Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
Poll
The greatest threat to my children is:
Reckless drivers 9%
Road rage 2%
Media images 10%
Drugs 10%
Drunkenness 1%
The decline of American morals 24%
Hacking 42%

Votes: 87

 America's Death Machines

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Feb 20, 2002
 Comments:
What would you say if I told you that the American government has permitted, even fostered, the construction of a mechanical device which claims the lives of over 40,000 healthy Americans each year? What if I told you that you have probably been coerced by society into using this device almost every day for your entire life? What if I told you this device was nothing less than the ordinary American motor car?

You'd probably call me a liar. How can 40,000 people possibly lose their lives each year on our nation's roads, you'd ask. Aren't these the safest, most well-loved and lovingly maintained roads in the free world? Aren't Americans the most carefully trained and highly skilled motorists ever to take the wheel? Aren't our cars the pinnacle of modern engineering know-how? Above all, if 40,000 people died in pointless motor vehicle accidents last year - a number that exceeds by an order of magnitude, the death toll of any other disaster that year, natural or man-made - wouldn't this tragedy be more widely reported? Wouldn't the government be spending billions to correct this situation?

cars

More stories about Cars
Killer Wheels: How To Get Started in the Custom-Car Movement
Caytie, My Porsch? Cayenne

More stories by
T Reginald Gibbons

Is Your Son a Computer Hacker?
My Children Will Not Be Attending College

40,000 souls per year. Take a deep breath and try to comprehend this number. How many people do you know? How many people will you know throughout your life? If you live to be eighty years old, three million people will lose their lives on America's roads in your lifetime. There are only 300 million Americans alive today. Imagine one out of every hundred people you will know throughout your life dying in a motor accident. This is precisely what these statistics tell us will happen. One in every hundred men. One in every hundred women. One in every hundred children. Of the children in your life, how many could you bear to see lose their lives to America's death machines? Most people could not happily tolerate the death of a single child, let alone one in hundred, yet each year our government gives its tacit support for this needless sacrifice by refusing to take action to prevent it.

We should not be forced to trade our children's lives for the convenience of personal motorized transportation. Such a trade does not adhere to the principles upon which our nation was founded. It is time for the American government to take decisive action.

I believe that this problem has two sides: prevention and rehabilitation. With sweeping changes in both of these areas, our government might just be able to repair several decades of legislative neglect, and make good on their obligations to the American people.

Prevention:

It is no secret that fully two thirds of all motor vehicle accidents are caused by young men under the age of twenty five. There are already campaigns in most states to increase the minimum driving age for men to keep potentially dangerous drivers off the streets until they reach an age at which they can be trusted to drive safely. While these campaigns deserve our utmost support, they are but one slice of the prevention pie. Education does not begin and end at the driving academy.

Education for most people begins when they are introduced to driving as children, through television, movies and increasingly, computer games. The media images of driving that are presented to our nation's youth are creating a culture of reckless drivers. Thanks to movies in which hour long car chases take place with absolutely no consequences for the drivers or the passers-by, our children are taught that driving dangerously is a mark of manhood. Worse yet, computer game driving simulations actively teach children to drive like maniacs, demanding maximum speed and minimum adherence to road laws in order to win. Games like "Need for Speed", "Test Drive" and "Gran Turismo" all teach children that best driving practice involves running red lights, ramming cars and driving on the wrong side of the road. Most of these games don't even include turn signals!

I propose that steps be taken to correct our nation's attitude towards cars. The car chase should be banned from the movie industry, and replaced with safer alternatives such as bicycles and running. Not only would these eliminate the acceptance of dangerous driving among young people, it would encourage them to get good, healthy exercise. Of course, these changes to the movie industry will be a difficult and lengthy process. They will involve carefully editing every single car chase from every film ever released, or in the few cases where the car chase is vital to the plot of the movie, the film could be slowed down, reducing the apparent speed of the cars to be acceptable to the law.

Computer games are an easier problem to fix, since computer games more than one year old tend not to be played anymore. For this reason, changes to the computer game industry do not need to be harsh or drastic. Unlike movies, computer games can actually be quite helpful in producing better drivers. The computer game manufacturers can simply replace their old "illegal street racing" games with new lines that encourage careful, safe and legal driving. Points should be given for correctly indicating turns and lane changes, remaining on the right side of the road and within the lane markings, for stopping at stop signs and executing proper reverse parking manoeuvres, amongst other driving skills.

These measures alone will not be enough to counteract the impulsive nature of many drivers. Everyone knows how tempting it can be to rush through yellow lights, rather than stopping to wait for the green. Despite the illegality and risk of death, millions push their luck at intersections every day. Christian drivers are protected from this temptation by the ever watchful eye of God, and understand that their transgressions, however minor, do not go unobserved. What of the secular drivers who dominate our roads? Since our current political apparatus is not willing to erect road signs proclaiming the omnipresence of the Lord, we must seek a solution that preserves the separation of church and state. Modern digital technology provides the answer.

With digital cameras becoming increasingly inexpensive, it is astonishing that the government has not yet provided a system for monitoring the nation's roads. How easy it would be, in the event of an accident, to determine which drivers are to be blamed. Special cameras could also be invented to record the license plates of drivers who run red lights, exceed the speed limit or change lanes without indicating. Under the ever watchful eye of the government's cameras, I think a lot of reckless drivers would clean up their act quick-smart!

