An open challenge to anyone who supports government regulations.

[BlindBoo]

Cough Syrup, Dead Children, and the Case for Regulation | Speakeasy Science

Cough Syrup. Anybody come up with this one yet?

Both little girls lived in Tulsa, Oklahoma, both came down with nasty little colds in the fall of 1937, and both died because they were dosed with a brand new medication, a popular, raspberry-flavored cough syrup. In all, the syrup would kill 11 people in Oklahoma, within a few weeks. Ten in Alabama. Ten in Georgia. Twenty-three in Mississippi. Nine in South Carolina. Seven in Texas. More in California, Ohio, Illinois, Missouri, Virginia, Louisiana, and more.

But at the time that Elixir Sulfanilamide came to be, produced by the S.E. Massengill Company of Bristol, Tennessee, that wasn’t well understood. There was actually no legal requirement that companies understand their products, much less safety test them....

 

[Seawytch]

Researchers conclude all sorts of things. Funny thing, there are people that drive drunk even with suspended licenses, therefore the law doesn't actually save lives. What it actually does is make people feel good and lets politicians pretend that they are doing something.

That is some Silly ass logic dude. So if one person Ignores the Laws and Drives drunk it means Nobody has ever not driven Drunk because it's Illegal? Pure horse shit.

This Hits Home with me, Because, and it pains me to say this. My Brother is a Raging Alcoholic with 3 DUI's to his Name. I absolutely Guarantee that for the next 3 Years the LAW is preventing him from Driving Drunk because he is spending it in Prison. I have Little Sympathy for him. It's a Long story, But lets just say I have banged my head up against that wall for Years, and Finally realized he can only be helped if he wants to be, and he does not. I am glad, both because it means others are safer, and that he is, that he is not out free to get blasted and Drive right now.

I'm sorry to hear about your brother. I hope he gets the help he needs.

 

[Avorysuds]

Windbag, you have backed yourself into an absolutist argument which is indefensible.

Some of your argument has merit, but for you to pretend that laws against driving while intoxicated, for example, do not save lives is quite foolish.

I agree with this. Not all regulation is bad but I think regulations should have to be revisited evry few years to make sure they are doing what they set out to do or by defualt be removed.

 

[Sallow]

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...

1. Made seat belts in the first place,
2. Actually sell them if someone had made them,
3. Use them if both 1 and 2 were true.
4. That the end result is that no one dies.

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.

Ah the good ol Days..

Remembering the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire, 100 Years Later - WNYC

Three months after the fire, Governor John A. Dix signed a law creating the Factory Investigating Commission. Following the findings of the commission, the New York State Legislature enacted 36 statutes to regulate workplace fire safety and ventilation, and to set minimum standards for working women and children

 

[rdean]

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...

1. Made seat belts in the first place,
2. Actually sell them if someone had made them,
3. Use them if both 1 and 2 were true.
4. That the end result is that no one dies.

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.

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?

Exactly. Speed limits ARE regulations.

 

[bobcollum]

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.

Larger cars and trucks are safer than small cars. CAFE standards mandate fuel economy and force car companies to build smaller, lighter cars. QED CAFE standards make cars more dangerous.

Want me to prove anything else?

Yes, way back when it was like driving around in fast tanks.

That aspect certainly made it safer than today's fuel efficient cars...well, except for the lack of seat belts that caused numerous deaths from bouncing around inside the mini-tank like a rag-doll. Thank goodness for Ralph Nader forcing the government to do something about it.

Are you and KG the same person? You both share what seems to be at least a few opinions, along with that unwavering sense of correctness despite nearly the entire board telling you why you're wrong.

I"m not expecting a reasonable response.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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...

1. Made seat belts in the first place,
2. Actually sell them if someone had made them,
3. Use them if both 1 and 2 were true.
4. That the end result is that no one dies.

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.

