«

On 17 Aug 2008 at 13:30, wrote:
> No, *you* missed the point. Someone pointed this possibility to you.
> You said "has this really happened?" and you asked for "citation".
> So here is the citation. Now you say it's pointless. What's it gonna
> be?

Oops, yes, sorry. It's relevant to that, you're right.

>> The question was whether the state should *force* people
>> to avoid taking the risk.
>
> Argue with your congressman then (if you're in Canada, UK, Japan,
> or some of the select US states), or just be happy (if you live
> elsewhere)

Unfortunately, once a freedom has been removed from the individual by
the state, history shows that it's very hard indeed to get the state to
give it back.

In article <>,
Antoninus Twink <> wrote:
>On 17 Aug 2008 at 13:14, Kenny McCormack wrote:
>> Antoninus Twink <> wrote:
>>>The question was whether the state should *force* people to avoid taking
>>>the risk.
>>
>> But let me just say that the idea that the world *should* be made as
>> safe as possible - and that government is the tool that should be
>> employed to bring this about - does have a lot of appeal. Like "int
>> main()", it is kinda hard to argue against it.
>
>Well, not really. The state shouldn't ban something just because it's
>dangerous. The state should trust people to make their own judgment
>about what level of personal risk they want to take, insofar as it
>doesn't seriously affect others. It's just the difference between a
>liberal society and a totalitarian one.

I don't doubt that you (quite sensibly) believe that (and I'm not saying
I agree or disagree). But I'm saying that the alternative view (the one
described above - i.e., that the world *should* be idiot-proofed) is a
reasonable one to hold - and one that many do hold.

Just like the view that one should not cast the return value of malloc().

Heh - I think I've just run out of clc-valid analogies...

>>>If I go abseiling and trust my life to someone I know to be drunk or
>>
>> What is "abseiling"? A typo?
>
>I don't think so?

Then what is it?

On 17 Aug 2008 at 17:54, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> Antoninus Twink <> wrote:
>>On 17 Aug 2008 at 13:14, Kenny McCormack wrote:
>>> What is "abseiling"? A typo?
>>
>>I don't think so?
>
> Then what is it?

$ dict abseil
1 definition found

From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:

abseil
n : a descent down a nearly vertical surface by using a doubled
rope that is coiled around the body and attached to some
higher point
v : lower oneself with a double rope coiled around the body from
a mountainside; "The ascent was easy--roping down the
mountain would be much more difficult and dangerous";
"You have to learn how to abseil when you want to do
technical climbing" [syn: {rappel}, {rope down}]

Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> "Joachim Schmitz" <> wrote in message
> news:g88v17$oam$...
>> Antoninus Twink wrote:
>>> On 16 Aug 2008 at 21:47, wrote:
>>>>> This study found that, using the data between 1995-1999 in a
>>>>> country where back seat belts were not mandatory (in this case
>>>>> the data came from Japan), the front seat passenger's death rate
>>>>> increase by more than 75% if back seat was not wearing a seat
>>>>> belt. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15094416
>>>
>>> You've completely missed the point.
>>>
>>> I'm not arguing for a second that having all occupants of a car wear
>>> seatbelts isn't an extremely efficacious safety measure that anyone
>>> with half a brain cell would insist upon when they were driving.
>>>
>>> The question was whether the state should *force* people to avoid
>>> taking the risk.
>>>
>>> If I go abseiling and trust my life to someone I know to be drunk or
>>> incompetent, should that be illegal? If I choose to drive allowing
>>> the person in the seat behind me not to wear a seatbelt, should
>>> that be illegal?
>>
>> Committing suizide _is_ illegal. The attempt gets punished.
>
> The dead body gets locked up forever.

