Wolvie,
Re: "what has messed things up the most is when people in the name of individual rights get their panties in a bunch over things like someone flying a confederate flag claiming it has to be hate when in many cases it's just southern pride"
To cut right to the core here; I'm just not sure how you could be any more wrong. Flying a Confederate flag, a French flag or even burning the American flag is an exercise of individual rights. You seem to have your roles crossed.
---
Re: "Another thing is a lot has changed since the constitution "
I must assume you think the founding fathers were a bunch of idiots then because you seem to think they didn't foresee that many things would change. But if you simply read the Constitution, you'll see that it's written as a foundation, not a list of specifics. It's a foundation upon which all other laws are to be built. But any law which isn't supported by that foundation, simply has no place in America. The founding fathers knew they couldn't possibly foresee the future so they looked to the past and built the rules upon history. By seeing how freedoms have been lost in the past, they had a fair idea how they might be lost in the future. So they warned against such carelessness. Unfortunately, people would actually have to care enough and be responsible enough to really try to understand some of the founding rules in order to see the reason for them. They didn't tell us how many rounds could be loaded into a magazine or how fast our cars could go. They recognized they had no way to know what future technology and populations might bring. So they wrote the standards in a very general form which still fit as well today as they did then. The only problem is that people want what they want and pay no mind whatsoever to long-term consequences. So they see the standards set forth in the Constitution and begin harping that the founding fathers didn't know how things were going to turn out. And yet, the Constitution, if allowed, would work as well today as it did when first signed.
Re: "We have to protect this country from outside attacks without infringing on basic freedoms and that is not an easy thing to do."
You're attempting to mis-apply the Constitution. It's not written as a military strategy to protect the nation. It's written as a base-level standard for rules governing the people of the country. As for the protection against outside attacks, perhaps the following quote says it best;
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- H. L. Mencken
That pretty well sizes it up. Don't be so quick to dismiss the idea that our lead politicians might have political agendas behind the stories we're fed. When the evidence doesn't align with an "official" explanation, the explanation is wrong. Evidence is never wrong. If you want to know what government is capable of, go to Wikipedia (or the source of your choice), and do a little research on "Operation Northwoods". Read the actual declassified document. Then think about a few of the wars the U.S. has been involved in and the events that preceded that involvement. Consider the validity of the proclaimed "threat" of outside attacks.
---
Re: "Also there are a lot more people living in much less space, which makes protecting rights even more difficult because 1 persons actions are more likely to interfere with another person."
Simply untrue. If the intent is for me to do no real harm to you, then that remains the standard whether you live 20-miles away, just down the block or right next door. People don't harm others just because they're living close together. It's the actions which come under question, not the proximity of the people. People don't mug other people just because they were too close. They don't assault and kill other people because the people were too close. They do those things out of intent to harm and that's a violation of the person's rights.
---
Re: "Freedom of religion means you have the freedom to believe what you want. It does not however mean that you can do what ever you want in the name of religion."
Of course you're right that it doesn't mean you can do whatever you want in the name of religion. If it did, the Constitution would require exception clauses for every prohibited action; "Excepting for actions taken in the name of religion". The Constitution has no such clauses because that was never the intent. But how this plays into anything we're discussing, I'm quite unsure.
---
Re: "its a proven fact that when you where a seat belt you are also in better control of your vehicle."
I believe the phrase you're looking for is, "in the case of a swerving or out of control vehicle". That's the only time when this "proven fact" comes into play.
This assertion does, however, serve to make the point that if one is ingenious enough and persistent enough, they can link almost anything someone else does to some proclaimed harm or jeopardy for themselves. If you want to go out on such limbs, then I guess we'll just have to make your cell phone illegal because of the potentially harmful effects of the microwave signal. Of course you're the one most likely to suffer the extremely minor risk of potential for harm, but if there is any potential for harm at all, then you shouldn't be allowed to use it because it might also affect others. Such arguments quickly reach ridiculous proportions. The most common is the claim that injured but uninsured drivers raise the cost of insurance and medical care for the rest of us. You know, when you have to step away from the act and jump through such hoops to try to find harm, it's not "real harm". It's manufactured harm which might possibly occur under the most extreme of circumstances. Maybe you shouldn't be allowed to yell at your child because my child might like to play with your child and your child won't be mentally stable because of all of the "verbal abuse". It really comes down to how ridiculous one wants to get in trying to find some link between another person's actions and some remote potential for harm. It goes to ridiculous lengths and takes on ridiculous proportions. That's why I stick to the concept of "real harm".
---
Re: "Also if everyone in the vehicle is wearing seat belts they won't become projectiles in the accident potentially killing or injuring other people in the car."
I've worked as an ambulance attendant and done personal study on mechanism of injury. I've helped to extricate people from wrecked cars, aircraft and numerous other cases of trauma in enclosed spaces. The first thing to understand about any motor vehicle accident is that they all involve at least three collisions. There is the collision between the vehicle and another object, the collision between the people in the vehicle and the inside of the vehicle itself and a collision between the soft vital organs of the body and the skeletal support structure.
