# Priorities



## Beach Kowboy (Feb 13, 2014)

It never ceases to amaze me how dependant are on their cell phone and internet devices. Seems people jump on the phone to record shit rather than helping someone that might be in trouble. Then you have the texting and driving. You see some dipshit driving 70-80mph ont he highway and are looking at their phone for 10 seconds and longer without looking up. In the past 2 days alone I have seen 2 different articles that involved their deaths. The first was a guy in South Korea that posted video of the inside of the ferry as it went down. Maybe if he was trying to get out instead of taking video and posting it online. He might have survived. The other was a lady that pasted on Facebook "A song that made her happy". She posted that at like 8:33 and 911 received a call about her accident at 8:34.. At least she dies happy I guess. She went across the median into oncoming traffic and was killed. At least she didn't take anyone with her I guess.

People need to pay more ****ing attention to what they are doing instead of worrying about what is going on with Facebook and other online shit! Personally, I am ont he edge of thinking that if you are texting and driving or doing something online and get into an accident. It should be a criminal offence just like a DUI...


----------



## Ripon (Dec 22, 2012)

There were stories, last week I believe, about a woman in Australia I believe that got probation after hurting someone while driving and texting. There was some public comment by her like "I don't care" that the judge saw and took offense too - if I heard the story right she got a whopping 9 months in jail after that - but it was reported she still didn't care or plan to change her ways.

I know many don't care for marijuana being illegal, but if people can't even bother to put down their cell phones what is going to stop them from getting high and driving home? What is going to stop them from getting high while driving home? Irresponsible children get their asses slapped as they should, irresponsible adults kill people.



Beach Kowboy said:


> It never ceases to amaze me how dependant are on their cell phone and internet devices. Seems people jump on the phone to record shit rather than helping someone that might be in trouble. Then you have the texting and driving. You see some dipshit driving 70-80mph ont he highway and are looking at their phone for 10 seconds and longer without looking up. In the past 2 days alone I have seen 2 different articles that involved their deaths. The first was a guy in South Korea that posted video of the inside of the ferry as it went down. Maybe if he was trying to get out instead of taking video and posting it online. He might have survived. The other was a lady that pasted on Facebook "A song that made her happy". She posted that at like 8:33 and 911 received a call about her accident at 8:34.. At least she dies happy I guess. She went across the median into oncoming traffic and was killed. At least she didn't take anyone with her I guess.
> 
> People need to pay more ****ing attention to what they are doing instead of worrying about what is going on with Facebook and other online shit! Personally, I am ont he edge of thinking that if you are texting and driving or doing something online and get into an accident. It should be a criminal offence just like a DUI...


----------



## Beach Kowboy (Feb 13, 2014)

Ripon said:


> There were stories, last week I believe, about a woman in Australia I believe that got probation after hurting someone while driving and texting. There was some public comment by her like "I don't care" that the judge saw and took offense too - if I heard the story right she got a whopping 9 months in jail after that - but it was reported she still didn't care or plan to change her ways.
> 
> I know many don't care for marijuana being illegal, but if people can't even bother to put down their cell phones what is going to stop them from getting high and driving home? What is going to stop them from getting high while driving home? Irresponsible children get their asses slapped as they should, irresponsible adults kill people.


I remember that last week. She said she didn't care and was bitching about denting her "expensive" car.. People like her are a waste of air and will be the first to go if shtf. They wont have any idea how to survive if they can't get online.. Sucks to be them!! I hope she gets a long sentence just for bein a bitch!


----------



## GTGallop (Nov 11, 2012)

I'd challenge anyone here to go 48 hours (one weekend) with no electronic communication.

No phones - cell or land.
No Internet or E-Mail or text.
No TV broadcast or radio broadcast.

You CAN read books and news paper.
You CAN watch DVD's (pre-recorded).
You CAN play video games that are contained within your house - No World of Warcraft stuff.

Got the concept? No inbound or outbound news, information, or other communication outside of genuine person to person talking - face to face.


----------



## SARGE7402 (Nov 18, 2012)

Isn't the first amendment part of the Bill of Rights? Now you go and want to restrict someones free speech rights. What is this world coming to


----------



## paraquack (Mar 1, 2013)

Can I write notes and send them by carrier pigeon? Actually I think a lot of on here could do that. It the really young people (30 and under) that I worry about. I call it an addiction. And then there are the really young people who no concept of actually speaking face to face. I had neighbor's dating boy who had girlfriend over and they sat on the sofa texting each other. I suppose they could have be sexting, in which I guess i understand.


----------



## Leon (Jan 30, 2012)

GTGallop said:


> I'd challenge anyone here to go 48 hours (one weekend) with no electronic communication.
> 
> No phones - cell or land.
> No Internet or E-Mail or text.
> ...


