The Right to be Stupid

southsiderosie

A recent article claimed that what public officials were calling a "crime wave" was really due to increased citations for relatively minor infractions in California state parks: not wearing lifejackets, nude sunbathing, drinking, etc. Granted, much of the increase in ticketing activity is really about budget cuts, and certainly park rangers need to be on the lookout for forest fires and such, but is it really a crime to go to a national park with some beer and sing around a campfire? Isn't that kind of the point?

While it's easy to dismiss California as just being wacky, there does seem to be a trend in heavily regulating adult decision-making. For example, helmet laws: many will argue that helmets save lives, but if you are willing to ride a motorcycle without one, then you are putting your life at risk, not anyone else's. Others will argue that there is a public health cost, so the law should act in a way to discourage risky behavior, but why only address behavior with an immediate risk (riding without a helmet) and not behavior with a long-term risk (obesity, for example).

Clearly behavior that can cause great harm to others - drunk driving for example - should be regulated. But at what point do we accept the fact that the state can't - or shouldn't even try to - prevent bad things from happening sometimes? I guess the real question is, do we really need to regulate everything that adults do? At a certain point, can't we just sit back and let people be stupid?

admiralofthefleet

cool story bro

CreepingDeath

The article is from America and you're asking if we should let people be stupid ?

There's 4 million Irish and 300 million Americans.
We'd have to supervise 75 of them each... that's not feasible.

Before I clicked your link, I was thinkin of Darwin Awards...

I think the state should protect it's citizens from each other, not from themselves. Unfortunately they don't do this and have a completely lobsided and illogical set of laws instead.

starbelgrade

Stupid is as stupid does.

JuliusCaesar

southsiderosie wrote: »

At a certain point, can't we just sit back and let people be stupid?

End of any possible discussion.

InTheTrees

if 100 is the average IQ then it means half the country is below that.

TPD

As long as their right to be stupid doesn't infringe on my right to laugh at them, I don't mind what happens.

InTheTrees wrote: »

if 100 is the average IQ then it means half the country is below that.

Ireland's average is 93, so more than half are below average

stovelid

Maybe issue (on the spot?) fines for stupid offences instead of court although that could be open to abuse. Or for motorists pace an extra, incremental tax on the vehicle for wrongdoing. Only for things that could affect or inconvenience others though.

No way am I in favour of letting off the clowns for whom politeness and courtesy is something unattainable though. Fuck them.


The helmet thing and likewise is interesting though, If it absolutely only affects you, why not? But then you could argue that increased injuries, for example, place a bigger strain on medical resources used by others who do use helmets or, say, increase the risk of removing breadwinners from families. The fact is that an accident has more far-reaching effects than just on the person it befalls.

southsiderosie

admiralofthefleet wrote: »

cool story bro

Not a bro, bro.

The_Kew_Tour

InTheTrees wrote: »

if 100 is the average IQ then it means half the country is below that.

O your good:P

southsiderosie

InTheTrees wrote: »

if 100 is the average IQ then it means half the country is below that.

Not necessarily.

CreepingDeath

InTheTrees wrote: »

if 100 is the average IQ then it means half the country is below that.

Can't be right, more than half the population lives outside of Dublin.

southsiderosie

Deleted User wrote: »

Before I clicked your link, I was thinkin of Darwin Awards...

I think the state should protect it's citizens from each other, not from themselves. Unfortunately they don't do this and have a completely lobsided and illogical set of laws instead.

But where do you draw the line? One of the issues was nudism in state parks. Yes, seeing a fat, naked, hairy 60 year old man in the park may make my eyes burn, but it doesn't really cause (lasting) harm (although this seems like it would be uncomfortable...but again, they are only hurting themselves!). Others would disagree.

Des Carter

We should let people be stupid on the condition that they have to be filmed and put on youtube or failblog for the enjoyment of others

Donkey Oaty

Rosie, are you approaching this from a civil liberties point of view?

southsiderosie

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

Rosie, are you approaching this from a civil liberties point of view?