In fact, it is my belief that all vehicles should be fitted with cameras and tamper proof black box systems similar to those used in the airplane industry. These should record every move the car makes while on the road, every action the driver makes inside the vehicle and everything that takes place outside. These would be a boon to police officers charged with investigating vehicular offenses. It would even be possible to institute spot checks of these black box systems, secretly via the internet, to ensure that drivers remain on their best behavior at all times.

Rehabilitation:

It will be inevitable under the new system that a larger number of drivers will be brought before the courts than we have seen in any previous years. The question before us is, what do we do with these scofflaws? Fines have proven ineffective. License suspensions are an insult to freedom. Traffic school is simply too brief to offer any useful re-education and too unobtrusive to the offender's lives to provide effective punishment.

Public shaming may be the best penalty for misdemeanor offenses. Traffic violators could have their cars permanently painted with slogans proclaiming their incompetence as a driver, and the hazard that they pose to others on the road. These slogans would serve the dual purpose of a slap on the wrist for minor traffic criminals and a warning to legitimate road users.

For serious or repeat offenders, I propose a nationwide system of driver re-education camps. These should be built on unused land, such as deserts, to afford the maximum space for driving courses. Since these camps are intended as punishment, they should be made as unpleasant an experience as permitted under the constitution. The drivers are there to be remade as responsible citizens, not to have fun. Punishing schedules of instruction should fill the twelve hour gap between the breakfast and dinner meals. The food should be flavorless and the quarters cramped and spartan. Personal effects should be confiscated upon entry to the camp. Driver re-education camps should be an unforgettable learning experience, and one that graduates will do anything to avoid repeating.

When will we realize that the duty of care for the lives of our young rests with each and every one of us? That when we take the wheel, we are taking the lives of countless American children in our hands, too? When will the American government wake up to the senseless loss of life that it countenances each year by refusing to institute serious preventative measures to ensure our children's safety?

If America is ever to enjoy safe highways again, it is up to the American people to pressure the American government to accept these measures. Any person who does not acknowledge the one in every hundred American's who die each year -- a number which includes countless American children - I believe that person is not an American. Any person who does not demand justice for our countrymen who are murdered on the roads by lax driving and America's disinterested government - that person is not an American to me, either. Remember, we have the opportunity to save the lives of countless children; it's up to us to do something about it.


I agree (none / 0) (#3)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 02:53:57 AM PST
It is very strange to me that to drink alcohol in the US, one must be 21 years of age, yet you are permitted to kill and maim potentially hundreds of people with your actions aged 15, and you only have to be 9 before you can legally shoot someone's brains out.

America should get its priorities straight.


Hmmm, freedom against tyranny at 9 (none / 0) (#12)
by Adam Rightmann on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 07:02:45 AM PST
freedom to move at 16,<br>
and freedom to buy alcohol at 21, yep, sounds like our priorities are in order, what's the problem?
<p>
The alcohol laws across the US differ by state. In New York, you need to be 21 to buy alchohol, but the state wisely does not interfere within the family. If you are 16 and your parents give you a glass of wine with dinner, no big deal. If you are 9 and have a sip of Communion wine, no big deal. So, for New York State at least, alcohol consumption under 21 is controlled by the parents, which is right and proper.


A. Rightmann

holy shit something thats not bullshit (none / 0) (#138)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Feb 24th, 2002 at 11:16:09 PM PST
coming from Adam Rightman


 
I know I will be labeled as communist, but... (none / 0) (#4)
by The Mad Scientist on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 04:51:47 AM PST
...what about to overhaul the traffic infrastructure of America first?

The main problem is the emphasize of individual transportation, leading to inefficiency, traffic jams, and road kills.

A contributing problem is the typical distance between home and workplace. The me-first attitude of car-owning Americans, that catalyzed the building of large-scale sprawls where everything is far away. The centralization of jobs which creates supplementary dangers, as 9/11 shown; part of the blood is also on the hands of managers that thought that cramping tens of thousands of people into one building like sardines to a can is Good Idea [TM]. (Hey - the whole Middlewest is empty and the real estates are cheap, why everything has to be on the coasts?)

If you live more than walking distance from your work, don't complain about the traffic. You are the problem.


Too Cramped (2.33 / 3) (#10)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 07:01:12 AM PST
I would be only too happy to begin using public transportation if the state could develop some way to make it more comfortable. I don't know whether you have looked at some of the buses that travel around US cities, but those things really aren't all that big but there are often several dozen people inside! This is to say nothing about the smoke those things belch out.

As a concerned envorinmentalist I take as few trips with my vehicle as possible. I try to do all of my grocery shopping all on the same day of the week so I don't have to keep running back and forth for little things. I even stepped up from an Explorer to a Yukon Denali so I would have more cargo space and could stop at more stores without having to run back home and drop things off. How could I carry all those groceries if I were cramped on to a bus not much larger than my truck with a dozen other people? What if they were carrying their groceries as well?

I just don't see public transportation becoming a fad. If my wife and I decide that we want to rent a movie, you expect me to wait around for the bus to stop in front of the house? I really enjoy the convenience of jumping in the truck and running down to the video store. I'm sure most other people are the same way as I always see my neighbors driving out for little tasks.

