LoneLaugher
Diamond Member
Fuck. When QW can't even get SniperFool to join the chorus, you know you have thread fail.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Drive your family on vacation in a car made without safety regulations on a road without speed limits. If you come back, tell us how it was.
You know of public roads without speed limits?
The Autobahn comes to mind, and that is not the only one.
I am really fracking tired of explaining the facts of life to everyone who thinks regulations are good and lack of regulation kills people. I hereby issue a challenge.
Give me a single real world example of a regulation that has actually prevents deaths. I know there are a lot of idiots that are going to point at all sorts of things, like requiring seat belts in cars, and say that proves their point, but that is not going to cut it here. You need to prove that, without said regulation, people would die because no one would have...
Regulations are not designed to protect people from dangerous products, they are designed to limit liability in case someone actually gets hurt. Companies go to court all the time and argue that they are not liable because they met all applicable government regulations, and the government supports them in this. We live in crony capitalist world where the government makes choices about who lives and who dies based on what some number cruncher somewhere claims is for the common good.
- Made seat belts in the first place,
- Actually sell them if someone had made them,
- Use them if both 1 and 2 were true.
- That the end result is that no one dies.
We don't need no stinkin regulations prohibiting gay marriage?
People who are timid, weak of character, and can't think for themselves love regulations. It gives them a sense of security in the big bad world.
You really want to shift to something besides cars if you want to prove your point because I can easily prove regulations actually kill people when we are talking about cars.
Auto Deaths a Side Effect of Higher Fuel Efficiency Standards
Crumple zones are smaller than they used to be because government regulations require cars to be of lower weight to meet gas mileage standards.
So crash test standards have never saved one life, then?
Let me hear you say it.
Can you prove that without federal standards cars would be more dangerous? Keep in mind that everything that the government has mandated for crash test survivability was developed by auto makers long before the government regulated it.
I am really fracking tired of explaining the facts of life to everyone who thinks regulations are good and lack of regulation kills people. I hereby issue a challenge.
Give me a single real world example of a regulation that has actually prevents deaths. I know there are a lot of idiots that are going to point at all sorts of things, like requiring seat belts in cars, and say that proves their point, but that is not going to cut it here. You need to prove that, without said regulation, people would die because no one would have...
Regulations are not designed to protect people from dangerous products, they are designed to limit liability in case someone actually gets hurt. Companies go to court all the time and argue that they are not liable because they met all applicable government regulations, and the government supports them in this. We live in crony capitalist world where the government makes choices about who lives and who dies based on what some number cruncher somewhere claims is for the common good.
- Made seat belts in the first place,
- Actually sell them if someone had made them,
- Use them if both 1 and 2 were true.
- That the end result is that no one dies.
Do a study on US railroad safety and see why/when it improved.
So crash test standards have never saved one life, then?
Let me hear you say it.
Can you prove that without federal standards cars would be more dangerous? Keep in mind that everything that the government has mandated for crash test survivability was developed by auto makers long before the government regulated it.
You aren't going to answer my question.
LOL
Certainly don't.We don't need no stinkin regulations prohibiting gay marriage?
Regulating drunk driving has prevented deaths.
Or do you want to argue that because government made it illegal to drink and drive, more people drink and drive because of government regulation.
Dumb thread.
Give me a single real world example of a regulation that has actually prevents deaths.
A rule requiring the cotton industry to reduce dust in textile factories lowered the
prevalence of brown lung among industry employees by 97 percent;
A rule requiring employers to place locks and warning labels on powered equipment
is credited with preventing 50,000 injuries and 120 fatalities per year;
A rule on excavations at construction sites has reduced the fatality rate from cave-ins
by 40 percent;
A grain-handling facilities standard has reduced the number of fatalities caused by
dust-related explosions by 95 percent;
And a 1969 mine safety law led to a rapid 50 percent decrease in the coal mine
fatality rate.
So crash test standards have never saved one life, then?
Let me hear you say it.
Can you prove that without federal standards cars would be more dangerous? Keep in mind that everything that the government has mandated for crash test survivability was developed by auto makers long before the government regulated it.
What you're asking for is impossible to produce, there aren't any stats kept on when nothing happens.
I could just as easily ask you to prove that they wouldn't be more dangerous.