stupid decision. Instead of thinking about whether or not we can see straight, we try to count the number of drinks we had and figure out if it's going to be over the legal limit or not. The result is you get more people taking these risks, but you don't find out about it as much, because everybody tries to hide it. You could say the exact same thing about bike helmets, seat belts, speed limits, drugs, even performance reviews at work. In every one of these cases, people do the right thing when they are genuinely worried about getting caught, but as soon as they stop worrying about that, they'll start doing the wrong things when they'd ordinarily be smart enough not to. In many ways, society's lack of common sense is because of our common-sense laws. If you treat people like children, they act like children. If you make a law against everything under the sun, then people start to assume that anything there isn't a law against must be perfectly fine, and where there is a law, they start to forget why the law is there. In essence, when you tell people that they can't think for themselves, they will stop thinking for themselves.

too much for me to read so could you summarize this?

quote:

Originally posted by infinity HiGH Remove the warning labels and let it all work itself out

And supplement this with a policy to catapult everyone who sues into the middle of Lake Ontario - without a life jacket.

(They'll continue telling the public that they actually awarded $10 million cash settlements, in case people start to wise up)

quote:

Originally posted by chinamon too much for me to read so could you summarize this?

I'm pretty sure you're just being an ass, but fine:

When you make a law against something stupid, normal ("smart") people forget that it's stupid, and just remember that it's against the law. When they realize that the law is loosely enforced, they become more likely to do the stupid thing than they were before you made the law.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut I'm pretty sure you're just being an ass, but fine: When you make a law against something stupid, normal ("smart") people forget that it's stupid, and just remember that it's against the law. When they realize that the law is loosely enforced, they become more likely to do the stupid thing than they were before you made the law.

oh okay.
no i wasnt being an ass. i hate reading stuff thats long.
ive probably only read two novels in my life. all textbooks from school never got past the first chapter.

quote:

Originally posted by chinamon oh okay. no i wasnt being an ass. i hate reading stuff thats long. ive probably only read two novels in my life. all textbooks from school never got past the first chapter.

You and I evidently have different definitions of the word "long".

Anyway, whether you believe it or not, it's true. When you try to stop stupidity with rules, you'll find that smart(er) people start acting dumb. The more rules you make, the dumber people get.

Just imagine the classic 3-foot high "DO NOT PRESS THIS BUTTON" sign. You just know some idiot is going to press it. And if the sign wasn't there, most people would ignore the stupid button.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Just imagine the classic 3-foot high "DO NOT PRESS THIS BUTTON" sign. You just know some idiot is going to press it. And if the sign wasn't there, most people would ignore the stupid button.

so you're saying that someone will push it whether the sign is there or not.

quote:

Originally posted by chinamon just because there is a law to do something does not mean that you have to follow it (ie. seatbelts) but it is a good way to remind people to put it on. i am all for this proposed life jacket law.

That would all be well and good if it was easy to not follow laws and get away with the consequences. Sorry dude, I'm with Digi and Infinityhigh on this.

quote:

Originally posted by chinamon so you're saying that someone will push it whether the sign is there or not.

I'm saying that an idiot might push it if the sign isn't there - but non-idiots will start doing it as soon as you put the sign there.

more laws = more fines. Why wouldnt the government want a new law?

Im just disappointed that the conservatives are starting to go down this path. They should stick to macro issues like they have traditionally done.

The visa issue with mexicans and czechs and now this have both really pissed me off. (not to mention the obama style debt we are in)

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.