May 15th the new MAD MAX game comes out CHALLENGE ACCEPTED!


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

I do not disagree. However I am paid very well for what I do. Part of the contact requires me to be wired. The minute I chose to cut that wire I chose to give up the compensation. That day will come but not today.


----------



## Beach Kowboy (Feb 13, 2014)

Smitty901 said:


> I do not disagree. However I am paid very well for what I do. Part of the contact requires me to be wired. The minute I chose to cut that wire I chose to give up the compensation. That day will come but not today.


Same for me. Only about 30% of my income is from ranching. Most of my income is from online sources. here where we are, even this far out. We have high speed internet. There is ZERO cell service so I am NEVER on my cell phone unless we are in town and even then it is VERY minimal. The last time I was on my cell was prlly Jan or early Feb..


----------



## sparkyprep (Jul 5, 2013)

Beach Kowboy said:


> It never ceases to amaze me how dependant are on their cell phone and internet devices. Seems people jump on the phone to record shit rather than helping someone that might be in trouble. Then you have the texting and driving. You see some dipshit driving 70-80mph ont he highway and are looking at their phone for 10 seconds and longer without looking up. In the past 2 days alone I have seen 2 different articles that involved their deaths. The first was a guy in South Korea that posted video of the inside of the ferry as it went down. Maybe if he was trying to get out instead of taking video and posting it online. He might have survived. The other was a lady that pasted on Facebook "A song that made her happy". She posted that at like 8:33 and 911 received a call about her accident at 8:34.. At least she dies happy I guess. She went across the median into oncoming traffic and was killed. At least she didn't take anyone with her I guess.
> 
> People need to pay more ****ing attention to what they are doing instead of worrying about what is going on with Facebook and other online shit! Personally, I am ont he edge of thinking that if you are texting and driving or doing something online and get into an accident. It should be a criminal offence just like a DUI...


BK, I personally don't have a problem with people perishing due to their obsession with their electronics, as long as no one else is hurt or killed in the process. It's like adding chlorine to the gene pool. Thinning the herd.

What I find saddening is watching a family at a restaurant, and the mom, dad, and all the kids are staring down at their devices, not even looking at one another, let alone having conversation. Is this what the American family has become?


----------



## Beach Kowboy (Feb 13, 2014)

sparkyprep said:


> BK, I personally don't have a problem with people perishing due to their obsession with their electronics, as long as no one else is hurt or killed in the process. It's like adding chlorine to the gene pool. Thinning the herd.
> 
> What I find saddening is watching a family at a restaurant, and the mom, dad, and all the kids are staring down at their devices, not even looking at one another, let alone having conversation. Is this what the American family has become?


One of the reasons I take a cell phone jammer to restaurants,stores,movies and a few other places.. Even when the person in front of you is on the phone and driving slow. Turn onthe jammer and he all of the sudden knows how to drive again..


----------



## sparkyprep (Jul 5, 2013)

Gotta get me one of those


----------



## bigdogbuc (Mar 23, 2012)

I promote people texting and driving, filming while being in the middle of a deadly situation. It thins the herd of stupid, self absorbed people who have no regard for others. Unfortunately, it sometimes takes out the innocent in the process. 

In my state, it is a criminal offense. There was an accident a couple of years ago where a guy rear ended a car about 10 minutes from here. A 2 year old in the back seat of the car that was hit was killed. They discovered he had been texting at the time of the accident, and he was charged and convicted of Vehicular Homicide. 

If you are caught talking on the phone or texting while driving, it is a ticket. If you're involved in an accident and someone is injured, it is Vehicular Assault, if someone dies, it's Vehicular Homicide. Which amazes me that more people aren't pulled over for it. Every time I'm driving, even a short trip, I'll see half a dozen or more people doing it; Holding the phone up talking, looking in their laps, look up, back to their lap, type a little bit, look back up. I'm just waiting for the time when I witness an accident so I can stop and tell the cops, "That asshole was texting."

I don't own a cell phone. I hate them. There are times when I'm like "If only I had a cell phone right now...", but it's few and far between. Certainly not enough to warrant the expense and the electronic umbilical cord to home...


