![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
#131 (permalink) |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Mountains
Posts: 8,055
|
I'm all for teenage head injuries where do you think donor organs come from? Just saying! I need me some bone marrow!
__________________
Angry Snowboarder Because someone has to call it how they see it! |
|
|
|
| Sponsored Links | |||
Advertisement | |||
|
|
#134 (permalink) |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,659
|
There you go. Plain and simple, not wearing a helmet is (and should be) personal choice. This isn't like speeding a car, you're not hurting anyone but yourself by not wearing one. What's next, you have to wear long sleeves and jeans when riding a bike so you don't scrape up your arms and knees? Our so-called "government" can stay the fuck out of personal decisions. |
|
|
|
|
|
#135 (permalink) | |
|
Official SBF Blogger
|
Quote:
__________________
Repping the world's smallest mountains...
aGNARchy: no rules, just gnar! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#137 (permalink) |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 725
|
While I agree with most of that I think the difference is that as times change and the world changes, rules and laws aswell as precedents set all must change with the times. I understand the US's history aswell as constitution as I have studied them in depth but I think the founding fathers were, and the constitution were written in a time that could not foresee how the world would change, that's not to say you throw the basic constitution and concepts out the door but I do believe there are some extenuating circumstances that warrant a change here and there to what was written 200 years ago. I'm not questioning the importance of this all but I am saying that there comes a time when you must address changing times, think of the knowledge and changes the world has advanced in the last 50 years let alone 200, while the constitution remain the same. Btw I am not suggesting the constitution be changed at all.
__________________
my names's Petey and i have gigantic balls |
|
|
|
|
|
#138 (permalink) |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 725
|
No neither do I I guess I was talking about more serious issues than helmets on snowboarders, but in principal it has to do with the overall argument/discussion
__________________
my names's Petey and i have gigantic balls |
|
|
|
|
|
#139 (permalink) |
|
Drunk with power...er beer.
![]() |
For those who compare ski helmet laws to seat belt laws (which includes me, btw
), let's remember that driving a car is not a right. It's a licensed privilege, and the gov't can set any kind of requirements for the granting of that license. Skiing or snowboarding (or riding a bike) are not licensed activities and therefore fall under the category of personal freedoms. Notwithstanding demurrals by denialists, seat belt laws and motorcycle helmet laws do reduce injuries and deaths overall, and quite significantly, so a case can be made that your 'personal choice' is costing other people money for an activity that the government is legitimately mandated to oversee for the good of the general public. No such mandate exists for things like skiing, snowboarding, or walking down the street.I do believe that ski helmets reduce injury overall (I wear one and I will continue to do so), but I have a problem with passing laws to shove your own neuroses down someone else's throat. Let's be clear on this -- the question of whether helmets help and the question of whether they should be mandated are two separate issues.
__________________
Illegitimi non carborundum Mountain Days: 30 |
|
|
|
|
|
#140 (permalink) | |
|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,659
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|