I think we should all do our part of course. In the winter I have talked several of my friends into cutting down on the time they allow their vehicles to warm up in their driveways before they leave for work. That alone has to have made a big difference even if you just consider my own family. My wife used to let her car run for almost a half an hour! She is down to about 15 mintues now, I let my truck run for only anout 5, and I don't think my son lets his warm up at all! I think that is a big enough sacrifice to ask people to make at this stage, public transportation just isn't ready for us yet.


Too cramped? (2.50 / 2) (#18)
by The Mad Scientist on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 08:15:02 AM PST
I don't know whether you have looked at some of the buses that travel around US cities, but those things really aren't all that big but there are often several dozen people inside!

I seen buses traveling around here. It lead me to formulating the theory of infinitely full bus; I hadn't seen any to which one more person wouldn't fit in.

Look at Tokyo subway. That's cramped!

I just don't see public transportation becoming a fad. If my wife and I decide that we want to rent a movie, you expect me to wait around for the bus to stop in front of the house?

Hadn't I said that? Americans are lazy and the Earth pays the costs.

How could I carry all those groceries if I were cramped on to a bus not much larger than my truck with a dozen other people? What if they were carrying their groceries as well?

Oh? It works here! As a side effect, maybe you'd find that you don't really need a lot of things - which could in turn reduce the exploitation of resources. On the other hand, it could hurt the Economy - oh what big damage.

I really enjoy the convenience of jumping in the truck and running down to the video store. I'm sure most other people are the same way as I always see my neighbors driving out for little tasks.

My point. :(

Though there is a thing that could alleviate the problem a bit - telecommuting. It is still only a partial solution though, a small bandaid on a bigger wound that the corporate capitalism is.


 
YOU sir are the Problem! (1.00 / 2) (#24)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 09:46:27 AM PST
By spreading your LIBERAL ideas which are not practical/implementable. Most people do not live within walking distance to their jobs as they want to make MONEY, to buy goods or services to support the ECONOMY, which is declining because of people like you and your socialist ilk. I walked 2 miles to work when I didn't have a car but as soon as I got one, I got a better job, which is 10 miles away. Also, in some areas, the roads are not SAFE for pedestrians. So try THINKING before you blurt out your misguided opinions.


Sorry to say (none / 0) (#46)
by JoePain on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 06:28:16 PM PST
I believe all of your arguments support communism and not vice versa. You should instead point out that you have money and can spend it anyway you want and do anything you want because your an American. Further, since nobody can really prove that what you are doing is hurting any one try thumbing your nose. I also recommend running over people that choose to walk or ride bikes--or, if your SUV is big enough run over their fuel efficient cars. This line of reasoning usually is the only way to get throught to the liberals.


 
Just thought I'd throw in my view on all this... (none / 0) (#5)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 05:14:25 AM PST
I am 19 and I know how reckless people can be. But you shouldn't penalize those of us that are not causing any trouble. The majority of everybody that I have known is a good driver with the exception of a couple of my friends. But if you're going to attack the lower aged kids then you should also target the older than 60 - 65 crowd as well. I live in a city where elderly people are in abundance and they are a terrible road hazard. This is why I'm so glad that many states are starting to have yearly checks on people over a certain age.

On the subject of the cameras that take pictures of people's license plates, there is currently a program run by the govt testing out just that. I used to live in Salem, OR where they did have such a system in place and is part of that very test program. And it works from what I've seen.

I also know a couple of people that are from Europe and believe me, the drivers test here is a JOKE in comparison to what they have to go through. And amazingly enough they don't have as high of an accident problem. Gee, I wonder why... Anyway I'm done going off about this... All we really need is a more strict drivers test.

Granted we've moved onto a mandatory time of having learning permits, but for gods sake, if you're 18 you can waive it. I think that we should require learning permits on EVERYBODY, not just 15 - 17 year olds.


Europe has it easy (none / 0) (#13)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 07:03:31 AM PST
I also know a couple of people that are from Europe and believe me, the drivers test here is a JOKE in comparison to what they have to go through. And amazingly enough they don't have as high of an accident problem. Gee, I wonder why...

Its because they have 1 car (or Lorries as they call them) for every 25 people or so. In the US we are much more prosperous and can afford to equip every 2nd person with one.


Different explanation... (none / 0) (#15)
by The Mad Scientist on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 07:43:01 AM PST
Its because they have 1 car (or Lorries as they call them) for every 25 people or so.

Because they don't need more. With properly developed infrastructure a car is just a convenience instead of a need.

In the US we are much more prosperous and can afford to equip every 2nd person with one.

In the US, public transportation is usually nonexistant, or "hard" to use. "Inconvenient", as lazy Americans would say. They are lazy, they have cheap gasoline, to keep it cheap they have to act as the "world policeman", and they then claim it is a marker of prosperity.


A shame cheap gasoline can't come to Europe (1.00 / 1) (#19)
by Adam Rightmann on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 08:33:20 AM PST
perhaps an enterprising shipyard could make really, really big floating tanks of gasoline (or oil) and ship it to Europe, and then they could have the benefit of cheap gasoline that the US has.