----------



## Beach Kowboy (Feb 13, 2014)

sparkyprep said:


> Gotta get me one of those


It is some of the best money I have ever spent.. Hell, you can get one that does cell,wifi,gps,bluetooth and other stuff for less than $400


----------



## pheniox17 (Dec 12, 2013)

Ripon said:


> There were stories, last week I believe, about a woman in Australia I believe that got probation after hurting someone while driving and texting. There was some public comment by her like "I don't care" that the judge saw and took offense too - if I heard the story right she got a whopping 9 months in jail after that - but it was reported she still didn't care or plan to change her ways.
> 
> I know many don't care for marijuana being illegal, but if people can't even bother to put down their cell phones what is going to stop them from getting high and driving home? What is going to stop them from getting high while driving home? Irresponsible children get their asses slapped as they should, irresponsible adults kill people.


here is a $550 fine and 3 points of your licence just getting busted on your phone

what 3 points mean we have 12 points on a open car licence, for 5 years and 4 points on your p's (goes L- learner, p- provisional red then greem and c- opens)

there is one in the crowd, but I also watch bugger all mainstream news


----------



## keith9365 (Apr 23, 2014)

About 6 months ago a budy of mine and his wife were riding their bike on a back road. Some dipshit was texting while he was driving and started to run off the road. He over corrected and crossed the centerline hitting him and his wife head on killing them instantly. They left 2 daughters behind.


----------



## Beach Kowboy (Feb 13, 2014)

keith9365 said:


> About 6 months ago a budy of mine and his wife were riding their bike on a back road. Some dipshit was texting while he was driving and started to run off the road. He over corrected and crossed the centerline hitting him and his wife head on killing them instantly. They left 2 daughters behind.


Texting and driving should be about the same as a dui as far as I'm concerned. That have had test after test and I have even seen it first hand. Some dipshit texting or whatever else but looking at their phone for 10 seconds or longer WHILE they are behind the wheel.. I am ALL for freedom but stupidity is a whole different matter. 
I'm not saying people cant text or whatever else. Just not while they are behind the wheel.. Anyone that is against this is a ****in retard!!!!


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

I can accept that challenge. I often go for days without having electronic input.
My phone is a land line and I rarely use it - no TV - I don't even listen to the radio (AM) in my car. I use my computer but its mostly for drafting or one of the engineering programs that I have. I get on the internet before or after the workday and I try to keep the time down to a minimum except when I take the two hours that I use up here. (it takes that long to get caught back up)


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

The PRNY has made it illegal to text and or use a phone (without a hands free device) while driving. I for one don't like these laws, it is akin to protecting yourself from yourself by making people use seatbelts, wear helmets and restricting semi automatic "assault weapons" from the public. No body ever said "give me safety or give me death."

You punish people for doing things that cause harm to others or to property. Someone doing 95 in a 65 on a lonely highway is not hurting anyone. the entire population should not be held hostage or denied liberty because someone went out and Darwin's themself.


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

Beach Kowboy said:


> Texting and driving should be about the same as a dui as far as I'm concerned. That have had test after test and I have even seen it first hand. Some dipshit texting or whatever else but looking at their phone for 10 seconds or longer WHILE they are behind the wheel.. I am ALL for freedom but stupidity is a whole different matter.
> I'm not saying people cant text or whatever else. Just not while they are behind the wheel.. Anyone that is against this is a ****in retard!!!!


well in that case there are other just as distracting behaviors while driving that should be illegal too. Eating, drinking (non-alcohol), talking to passengers, listening to the radio, applying makup, reading, using a gps, tuning your radio, selecting a song from your play list, lighting a cigarette, having sex and disciplining your children.


----------



## Beach Kowboy (Feb 13, 2014)

dsdmmat said:


> well in that case there are other just as distracting behaviors while driving that should be illegal too. Eating, drinking (non-alcohol), talking to passengers, listening to the radio, applying makup, reading, using a gps, tuning your radio, selecting a song from your play list, lighting a cigarette, having sex and disciplining your children.


Nothing wrong with having sex while driving! Or anytime else for that matter.


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

Beach Kowboy said:


> Nothing wrong with having sex while driving! Or anytime else for that matter.


I just hate laws that restrict the population from doin something when there is no harm involved by an individual doing something. The whole notion of making something illegal because it may be dangerous strikes at people taking personal responsibility and being held accountable for their actions. The no texting thing has become a huge money maker over here for the towns. My Niece was pulled over and given a ticket for texting and driving. She was not and we pulled her phone records to prove it, she still had to pay a court fee of 35 dollars even though she did nothing wrong and was not found guilty of anything.


----------



## bigdogbuc (Mar 23, 2012)

dsdmmat said:


> I just hate laws that restrict the population from doin something when there is no harm involved by an individual doing something. The whole notion of making something illegal because it may be dangerous strikes at people taking personal responsibility and being held accountable for their actions. The no texting thing has become a huge money maker over here for the towns. My Niece was pulled over and given a ticket for texting and driving. She was not and we pulled her phone records to prove it, she still had to pay a court fee of 35 dollars even though she did nothing wrong and was not found guilty of anything.