Seat belts act to reduce injury due only to the second collision -- the one between the people in the vehicle and the inside of the vehicle. Very, very rarely do people actually become secondary projectiles. (Of course it can happen in the case of motorcyclists, but they don't have to wear seat belts so I guess we'll just have to make it illegal to ride a motorcycle too?) Let's also not forget that while statistically, seat belts reduce the odds of injury, they can also cause injuries which might not otherwise be sustained. Again, the whole concept simply takes harm to ridiculous lengths in order to try to justify unnecessarily denying others the same kind of rights you would claim for yourself. If you have the right to choose to wear a seat belt, then allow everyone else the right to choose for themselves. They're not hurting you.
---
Re: "One thing you also have to remember driving a car is considered a privilege not a right so that affects laws that affect that privilege."
There are many sayings people hear repeated over and over in this country and yet, with even a moment of examination, many can be found to be purely untrue. Such things are best labeled "propaganda" and this is a prime example.
Who said driving was a privilege and not a right? When did that take place? Was it when the first car was built? No. Was it right after the first car crash? No. Was it when licensing became standard? We all have the right to reasonable travel and in this day and age, especially, that means the right to drive. Is voting a privilege or a right? It can be taken away if you're convicted of a felony. You have to register and follow the rules before you're allowed to vote. Does that mean you don't have the right to vote; that it's only a privilege?
If I buy a vacuum cleaner, vacuum cleaner bags, pay for electrical power to run the vacuum cleaner and have arranged for legal access to an abode, do I not have the right to vacuum? When does it become a privilege and not a right? It's a privilege to have reasonable access to personal transportation? Not so. It's wonderful propaganda, but it's not correct. It's just one of those catchy sayings used to make people think they don't have rights when they do.
Here's what Hitler said about propaganda.
"The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan." -- Adolph Hitler
Sadly, he was correct and he demonstrated his understanding of propaganda very well. This understanding is again illustrated in phrases such as "driving is a privilege, not a right". Being catchy or repeated frequently doesn't make something true.
---
Re: "as for what I said about meat and vegetables you missed the fact that the meat was grilled versus fried vegetables and granted that also varies to degrees by what the vegetables are fried in."
Well, if you fry the vegetables in enough saturated fat and cholesterol to exceed the amount of saturated fat and cholesterol in the meat, then yes, you're going to consume more fat and cholesterol in the veggies fried in fat and cholesterol. But vegetables don't contain any cholesterol (it's only found in animal-based foods), and that means you'd have to use an animal-based (meat) product in order to add quantities of cholesterol to the vegetables. Secondly, while vegetables do contain fats, they're mostly unsaturated fats while meat is the primary source of saturated fats in western diets.
But even if you grill the meat, it already contains large quantities of saturated fats and cholesterol and it will still contain them even if you don't fry it. If you fry the meat in animal fat, then it's not vegetarian.
So back to my point, since far more lives could be saved by legislating a vegetarian diet than could possibly be saved by mandatory seat belt laws, are you in favor of such mandated diets as you are the mandated use seat belts? I've asked that question three times now and you still haven't provided an answer. I think that's because you know quite well that you have a double-standard here. You don't mind wearing a seat belt so you don't mind taking that freedom of choice away from everybody else. But when someone else can provide even better justification to take away something you don't want to lose, suddenly you try to change footing and attempt to find a way to justify your double-standard.
And that really cuts to the crux of what I keep saying -- as you pursue reasons to take freedoms from other people, other people will also pursue reasons to take freedoms away from you. You think it's okay to eliminate freedom of choice when it comes to seat belts because it can save lives (even though the founding fathers made it very clear that such an idea is in direct conflict with their founding ideals). But when someone can use the very same line of thought to take away something you wish to retain for yourself, suddenly you're ducking and dodging your own line of thought in order to try to justify what you want, and avoid the same justification for what others might suggest.
There is one escape for this kind of situation -- live and let live. As long as the choices and actions of others do not cause you direct "real harm", then let it go, even if you think they've made a bad choice.
---
Re: "I also pointed out that it would be impossible to police any legislation involving diet."
Strictly speaking, that's not exactly true either. You made the assertion. But that assertion was clearly refuted. Drug laws are enforced. What do you think makes it more difficult to enforce prohibition of trafficking in body parts than in drugs?
---
Re: "Another thing when a person makes a conscious decision to change their diet by eliminating something from it they are more likely to watch everything they eat and eat better as a whole. So comparing the 2 is not completely accurate unless you look at people that manage their diet that eat meat. If you do you will find that people that eat a balanced diet that includes meat are just as healthy."
As I stated before, I don't wish this to become a debate about diet. But you keep making claims that you simply can't support. Your claim here is refuted by virtually every study ever performed to determine the affects of meat in the human diet. Tests have been performed on non-human monogastric herbivores (and even multigastric herbivores), and the tests conclusively demonstrated that the saturated fats and cholesterol in meat (along with all of the antibiotics, steroids and toxins), cause a sharp increase in the incidents and degree of atherosclerosis, heart attack, stroke, diabetes and cancer. The research animals weren't concerned with their diet or exercise programs and those who pursue vegetarian diets for religious reasons aren't doing so for health purposes. So your entire assertion goes right out the window. You can keep pounding away at this if you wish, but the research has provided mountains of evidence, all of which disproves your claims.
