If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
The 'pussification' caused by contemporary society
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Why are there so many things nowadays that prevent risks?
We were seatbelts because it's too 'risky' not to wear them.
Cyclists must wear helmets because it's too 'risky' not to wear them.
Smokers are advised that smoking is unhealthy and are 'warned' on the packets themselves.
Life is about taking risks. Modern life is too safe.
We were seatbelts because it's too 'risky' not to wear them.
Cyclists must wear helmets because it's too 'risky' not to wear them.
Smokers are advised that smoking is unhealthy and are 'warned' on the packets themselves.
Life is about taking risks. Modern life is too safe.
0
Comments
Life is now valued more. I don't know about you but I'd like to live as long as possible and if it means putting a seatbelt on and not smoking then so be it. Like dantheman says what fun do you get out of not putting your seatbelt on?
I'm glad that there is now warnings on the packets of fags... isn't it costing us more if they get ill? By not being safe it isn't just effecting the person involved but has other effects on the people that surround them.
From a purely personal freedom point of view (and I suspect that's where you're coming from) no one should force a person to wear a helmet. It is their decision to lead risky lives, just as much as it is their decision to kill themselves if they wish to do so.
On the other side of the argument, I'm pretty sure every last person in a wheelchair who was paralysed because they hadn't been wearing a helmet when they crashed would tell you they wished the government had forced them to wear one. And there is also the issue of healthcare costs, which in such cases can cost many millions of Pounds per patient. If anyone were free not to wear a seatbelt or crash helmet the number of serious injuries would probably multiply by 20. Why should the government pay towards their care?
Which is why said laws were intorduced in the first place.
Perhaps, monocrat, you should visit your nearest Orthopaedic ward and talk to some of the crash survivors. Then you might understand...
Is that what its all about, you know i WONDERED what the meaning of life was and now I know. Monocrat tells it like it is
If I wear my cycle helmet and I get knocked off my bike because I make an error or because another road user makes an error on the roads - with a bit of luck the poor bastard that Knocked me off is saved any trauma he may feel as a result of the accident.
Oh and so is my mum
But generally everyone knows the risks of smoking. Why is there a need for a warning?
A person only has themselves to blame if they get ill by smoking.
I don't see what that would accomplish.
When did I say that was the 'meaning of life'? :rolleyes:
I knew you wouldn't.
Perhaps the best freedom you should argue for, mono, is your mind's...
Say I'm a smoker and I bought a packet of fags. I look on the packet and I see a warning. I already feel bad about smoking. When reading the warning do you honestly think I will smoke them quicker? The warning makes people feel guilty and encourages them to stop. Yes people do know the risks of smoking but they just need the encouragement to stop.
A person does only have themselves to blame for smoking, but that doesn't mean its acceptable. And people do care if they smoke or not. It's bad for the people that surround them such as children and when they get Lung Cancer they expect to be cared for and get free medical care for in a sense a self inflicted illness. So thats why people shouldn't be risk takers. I think all smokers should not get any free medical care for smoking inflicted illness. They can pay for it and I'm sure they'd have no problems affording it since they will have managed fine to buy a packet of fags everyday for years.
you said life was all about taking risks.
same thingand dont you roll your eyes at me young man
Why?
The people in 'Orthopaedic' wards that are there as a result of accidents have only themselves to blame. THEY can choose whether or not to protect themselves; the state should not.
Dude, you show your limited knowledge of trauma in that one sentence. If only life were so black and white...
Like I said, perhaps you would do better to talk to people rather than make assumptions based on your limited exposure to reality on this issue.
Too rich.
Dude.
An intelligent man knows his limitations. You have surpassed yours.
It's all very well holding an opinion but it always helps to have it grounded on knowledge. Sad to say, on this issue, you don't have that.
Trauma victims aren't always at fault for any "accident" you know. Unless you think that by not wrapping themselves in "cotton wool" they are somehow responsible for the injuries they suffer.
The point of wearing seatbelts, skid lids etc is to minimise the effect of any accident should it occur. We all take risks in everything we do, but it always helps to reduce the risk where possible. To ridcule or dismiss these risk reducing aims is moronic.
I thought life was about stayed alive...
which you are not going to achieve if you drive around without wearing a seatbelt.
As for cigarette packets, the companies are obliged to state the health warning because otherwise someone dying of lung cancer can accuse them of not warning them and thus causing their cancer and thus earning said person a silly amount of money.
Life isn't safe really. I'm risking my life now - I'm sat by a computer which could blow up any second.
Taxi drivers are exempt from wearing seatbelts, as long as they are not out of their Borough
simply becuase you were a danger to the harmony of the group.
Hell, if they were dangerous the manufacturers would say something, right? :rolleyes:
As for seat belts, I think the government just got sick of all the head trauma patients taking up HDU beds...
Everyone knows the dangers of smoking now. In that sense there is no need for tobacco companies to place warnings on packets. Besides no one forces smokers to buy cigarettes.
Maybe if there were no NHS then people would have to pay for their own healthcare. That might be a 'deterrent' to people smoking (if one is truly necessary).
Uh-huh..:rolleyes:
Ah, I was forgetting how well informed 'everyone' was. Like, 'everyone' know Saddam Hussein was behind the WTC attacks, and 'everyone' knows you can't get pregnant if you do it standing up...
Um... because we're more aware about the risks of things like riding a bike and helmets are designed to protect people... for example kids on the streets. Seatbelts are to stop people from smashing the fuck out of their heads when they crash and smoking is just... unhealthy anyways?
I dunno, people these days are so obsessed with not dyning, but to be honest I wouldn't ride a bike without a helmet... what's the point? And seatbelts? Well I'm fine with them as are most people.
What's the point of this thread? :eek2:
Besides, everybody should have the right to feel safe.
You do this on purpose, don't you?
Go give your head a shake and then you might find out :rolleyes:
Post stupid, inane comments that have no basis in logic.