Ben Roethlisberger and freedom

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by AChimp

By the logic going on in this thread, I should be able to ride a motorcycle half-naked because it's not affecting anyone else, right? How is your helmet any different from your shirt?

There's a difference between public decency and public safety, chimpy.

You wear a shirt while riding because you wear a shirt in most public places. You don't need to cover your face in public, so you don't need to cover it while riding. The impetus behind helmet laws wasn't cosmetic, it was geared towards public safety. There's a difference.

Is the road your own private property, or does it belong to the government? Last time I checked, the roads were public property, which means that the government gets jurisdiction.

Well, for starters, not all roads are public places.

Secondly, the government doesn't have absolute jurisdiction over public space. You can petition in public space, speak freely, dress as you like, smoke, etc.

Rebuilding Ben's face is a waste of resources. That hospital bed would be better off going to a cancer patient or some other sick person, rather than someone who was stupid. A helmet would have prevented most of those injuries. Look at how many people Ben's choice is affecting... the doctors and nurses, police and emergency crews, his football team, his family, the family of the woman who hit him... IT IS OBVIOUSLY NOT JUST AFFECTING HIM.

What happens to his football team is irrelevant, and isn't the government's business. Nor is the somber mood of his family. The woman who hit him? Huh? Should the government be concerned with every bad mood that results from an accident? I'm sure their respective insurance agencies will worry about that.

The hospital bed, doctor, nurse argument makes a little bit more sense, which is sort of where I wanted this conversation to go. I think excessive laws that dictate behavior would be necessary in a nation with a single-payer healthcare system. If the state is paying for your face surgery, than the government should be free to tell you to wear a helmet, right?

Ben can pay for those hospital services, he won't need the government to cover his tab. If he had walked in their with any other ailment, it STILL would've used up hospital resources. What if he drank too much and got liver disease? He'd STILL be screwing the cancer patient, who presumably didn't ask for cancer. Does this mean the government should dictate alcohol consumption???

How do you think the old woman would feel if she had killed him instead of just turning him into the Elephant Man? Helmets reduce the risk of your death so the people who were involved in the accident with you don't also have to deal with your death on their conscience.

I dunno, maybe she would've said "he should've been wearing a helmet?" Do people who commit vehicular manslaughter feel better if the people they killed had seatbelts on???

All I see in this thread is people whining about their rights, and not giving a shit about the responsibilities that go along with them.

Speaking of whiners, all I see is someone with a bunch of holes in their whiney argument.

The responsibilty began with Ben. THAT'S where the responsibility rests. Why is the state responsible for his poor decisions?

Helmets do save lives. And they should be used. But I don't think you've proven that it's the government's business to be involved in the lives of those who've been effected. Ben was the one who showed disregard for his loved ones, the hospital workers (which is a rather weak argument anyway), and Ben was the one who put his life in his hands when that woman hit him.