I'd call it a common sense point of view. If adults are only harming (or potentially harming) themselves, then I don't see the point of interfering; I would put life jacket and helmet laws in this category.

I think there is another issue here of "public space" - if it belongs to everyone, then when and how can we put limits on what you do there? Again, if the guiding principle is harm to others, then why ban nudism? If a group of friends are in the park on a nice afternoon having a few beers, and they aren't bothering anyone, then what's the problem? If people are so easily bothered by what other people do in public, then maybe they need to stay home.

starbelgrade

Des Carter wrote: »

We should let people be stupid on the condition that they have to be filmed and put on youtube or failblog for the enjoyment of others

Isn't that what happens already?

southsiderosie

stovelid wrote: »

The helmet thing and likewise is interesting though, If it absolutely only affects you, why not? But then you could argue that increased injuries, for example, place a bigger strain on medical resources used by others who do use helmets or, say, increase the risk of removing breadwinners from families. The fact is that an accident has more far-reaching effects than just on the person it befalls.

OK, but where does this stop? Anything you do as an individual that is stupid and may cause you great harm will have an impact on the people that love you. I would guess that for a lot of people, once they have kids, they scale back their risky behavior - I know a few guys who gave up their street racing motorcycles when they became fathers. But that is an individual decision based on a sense of responsibility - should the state really be responsible for making that decision for everyone?

Finally, if cost to the state is a guiding criteria, then is the cost from helmet-less motorcycle accidents really more pressing than the cost of up to a third of the adult population being obese (as in parts of the US)? Sad to say, but most motorcyclists who get in serious accidents with no helmets cost the state little to nothing because they don't survive. Seriously obese people face years of medical problems. Death by motorcycle accident is quick and cheap; death by chocolate is slow and expensive...based on a purely cost-benefit analysis, which one should we be regulating?

Mike 1972

If the government allowed too many stupid people to get themselves killed they would never get reelected

Wade in the Sea

southsiderosie wrote: »

"crime wave"....... in state parks.........: not wearing lifejackets, nude sunbathing, drinking, etc.

Well that's my Saturdays fecked!

starbelgrade

southsiderosie wrote: »

Finally, if cost to the state is a guiding criteria, then is the cost from helmet-less motorcycle accidents really more pressing than the cost of up to a third of the adult population being obese (as in parts of the US)? Sad to say, but most motorcyclists who get in serious accidents with no helmets cost the state little to nothing because they don't survive. Seriously obese people face years of medical problems. Death by motorcycle accident is quick and cheap; death by chocolate is slow and expensive...based on a purely cost-benefit analysis, which one should we be regulating?

Obesity in the US is caused to a great extent by two things - the control of the food supply by a small number of very large corporations & the socio-economic conditions of those in low paid jobs / on welfare.

It's cheaper to buy unhealthy, mass produced food than it is to eat vegetables & healthier options. Most supermarket foods are highly engineered & almost all come from derivatives of corn & soya beans with vast amounts of nutrient deficient, addictive additives.

To this effect, it is estimated that one third of children born in the US after 2000 will develop type 2 diabetes, rising to two thirds of those from the lower socio-economic classes.

This problem cannot be simply put down to stupidity. There are many other factors involved - the biggest one being the intervention of engineering into the food chain to provide cheap foods - by government backed global corporations & the removal of healthier food options from the budgets of poorer people.

The problem is not as extensive here, but we're not too far behind in some extents.

southsiderosie

starbelgrade wrote: »

Obesity in the US is caused to a great extent by two things - the control of the food supply by a small number of very large corporations & the socio-economic conditions of those in low paid jobs / on welfare.

It's cheaper to buy unhealthy, mass produced food than it is to eat vegetables & healthier options. Most supermarket foods are highly engineered & almost all come from derivatives of corn & soya beans with vast amounts of nutrient deficient, addictive additives.

To this effect, it is estimated that one third of children born in the US after 2000 will develop type 2 diabetes, rising to two thirds of those from the lower socio-economic classes.