. I said: "the attempt gets punished", of course I meant "the failed
attempt gets punished"

Bye, Jojo

Antoninus Twink wrote:
> On 17 Aug 2008 at 17:54, Kenny McCormack wrote:
>> Antoninus Twink <> wrote:
>>> On 17 Aug 2008 at 13:14, Kenny McCormack wrote:
>>>> What is "abseiling"? A typo?
>>>
>>> I don't think so?
>>
>> Then what is it?
>
> $ dict abseil
> 1 definition found
>
> From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:
>
> abseil
> n : a descent down a nearly vertical surface by using a doubled
> rope that is coiled around the body and attached to some
> higher point
> v : lower oneself with a double rope coiled around the body from
> a mountainside; "The ascent was easy--roping down the
> mountain would be much more difficult and dangerous";
> "You have to learn how to abseil when you want to do
> technical climbing" [syn: {rappel}, {rope down}]

Apparently lend from the German language, in which it does have exactly the
same meaning and even spelling.

Bye, Jojo

"Joachim Schmitz" <> writes:
> Antoninus Twink wrote:
[...]
>
> Utter nonsense.
[...]

Please stop feeding the troll.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst- <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

"Kenny McCormack" <> wrote in message
news:g89ojq$sda$...
> In article <>,
> Antoninus Twink <> wrote:
>>On 17 Aug 2008 at 13:14, Kenny McCormack wrote:
>>> Antoninus Twink <> wrote:
>>>>The question was whether the state should *force* people to avoid taking
>>>>the risk.
>>>
>>> But let me just say that the idea that the world *should* be made as
>>> safe as possible - and that government is the tool that should be
>>> employed to bring this about - does have a lot of appeal. Like "int
>>> main()", it is kinda hard to argue against it.
>>
>>Well, not really. The state shouldn't ban something just because it's
>>dangerous. The state should trust people to make their own judgment
>>about what level of personal risk they want to take, insofar as it
>>doesn't seriously affect others. It's just the difference between a
>>liberal society and a totalitarian one.
>
> I don't doubt that you (quite sensibly) believe that (and I'm not saying
> I agree or disagree). But I'm saying that the alternative view (the one
> described above - i.e., that the world *should* be idiot-proofed) is a
> reasonable one to hold - and one that many do hold.

Are you in favor of restaurants being forced to stick corks on the end of
there forks and knifes because somebody might be able to poke their eye out?
It's not the restaurants fault if somebody accidentally blinds themselves
with a spoon or something... Also, cars with no steering wheels... Humm...
Think along the lines of:


Q: Mr. Automaker, I understand you create cars with steering wheels, is that
correct?
------
A: Yes Sir.



Q: Did your so-called steering wheel allow the now deceased Mr. Smith to
turn into and drive right off a cliff?
------
A: Yes Sir.



Q: Mr. Automaker, since you make cars with steering wheels, and that device
allowed Mr. Smith to kill himself, the only possible conclusion is that its
all your fault! You careless murderer!
------
A: Bullshi%



LOL! :^)



[...]

"Joachim Schmitz" <> wrote in message
news:g89umb$pcs$...
> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> "Joachim Schmitz" <> wrote in message
>> news:g88v17$oam$...
>>> Antoninus Twink wrote:
>>>> On 16 Aug 2008 at 21:47, wrote:
>>>>>> This study found that, using the data between 1995-1999 in a
>>>>>> country where back seat belts were not mandatory (in this case
>>>>>> the data came from Japan), the front seat passenger's death rate
>>>>>> increase by more than 75% if back seat was not wearing a seat
>>>>>> belt. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15094416
>>>>
>>>> You've completely missed the point.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not arguing for a second that having all occupants of a car wear
>>>> seatbelts isn't an extremely efficacious safety measure that anyone
>>>> with half a brain cell would insist upon when they were driving.
>>>>
>>>> The question was whether the state should *force* people to avoid
>>>> taking the risk.
>>>>
>>>> If I go abseiling and trust my life to someone I know to be drunk or
>>>> incompetent, should that be illegal? If I choose to drive allowing
>>>> the person in the seat behind me not to wear a seatbelt, should
>>>> that be illegal?
>>>
>>> Committing suizide _is_ illegal. The attempt gets punished.
>>
>> The dead body gets locked up forever.
>
> . I said: "the attempt gets punished", of course I meant "the failed
> attempt gets punished"

Indeed! =^D


I have never really understood how somebody could possibly fail to commit
suicide. I mean if you really want to die, and you fail, well, then you
really have a solid reason to kill yourself! Ouch.