A. Rightmann

Advanced Technology (none / 0) (#23)
by doofus on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 09:44:43 AM PST
Mr. Rightmann,

Unfortunately, it seems that any European country even remotely able to support such an advanced technology can't since the harbors that these new-fangled "ships" would use were built during the time of the Roman Empire and haven't been improved on since.

Improving this infrastructure would require money, which, of course, Europeans don't have since they are all busy taking "holidays" or sitting in cafes drinking some sort of bizarre coffee beverage and not out fueling the engine of capitalistic commerce.

How do I know all this? I once went to Europe on a 13 countries in 15 days chaperoned air conditioned bus trip with my high school choir and thus became an expert.


 
Cheap gasoline in europe ? (none / 0) (#60)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 08:38:23 AM PST
it is not the rarity of petroleum that makes the gas expensive in europe,
it is tax.
about 90% of the price is tax

well, it makes it expensive to travel by car, and so people tend to travel by train or coach



true (none / 0) (#62)
by Juan Fernandez on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 08:59:53 AM PST
This is true, at least in Spain, last time i checked taxes were about the 70% of the price in gasoline. This country mantains its economy mainly from tourists and the taxes over petrol, alcohol and tobacco.


 
Too bad (none / 0) (#20)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 08:50:56 AM PST
Just stick with your boy Tony Blair, he has the moxie it takes to get you cheap gasoline and I think our guy GWB has him pointed in the right direction.

I don't see why people keep complaining about how cheap gas in in the US and how we just maybe have killed a few people to keep it that way. What is wrong with that? So what if the blood of a few third wordlians is spilled for the greater benefit of humanity? Thats what its all about, no?

Technology has advanced to the point where we have the ability to pour some distilled dinosaur remains into the tanks our great steel beasts and harness the explosive power of fire to propel us across great distances, quickly and safely. Should we go back to the dark ages and be drawn around is horse carriages?? Are you Amish? I say we take full advantage of the triumphs of science and make full use of everything it has to offer. Science itself has yet to prove that doing so results in any disadvantages despite the wild claims of a few Earth First lunatics.

Join us in the new millenium, drive a car!


Re: Too bad (none / 0) (#30)
by wumingzi on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 10:47:17 AM PST
I don't see why people keep complaining about how cheap gas in in the US and how we just maybe have killed a few people to keep it that way. What is wrong with that?

The price of gas in the United States has damn little to do with who we did or did not kill and has everything to do with the taxes we do (or do not) levy on petroleum here.

Am I concerned with preserving the Earth or our precious remains of dinosaur corpses? Not really. The Earth will survive us, and we will in our infinite ingenuity find other ways to get around long before the last drop of oil is pulled out of the ground.

My problem with car culture is that it makes most of the United States look like a godforsaken wasteland. I was just down in the suburbs of a large, unnamed Southern city and was absolutely appalled. There were some nice parks, but there was no place where people lived where one could, or would want to take a walk. Just row after row of housing developments, strip malls, office parks, and gas stations.

It's actually quite refreshing if you go somewhere and there are actual living, breathing people on the street, rather than spending long periods in the car puncutated by short interactions with people in checkout lines and whatnot. Maybe Americans like all the privacy that this arrangement avails them of. My suspicion is that they simply don't know any better.

j.


You are really ... (none / 0) (#53)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 03:11:59 AM PST
I am an European as you like to say it. And one of the most common things I hear here is that Americans are stupid, selfish and morons.

Do you know what I have found out from this thread? That you really are. Man , read you own words again and filter them through a slice of common sense. What comes out of there is 0. A big 0. I am dissapointed. Really.

Your main problem is your values scale and ego. Examples:
"Am I concerned with preserving the Earth or our precious remains of dinosaur corpses? Not really"
"...how we just maybe have killed a few people to keep it that way. What is wrong with that?"
"In the US we are much more prosperous and can afford to equip every 2nd person with one."

Stick your prosperity somewhere I prefer to live in Europe.





You are crazy (none / 0) (#55)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 04:39:24 AM PST
And one of the most common things I hear here is that Americans are stupid, selfish and morons.

Over here I hear that Euros are yuck mouthed, uptight, tea drinking soccer hooligans.

Stick your prosperity somewhere I prefer to live in Europe.

You wish we would sticj our prosperity somewhere over there in Europe. Keep dreaming!


Note... (none / 0) (#56)
by The Mad Scientist on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 05:02:34 AM PST
Over here I hear that Euros are yuck mouthed, uptight, tea drinking soccer hooligans.

Nope. Only Brits.

Though I, despite of not being one, will prefer a good ol' cup of tea over the toxic waste Coca Cola Corp. is marketing as beverages. You knew that undiluted Coca Cola has to be shipped in accordance to HAZMAT specs?

You wish we would sticj our prosperity somewhere over there in Europe. Keep dreaming!

Money isn't everything. I'll prefer to have acceptable health care affordable not only for the rich, and decently long holidays to spend together with the family that I will maybe one day have. Stick your "prosperity" where you were advised to earlier, and put your "productivity" right after it. Or, alternatively, try to measure prosperity of the nation in terms of stress and happiness and time spent with the family instead of GNP figures - you could find that instead of growth the Economists and Politicians are touting so loudly there is in fact a steady decline from 70's.


HAZMAT (none / 0) (#132)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Feb 23rd, 2002 at 05:43:24 AM PST
Now, just hold on a second here. Do you mean to tell me that highly-concentrated citric acid is actually restricted more than any other God-given substance by your fascist government?