This problem cannot be simply put down to stupidity. There are many other factors involved - the biggest one being the intervention of engineering into the food chain to provide cheap foods - by government backed global corporations & the removal of healthier food options from the budgets of poorer people.

The problem is not as extensive here, but we're not too far behind in some extents.

So then would you say that the government should seek to reduce the likelihood of harm by, say, ending subsidies for corn and shifting them to fresh produce, or levying a tax on soda the way they did on tobacco?

amacachi

southsiderosie wrote: »

Not necessarily.

Thank **** someone else understands averages. :pac:

Zillah

TPD wrote: »

Ireland's average is 93, so more than half are below average

InTheTrees wrote: »

if 100 is the average IQ then it means half the country is below that.

It's kind of ironic that in a thread about stupidity we have people making statements demonstrating that they don't understand how averages work.


Considering that we can be sure that comment is going to confuse people (about half of them, yeah?) I suppose I should illustrate. Get the average of the following numbers: 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 6, 87. It's 15. Would it be accurate to say that half of those numbers are above 15?

Dravokivich

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gxKStPXyn8

starbelgrade

southsiderosie wrote: »

So then would you say that the government should seek to reduce the likelihood of harm by, say, ending subsidies for corn and shifting them to fresh produce, or levying a tax on soda the way they did on tobacco?

They should, but in all likelyhood, won't... the food corporations in the States are far too big & have too much influence over Congress.

It's amazingly short sighted though, as they are basically killing people slowly at a huge cost to the health system.

Not to mention the deaths by e-coli passed on by cattle - who are fed engineered corn instead of grass - through the processing lines & into the food products.

Wazdakka

I think we should stop policing stupid crimes.

Just let nature take it's course.
Social Darwinism FTW!

Also, there should be less warning labels.

"Aim away from face"
"point towards enemy"
Ect..
If you can't figure some of these things out on your own, you're a liability to the human race and are just slowing down our evolution.

Think of it... If there wasn't so many batshít mentalist out there that are capable of stuffing their cat into the microwave to dry it, or people who cant wrap their head around the fact that a packet of chocolate covered peanuts "may contain nuts" without being told.
we could be years ahead of where we are as a society right now.

Let these people wipe themselves out..

I WANT A HOVERBOARD DAMMIT! :mad:

bleg

Zillah wrote: »

It's kind of ironic that in a thread about stupidity we have people making statements demonstrating that they don't understand how averages work.


Considering that we can be sure that comment is going to confuse people (about half of them, yeah?) I suppose I should illustrate. Get the average of the following numbers: 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 6, 87. It's 15. Would it be accurate to say that half of those numbers are above 15?

Who gave you the right to be smart?:pac:

Donkey Oaty

Zillah wrote: »

It's kind of ironic that in a thread about stupidity we have people making statements demonstrating that they don't understand how averages work.


Considering that we can be sure that comment is going to confuse people (about half of them, yeah?) I suppose I should illustrate. Get the average of the following numbers: 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 6, 87. It's 15. Would it be accurate to say that half of those numbers are above 15?

It's even more ironic that the figures quoted previously as "average IQ" were actually from a study that described "median IQ" (i.e. 3 in the sequence above) and not "mean" as you incorrectly assume, so InTheTrees was correct in his conclusion.

Median is a type of average. InTheTrees is right!

southsiderosie

starbelgrade wrote: »

They should, but in all likelyhood, won't... the food corporations in the States are far too big & have too much influence over Congress.

It's amazingly short sighted though, as they are basically killing people slowly at a huge cost to the health system.

Not to mention the deaths by e-coli passed on by cattle - who are fed engineered corn instead of grass - through the processing lines & into the food products.

To a certain extent I agree. There is no reason to subsidize corn production, either for feed or human consumption. And the way most food is mass-produced in the US is appalling.

That said, there are plenty of people who drink 6 cans of soda a day and eat at McDonald's five days a week. At a certain point, people need to take responsibility for what they put in their bodies. In addition, the expansion of major chains like Wal-Mart has made buying cheaper healthy food a realistic option for a lot of people who wouldn't be able to afford it otherwise - yet people are still overweight, and even more so in areas where Wal-Marts are everywhere. In general I've found that groceries are a lot cheaper in the US than they are in Europe, and even if you don't have great choices in a given area, you still have choices. It's just that too many people make bad ones when it comes to food.