A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.
Oscar Wilde

Yea, everyone knows that toxins, carcinogens and poisons are really good for you.

Next thing you need to say is that I want anarchy.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Do you think not having, them makes you more safe? Because if you do, you can tell that to the families of those 9 US soldiers who were electrocuted while taking showers in Iraq, because the utilities were not properly grounded. Well, properly in this country, they had no electrical code there. Unless you count the IBC.

I only claim to be an expert on two subjects:

1. The Los Angeles Lakers (which we will not go there)
2. Electrical engineering (which I've been doing for the last 35 years)

What makes you think those buildings were not certified as being built to code? Do you think the Army forgot to require that contractors meet appropriate federal regulations?

What make you think those buildings were not certified as being built to code? How about corpses?

Do you understand the difference between being government certified as safe and actually being safe?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Birfucation logical fallacy won't save you.

'WEDNESDAY, July 25 (HealthDay News) -- State laws that require police officers to immediately suspend a person's license when he or she fails an alcohol breath test save hundreds of lives each year, conclude University of Florida researchers.

In a study published in the August 2007 issue of Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research, the researchers looked at data on alcohol-related crashes from January 1976 to December 2002, to see how state laws affected fatalities.'

Tough State DWI Laws Save Lives - ABC News

Researchers conclude all sorts of things. Funny thing, there are people that drive drunk even with suspended licenses, therefore the law doesn't actually save lives. What it actually does is make people feel good and lets politicians pretend that they are doing something.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Confirmation bias of the highest order.

You asked for an example. It was given to you. You said "I don't believe it" based on absolutely nothing but your own bias.

I was actually pretty specific about what would, and would not, count as an example. Given that DUI standards actually increase alcohol related traffic fatalities any discussion of drunken driving regulations automatically fail.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

An open challenge to anyone who supports government regulations.

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.

I hereby issue Precedent!!!!!!

(....'Cause Teabagger-style hypotheticals ain't worth shit.)


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6whSWn1RRM]Great Depression - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[Flopper]

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

The answer to your question is regulations do not save lives.

And what proof do you offer?

 

[Billo_Really]

What makes you think those buildings were not certified as being built to code? Do you think the Army forgot to require that contractors meet appropriate federal regulations?

That's a separate issue. The question was, "Do regulations save lives?" Whether the regulation does not exist, or was not enforced, the end result was the same. A person died.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

Why is this concept so hard for people to grasp? Do laws against murder prevent murders? Do people honestly think that, without building codes, companies would not build safe houses?

.

Yes and yes.

 

[bobcollum]

[

Why is this concept so hard for people to grasp? Do laws against murder prevent murders? Do people honestly think that, without building codes, companies would not build safe houses?

.

Yes and yes.

I'd like to live in his head for about an hour just to see what it feels like.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Researchers conclude all sorts of things. Funny thing, there are people that drive drunk even with suspended licenses, therefore the law doesn't actually save lives. What it actually does is make people feel good and lets politicians pretend that they are doing something.

That is some Silly ass logic dude. So if one person Ignores the Laws and Drives drunk it means Nobody has ever not driven Drunk because it's Illegal? Pure horse shit.

This Hits Home with me, Because, and it pains me to say this. My Brother is a Raging Alcoholic with 3 DUI's to his Name. I absolutely Guarantee that for the next 3 Years the LAW is preventing him from Driving Drunk because he is spending it in Prison. I have Little Sympathy for him. It's a Long story, But lets just say I have banged my head up against that wall for Years, and Finally realized he can only be helped if he wants to be, and he does not. I am glad, both because it means others are safer, and that he is, that he is not out free to get blasted and Drive right now.

Don't take it personally.

Laws like this are based on anger, not logic. Instead of focusing on drunk driving police should be out targeting reckless drivers. Drunk driving checkpoints and texting bans tend to make the highway less safe, not safer. It diverts police resources from actually protecting people to enforcing feelgood laws. Police save lives, laws just give them guidelines to follow when doing so.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Larger cars and trucks are safer than small cars. CAFE standards mandate fuel economy and force car companies to build smaller, lighter cars. QED CAFE standards make cars more dangerous.