Phosphoric acid (none / 0) (#133)
by The Mad Scientist on Sat Feb 23rd, 2002 at 09:11:49 AM PST
Now, just hold on a second here. Do you mean to tell me that highly-concentrated citric acid is actually restricted more than any other God-given substance by your fascist government?

See http://www.fema.gov/reg-x/2000/hazmat3_1.doc, look for the keyword "cola"; there is a paragraph that says more.

Also check http://www.labsafety.org/archives/arch9808.htm and search for the same keyword. There is an interesting note about a company recycling white phosphorus shells, making H3PO4 from them, and selling it to Coca Cola Ltd.


 
Note this! (none / 0) (#149)
by gordonjcp on Thu Mar 7th, 2002 at 09:24:10 AM PST
>   > Over here I hear that Euros are yuck mouthed, uptight, tea drinking soccer hooligans.
>   Nope. Only Brits.

Nope. Only the English.


 
what's about the bullfighters? (none / 0) (#59)
by Juan Fernandez on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 07:40:18 AM PST
Not everyone in Europe is a football hooligan or a tea drinker: there are also plenty of bullfighters over here, specially in the south-west part.


 
... we need an adjective, Bob... (none / 0) (#72)
by wumingzi on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 10:46:44 AM PST
Your main problem is your values scale and ego. Examples:

(two deleted because I can't take credit for them myself)

"Am I concerned with preserving the Earth or our precious remains of dinosaur corpses? Not really."

I said this, and I will explain WHY I said it. Being a Green (which I consider myself to be) requires taking a lot on faith. The main point which is hammered in about non-renewable resources is that they are scarce, and finite. Thomas Malthus was talking about exhausting the Earth's resources back in 1798. He foresaw overpopulation and famine in Europe as a natural consequence of the Industrial Era.

Only problem is: it hasn't happened. In fact, quite the opposite in fact has transpired.

I try to tread lightly on the Earth, and treat its resources as a finite commodity. I do this as an article of faith, and that it makes me feel better about myself as a human being. If I tried to argue scarcity as a point of fact, I wouldn't have much to argue with. Besides, the tenents of Green philosophy are pretty well known, even here in the US. Either you believe them or you don't. I won't change anybody's mind or shed any light on the subject by rehashing them again and again.

Thanks for writing anyhow though!

j.


Taking things on faith - the refuge of an idiot! (none / 0) (#89)
by dmg on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 11:58:14 AM PST
Being a Green (which I consider myself to be) requires taking a lot on faith.

You aren't joking are you ? here's some links for you:

Global warming is a myth.

A consumer's guide to environmental myths and realities

More environmental myths

Greenpeace horror stories

Some people take a lot of things on faith alone. I prefer to do some research. Sure, its hard work, but the payoff is that I manage to avoid looking like an idiot in a public forum.

Come back when you have researched both sides of the story. And here is a clue for you: Global warming is a MYTH.

time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration.
-- MC Hawking

I've read your links... (none / 0) (#94)
by wumingzi on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 12:56:33 PM PST
Like I said, I'm a Greenie (and not a terribly rabid one) because it pleases me to do so. Period. I know that if taken from a point of view of hard research, a lot of stuff that Greens stake out is pretty silly. I thought I explained that Malthus's theories on scarcity just haven't panned out in reality, or did you keyword scan first, and bang out a response before chewing completely?

A Green is also not the same as a member of Greenpeace. Get it straight.

Some of the stuff in the links is valid. Some is what we'd call a stretcher. Just because someone says something which is against "conventional wisdom" doesn't make it right. (or vice-versa).

What is it about Adequacy people that cause them to assume that if anyone is not a Randroid, they are a hemp-wearing, molotov-cocktail-throwing droid of the anti-globalist conspiracy? Is this the argument room from Monty Python, or what?

j.


Somebody please stop me... (5.00 / 1) (#99)
by jvance on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 01:22:38 PM PST
I have a clean shot. I'm taking it.

Is this the argument room from Monty Python...?

No it isn't.
--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

 
Follow up: Again about America (none / 0) (#103)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 01:33:37 PM PST
I have wrote the previous comment.Sorry for not haing an account yet but I am sick of remembering logon ID's and password.

When I said "You" I was referring to all the previous posts.

As about global warming it exists: I come from EasternEurope, Romania and I have lived in the country for few years. Trust me a lot have changed from the point of view of climate in the last 15 years.

And one of the things I hate most at "you" is this "I know it better",

see ya, C

-----------------------
"Because it's no love to be static like the desert nor it's love to roam the world like the wind. And it's not love to see everything from a distance . Love it is the force that transforms and improves the soul of whe world" - Coelho



 
Another follow up (none / 0) (#108)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 01:42:38 PM PST
You know the biggest problem of all is that America doesn't sees "the big picture". As you just did . You took my message, split it into parts and become punctual. Is it that hard to see the big picture?

Or if you are doing it , you are doing it with "colateral damages". This 40.000 are col.damages, as so the children killed in the recent war, as everything else. JUST TO BE THE BIG AMERICA. UUUUNITED STAAAAATES OOOOF AAAAAMEERICA. Got it?

"You" have good things, but so the others do.