Wazdakka wrote: »

Also, there should be less warning labels.

"Aim away from face"
"point towards enemy"
Ect..
If you can't figure some of these things out on your own, you're a liability to the human race and are just slowing down our evolution.

Amen.

gizmo

southsiderosie wrote: »

...but is it really a crime to go to a national park with some beer and sing around a campfire? Isn't that kind of the point?

Given the fact that you're referring to California here, this little bit of info indicates that you aren't in the subset of people which you think you are. :pac:

mawk

aye, and in a sufficiently large sample size, IQ values will tend to form a bell curve making it very likely for half to be above and half below. Being normalized at 100 and all..

southsiderosie

gizmo wrote: »

Given the fact that you're referring to California here, this little bit of info indicates that you aren't in the subset of people which you think you are. :pac:

?

gizmo

southsiderosie wrote: »

?

Exactly.

southsiderosie

gizmo wrote: »

Exactly.

I've never been camping in California, but I've never had problems camping out with a fire, friends, and CASES of beer in state and national parks in other parts of the country. So I don't get your point, unless it's to say that California is weird, which I already knew.

starbelgrade

southsiderosie wrote: »

To a certain extent I agree. There is no reason to subsidize corn production, either for feed or human consumption. And the way most food is mass-produced in the US is appalling.

That said, there are plenty of people who drink 6 cans of soda a day and eat at McDonald's five days a week. At a certain point, people need to take responsibility for what they put in their bodies. In addition, the expansion of major chains like Wal-Mart has made buying cheaper healthy food a realistic option for a lot of people who wouldn't be able to afford it otherwise - yet people are still overweight, and even more so in areas where Wal-Marts are everywhere. In general I've found that groceries are a lot cheaper in the US than they are in Europe, and even if you don't have great choices in a given area, you still have choices. It's just that too many people make bad ones when it comes to food.



Amen.

There's always an element of personal choice to everything. Some people will always go for the less healthy option, but the problem facing the US & most of the developed world these days, is that our choices are being reduced, not increased and many of the previously thought of "healthy" options are becoming less healthy by the day, due to the food production & labelling practices of the biggest players in the food supply chain.

And Wal-Mart is one of the biggest players in this game. They are now the biggest sellers of organic food in the States.

While this may be a good thing in theory, unfortunately, because Wal-Mart has a major history of abusive practices, their entry into the organic food market is set to devestate small, local organic farmers.

They are the largest organic food retailer in the United States but they’re also China's eighth-largest trading partner – a country where organic enforcement standards are close to non-existent. Just how fresh and organic can food shipped from China be?

You have to remember, just because someone slaps an organic label on a food product, that label does not somehow magically transform a junk food into a health food.

Einhard

southsiderosie wrote: »

A recent article claimed that what public officials were calling a "crime wave" was really due to increased citations for relatively minor infractions in California state parks: not wearing lifejackets, nude sunbathing, drinking, etc. Granted, much of the increase in ticketing activity is really about budget cuts, and certainly park rangers need to be on the lookout for forest fires and such, but is it really a crime to go to a national park with some beer and sing around a campfire? Isn't that kind of the point?

While it's easy to dismiss California as just being wacky, there does seem to be a trend in heavily regulating adult decision-making. For example, helmet laws: many will argue that helmets save lives, but if you are willing to ride a motorcycle without one, then you are putting your life at risk, not anyone else's. Others will argue that there is a public health cost, so the law should act in a way to discourage risky behavior, but why only address behavior with an immediate risk (riding without a helmet) and not behavior with a long-term risk (obesity, for example).

Clearly behavior that can cause great harm to others - drunk driving for example - should be regulated. But at what point do we accept the fact that the state can't - or shouldn't even try to - prevent bad things from happening sometimes? I guess the real question is, do we really need to regulate everything that adults do? At a certain point, can't we just sit back and let people be stupid?

