Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site mhuxl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!mhuxl!smh
From: smh@mhuxl.UUCP (henning)
Newsgroups: net.auto
Subject: Re: Logical Conclusion
Message-ID: <419@mhuxl.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 24-Dec-85 23:23:40 EST
Article-I.D.: mhuxl.419
Posted: Tue Dec 24 23:23:40 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 25-Dec-85 06:18:56 EST
References: <1261@cbdkc1.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 29

****                                                                 ****
From the keys of Steve Henning, AT&T Bell Labs, Reading, PA mhuxl!smh

> For those who believe in the argument that seatbelt laws infringe upon
> your freedom, don't you think that
driving on the right infringes
stopping at stop signs infringes
wearing clothes infringes
clearing sidewalks of ice and snow infringes
not appearing in public stone drunk infringes
not beating children infringes
mandatory education of children infringes
not riding horses into public buildings infringes
no hanging people that cut you off on the expressway infringes
having to support your self and your family infringes
not being able to use government land for public uses infringes
not being able to broadcast x-rated movies at 4PM on Sunday infringes
not being able to whiz on the grass in public parks infringes
> Why don't you people take your argument to it's logical conclusion?  
Just think, if you know what I mean, if you tied babies to the bumpers
of your cars, fewer people would run into you.  Then you wouldn't
need seat belts.
> Kinda silly isn't it??  But then, it's your argument.

This just an example of how a stupid argument is used to defend
a stupid idea, namely that my insurance should pay for injuries that
are caused by someone not wearing protective restraining devices
in a machine that sometime runs into trees and other machines and
kills and maims more people than any war.