Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (8993)	3/17/2001 11:33:23 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

But the greater good is served by the laws- or it certainly appears to be. If you have data that the greater good is not served I'd love to see it. I don't have any problem with greater good. Greater good implies, however, that all reasonable steps have been taken to minimize the sacrifice. I assume that with immunizations all reasonable steps have been taken. That is not the case with those excluded from equal seatbelt protection. It would be a simple thing to modify my seatbelt to fit me properly. The anchor on the floor of the car could be moved forward a few inches. Or I could use a seat belt extender if the regulations required their manufacture. Or NHTSA could set up a testing and approval process for the third party adaptors and I could safely use one of them. For the fat people, the remedy is even simpler--make the ^$%#* seatbelts longer or offer extenders. Greater good my foot! How can we casually sacrifice all those people when equal protection is so easy. We're too stupid or lacking in compassion or cheap to require availability of a $20 extender--a foot of belting with buckle halves one each end? You're willing to let people die for want of a $20 extender and call it greater good? You're willing to let me die for want of a $20 extender and call it greater good? End of rant. Karen