Agree with you to a point, but quite often the consequences of a person's idiotic decision place a financial burden on the state. The motor cyclist who goes without a helmet might end up paralysed, need hospitalisation, rehibilitation, and then receive some from of disability benefit for himself, and possibly his family. I remember reading somewhere that each road death costs the state a huge amount of money. I can't remember how much exactly, but it was quite surprising.

In relation to your other point, targetting immediate risks is basically simpler than longer term threats. It's easy to take action against someone driving without a seatbelt or helmet, but how can the state take action against the obese, or just those who live unhealthy lifestyles. The former are also easily remedied, the latter, unfortunately, incredibly difficult.

southsiderosie

starbelgrade wrote: »

There's always an element of personal choice to everything. Some people will always go for the less healthy option, but the problem facing the US & most of the developed world these days, is that our choices are being reduced, not increased and many of the previously thought of "healthy" options are becoming less healthy by the day, due to the food production & labelling practices of the biggest players in the food supply chain...

..You have to remember, just because someone slaps an organic label on a food product, that label does not somehow magically transform a junk food into a health food.

You seem to be saying that healthy food = organic food, and that's not the argument I'm trying to make. I think the main thing is to not eat so much processed food. Organic food is also very expensive - it would strain middle class budgets (not just poor people) to mainly buy organic groceries. My point about Wal-Mart (and their sister company Sam's Club) is that it is possible to buy fresh produce and basic grocery staples relatively cheaply, so there is less of an excuse to say healthy food is out of reach for poor people.

Einhard wrote: »

Agree with you to a point, but quite often the consequences of a person's idiotic decision place a financial burden on the state. The motor cyclist who goes without a helmet might end up paralysed, need hospitalisation, rehibilitation, and then receive some from of disability benefit for himself, and possibly his family. I remember reading somewhere that each road death costs the state a huge amount of money. I can't remember how much exactly, but it was quite surprising.

In relation to your other point, targetting immediate risks is basically simpler than longer term threats. It's easy to take action against someone driving without a seatbelt or helmet, but how can the state take action against the obese, or just those who live unhealthy lifestyles. The former are also easily remedied, the latter, unfortunately, incredibly difficult.

I've addressed this earlier in the thread, but I'll say it again: I highly doubt that the cost of high-risk activities taken by the young and foolish outweigh the public cost of high-risk lifestyles taken by a third of the adult population in some developed countries. TBH, I'm getting a little tired of the 'it costs the state' argument for everything. If there is going to be a universal health care system, then we need to accept that people are going to use the system for different reasons. Should the state ban alcohol because emergency rooms are full of drunken idiots every weekend? - certainly this costs the state a fortune.

Just because it is simple to target immediate risks doesn't mean it is the right thing for the state to do. And if those risks don't put anyone else at risk, then why bother?

starbelgrade

southsiderosie wrote: »

You seem to be saying that healthy food = organic food, and that's not the argument I'm trying to make. I think the main thing is to not eat so much processed food. Organic food is also very expensive - it would strain middle class budgets (not just poor people) to mainly buy organic groceries. My point about Wal-Mart (and their sister company Sam's Club) is that it is possible to buy fresh produce and basic grocery staples relatively cheaply, so there is less of an excuse to say healthy food is out of reach for poor people.

My point about organic food may have sounded like a sidestep away from the argument, but it is actually part of the bigger debate. In to eat proper fresh, healthy produce, it is only possible to do so, if the produce has been produced without the use of heavy, industrial chemical fertilizers (in fruit, vegetable & bean and pulse production) & has ripened without the use of chemicals.

The big supermarkets like Wal-Mart aren't interested in naturally grown fresh fruit & veg that are in season, which is why you see tomatoes avaiable all year round & carrots in summer. To eat fresh food, it should be grown in season & allowed to grow and ripen without artificial means.

Organic famers have long been the anthithesis of this process & their produce has become a lot more attractive to those who want healthy food & can afford it. However, Wal-Mart - and others - have realised this & have taken over the market & by using underhand methods like dishonest food labelling (importing so called organic foods from China) - are slowly pushing these farmers out of the market.