And while we're at it, let's just make a few other things illegal too, shall we? How about cigarettes, cigars, pipe-smoking, alcohol and excess salt? How about extra-marital sex? All of those things contribute to more deaths annually than do automobile accidents. So if we can justify forcing people to wear seat belts because it saves lives, then let's not keep allowing them to do other things which claim far more lives than do automobile accidents. We can even mandate exercise programs for those not disabled. Sound good?
---
Re: "Also your statements that humans are herbivores is not correct. Human teeth disprove that, we have the teeth of an omnivore. Herbivores have flat teeth for mashing. Omnivores have multifunctional teeth for the tearing/cutting of flesh and the mashing of vegetables."
You're simply wrong again. You're thinking about the teeth of a multigastric herbivore, not a monogastric herbivore (which is what people are). The teeth of non-scavenging omnivores include usable canine or carnassial -- teeth capable of puncturing tough animal hides and hanging on while the animal fights and bucks. Human teeth can't do that. There is no reinforcing bone at the base of what humans call "canine teeth" and the teeth rarely extend below the point of the flanking teeth. Those teeth are completely non-functional to serve the purpose of a true canine or carnassial tooth.
You can fight this all you like. In the end I'll simply have to direct you to the Framingham Study, The International Atheroscerotic Project and many, many others. In fact, if you'd like to simply put the argument to rest, I direct you to;
Marmot, M., "Epidemiologic studies of coronary heart disease and stroke in Japanese men living in Japan, Hawaii and California," American Journal of Epidemiology
Keys, A., "Coronary Heart Disease in Seven Countries," American Heart Association Monograpgh No. 29, Circulation, 41, Supplement 1, page 211
Wissler, R., "Studies of Regression of Advanced Atherosclerosis in Experimental Animals and Man," Annals of the New York Academy of Science
Armstrong, M., "Regression of Coronary Atheromatosis in Rhesus Monkeys," Circ Res
Phillips, R., "Coronary Heart Disease Mortality Among Seventh Day Adventists with Differing Dietary Habits," Abstract; American Public Health Association Meeting, Chicago, Nov, 1975
Ruys, J., "Serum cholesterol and triglyceride levels in Australian adolescent vegetarians," British Medical Journal
Walles, C., "Hold the Eggs and Butter: Cholesterol is Proved Deadly and Our Diet May Never Be the Same," Time Magazine, March, 1984
Norum, K., "What is the Experts Opinion on Diet and Coronary Heart Diseases?," Norwegian Medical Association
That's but a very small sampling and if pressed, I'll provide more. But it's the same story over, and over -- meat in the human diet leads to a markedly increased death rates due to heart attack, cancer, stroke and diabetes.
---
Re: "Also the way the teeth line up between the upper and lower jaw also indicates flesh eating... (etc., etc.)"
Again, you're confusing the teeth of a multigastric herbivore with the teeth of a monogastric herbivore. Multigastrics have digestive systems and teeth geared to breaking down the tough cellulose fibers in grasses and leaves, rather than succulent plant stalks, fruits, vegetables, legumes and grains like a monogastric herbivore. (AKA: We're not cattle.)
---
Re: "I don't believe that things should be outlawed just because they are dangerous because life itself is inherently dangerous."
And yet, that is the very reason you gave as justification for relieving people of their rights and freedom to choose when it comes to the use of seat belts. As I stated before, it's not quite so easy to impose things you don't like on yourself as it is to impose things on others that they may not like.
I do wish to extend a sincere "thank you" to you because I believe you have served to illustrate my point better than I could have without your help. You've demonstrated that such ideas are a double-standard, wherein it is found to be acceptable to impose one's preferences on others, at the cost of their rights and freedoms, as long as the same is not expected of you.
And the issues are usually more emotionally driven than logically driven as is also illustrated here. I've spent countless hours reading books, reports, studies, magazines and watching broadcasts and videos to learn about the actual impact of diet. I get no indication that you've ever read so much as a single book. But for reasons I can't identify, politics, religion and diet seem to be intensely emotional topics for most people. And as with any emotional topic, people will defend their emotional position even when they have little to no support to aid their arguments. And this is key with utilizing propaganda to sway a people into forfeiting the very rights that they believe they hold so dearly.
It's never easy to take anything from any populous if they understand that that's what you're doing. It's far easier to convince them that they're somehow gaining something so that they don't notice the losses until it's too late. That's the function of propaganda. You can warn people;
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve and receive neither liberty nor safety..." '- Benjamin Franklin
"The man who would choose security over freedom deserves neither." '- Thomas Jefferson
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master." -- George Washington
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- H. L. Mencken
...but, here we are; arguing over whether or not it is appropriate to give up our hard-won rights and freedoms in pursuit of safety/security.
You can warn people about the losses they will thrust upon themselves, but you can't make them think and recognize that the warning is valid and should be heeded.
Live... and let live.