Want me to prove anything else?

Yes, way back when it was like driving around in fast tanks.

That aspect certainly made it safer than today's fuel efficient cars...well, except for the lack of seat belts that caused numerous deaths from bouncing around inside the mini-tank like a rag-doll. Thank goodness for Ralph Nader forcing the government to do something about it.

Are you and KG the same person? You both share what seems to be at least a few opinions, along with that unwavering sense of correctness despite nearly the entire board telling you why you're wrong.

I"m not expecting a reasonable response.

You aren't expecting a reasonable response because you think the only reasonable response is to agree with you. The strange thing is that law is supposed to make people safer, yet even you admit that the regulations about fuel efficiency actually make people less safe. Somebody is making money off of the laws that require cars to get better gas mileage, and they have blood on their hands.

Yet, somehow, I am unreasonable because I think that is wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You aren't going to answer my question.

LOL

The answer to your question is regulations do not save lives.

And what proof do you offer?

You want proof other than the CAFE standards that make cars less safe and the fact that alcohol related traffic deaths when DUI laws get stricter?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What makes you think those buildings were not certified as being built to code? Do you think the Army forgot to require that contractors meet appropriate federal regulations?

That's a separate issue. The question was, "Do regulations save lives?" Whether the regulation does not exist, or was not enforced, the end result was the same. A person died.

And you brought up the fact that people died in the shower, and then said that it happened because Iraq does not have the same level of regulation. Since the buildings were built under contract to the US Army, and the US Army actually has a building code that applies to all bases in the world, the problem was not that the regulations did not exist, the problem was that they were ignored. That alone is proof that regulations don't actually save lives, if they did no one could ignore them.

 

[RDD_1210]

This thread is amazing on so many levels.

1) We actually have liberals, and conservatives agreeing on something for once

2) NO ONE agrees with Quantum Windbag, except for Quantum Windbag. This is either an example of some amazing social experiment or an example of extreme stubbornness.

3) The most amazing thing of all - you managed to make SniperFire seem rational and reasonable. BRAVO!

 

[bobcollum]

Larger cars and trucks are safer than small cars. CAFE standards mandate fuel economy and force car companies to build smaller, lighter cars. QED CAFE standards make cars more dangerous.

Want me to prove anything else?

Yes, way back when it was like driving around in fast tanks.

That aspect certainly made it safer than today's fuel efficient cars...well, except for the lack of seat belts that caused numerous deaths from bouncing around inside the mini-tank like a rag-doll. Thank goodness for Ralph Nader forcing the government to do something about it.

Are you and KG the same person? You both share what seems to be at least a few opinions, along with that unwavering sense of correctness despite nearly the entire board telling you why you're wrong.

I"m not expecting a reasonable response.

You aren't expecting a reasonable response because you think the only reasonable response is to agree with you. The strange thing is that law is supposed to make people safer, yet even you admit that the regulations about fuel efficiency actually make people less safe. Somebody is making money off of the laws that require cars to get better gas mileage, and they have blood on their hands.

Yet, somehow, I am unreasonable because I think that is wrong.

You can't prove me wrong so why wouldn't you agree?

Don't get too hopeful, one of the more dangerous things about small fuel-efficient cars are the road beasts that still prowl the roads and could flatten one like a pancake.

Do you think there's enough public backlash about fuel-efficient cars to warrant such a ridiculous argument?

So I notice you didn't mention the regulations passed that required the major car makers to install seatbelts as standard equipment.

Are you willing to argue that it never saved any lives? Of course as I said before I can't prove it, people aren't part of a statistic when you're uninjured in a car accident.

But then of course you can't prove anything either, one would hope we can be honest about the probability of it.