It is to deter unnecessary dangerous behavior by hitting the pocket book. When you're wielding a 2-4,000 pound missile, capable of creating hundreds of thousands of pounds of energy, I'd rather people not be texting. It's dangerous, and completely unnecessary. There is not a single thing that makes texting while driving, an exigent circumstance. Nothing that can justify it. For shit sake, it's a phone, call the other person if it's that important, or pull over. Can't text 911. At least while talking on the phone, you can keep your eyes on the road. If you can't, you shouldn't be driving anyway.

I love guns, and am a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment, but unless we're being invaded or SHTF and my neighborhood is being overrun by a marauding gang, I don't want my neighbor opening up with his AR in the back yard for something to do in our residential neighborhood. Some things are just irresponsible to do and risk more than what can be gained.

As far as somebody taking personal responsibility or being held accountable for their actions IF there's an accident, I agree. But it doesn't help me when I'm laid up in the hospital or dead. Doesn't bring my kids back who were walking to the bus stop. But something like this is no accident and completely preventable. Which goes back to my original statement of people being completely self absorbed and I would rather not have myself, a friend or loved one, pay for their lack of any type of consideration for others.

And there are A LOT, and I mean A LOT of people out there that just don't get it, so you have to tell them, otherwise they just couldn't figure it out on their own until they finally kill someone through sheer stupidity that the rest of us know better. Kind of like the idiot 15 minutes from here who decided to target shoot at 2 in the morning with tracers and used his cargo container for a back stop. The one that was full, top to bottom, front to back, with fireworks. Ooops, and no thanks. It rolled the container twice and it's sitting in the crater the explosion made.















I mean seriously, my life or the life of one of my children is not worth someone "HAVING" to respond to a Facebook post or tell your buddy to meet you for a beer. Calculated risks are one thing, this is something totally different.

And sorry to hear about your niece. I had that happen once. Did nothing wrong, went to court, beat the shit out of the ticket with a stick, it was dismissed, got to pay $25 in court costs for the privilege of talking to the judge.


----------



## Deebo (Oct 27, 2012)

It is true, and the gents on here that ride motorcycles can tell you, becouse we have to concentrate even harder, watching every vehicle. Really, next time you are a passenger, watch the driver of some vehicles, not the car, the driver. You will be freaked out, eating, applying makeup, driving while reading a book, and yes, even smoking marijauna while driving. in the short two months before I sold my bike, I saw it all.


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

bigdogbuc said:


> It is to deter unnecessary dangerous behavior by hitting the pocket book. When you're wielding a 2-4,000 pound missile, capable of creating hundreds of thousands of pounds of energy, I'd rather people not be texting. It's dangerous, and completely unnecessary. There is not a single thing that makes texting while driving, an exigent circumstance. Nothing that can justify it. For shit sake, it's a phone, call the other person if it's that important, or pull over. Can't text 911. At least while talking on the phone, you can keep your eyes on the road. If you can't, you shouldn't be driving anyway.
> 
> I love guns, and am a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment, but unless we're being invaded or SHTF and my neighborhood is being overrun by a marauding gang, I don't want my neighbor opening up with his AR in the back yard for something to do in our residential neighborhood. Some things are just irresponsible to do and risk more than what can be gained.
> 
> ...


Freedom is a dangeous place, and this discussion just shows you how far as a society we have fallen from the path of freedom. Making laws to keep people from acting stupid and putting others in harms way is not what a free society does.


----------



## ApexPredator (Aug 17, 2013)

bigdogbuc said:


> It is to deter unnecessary dangerous behavior by hitting the pocket book. When you're wielding a 2-4,000 pound missile, capable of creating hundreds of thousands of pounds of energy, I'd rather people not be texting. It's dangerous, and completely unnecessary. There is not a single thing that makes texting while driving, an exigent circumstance. Nothing that can justify it. For shit sake, it's a phone, call the other person if it's that important, or pull over. Can't text 911. At least while talking on the phone, you can keep your eyes on the road. If you can't, you shouldn't be driving anyway.
> 
> I love guns, and am a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment, but unless we're being invaded or SHTF and my neighborhood is being overrun by a marauding gang, I don't want my neighbor opening up with his AR in the back yard for something to do in our residential neighborhood. Some things are just irresponsible to do and risk more than what can be gained.
> 
> ...


You cant stop stupidity and making it illegal is stupid the best that you can do if you hope to retain a free society is hold people accountable for their actions by yes increasing penalties because laws are deterrents thats the only way they work thats why so many of them are not working now if your txting and driving and you kill someone I would kill you back, eye for an eye at least thats what the good book says. So long as we flinch away from what is necessary our society will continue to erode.


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

Recently we worked a crash involving a young lady. Someone had called in and said there was a girl putting on makeup and driving. within seconds we responded to the collision. She had jumped the median and went head-on into another car. I don't think the mortician's makeup could have fixed what was left. 

