seat belts
- Thread starter mirikill_man
- Start date
Both of you READ what I said about who's logic. And then read where I said that I was using their logic as the basis for my arguement.
I have more productive and engaging arguements in my mind than you could ever comprehend. A drop of my sperm should have graced your mother's vagina. Maybe then you wouldn't have had downs syndrome. Now let's see exactly what YOU said.
Ok, Chump, let's go over what I bolded. Here YOU ARE DIRECTLY STATING that you are the only one who should be able to judge YOUR actions, specifically those regarding your safety. You said NOTHING else. Because you had NOTHING else to say. You're too stupid to think of anything else.
And as far as your little "no one said nuthin about drinkin and drivin or gettin high and drivin or any of that shit," you're right. But according to YOUR logic you should decide if you are able to drive while intoxicated or not. You are an idiot.
I have more productive and engaging arguements in my mind than you could ever comprehend. A drop of my sperm should have graced your mother's vagina. Maybe then you wouldn't have had downs syndrome. Now let's see exactly what YOU said.
Ok, Chump, let's go over what I bolded. Here YOU ARE DIRECTLY STATING that you are the only one who should be able to judge YOUR actions, specifically those regarding your safety. You said NOTHING else. Because you had NOTHING else to say. You're too stupid to think of anything else.
And as far as your little "no one said nuthin about drinkin and drivin or gettin high and drivin or any of that shit," you're right. But according to YOUR logic you should decide if you are able to drive while intoxicated or not. You are an idiot.
except when they present a law like this they obviously relay on death statistics as a scare tactic to present the seatbelt law, providing the immitation that they actually even give a fuck about our well being....and that it would save lives, when really. like yall said...its about some money and insurance.....kinda fucked up
Which was my logic. Your using my logic for your arguement. Pretty easy to understand.
blah blah blah worthless typing....
On the current topic at hand, the seatbelt, correct.
correct.
correct.
Thats a bad assumption.
Really? how so? im curious as to how or why you would jump to this conclusion because i simply stated the main point i wanted to get across, which is coverd above. Im sorry but your pathetic, and so is your "arguement".
I know im right, you dont need to point this out.
As the above states, I nor anyone in this thread said one single solitary word about driving while intoxicated. Not once. You are making the mistake by assuming that my "seatbelt logic" would also apply to driving while intoxicated.
Reading the above, im sure you understand the irony in this statement.
blah blah blah worthless typing....
On the current topic at hand, the seatbelt, correct.
correct.
correct.
Thats a bad assumption.
Really? how so? im curious as to how or why you would jump to this conclusion because i simply stated the main point i wanted to get across, which is coverd above. Im sorry but your pathetic, and so is your "arguement".
I know im right, you dont need to point this out.
As the above states, I nor anyone in this thread said one single solitary word about driving while intoxicated. Not once. You are making the mistake by assuming that my "seatbelt logic" would also apply to driving while intoxicated.
Reading the above, im sure you understand the irony in this statement.
I think you mean "HAS" genius. Way to go when you're talking about people thinking they are smart. :dead:
I wear my seat belt, so I don't die. My mom almost got killed in a car wreck when I was younger by some drunk fuck that had his license revoked like 4 times or some shit. If there's not a seat belt or it doesn't work, I'm not trippin...But if I can help it, I wear it. I'd rather not get ejected through the windshield at 45 MPH. I wore my seat belt long before it was a law, as a personal precaution. I don't give a fuck what I look like wearing my seat belt, cause I know almost for sure (there's always a chance something could go wrong) I'd look better than someone who didn't after an accident.
I wear my seat belt, so I don't die. My mom almost got killed in a car wreck when I was younger by some drunk fuck that had his license revoked like 4 times or some shit. If there's not a seat belt or it doesn't work, I'm not trippin...But if I can help it, I wear it. I'd rather not get ejected through the windshield at 45 MPH. I wore my seat belt long before it was a law, as a personal precaution. I don't give a fuck what I look like wearing my seat belt, cause I know almost for sure (there's always a chance something could go wrong) I'd look better than someone who didn't after an accident.
Wrong.You were talking about safety in general. If you even think of denying this re-read what you typed. And then put it into the context of the arguement.
It's not. If you did have in fact more to say you should have stated it. The fact that you didn't, and I'll go a bit off topic here, the fact that all your replies are nothing more than a few mono-syllabic words presented in "1st grade writing" make this a very good assumption...that is if it WERE an assumption. You moronic dolt. I assumed nothing. I concluded. I used a very logically sound arguement. Unlike you.