"Ian Collins" <ian-> wrote in message
news:...
> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> Ian Collins said:
>>
>>> Joachim Schmitz wrote:
>>>> Antoninus Twink wrote:
>>>>> On 11 Aug 2008 at 22:17, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>>> Willem said:
>>>>>>> The person driviong that other car would, if you were killed, have
>>>>>>> the very traumatic experience of having caused your death, as
>>>>>>> opposed to just causing you some injuries had you worn your
>>>>>>> seatbelt.
>>>>>> They might also suffer the even more traumatic experience of having
>>>>>> you smash through their windscreen, injuring or even killing them.
>>>>> Oh come on, has this ever actually happened?
>>>> Yes it surely has. It has also happend that passengers not using their
>>>> belt injured/killed the (belted) driver in such accidents.
>>>>
>>> Which is why sensible countries require back seat passengers to wear
>>> seatbelts. How does this relate to C by the way?
>>
>> It's an analogy to do with the use of gets(), first raised in this thread
>> by Eric Sosman, in which he suggests that those who use gets() despite
>> its
>> known dangers are analogous to those who refuse to wear seatbelts. As
>> such, it's reasonably relevant. Although it is possible to stretch an
>> analogy too far (which is why "proof by analogy is fraud", as Stroustrup
>> rightly said), I don't think this has happened yet in the current case.
>>
> Ah. This thread had reached the point where it required interpretation!
>
> Given the context, the requirement to wear seatbelts in the back is
> quite a good one.

What happens if the driver hit the brakes for whatever reason, and the
seatbelt causes severe personal injury to the occupant(s) of the back seat?
Who gets to get sued?

"Chris M. Thomasson" <> wrote in message
news:aDaqk.42308$...
> "Ian Collins" <ian-> wrote in message
> news:...
>> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> Ian Collins said:
>>>
>>>> Joachim Schmitz wrote:
>>>>> Antoninus Twink wrote:
>>>>>> On 11 Aug 2008 at 22:17, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>>>> Willem said:
>>>>>>>> The person driviong that other car would, if you were killed, have
>>>>>>>> the very traumatic experience of having caused your death, as
>>>>>>>> opposed to just causing you some injuries had you worn your
>>>>>>>> seatbelt.
>>>>>>> They might also suffer the even more traumatic experience of having
>>>>>>> you smash through their windscreen, injuring or even killing them.
>>>>>> Oh come on, has this ever actually happened?
>>>>> Yes it surely has. It has also happend that passengers not using their
>>>>> belt injured/killed the (belted) driver in such accidents.
>>>>>
>>>> Which is why sensible countries require back seat passengers to wear
>>>> seatbelts. How does this relate to C by the way?
>>>
>>> It's an analogy to do with the use of gets(), first raised in this
>>> thread
>>> by Eric Sosman, in which he suggests that those who use gets() despite
>>> its
>>> known dangers are analogous to those who refuse to wear seatbelts. As
>>> such, it's reasonably relevant. Although it is possible to stretch an
>>> analogy too far (which is why "proof by analogy is fraud", as Stroustrup
>>> rightly said), I don't think this has happened yet in the current case.
>>>
>> Ah. This thread had reached the point where it required interpretation!
>>
>> Given the context, the requirement to wear seatbelts in the back is
>> quite a good one.
>
> What happens if the driver hit the brakes for whatever reason, and the
> seatbelt causes severe personal injury to the occupant(s) of the back
> seat? Who gets to get sued?

Think along the lines of whiplash of the neck... Ooops, I can't move my head
because it really hurts!