I have seen people driving with their knee, reading with the left hand and eating with the right. There was no law to address it back then. I would just give them a blast of the air horn and they would straighten up. Now we have a "Due Care" law. We cite someone for it damned near every day now.


----------



## Beach Kowboy (Feb 13, 2014)

I saw a woman readin the bible one day while she was driving. I thought to myself, I sure hope he is watching over the other people on the road you crazy bitch.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

GTGallop said:


> I'd challenge anyone here to go 48 hours (one weekend) with no electronic communication.
> 
> No phones - cell or land.
> No Internet or E-Mail or text.
> ...


There are those on this board who were alive before all this technology crap came along and we are not as absorbed into its use as some of the younger people.
My cell phone is off whenever I'm home, we get one TV channel, we have a landline phone that is restricted to local calls, don't even own any DVD's and would never rent one.
I read books. Have as many as 5 or 6 going at any one time - all history.

Supposedly there is a recent study that shows many young people can not distinguish between computer-land and real life. I would not doubt it, either.


----------



## slewfoot (Nov 6, 2013)

Over the this past weekend there was a head-on collision on a 2 lane highway about 5 miles from me, both drivers in critical condition an 18 month old child UNRESTRAINED in the back seat in critical condition. A friend on the fire dept. who responded said that the driver of the pickup that crossed the line had an uncompleted text on his phone, need I say more.


----------



## Charles Martel (Mar 10, 2014)

It's incredible how people, especially younger people, seem to feel like their civic duty is limited to recording an incident as it happens. It doesn't seem to occur to them that they could/should actually help out (only government officials have the ability and authority to act). People don't seem to think that they have any responsibility to help their fellow human being if it places them at any risk whatsoever.

I've seen an unacceptable number of videos where people seemed content to watch and record as people died.

Warning, these videos are a little graphic:











There are videos like this all over the internet...films depicting terrible things happening to people while onlookers do nothing but push record and send on their smart phones.


----------



## Seneca (Nov 16, 2012)

So if the bad guys invade all we can expect from the younger generation is some kickass footage they got on their cell phones. Well that's certainly helpful.

I honestly think if people would either pull off the road and stop to take or return a call or would wait until they got to where they were going before firing up the cell phone, we'd have a lot safer highways.


----------



## Charles Martel (Mar 10, 2014)

Seneca said:


> I honestly think if people would either pull off the road and stop to take or return a call or would wait until they got to where they were going before firing up the cell phone, we'd have a lot safer highways.


It's a tiny bit depressing. The moment we finally start making progress in reducing the numbers of people who die in drunk driving accidents every year, the texting/cell phone menace appears. The road is definitely a more dangerous place than it was before smart phones.


----------



## Beach Kowboy (Feb 13, 2014)

I don't think there would be a 'Red Dawn" with this new generation. They would be too worried about posting updates online rather than saving themselves and others..lol


----------



## bigdogbuc (Mar 23, 2012)

dsdmmat said:


> Freedom is a dangeous place, and this discussion just shows you how far as a society we have fallen from the path of freedom. Making laws to keep people from acting stupid and putting others in harms way is not what a free society does.


It is exactly what a free society does. A responsible society. A civilized society. You seem to think that you should be able to do whatever suits your fancy. And you can not.

A Free Society is different from an Anarchical Society, which is what you seem to want to live in. We live in a complex, civilized nation, a nation of laws. Some good, some bad. If you wrong me, I cannot simply take vengeance or my "pound of flesh" in retaliation. Likewise, you are not allowed to simply act in a manner that YOU deem appropriate, whenever, wherever and however you choose, when you live in society. There are others to take into consideration. Which was the point of this thread.

You are not talking about freedom. You are talking about self indulgence and the ability to do as you please. Anarchy is defined as 1) An absence of any type of political authority, 2) Political disorder and confusion or, 3) Absence of any cohesive principal, such as a common standard or purpose.

No matter the shape or form, whether it's a group of 5, 500 or 5,000; A form of leadership or governing will take place within that group. Guaranteed. If you plan to survive and prosper that is. I'm the head of my household and I govern it. If you don't, you wind up with societal collapse. There are rules and laws for living among other societal members. From the beginning of time, it has been this way.