There we go. The underlined portion is your question. The bolded portion is your answer.
Dakota? Washinton? California? What are you talking about?
Neither did I claim otherwise.
Incorrect. I am using your logic. You never made a distinction. As a matter of fact you EXPLICITLY stated that you were talking about your safety levels, but never once mentioned "seatbelt safety levels," of course you'll try and put your spin into it. But reading and using the evidence in the context that YOU gave it is impossible to think otherwise.
No, I don't. What I do understand though, is that you claiming that I am an idiot, and then throwing in a word like "irony," when neither of the two is true (IE myself being an idiot, or the situation being ironic) is in itself ironic!
It's not. If you did have in fact more to say you should have stated it. The fact that you didn't, and I'll go a bit off topic here, the fact that all your replies are nothing more than a few mono-syllabic words presented in "1st grade writing" make this a very good assumption...that is if it WERE an assumption. You moronic dolt. I assumed nothing. I concluded. I used a very logically sound arguement. Unlike you.
There we go. The underlined portion is your question. The bolded portion is your answer.
Dakota? Washinton? California? What are you talking about?
Neither did I claim otherwise.
Incorrect. I am using your logic. You never made a distinction. As a matter of fact you EXPLICITLY stated that you were talking about your safety levels, but never once mentioned "seatbelt safety levels," of course you'll try and put your spin into it. But reading and using the evidence in the context that YOU gave it is impossible to think otherwise.
No, I don't. What I do understand though, is that you claiming that I am an idiot, and then throwing in a word like "irony," when neither of the two is true (IE myself being an idiot, or the situation being ironic) is in itself ironic!
dumb fuck.
YOU'RE telling ME what I said? HAHAHA. thats fucking hilarious.
No, i was not talking about saftey in GENERAL, i was talking about SEAT BELTS....check the thread name u stupid fag.
Why? I dont have to do shit, ill state the points i wish. Silence yourself.
Problem is, you dont have an arguement.
wow.
So you're making the distinction for me? Sorry but you're not in a position of any kind to do so, in other words, shut your fucking hole.
oh its fucking ironic for sure, im entertained by the fact that you dont see it.
YOU'RE telling ME what I said? HAHAHA. thats fucking hilarious.
No, i was not talking about saftey in GENERAL, i was talking about SEAT BELTS....check the thread name u stupid fag.
Why? I dont have to do shit, ill state the points i wish. Silence yourself.
Problem is, you dont have an arguement.
wow.
So you're making the distinction for me? Sorry but you're not in a position of any kind to do so, in other words, shut your fucking hole.
oh its fucking ironic for sure, im entertained by the fact that you dont see it.
I AM HAVING TOO MUCH FUN!
No. I am telling you what you TYPED. Hilarity ensued when you tried to deny it.
Don't understand the word "context" do ya boy? Let me explain it then.
Your cock infested mouth said the following:
its rediculous that this is a law...fuck the law, ill decide my own saftey levels...no one decides that for me.
Now to destroy your feeble attempts at even trying to have an intellectual discourse with me.
1. its rediculous that this is a law...
-Here, and ONLY here, are you ACTUALLY referring to the sealtbelt law.
2. fuck the law
-This is exactly where your arguement falls to shit. Because you said fuck "the" law. Referring to either law enforcement agencies or to laws everywhere. Now I know you're an idiot but try and follow me. Okay? "The" is what we would call a definitive article. Now generally we use "the" before a singular noun, much like the word "law," in order to indicate that the word is general or generic. This, whether it was your intention or not, is what you did. Making your whole arguement a waste of time, because quite frankly you are an idiot.
Now, what you SHOULD have done is used the word "that." Now, "that" is a pronoun, but is also known as a demonstrative. The word demonstrative is etymologically derived from the latin demonstrare, or to show. Much like how I am showing you, how stupid you are for even trying to fuck with me on an intellectual basis. Now, the demonstrative (THE) is a "deictic" word, or a word that relies solely on context, and is used by the speaker in order to distinguish one word from another. Which you did not do.
3. ill decide my own saftey levels...no one decides that for me.
Here, is that logic of yours, that I am using to destroy your "rhetoric."
ZZZzzzzzzzzzz
I don't eh? Then what have you been trying to discredit? Wait, don't answer. Because your responces are so boring they make me wan...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
Nope. If you like to think so please quote me. But you won't be able to because you are simply pulling shit out of your ass. Now stop your whining or I'll have to put my cock in your mouth again.