In that way, the produce of real, unprocessed foods are slowly becoming a luxury for the wealthy & the food educated.

Meanwhile, the majority of people are left with an ever decreasing selection of gentically crops, heavily industrialised and chemically induced plants & increasingly unhealthy and engineered meats. Processed foods are no longer just the unhealthy products as all foods sold by the food giants are now all processed in some shape or form.

The staple diet of today is far less healthy than it was 50 years ago. Even though the actual food types haven't changed - the production methods, processing & food engineering that has now become an integral part of the process between the food that comes from the farm, to the food that arrives on your plate - has altered the food radically.

Einhard

southsiderosie wrote: »

I've addressed this earlier in the thread, but I'll say it again: I highly doubt that the cost of high-risk activities taken by the young and foolish outweigh the public cost of high-risk lifestyles taken by a third of the adult population in some developed countries. TBH, I'm getting a little tired of the 'it costs the state' argument for everything. If there is going to be a universal health care system, then we need to accept that people are going to use the system for different reasons. Should the state ban alcohol because emergency rooms are full of drunken idiots every weekend? - certainly this costs the state a fortune.

I actually disagree. If the state is to be expected to shoulder the financial cost of an accident, then I think it has a right, and a responsibility to seek to minimise the odds of such an accident occuring. Also, getting people to belt up or wear their helmets requires minimal state intervention, which cannot be said for the idea of similarly targetting obesity which would require massive, intrusive state interference in the lives of her citizens. The notion that the latter could be at all successful also misses the point that obese people themselves are often desperate to lose weight. If it were so simple an issue that state intervention could resolve it, then there wouldn't be an obesity problem in the first place. As regards alcohol, most states would probably ban it if it were discovered tomorrow. But to do so now, after millenia of consumption, would require such a social upheaval as to make it unviable. Just look at Prohibition in America and how that turned out.

Just because it is simple to target immediate risks doesn't mean it is the right thing for the state to do. And if those risks don't put anyone else at risk, then why bother?

I think if the state can reduce the financial burden on itself, and reduce the risks to her citizens, with minimal interference, then it should do so. I also happen to believe that the state has some responsibility towards safegaurding her citizens, if the measures she employs are reasonable. It's all very well to state otherwise in the abstract, but I'm sure bereaved family members of those who were killed through their own negligence would disagree with you. With regards to obesity, alcohol and other such issues, which would require massive state interference, then education is a far more reasonable alternative.

gizmo

southsiderosie wrote: »

I've never been camping in California, but I've never had problems camping out with a fire, friends, and CASES of beer in state and national parks in other parts of the country. So I don't get your point, unless it's to say that California is weird, which I already knew.

Well no, my point was that, in the context of people having the right to be stupid, you were saying that people should be allowed to go to national parks, light a camp fire and drink beer. Except this is in California, a state which is notorious for forest fires which have caused billions of dollars of damage, destroyed thousands of homes and have been responsible for over 50 deaths in the last ten years.

Due to the fact that you were saying people should be allowed to do this, I was insinuating (in a joking way) that perhaps you shouldn't be labeling other people as stupid when you just demonstrated amazing stupidity yourself.

southsiderosie

gizmo wrote: »

Well no, my point was that, in the context of people having the right to be stupid, you were saying that people should be allowed to go to national parks, light a camp fire and drink beer. Except this is in California, a state which is notorious for forest fires which have caused billions of dollars of damage, destroyed thousands of homes and have been responsible for over 50 deaths in the last ten years.

Due to the fact that you were saying people should be allowed to do this, I was insinuating (in a joking way) that perhaps you shouldn't be labeling other people as stupid when you just demonstrated amazing stupidity yourself.

In the original post, I noted that I absolutely thought that rangers should have the right to intervene when it came to forest fires. Obviously if there are drought conditions, fires should be banned; a forest fire would have devastating consequences for untold numbers of people. Who does canoeing without a lifejacket hurt?