I will write more here it gets interesting,

C


 
Banning computer games... (none / 0) (#6)
by The Mad Scientist on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 05:16:41 AM PST
...is futile attempt. If urban car races will not be available from official sources, unofficial ones will inevitably appear.

According to ZD News article Resistance Records offers the "most politically incorrect video game ever made", Ethnic Cleansing.

With the appearance of open-source game engines, like Genesis 3D for Doom-like games, and FlightGear for flight simulators, there is nothing that can stop rogue developers from making their own games that suit the tastes of them and their customers. (There was nothing to stop them even before - but the availability of tools lowers the "barrier to entry" to the market.)

Remember these maxims: Might makes right, Demand creates supply, and Restrictions create black market.


OMG!!! (none / 0) (#7)
by PotatoError on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 05:45:00 AM PST
Resistance sounds like the funniest game ever! LOL i laughed my head off that someone would actually make something like that! Its gotta be a joke right?
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

good God (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by nathan on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 09:04:53 AM PST
Racist violence is a daily reality for thousands of Americans. How can you laugh at this?

You are the scum of society.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Perhaps, just perhaps (none / 0) (#54)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 03:43:14 AM PST
Racist violence is a daily reality for thousands of Americans. How can you laugh at this?

I know I'm going out on a limb here, but perhaps it's because computer games are not real life.

Perhaps you have seen many of the Rodney King parodies. In particular, Rodney interrupting his beating to recommend pills for when you've got a terrible headache. These are not real either.


 
heh (none / 0) (#76)
by PotatoError on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 11:00:03 AM PST
"Racist violence is a daily reality for thousands of Americans. How can you laugh at this?"

I would never partake in racist violence but you have to laugh at a game like this really. Its so politically incorrect its funny.

How many thousands of jokes have americans made about afghanis the last 6 months?

Everyone does it. I disagree with political correctness. Its a stupid liberal invention and its a breath of fresh air when its broken.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
20 WTCs! (none / 0) (#8)
by PotatoError on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 06:01:50 AM PST
Thats shit lots of people. Why all the fuss over WTC if that 40,000 statistic is true?

Maybe we should put the "ban compilers and debuggers" movement on pause.

"Most people could not happily tolerate the death of a single child, let alone one in hundred, yet each year our government gives its tacit support for this needless sacrifice by refusing to take action to prevent it."
bah, Kosovo, Afganistan, Iraq - need many more examples of the US government giving support for needless sacrifice by refusing to prevent it?
Aparently negligence is a concept that the US military doesnt believe in.

"Most of these games don't even include turn signals!"
"Points should be given for correctly indicating turns and lane changes, remaining on the right side of the road and within the lane markings, for stopping at stop signs and executing proper reverse parking manoeuvres, amongst other driving skills."
Ahh Microsoft Car Simulator.

Good idea about the black boxes in cars. That would be very useful.

"Since our current political apparatus is not willing to erect road signs proclaiming the omnipresence of the Lord"
This is the problem - we need to force the government to put up signs like "Remember - God is watching YOU!" and "When red lights show, stop or be damned".


<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Mmm (none / 0) (#14)
by asharp on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 07:14:53 AM PST
Black boxes - agreed (my mate designed and built one at college!).

> "When red lights show, stop or be damned".
-*-chuckle-*-




cool [nt] (none / 0) (#77)
by PotatoError on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 11:01:53 AM PST

<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
Nothing (3.00 / 4) (#9)
by Right Hand Man on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 06:47:01 AM PST
40,000 deaths per year is nothing.

There are about 1.3 million legal murders in the US every year. That works out to about 3561 per day. In one month more than twice as many innocents are murdered than die in an entire year's worth of automobile accidents. The people responsible walk free, and in most cases they are even paid for their deed by their willing accomplices.

I don't think I even need to type the word, but I'm talking about abortion. Baby killing. You want to really save a bunch of children? Grab a protest sign, write your congressman, attend a fundraiser, or stop by the hardware store on your way home and pick up a length of PVC pipe (to make a handle for your sign). Just do something, lives are being snuffed out while we sit here and chit chat.


-------------------------
"Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

I agree (1.00 / 1) (#22)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 09:40:28 AM PST
These loose women (mostly young women/teens) are the greatest threat to their unborn, so if you see a pregnant looking young woman, TELL them that Aborting their fetus, will land them in the lake of FIRE! I do, and it works 70% of the time. The other 30% will be banished to the land of eternal damnation!


 
Amen brutha! (none / 0) (#25)
by wumingzi on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 09:55:05 AM PST
Yep, I just LOVE dropping by the day care in my neighborhood and seeing all the single-parent children down there. There's one who's just adorable. Every time I come in, he comes up to me wanting to get hugged. He won't let go. I asked (jokingly) if his dad didn't hug him at home. Well, he's never seen his dad the teacher told me.
<P>
Don't worry about me though. Go back to your nice, God-fearing suburban neighborhood. Congratulate yourself on your nice lawn and your adorable little kids. Please don't bring your PVC pipe and sign down here though.
<P>
j.



mmm (none / 0) (#26)
by nathan on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 10:13:09 AM PST
Better he'd never been born, is what you're saying?

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Re: mmm (none / 0) (#32)
by wumingzi on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 11:28:13 AM PST
Better he'd never been born, is what you're saying?