In order for what I said to be ironic I would have to be an idiot. I am much more intelligent than you and in no way an idiot. Now YOU trying to call ME and idiot only needs YOU to be an idiot, which you are. THAT is irony. What you said is NOT.
Now run along. I am done with you.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!!!!
No. I am telling you what you TYPED. Hilarity ensued when you tried to deny it.
Don't understand the word "context" do ya boy? Let me explain it then.
Your cock infested mouth said the following:
its rediculous that this is a law...fuck the law, ill decide my own saftey levels...no one decides that for me.
Now to destroy your feeble attempts at even trying to have an intellectual discourse with me.
1. its rediculous that this is a law...
-Here, and ONLY here, are you ACTUALLY referring to the sealtbelt law.
2. fuck the law
-This is exactly where your arguement falls to shit. Because you said fuck "the" law. Referring to either law enforcement agencies or to laws everywhere. Now I know you're an idiot but try and follow me. Okay? "The" is what we would call a definitive article. Now generally we use "the" before a singular noun, much like the word "law," in order to indicate that the word is general or generic. This, whether it was your intention or not, is what you did. Making your whole arguement a waste of time, because quite frankly you are an idiot.
Now, what you SHOULD have done is used the word "that." Now, "that" is a pronoun, but is also known as a demonstrative. The word demonstrative is etymologically derived from the latin demonstrare, or to show. Much like how I am showing you, how stupid you are for even trying to fuck with me on an intellectual basis. Now, the demonstrative (THE) is a "deictic" word, or a word that relies solely on context, and is used by the speaker in order to distinguish one word from another. Which you did not do.
3. ill decide my own saftey levels...no one decides that for me.
Here, is that logic of yours, that I am using to destroy your "rhetoric."
ZZZzzzzzzzzzz
I don't eh? Then what have you been trying to discredit? Wait, don't answer. Because your responces are so boring they make me wan...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!
Nope. If you like to think so please quote me. But you won't be able to because you are simply pulling shit out of your ass. Now stop your whining or I'll have to put my cock in your mouth again.
In order for what I said to be ironic I would have to be an idiot. I am much more intelligent than you and in no way an idiot. Now YOU trying to call ME and idiot only needs YOU to be an idiot, which you are. THAT is irony. What you said is NOT.
Now run along. I am done with you.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!!!!
I do trust my driving skills, but as was said before, I don't trust other people on the road. The best driver in the world is still succeptable to get into an accident because of another shitty driver.
Seatbelts are not a sure thing. They are not gaurenteed to save your life. In fact, my fifth grade teacher, according to his story, was paralyzed in an accident while wearing his seatbelt. He said that if he had not worn the belt he would have went out the window and been able to walk. So I understand that it is not a sure bet, and in some instances can prove to be harmful (just like an airbag), but those situations are few and far between.
The point is, when you look at the big picture, seatbelts have proven to be the safest way to drive on the streets. They have saved more lives than they have destroyed by a great margin.
Okay, in some cases. So if for every 10 lives saved by a seatbelt there is one life lost because of the belt, you think it is better to go without?
It comes down to these documented (NHTSA) facts.
You are 50% less likely to die in an accident if you have your seatbelt on.
14,000 lives were saved in 2002 (In the U.S.) because of seatbelts.
If you guys don't want to wear your belt then fine. But if for one second you think that you are better off, safety wise, without one on, then you are a troubled individual with little common sense. No personal shots, that goes to everyone.
Seatbelts are not a sure thing. They are not gaurenteed to save your life. In fact, my fifth grade teacher, according to his story, was paralyzed in an accident while wearing his seatbelt. He said that if he had not worn the belt he would have went out the window and been able to walk. So I understand that it is not a sure bet, and in some instances can prove to be harmful (just like an airbag), but those situations are few and far between.
The point is, when you look at the big picture, seatbelts have proven to be the safest way to drive on the streets. They have saved more lives than they have destroyed by a great margin.
Okay, in some cases. So if for every 10 lives saved by a seatbelt there is one life lost because of the belt, you think it is better to go without?
It comes down to these documented (NHTSA) facts.
You are 50% less likely to die in an accident if you have your seatbelt on.
14,000 lives were saved in 2002 (In the U.S.) because of seatbelts.
If you guys don't want to wear your belt then fine. But if for one second you think that you are better off, safety wise, without one on, then you are a troubled individual with little common sense. No personal shots, that goes to everyone.