Freedom is defined as 1) *1. *The condition of being free of restraints. *2. *Liberty of the person from slavery, detention, or oppression. *3. **a. *Political independence. *b. *Exemption from the arbitrary exercise of authority in the performance of a specific action; civil liberty: _freedom of assembly. _*4. *Exemption from an unpleasant or onerous condition: _freedom from want. _*5. *The capacity to exercise choice; free will: _We have the freedom to do as we please all afternoon. _*6. *Ease or facility of movement: _loose sports clothing, giving the wearer freedom. _*7. *Frankness or boldness; lack of modesty or reserve: _the new freedom in movies and novels._*8**. **a. *The right to unrestricted use; full access: _was given the freedom of their research facilities. _*b. *The right of enjoying all of the privileges of membership or citizenship: _the freedom of the city. _*9. *A right or the power to engage in certain actions without control or interference: _"the seductive freedoms and excesses of the picaresque form"

_The freedom you speak of, is not freedom. There are limitations even to our beloved constitution. It is, as I stated before, self indulgence that hides behind an overtone called Liberty, to justify actions without consequence, is not freedom. Not the society I wish to live in. As a matter of fact, I recall two cities in the Old Testament that met an ill fate because of indulgence without consequence.


----------



## Seneca (Nov 16, 2012)

Bigdogbuc

The phone thing while driving seems to me to be more narcissism than an anarchy, the reason I say that is because it appears to involve a self centered me first attitude along with complacency and ritual denial. Denial? Yeah! It's the lie they tell themselves....I've done this hundreds of times and nothing bad has ever happened.

Driving is perhaps the most dangerous thing one does on a daily basis, why make it more so by distractions. Yet people do.


----------



## bigdogbuc (Mar 23, 2012)

Seneca said:


> Bigdogbuc
> 
> The phone thing while driving seems to me to be more narcissism than an anarchy, the reason I say that is because it appears to involve a self centered me first attitude along with complacency and ritual denial. Denial? Yeah! It's the lie they tell themselves....I've done this hundreds of times and nothing bad has ever happened.
> 
> Driving is perhaps the most dangerous thing one does on a daily basis, why make it more so by distractions. Yet people do.


I agree that it is narcissistic, not anarchalic.

The point I was making with DSD was that we as a society, sometimes have to make a law against seemingly innocuous things, because there are a lot of people out there that can't delineate for themselves, that their behavior is inherently and unnecessarily dangerous to others around them. So we try to deter that behavior by imposing fines and consequences against the behavior. Some people need to be educated through their wallet, others through prison.

DSD seems to feel, if I'm not mistaken, that ANY type of regulation on behavior is an infringement on freedom, and I disagree. I respect his opinion, but I disagree.

If he wants to play with explosives and blow himself up in the process, fine. But do it over there...WAY over there. Where you're not bothering or endangering me. But when you store those explosives in your house, next to mine, where my children play, and you UNNECESSARILY risk their safety and their lives, I have an issue with it.

And there are some people that see no problem with it and when they are told "No, it's not acceptable, you may not do this", they feel their freedoms are being trampled.

They call it an infringement on their freedom. I call it, as you put it, Narcissistic and, irresponsible.


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

bigdogbuc said:


> DSD seems to feel, if I'm not mistaken, that ANY type of regulation on behavior is an infringement on freedom, and I disagree. I respect his opinion, but I disagree. They call it an infringement on their freedom. I call it, as you put it, Narcissistic and, irresponsible.


I just don't like laws that restrict people from doing things, speed limits, gun laws and the likes (victimless crimes) of others that tell you what you should have the good enough sense not to do. My point is not that we should be able to do these things but more the society should not take away the capacity for choice. By limiting your actions (I have never seen a law stop crime) the law is taking away your responsibility as a member of thst society to make responsible decisions. You cannot legislate morality or the stupid out of people, but you can restrict freedoms which is what these laws do.

Nanny state laws are made by people who have a desire to control the lives of others because they believe (falsely) that people cannot make the right decisions a majority of the time. When is the law about disagreeing with the majority going to come out?

bigdogbuc we are closer in our way of thinking than this discussion appears to have us. Your God has given you free will but has offered you guidlines to adhere to the 10 commandments. He has given you the choice to either follow or not to follow and earn the rewards of your decisions. We have laws that cover the basics (kill, steal, deceive, on and on), we don't need laws that tell us you must wear a seatbelt, helmet, cannot have a muzzle brake, cannot have 16 ounce sodas. Freedom is also about making decisions and being responsible for the outcome of those decisions. I am against any law that the crime is victimless. If I owned a machine gun who is the victim in that crime? the actions of an individual should not make the laws that cover a society. Their actions are theirs alone and they should be the only ones held accountable for those actions. Your God is not going to hold you accountable for my not believing in him.

Just for clairity I will give you an example of why I think antitexting laws are not needed. We have a law against wreckless driving already. If you are swerving or creating a general hazard by your driving you can get pulled over and ticketed (no matter what your behavior was that made you wreckless). Wreckless driving covers texting or talking on the phone. So if I am at a stop light and I text my wife (BTW I do not text) I will be home in a few minutes and a cop sees me he will pull me over and give me a ticket? Was what I did wreckless? Who was the victim of my crime?


