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 DigiNut 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.

i dunno bro.. i still dont agree.
only idiots will push the button whether the sign is there or not.
non-idiots will be able to evaluate the consequences but may still push the button.

fuck what is the point of this argument anyway? i give up. you win.

quote:

Originally posted by chinamon non-idiots will be able to evaluate the consequences but may still push the button.

But there's the rub. Non-idiots will only evaluate the consequences for themselves if you don't spell out the consequences for them. As soon as you do, they stop thinking about the "real" consequences.

- Before the law, the consequences were: You might fall overboard and drown.
- After the law, the consequences are: You might get caught and have to pay some retarded fine.

Now the smart folks start to doubt their own motivation. You might think that a smart person would go, "Well, I'm probably not going to get caught, but I could still drown", but you would be wrong. They've taught themselves to believe that the reason for wearing a life jacket is because it's the law. If they think the law doesn't apply for some reason or they won't get caught, then they won't wear it.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut But there's the rub. Non-idiots will only evaluate the consequences for themselves if you don't spell out the consequences for them. As soon as you do, they stop thinking about the "real" consequences. - Before the law, the consequences were: You might fall overboard and drown. - After the law, the consequences are: You might get caught and have to pay some retarded fine. Now the smart folks start to doubt their own motivation. You might think that a smart person would go, "Well, I'm probably not going to get caught, but I could still drown", but you would be wrong. They've taught themselves to believe that the reason for wearing a life jacket is because it's the law. If they think the law doesn't apply for some reason or they won't get caught, then they won't wear it.

Yep. My question is why does the Government believe a fine trumps looking at the situation from my own safety? It's like that's what they're doing...

Probably $ and they use it in the guise of "Were just looking out for your safety". Like I need them to tell me to look both ways while walking the street...psht.

quote:

Originally posted by Endlesswave Yep. My question is why does the Government believe a fine trumps looking at the situation from my own safety? It's like that's what they're doing... Probably $ and they use it in the guise of "Were just looking out for your safety". Like I need them to tell me to look both ways while walking the street...psht.

Its the same when it comes to the environment and health. More laws = more power = more money

quote:

Originally posted by Endlesswave Yep. My question is why does the Government believe a fine trumps looking at the situation from my own safety? It's like that's what they're doing...

Same reason MBAs think that handing out bonuses for jobs that their employees are already being paid to do will result in better work:
- If you take it out of context, it seems to make sense;
- Once in a while, it actually works;
- It's more obvious when it succeeds (or seems to succeed) than when it fails.

I don't believe that it's just a cash grab. I'm sure that there are a few manipulative assholes in the fold who want to use it that way, but these ideas wouldn't succeed if it weren't for well-meaning people who fool themselves into believing that it will save lives.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Same reason MBAs think that handing out bonuses for jobs that their employees are already being paid to do will result in better work: - If you take it out of context, it seems to make sense; - Once in a while, it actually works; - It's more obvious when it succeeds (or seems to succeed) than when it fails. I don't believe that it's just a cash grab. I'm sure that there are a few manipulative assholes in the fold who want to use it that way, but these ideas wouldn't succeed if it weren't for well-meaning people who fool themselves into believing that it will save lives.

Ah, it's like the "Better safe than sorry" deal. Well meaning but serves an annoying but necessary (from their pov) purpose.

quote:

Originally posted by chinamon i think it is good to have mandatory life jackets on a boat. if people are stupid enough to not wear one then it is about time for the law to force you to wear it. if seatbelts are mandatory because it can save your life then so should life jackets.

that's certainly one argument.

I guess a counterpoint is that in cars, you're on the road with countless other motorists. and in the event of impact, you're going through a windshield. the # of accidents, even minor ones that would result in serious injury if you're not belted, justifies the law, IMHO.

in a boat, the issue is not collisions and a life jacket isn't restraining you from any impact.

kinda different?

I'm fine with requiring that enough PFDs be on board so that everyone has one in the event of trouble. I also think life jackets *should* be worn in moving boats, at least small, open ones. maybe even *that* could be tolerated as a requirement.

but mandatory at all times in all types of vessels? that's a tough sell and I don't agree with it. I think that crosses a line of what is reasonable (and yes, I think we can draw that line)

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 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)

Your troll in that direction has been met with success.

I actually find it right to have issued visa requirements to Czechs.

quote:

Originally posted by Endlesswave Sorry dude, I'm with Digi and Infinityhigh on this.

What about me?


And, as always, Aaron, you've articulated the point far more clearly than I could. ^5

Merci.

quote:

Originally posted by Endlesswave Ah, it's like the "Better safe than sorry" deal. Well meaning but serves an annoying but necessary (from their pov) purpose.

I first, I was simply going to respond with "Like a condom, you mean."
But I refrained from doing so in recognisance of my humble professionalism.

But solution somewhat equivalent in grandeur would be if the government legislates fashion for the good of all people of Ontario.
Because we're being made a law we never had, so nothing lost, eh? With this thinking of conjuring laws for every little possibility of a frown face, our government should make the following fashion mandatory for all, as even if it just saves one life... it will all be worth it.

quote:

Originally posted by Abercrombie I first, I was simply going to respond with "Like a condom, you mean." But I refrained from doing so in recognisance of my humble professionalism. But solution somewhat equivalent in grandeur would be if the government legislates fashion for the good of all people of Ontario. Because we're being made a law we never had, so nothing lost, eh? With this thinking of conjuring laws for every little possibility of a frown face, our government should make the following fashion mandatory for all, as even if it just saves one life... it will all be worth it.

Aj haha, awesome.

And for sure Jamie, you too.

HAIL ZOLTAN!

Fuck. Yes. I watched that movie.

We will all be safe.

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