I didnt deny anything, you simply didnt understand what i typed. Followed by assumptions.
this basically discredits any backing for your arguement. Sorry.
Not only here, but everything after that is in relation, again you are wrong. And once again, YOU are telling ME what im talking about. cant happen.
Im sorry you dont understand i was talking about eh seat belt law, but i also pitty the fact that you simply dont understand that, that is what we are talking about here....the seat belt law.....get the picture buddy? wow.
you do not understand my logic therefore you are wrong.
Let me clear this up seeings as your too fucking complex to see what im saying...
I feel that the seat belt law is bullshit because, My wearing or not wearing a seat belt does not affect anyone but myself, essentially i believe it is the persons personal choice as to wiether he or she should decide to wear one or not....does this clerify? I hope so.
The fact that you do indeed even have an arguement, cuz u cant understand what im typin...jackass.
this basically discredits any backing for your arguement. Sorry.
Not only here, but everything after that is in relation, again you are wrong. And once again, YOU are telling ME what im talking about. cant happen.
Im sorry you dont understand i was talking about eh seat belt law, but i also pitty the fact that you simply dont understand that, that is what we are talking about here....the seat belt law.....get the picture buddy? wow.
you do not understand my logic therefore you are wrong.
Let me clear this up seeings as your too fucking complex to see what im saying...
I feel that the seat belt law is bullshit because, My wearing or not wearing a seat belt does not affect anyone but myself, essentially i believe it is the persons personal choice as to wiether he or she should decide to wear one or not....does this clerify? I hope so.
The fact that you do indeed even have an arguement, cuz u cant understand what im typin...jackass.
it doesnt matter if its a seatbelt or not- thats kind of irrelevant if you really want to debate this one.
Does making a conscious decision to do something (anything... no seatbelts, drugs, base jumping, playing in traffic etc.) which could potentially be the reason you are severely injured or killed- make you a stupider human being?
Does making a conscious decision to do something (anything... no seatbelts, drugs, base jumping, playing in traffic etc.) which could potentially be the reason you are severely injured or killed- make you a stupider human being?
I think theres a connection between people who aren't very smart and those people not caring if they live or die. What wearing a seat belt ALL comes down to is, do you care about your life?..If you do, then you'd wear your seatbelt all the time no matter what anybody says or how it makes you look or how uncomfortable it makes you. Does that make sense to anybody?
So I guess what I'm saying is...there is a "direct coralition" between people with a low IQ and those people not truly caring if they live or die.
On a side note, that shit MexicanComando said up there blew my mind, this cat likes to get intellectual
So I guess what I'm saying is...there is a "direct coralition" between people with a low IQ and those people not truly caring if they live or die.
On a side note, that shit MexicanComando said up there blew my mind, this cat likes to get intellectual
I highly doubt that there's a connection. There's probably as many smart people that do shit as "dumb" people. I'm not an expert so I wouldn't know for sure but I know some smart people that do stupid shit and it's not cause they're stupid. Some people just choose to do different things with their lives. Some people are just more extreme in how they live, just like some people are extremely religious.
One more before I tuck my self in my cozy bed
Actually, you are denying it. I proved that grammatically you type something, you pretty much disregarded my proof, maybe because you didn't understand it, but the point stands. You talked about your "safety levels." You never once mentioned seatbelts, and even in the context of what you said, you didn't imply that's what we were talking about. And although I know you're going to disagree you must remember one thing, before you try to argue or disagree with something that *YOU* *WROTE* learn the syntax of the language. That way you can keep up with me. Secondly I never assumed a damn thing. Must I etymologically prove that also?
No, it doesn't. I *KNOW* what you *WANTED* to say. But I also know what *ACTUALLY* said. Once again, one must use grammatical rules, if not what one originally says, turns into something totally different. Sorry.
Wrong. Remember that whole thing about the "defenitive article" and the usage of demonstratives? You only *IMPLIED* seatbelts in the firstpart of your little tirade. The rest, as I proved, was a grammatical error on *YOUR* part. I, once again, *KNOW* what you intended to say. But, unlike you, I also know what you *ACTUALLY* said. So once again, as in all previous posts, you are wrong. I AM *TELLING* you what were talking about because it's what you typed.
What the hell are you talking about? Or did you forget this?
Right THERE! Right there, you are in agreeance with me! We are talking about...drum roll por favor...the SEATBELT LAW! So you, not I, but *YOU* have just contradicted yourself. How can I *NOT* know what we are talking about when *YOU* agreed that I *KNEW* we were talking about the same fucking subject you are denying that I know? Jesus Christ, you're an idiot.