----------



## BagLady (Feb 3, 2014)

GTGallop said:


> I'd challenge anyone here to go 48 hours (one weekend) with no electronic communication.
> 
> No phones - cell or land.
> No Internet or E-Mail or text.
> ...


Been there, done that. Just today with the tornadoes reeking havok all around us, we were without power for about 6 hours. We have been without power for 3 days. Fortunately, I love to read, and we have kerosene lanterns. BTW, I havent been on here for 3 days. I agree with you. It's hard to do without our "creature comforts", and maybe we should be weaning ourselves in preparation for when we will have no choice but to do without.


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

BagLady said:


> Been there, done that. Just today with the tornadoes reeking havok all around us, we were without power for about 6 hours. We have been without power for 3 days. Fortunately, I love to read, and we have kerosene lanterns. BTW, I havent been on here for 3 days. I agree with you. It's hard to do without our "creature comforts", and maybe we should be weaning ourselves in preparation for when we will have no choice but to do without.


Well I am glad to see you made it through the storms.


----------



## BagLady (Feb 3, 2014)

dsdmmat said:


> Well I am glad to see you made it through the storms.


Thanks. Just two miles away, (as the crow flies), several mobile homes were wrecked by a tornado. Tupelo, which is 30 miles from us got hit bad. Vanelli's, Outback Steak house, two gas stations, and several other business's and homes were flattened. I've only heard of one fatality so far, but we were without power, so will find out more tomorrow. Our storm shelter was full!


----------



## bigdogbuc (Mar 23, 2012)

dsdmmat said:


> I just don't like laws that restrict people from doing things, speed limits, gun laws and the likes (victimless crimes) of others that tell you what you should have the good enough sense not to do. My point is not that we should be able to do these things but more the society should not take away the capacity for choice. By limiting your actions (I have never seen a law stop crime) the law is taking away your responsibility as a member of thst society to make responsible decisions. You cannot legislate morality or the stupid out of people, but you can restrict freedoms which is what these laws do.
> 
> Nanny state laws are made by people who have a desire to control the lives of others because they believe (falsely) that people cannot make the right decisions a majority of the time. When is the law about disagreeing with the majority going to come out?
> 
> ...


Friend, much of what you just said, I completely agree with. There are choices that I should be able to make for myself. Your examples of seat belts and helmets are excellent. If I scatter my brains all over the highway because I wasn't wearing a helmet, who cares? Get ejected out the back window of my car, so what? The helmet and seat belt in and of itself was not going to prevent the accident and I've only killed myself. I agree that if I want to sit on my couch, eat a bag of Doritos and weigh 600 lbs, it's nobody's business but mine. I too see no harm in owning a fully automatic machine gun, muzzle brakes etc. I too agree that there are laws that are petty, redundant and serve no purpose other than to oppress and control.

We do have Reckless Driving laws, but in order to prove that a crime has been committed, there are a series of steps that must be present to get there (Elements of the Crime) before something can be done, often when it is too late (after the fact). What "Anti-Texting" laws did was simplify these requirements and allow police to view the violation and use it as a "Primary Reason" to stop a motorist PRIOR to, or increase the odds of preventing an accident, rather than as a "Secondary Violation", meaning that the driver must commit some other infraction before they can be stopped, therefore increasing the chance that an accident will occur. Are there dick cops out there that use it just to screw with you, see what you may have in your car, who is in your car? Absolutely. Has nothing to do with safety. But if you're texting, and a cop see's you, I want you stopped BEFORE you hurt someone. I'll never back off that position.

It is a method of protecting the public at large from the dangerous acts of irresponsible people, that you would think should know better. If I know something I'm doing could cause others unnecessary or unintended injury, I will take reasonable and prudent precautions to prevent that from happening. If I can't, if I'm not 100% comfortable in doing it, then I don't do it. But that's because I care about more than myself and my own gratification. I am not going to intentionally put a disinterested bystander "into my shoes" anymore than I will build a bonfire on a dry, hot, windy day in a dead forest that surrounds a daycare.

I do not believe that if you are at a stop, texting while driving should apply. You are not driving per say. I don't agree with "Physical Control" laws for DUI. Simply having keys in your pocket while you're sleeping it off in the back seat, parked in the lot of the local bar, should not constitute DUI. You had sense enough to recognize you shouldn't be driving, and tried to act in a responsible manner by going to sleep. That car won't start itself and drive off on its own, anymore than a gun laying on the table will shoot itself.

In my state, honking your horn at another driver is considered aggressive driving/road rage. It's ridiculous. But you can be arrested for it, have your car towed; at minimum summoned on a criminal citation to appear in court.