Y'know, I think about this a lot, because you look at how cute the kids are, and what would it be like if they weren't there. (I like cute kids too), but yeah.

When I go down to my neighborhood day care and it doesn't look like a social disaster area with fully half of the children being from single-parent families, and half of the children needing state aid so that their parents can pay the very modest tuition charged by the school (interestingly, there's a lot of overlap between these halves, whaddya think?), come back and tell me what a sin abortion is.

Some of the traditionalists on this board may point out that the parents of the kids I'm seeing are no younger or more ill-prepared than their peers of fifty years ago. Since the original topic here is the automobile, I'll wrap around and make a half-assed syllogism out of this.

The problem is not the parents. They're idiots, and so are we all. The problem is that our modern, mobile society has demolished the safety net of the extended family. Fifty years ago, three branches of the family would definitely be living in the same neighborhood, and many of them would be in the same house. Now they're spread all over Kingdom Come. My folks are 30 and 100 miles away respectively, which makes them a lot closer-knit than most, but I don't rely on them much for day care just the same.

I wrote a kind of long diatribe after this point, but I didn't like it, so it got bit-bucketed.

My point is simple. If you're not emotionally or economically ready to have kids, don't have them. I don't see much indication that premarital sex is appreciably more popular now than it was 50 years ago, the difference is that the consequences and social structure have changed a lot. Your family isn't going to be of much help, your government isn't going to be of much help. Statistically speaking, you probably aren't a churchgoer in the first place, and there aren't manufacturing or trade jobs to throw semi-literate progeny into.

So other than encouraging abstinence (while you're at it, go for world peace and universal moral righteousness as well!), what do you propose besides agressive family planning?


Nathan, I humbly apologize (none / 0) (#36)
by Adam Rightmann on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 01:31:59 PM PST
I was reading your very good point about wumingzi saying that the child should never have been born, and in a fit of spasticness I accidentally hit the delete post link. I will talk to the unix experts that run Adequacy, and see if they can remove my delete post privileges.


A. Rightmann

my dear fellow! (none / 0) (#40)
by nathan on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 02:45:53 PM PST
No trouble at all.

To quickly recap my position: poverty and ignorance are nothing new, and will continue to exist regardless of whether abortions, aka "aggressive family planning," are common or rare. It's better to be alive and poor than it is to never have lived at all. In fact, throughout all of human history, everyone has been poorer, stupider, and more disease-ridden than we are now, but no one would have denied our forefathers life on that account.

How poor do you have to be in order to be denied the right to have children? And how exactly would abortion prevent single parenthood? Giving an unwanted child up for adoption accomplishes the same thing, wouldn't you say?

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Don't Stop There (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by jvance on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 03:50:02 PM PST
Every woman carries about 4,000 viable ova in her ovaries. What about those that are denied fertilization? Do they not deserve the right to life just as much as you do? Surely it's better for them to live, even in rampant squalor and starvation, than to never have existed?

The Catholics are on the right path, but merely banning contraceptives does not go far enough. I propose that every fertile and ovulating woman be forced by law to make herself available for insemination. I realize that it's a poor solution, but until such time that medical technology allows us to harvest and fertilize every woman's eggs, it will have to do. To do any less would be to slaughter billions!


--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

I'm stopping there. (none / 0) (#43)
by nathan on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 04:21:39 PM PST
I could pull the reverse red ad abs by asking if infanticide is a legitimate means of population control.

I don't recall claiming that every embryo was the moral equivalent of a human being, and I don't consider abortions to be murder (pace Adam and Mr Hand.) That being said, I thought it was pretty creepy that the thread's parent essentially said that poor peoples' lives aren't worth living.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

 
billions?! (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 10:54:33 PM PST
we are slaughtering trillions by our selfish refusal to develop technology to clone every human being 1000 times a day. the horror!!

heck, i've already not cloned myself a few hundred times already today.

let us pray for these poor victims.




Sweet Nectar (none / 0) (#49)
by jvance on Wed Feb 20th, 2002 at 11:17:06 PM PST
Hey, at least my proposal's doable with present technology. And as a bonus, some of you guys might finally Get Some.

As osm might say: "If the fecund ova of Eva Habermann's womanhood were mine for the fertilizing, I'd be frying me up an omelette."

Or something.
--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

 
...and continue further! (none / 0) (#58)
by The Mad Scientist on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 06:59:51 AM PST
Every woman carries about 4,000 viable ova in her ovaries. What about those that are denied fertilization? Do they not deserve the right to life just as much as you do?

This appears to be a little sexist; an egg is only half of what it takes to form a zygote. What about the countless billions of sperms that will never get their chance?

Seems that at the end an average woman with her 4000 wasted potential lives will get it cheap in comparison with billions of unborns every man is responsible for.


The arithmetic of life. (none / 0) (#61)
by tkatchev on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 08:43:11 AM PST
Lives aren't "wasted". Either you are alive, or you are dead. You can't be "halfway pregnant".

Please stop this madness; can you not see that you are replacing reality with a half-baked liberalist construction that is based on blind faith? Wake up, we're not talking about "potential lives" or "potential pregnancies" or "potential murders". We're talking about real-life babies that get killed.


--
Peace and much love...