Once again. You are an idiot.
Prove it, chump. I understand your logic. Especially since what *YOU* stated is what I am using as the basis of *MY* arguement. The thing *YOU* don't understand is that *YOU* dug your own grave when you incorrectly said something. I am simply running off of what *YOU* said. Therefore I am using *YOUR* stated logic. Since I *DO* understand your logic, I guess that means you are wrong.
And you are too simple to see that I am right. But proceed.
Wow. Please kill yourself now. Matter of fact NEVER procreate...that mean's don't have babies, but being that you're a fag I guess no worries there.
Now, you just stated an improvised point. But here's the clincher. I ALWAYS KNEW THAT WAS YOUR POINT. I'm smarter than you, remember that, and even though your new and improved point, because it is ALOT different than what you originally posted, is what I already KNEW was your point it is very different than what you originally posted.
Here is another "faux-paradox." You are arguing with me about whether or not I have an argument. ARGUING whether or not I have an arguement. This in and of itself creates and arguement for me. Completely defeating *YOUR* stance.
Not true. I actually understand both sides of this quarrel better than you.
Now I am off to bed. Please come back tomorrow.
Actually, you are denying it. I proved that grammatically you type something, you pretty much disregarded my proof, maybe because you didn't understand it, but the point stands. You talked about your "safety levels." You never once mentioned seatbelts, and even in the context of what you said, you didn't imply that's what we were talking about. And although I know you're going to disagree you must remember one thing, before you try to argue or disagree with something that *YOU* *WROTE* learn the syntax of the language. That way you can keep up with me. Secondly I never assumed a damn thing. Must I etymologically prove that also?
No, it doesn't. I *KNOW* what you *WANTED* to say. But I also know what *ACTUALLY* said. Once again, one must use grammatical rules, if not what one originally says, turns into something totally different. Sorry.
Wrong. Remember that whole thing about the "defenitive article" and the usage of demonstratives? You only *IMPLIED* seatbelts in the firstpart of your little tirade. The rest, as I proved, was a grammatical error on *YOUR* part. I, once again, *KNOW* what you intended to say. But, unlike you, I also know what you *ACTUALLY* said. So once again, as in all previous posts, you are wrong. I AM *TELLING* you what were talking about because it's what you typed.
What the hell are you talking about? Or did you forget this?
Right THERE! Right there, you are in agreeance with me! We are talking about...drum roll por favor...the SEATBELT LAW! So you, not I, but *YOU* have just contradicted yourself. How can I *NOT* know what we are talking about when *YOU* agreed that I *KNEW* we were talking about the same fucking subject you are denying that I know? Jesus Christ, you're an idiot.
Once again. You are an idiot.
Prove it, chump. I understand your logic. Especially since what *YOU* stated is what I am using as the basis of *MY* arguement. The thing *YOU* don't understand is that *YOU* dug your own grave when you incorrectly said something. I am simply running off of what *YOU* said. Therefore I am using *YOUR* stated logic. Since I *DO* understand your logic, I guess that means you are wrong.
And you are too simple to see that I am right. But proceed.
Wow. Please kill yourself now. Matter of fact NEVER procreate...that mean's don't have babies, but being that you're a fag I guess no worries there.
Now, you just stated an improvised point. But here's the clincher. I ALWAYS KNEW THAT WAS YOUR POINT. I'm smarter than you, remember that, and even though your new and improved point, because it is ALOT different than what you originally posted, is what I already KNEW was your point it is very different than what you originally posted.
Here is another "faux-paradox." You are arguing with me about whether or not I have an argument. ARGUING whether or not I have an arguement. This in and of itself creates and arguement for me. Completely defeating *YOUR* stance.
Not true. I actually understand both sides of this quarrel better than you.
Now I am off to bed. Please come back tomorrow.
It look like somebody is jealous of the way I speak. I tell you this: You take French from French man, and then we talk. You see what happen.
(And did you really just respond to something I said some 150 hours earlier, skipping past EVERYTHING ELSE in this thread to zero in on me? And then you would deny that you are obsessed and infatuated with me and everything I do? Holy shit, friend.)
(And did you really just respond to something I said some 150 hours earlier, skipping past EVERYTHING ELSE in this thread to zero in on me? And then you would deny that you are obsessed and infatuated with me and everything I do? Holy shit, friend.)