5 ms·

Oh grow up. Wearing a seatbelt isn't oppression you muppet.

Brian_K_White 3y ago
Adults almost never use 'grow up' as an argument. They actually know what their argument is and say that. Seatbelts are a great example of exactly the stated form of oppression through giving moral busybodies the power to be more than merely annoying with their presumptions and opinions about your life.
- matthewfelgate 3y ago
  Lol I wonder how much you cry when you see a fire extinguisher knowing it stops your right to die in a fire.
  - Brian_K_White 3y ago
    There is no equivalent rule that says you must wear a fire extiguisher whenever you enter a building. Therea are building codes the require smoke alarms EXIST in any living space, and other codes that say any business or facility providing public or employee access to a space must HAVE extinguishers and other features. Those would be equivalent to the regulations that car manufacturers must include seatbelts and other features and meet various standards in order to sell their products to the public. I didn't suggest or even remotely imply anything like those codes.
    - matthewfelgate 3y ago
      If you don't want to wear a seatbelt don't ride on the public roads. We live in a society.
      - Brian_K_White 3y ago
        I don't think you understand what society means. What you just demanded was antisocial. Meaning it was not an example of living and letting live, and getting along with your neighbor. It was an attempt to impose your will on your neighbor, without the excusing necessity of any shared resource or effect on yourself. To illustrate the difference, I don't care if you wear a seatbelt or not. I also think cars should be required to possess them as they are. I even think it's at least arguably not automatically wrong to protect kids from some parents and require them for kids until they take over responsibility for themselves. That is a more complicated question not automatically right or wrong, because a lot of kids have been harmed under the banner of "protecting kids from parents", but there is at least a valid theory for it.
AnimalMuppet 3y ago
First, as a self-identifying muppet, I resent your using the term as a pejorative. Second, and no longer tongue in cheek: You are definitely in violation of the HN guidelines. You can't comment like that here.
- matthewfelgate 3y ago
  Won't obey the law. Will obey the HN guidelines. You freedom fighters are funny little creatures.
lamontcg 3y ago
The objection isn't to the wearing of seatbelts. The objection is to the future of AI surveillance being injected into every aspect of our lives.
- matthewfelgate 3y ago
  Oh grow up. It's not being injected. It's enforcing the law which already exists. Tired of people who shout authoritarianism as every minor implementation of AI or CCTV.
  - lamontcg 3y ago
    > Adults almost never use 'grow up' as an argument. They actually know what their argument is and say that.

Adults almost never use 'grow up' as an argument. They actually know what their argument is and say that. Seatbelts are a great example of exactly the stated form of oppression through giving moral busybodies the power to be more than merely annoying with their presumptions and opinions about your life.

matthewfelgate 3y ago
Lol I wonder how much you cry when you see a fire extinguisher knowing it stops your right to die in a fire.
- Brian_K_White 3y ago
  There is no equivalent rule that says you must wear a fire extiguisher whenever you enter a building. Therea are building codes the require smoke alarms EXIST in any living space, and other codes that say any business or facility providing public or employee access to a space must HAVE extinguishers and other features. Those would be equivalent to the regulations that car manufacturers must include seatbelts and other features and meet various standards in order to sell their products to the public. I didn't suggest or even remotely imply anything like those codes.
  - matthewfelgate 3y ago
    If you don't want to wear a seatbelt don't ride on the public roads. We live in a society.
    - Brian_K_White 3y ago
      I don't think you understand what society means. What you just demanded was antisocial. Meaning it was not an example of living and letting live, and getting along with your neighbor. It was an attempt to impose your will on your neighbor, without the excusing necessity of any shared resource or effect on yourself. To illustrate the difference, I don't care if you wear a seatbelt or not. I also think cars should be required to possess them as they are. I even think it's at least arguably not automatically wrong to protect kids from some parents and require them for kids until they take over responsibility for themselves. That is a more complicated question not automatically right or wrong, because a lot of kids have been harmed under the banner of "protecting kids from parents", but there is at least a valid theory for it.

AnimalMuppet 3y ago

First, as a self-identifying muppet, I resent your using the term as a pejorative. Second, and no longer tongue in cheek: You are definitely in violation of the HN guidelines. You can't comment like that here.

matthewfelgate 3y ago
Won't obey the law. Will obey the HN guidelines. You freedom fighters are funny little creatures.

lamontcg 3y ago

The objection isn't to the wearing of seatbelts. The objection is to the future of AI surveillance being injected into every aspect of our lives.

matthewfelgate 3y ago
Oh grow up. It's not being injected. It's enforcing the law which already exists. Tired of people who shout authoritarianism as every minor implementation of AI or CCTV.
- lamontcg 3y ago
  > Adults almost never use 'grow up' as an argument. They actually know what their argument is and say that.