hakase
Yikes, I think with you having this many bad takes in such a short span, we're probably not going to reach a place where we see eye to eye on this.
The difference being, of course, that drunk driving has an incredibly high chance of negatively affecting others, while not wearing a seatbelt has an incredibly low chance of negatively affecting others.
People have a right to make stupid decisions, even ones that would be dangerous to themselves.
We know this is the case because fast food isn't illegal - it's just that people (in this thread) are too stupid to see the contradictions in their own logic. Seatbelts are just a really oddly specific example of people choosing to police other people's stupid decisions, for some reason.
it’s appropriately forcing someone who can’t be an adult to act like one.
I don't think I could have worded this in a more infantilizing manner if I tried, so thanks for proving my point I guess?
in reality this kind of law is very effective at making more mindful of their safety, even if idiots among them do it begrudgingly.
There are other ways to incentivize this behavior that doesn't involve becoming an infantilizing nanny state. Significantly higher insurance premiums for people who choose not to buckle up, for example.
Cigarettes are another great example - they're not illegal, but the government gives people financial incentives not to use them in the form of sin taxes.
There are many ways to disincentivize stupid behavior while still respecting the right of people to make those stupid choices.
You've completely misunderstood the argument.
People should be allowed to do things that are dangerous.
The people in this thread are arguing that becoming a human projectile is dangerous to other people, and I'm asking them to provide evidence of this.
Infantilize adults for the sake of the children, got it.
Probably the worst take I've seen in this thread, and that's saying something.
Regardless of the severity of the offense, sovereign nations ultimately have the right to decide who is or is not allowed into their countries.
If someone finds you trespassing in their garden, they make you leave. If you're drunk in Kroger, once again, they make you leave. This is perfectly in keeping with the nature of the crime - if you're in a place where you're not allowed to be, including nations, you have to leave.
I fully agree with a legal path to emigrate to any and all countries, but only if done ahead of time and through the proper legal channels. (And it goes without saying that once those channels have been gone through, resident status should not be revoked without serious reason to do so, followed by due process.)
Breaking a country's laws by entering illegally is already serious evidence against your being a good citizen; plus, regardless of how good a citizen you are, countries have a right to decide which non-citizens are or are not allowed to enter their countries in the first place, based on any and all conditions they alone deem relevant.
If you break in to my house and then ask me for a job, even if you'd be the best worker in the world, I'm still gonna respond with, "Get the hell out of my house", and I'd be right to do so.