So... (none / 0) (#65)
by jvance on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 09:27:07 AM PST
So you draw the line at conception, right? We've now established that you're a murderer. We're just haggling over the body count.
--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

Who cares? (none / 0) (#69)
by tkatchev on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 10:39:56 AM PST
Does it matter where we draw "the line"?

The real world is not a liberalist dream fantasy; the real world never has clear-cut lines and hard-set rules. You should know that by now.


--
Peace and much love...




Reminds me of an old joke (none / 0) (#85)
by jvance on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 11:35:09 AM PST
... that in American Jewish culture, a fetus is not considered viable, and can therefore be aborted, at any point prior to graduation from medical school.

"... the real world never has clear-cut lines and hard-set rules."

Thank you for confirming that you are a moral relativist. I'm sure your new friends, the Secular Humanists, will welcome you into your ranks with open arms.
--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

Notice... (none / 0) (#107)
by tkatchev on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 01:42:37 PM PST
...that I used the phrase "real world". As in, the worldly, material; we all know who the prince of the material world is, do we not?

Just like a liberalist to completely ignore the distinction between the material and the spiritual.


--
Peace and much love...




 
and mine as well! (none / 0) (#83)
by wumingzi on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 11:17:06 AM PST
To quickly recap my position: poverty and ignorance are nothing new, and will continue to exist regardless of whether abortions, aka "aggressive family planning," are common or rare. It's better to be alive and poor than it is to never have lived at all. In fact, throughout all of human history, everyone has been poorer, stupider, and more disease-ridden than we are now, but no one would have denied our forefathers life on that account.

Whether or not it is better to be alive and poor than not alive at all is something which I don't buy. I'm not really writing about poverty though. Somewhere in this thread you'll see me ripping into Right Hand Man on this subject. Besides, I like your point of view better.

How poor do you have to be in order to be denied the right to have children? And how exactly would abortion prevent single parenthood? Giving an unwanted child up for adoption accomplishes the same thing, wouldn't you say?

I'm not writing about poverty per se. I'm writing about people having children who are personally unready and have no support mechanism to help them out. If I had a child at 20, that's the boat I would have been in.

As to how does abortion avoid single-parenthood, I'll make it really easy for you. A lot of people who probably shouldn't have been couples in the first place (or were a couple only in the sense of entertainment, not in the sense of a mutual, enduring relationship) wind up popping out kids. Sometimes, they even formalize their previously informal relationship because a kid is coming. Maybe this doesn't happen on your planet. It happens here all the time. Come on down and I'll introduce you to a few just in my close circle of friends!

If kids (and backwards religious beliefs) don't get involved in these relationships, they run their course and end with party a moving out of party b's apartment at the end of the year, and going on to try again next year.

If you want to ask me about the moral validity of relationship-hopping like this, I'll take the fifth today. It's too far off topic, and I don't think I can clearly explain my ideas on this in 1000 words or less.

As to adoption vs. abortion. If you want to carry a child to term, that's fine, I guess. Some of my friends have done just that. If your conscience tells you that aborting your own child is murder, then don't do it. I'm totally behind you. Truth of the matter is, I don't like adoption very much. It says to me: "I want to bring a life into this world, but no way do I want to take responsiblity for it.". That bothers me. It is also a gross simplification to an issue which has a lot of facets, so I don't begrudge people who put their kids up for adoption, or who choose to adopt children themselves.

My problem comes with people prosletyzing that abortion is murder. It is finally an article of faith which is between nobody but yourself and your Creator. If you don't follow this, maybe you should come watch the Vegans holding dead cow posters outside McDonalds. Morally, they are on a similar footing. Personally, I think radical vegans and evangelistic pro-lifers are both a little nuts.

j.


please try to argue coherently. (none / 0) (#90)
by nathan on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 12:08:56 PM PST
I reiterate: throughout all of human history, all people have been far poorer, more ignorant, and more sickly than virtually any American is today. The difference in world material wealth between even 1929 and 2002 is stupefying. You decry the position of the poor today; fine, it's not good that anyone should be poor. I defy you to get from poverty to abortion as a panacea for it. By that standard, every Angolan should have been aborted.

This isn't as bloody-minded a viewpoint as you probably think it is. You have accepted as an article of (liberalist) faith that abortions aren't a serious emotional or spiritual blow to the mother. I disagree with this, because the idea that the foetus is disposable intrudes on the principle of the inviolable sacredness of human life. Human beings are not just walking meatballs. In Antigone, we hear of
[t]he hapless corpse of Polyneices...le[ft] unwept, unsepulchred, a welcome store for the birds, as they espy him, to feast on at will.
Sophocles thought that here oughtn't even to be disrespect shown to the human form.

The pro-life/pro-choice dichotomy is political, and you must free yourself from that paradigm in order to understand the objections of people who differ from you. If families must form and break up and fail, I say that that is a petty price to pay for preserving our respect for humanity! The solution you propose would, by making human life literally as cheap as dirt, destroy society. Worse, if we lose our respect for human life, we have no basis for any other imaginable virtue.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

I wonder if you're reading my comments... (none / 0) (#100)
by wumingzi on Thu Feb 21st, 2002 at 01:24:00 PM PST
... or some version of them which is posted on http://www.parallel-Adequacy.org/

I reiterate: throughout all of human history, all people have been far poorer, more ignorant, and more sickly than virtually