Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watarts.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!watarts!mupmalis From: mupmalis@watarts.UUCP (mike upmalis) Newsgroups: net.auto,net.flame,net.kids,net.singles Subject: Re: Seat belts Message-ID: <8432@watarts.UUCP> Date: Thu, 25-Apr-85 15:04:41 EST Article-I.D.: watarts.8432 Posted: Thu Apr 25 15:04:41 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 26-Apr-85 04:10:07 EST References: <429@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> <335@calmasd.UUCP> <1299@drusd.UUCP> <104@daisy.UUCP> Reply-To: mupmalis@watarts.UUCP (mike upmalis) Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 18 Xref: watmath net.auto:6549 net.flame:9505 net.kids:1239 net.singles:6779 Summary: In article <104@daisy.UUCP> david@daisy.UUCP (David Schachter) writes: >Sure. Then I suppose we should outlaw car radios because they are distracting. >And we should outlaw comfortable car seats because you might fall asleep. And >we should surely outlaw heterosexual drivers because they account for about >ninety percent of all accidents. Better yet, since plane travel is so much >safer than car travel, why not ban cars entirely? Or at least ban night travel. If we are talking of protecting individual rights, then lets get those drinking drivers back on the road!!! This type of argument is fuitless and banal, argue not by refering to other things that are not related to the issue at hand. Legislation in moderation is the hallmark of a working society, anything in excess (including the pevious flame) is ridiculous... -- ~~ Mike Upmalis (mupmalis@watarts)