Several years ago, on the road literally right in front of the place that the guy blew up his container full of fireworks, a woman was driving. Her toddler was unsecured and jumping/climbing the seats and created a distraction to the mother who was driving. She wrecked her car and the toddler was killed. This bitch had the nerve to publicly say "if only there had been a law requiring a car seat, she would have followed it and her baby would still be alive." No bullshit. My God, people jumped all over that one; "If it saves just one...". She didn't have sense enough to buckle her kid in, put it in a car seat, pull over and re-buckle the kid. She didn't have sense enough to know that "I should probably take precautions on my own and put my kid in a car seat because this is dangerous." Nope. We needed a law. And because there wasn't a law, her child was dead. Guess what? Child Seat Laws.

The manual for flying the Space Shuttle to the Moon and back is less complicated than the rules for car seats regarding ages, weights, heights, levels of seats and all the other bullshit that goes with it; ****ing Ridiculous! By law, my kids are supposed to be in booster seats until they're like 12 because the seat belts don't "fit them perfectly" in most vehicles. My boys refused to sit in booster seats at age 7. That's a nanny state.

So yes, I agree that there are many, really stupid laws. But for every stupid law, there is an equally stupid person that probably gave it it's breath of life. But I don't want them taking me out in the process if I can help it.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

bigdogbuc said:


> Friend, much of what you just said, I completely agree with. There are choices that I should be able to make for myself. Your examples of seat belts and helmets are excellent. If I scatter my brains all over the highway because I wasn't wearing a helmet, who cares? Get ejected out the back window of my car, so what? The helmet and seat belt in and of itself was not going to prevent the accident and I've only killed myself. I agree that if I want to sit on my couch, eat a bag of Doritos and weigh 600 lbs, it's nobody's business but mine. I too see no harm in owning a fully automatic machine gun, muzzle brakes etc. I too agree that there are laws that are petty, redundant and serve no purpose other than to oppress and control.
> 
> We do have Reckless Driving laws, but in order to prove that a crime has been committed, there are a series of steps that must be present to get there (Elements of the Crime) before something can be done, often when it is too late (after the fact). What "Anti-Texting" laws did was simplify these requirements and allow police to view the violation and use it as a "Primary Reason" to stop a motorist PRIOR to, or increase the odds of preventing an accident, rather than as a "Secondary Violation", meaning that the driver must commit some other infraction before they can be stopped, therefore increasing the chance that an accident will occur. Are there dick cops out there that use it just to screw with you, see what you may have in your car, who is in your car? Absolutely. Has nothing to do with safety. But if you're texting, and a cop see's you, I want you stopped BEFORE you hurt someone. I'll never back off that position.
> 
> ...


I completely agree. So why can we not just agree to write off the dumb asses as Murphy's law and go on about our lives? The really sick part is when I see a driver that is drunk or most recently (last week) preoccupied on their cell phone to the point of danger, I put them in the ditch. If you saw me do that, you would have to arrest me. I do not blame you, or any other cop; that is the law. (Plus it probably looks a bit scary the way I do it...) But it seems pretty ridiculous to me.


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

bigdogbuc said:


> So yes, I agree that there are many, really stupid laws. But for every stupid law, there is an equally stupid person that probably gave it it's breath of life. But I don't want them taking me out in the process if I can help it.


The only thing is no matter how many laws are passed they are not going to stop anything. Every law passed restricts Freedom, removes personal responsibility and none prevent crime or stupid acts. That is my whole beef with the "we need to pass a law crowd."

How many gun laws are there in the USA? It is estimated at 20,000. How many crimes are prevented by them? Zero. Hell they only prosecuted 44 out of the estimated 4700 attempted illegal purchaces that were refered to the BATFE and only 13 of those were punished.

So yeah everytime I hear someone say, 'that needs to be illegal" or "we need a law," I tend to roll my eyes (because chances are it is already illegal).


----------



## BagLady (Feb 3, 2014)

What I find humerous, is around here, some business owners have started making their own rules. The main one being; "Do not enter if your showing your underwear"...::clapping::


----------



## dsdmmat (Nov 9, 2012)

BagLady said:


> What I find humerous, is around here, some business owners have started making their own rules. The main one being; "Do not enter if your showing your underwear"...::clapping::


I would much prefer the community make conduct rules for their businesses than governments making laws. However even some of them can go overboard (whites only, no women) of course those establishments will not flourish in a community that doesn't believe in the same things.

A buisness that establishes rules of conduct for customers, will limit its potential customer base in some aspects but they have obviously made the decision based upon careful considerations. When the wife and I ran our bakery we had to enforce the no pets rule (the last one) on a few customers. I got more than one nasty email from pissed off customers because I told them they had to leave their dog outside of the bakery. I never had a customer come in with a service dog but had a lot try to enter with "rats" on a leash.

No shirt, no shoes, no service
No unaccompanied children under the age of 18 
No loitering
Be courtious or we will ask you to leave
No pets (service dogs only)


----------

