we should not question governmental regulations.

Meh, Darwin will take care of them.

skullkrusher: this exemption could be applied across the board. If the only danger is to people of the age of consent who are willfully within the home, I don't really see a downside aside from the practitioners dealing with the potential consequences of their voluntary actions.

The lack of smoke alarms decreases early detection of some fires which means they have longer to spread. This places firefighters attempting to combat the blaze at greater risk.

colon_pow: we should not question governmental regulations.

Your sarcasm doesn't seem to be coming out strong enough in that statement.

Monkeyhouse Zendo: skullkrusher: this exemption could be applied across the board. If the only danger is to people of the age of consent who are willfully within the home, I don't really see a downside aside from the practitioners dealing with the potential consequences of their voluntary actions.

The lack of smoke alarms decreases early detection of some fires which means they have longer to spread. This places firefighters attempting to combat the blaze at greater risk.

do Amish have fire dept services?

Esc7: lennavan: Parthenogenetic: lennavan: starsrift: Are you suggesting that the default situation is to not have a smoke alarm in your home?

That is the way my argument logically flows. It is an argument that the default situation should never have been changed. Current state law requires you to have one now. However that current state law should never have been passed because failure to install a fire alarm does not increase the chance of death or harm.

Unless there's a fire in your home. ;P

No, if there is a fire in my home, an installed fire alarm decreases the chance of death or harm. If I do not install a fire alarm, I did not increase the chances of death or harm, I simply failed to take the opportunity to decrease the chances of death or harm. There's a difference.

I would imagine you disagree with seatbelt laws.

You would imagine correctly. I'm okay with it being legal to be a dumbass, so long as your dumbassery does not harm me. The only argument seatbelt laws possibly can make is without a seatbelt you become a projectile that could harm me. We'll call that one weak at best.

skullkrusher: Monkeyhouse Zendo: skullkrusher: this exemption could be applied across the board. If the only danger is to people of the age of consent who are willfully within the home, I don't really see a downside aside from the practitioners dealing with the potential consequences of their voluntary actions.

The lack of smoke alarms decreases early detection of some fires which means they have longer to spread. This places firefighters attempting to combat the blaze at greater risk.

do Amish have fire dept services?


A fire erupted on Bromka Road in Romulus. Romulus, Ovid, Varick and Lodi Fire Departments responded to an Amish barn engulfed in flames Saturday night. On scene, Romulus Fire Chief Stacey Bennet says they will be there for about 4 to 6 more hours to get the fire under control.

Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Monkeyhouse Zendo: skullkrusher: this exemption could be applied across the board. If the only danger is to people of the age of consent who are willfully within the home, I don't really see a downside aside from the practitioners dealing with the potential consequences of their voluntary actions.

The lack of smoke alarms decreases early detection of some fires which means they have longer to spread. This places firefighters attempting to combat the blaze at greater risk.

do Amish have fire dept services?

[fingerlakesdailynews.com image 350x209]
A fire erupted on Bromka Road in Romulus. Romulus, Ovid, Varick and Lodi Fire Departments responded to an Amish barn engulfed in flames Saturday night. On scene, Romulus Fire Chief Stacey Bennet says they will be there for about 4 to 6 more hours to get the fire under control.

He asked about Amish fire departments, not Romulan ones.

skullkrusher: Monkeyhouse Zendo: skullkrusher: this exemption could be applied across the board. If the only danger is to people of the age of consent who are willfully within the home, I don't really see a downside aside from the practitioners dealing with the potential consequences of their voluntary actions.

The lack of smoke alarms decreases early detection of some fires which means they have longer to spread. This places firefighters attempting to combat the blaze at greater risk.

do Amish have fire dept services?

More to the point, do the Amish reject assistance from local fire service? If they are willing to allow their homes to burn to the ground for their religious principles or organize their own horse and cart fire fighting service then I see no reason to impose fire related building codes on them except in the instance that their structures are in proximity to non-Amish structures.

lennavan:
You would imagine correctly. I'm okay with it being legal to be a dumbass, so long as your dumbassery does not harm me. The only argument seatbelt laws possibly can make is without a seatbelt you become a projectile that could harm me. We'll call that one weak at best.

Eh. You DO pay for the idiots who don't wear their seat belts, or rather you did until it became force of law. They were significantly more like to become more seriously injured then those who did not wear them, and therefor significantly more likely to create hospital bills that they could not cover, thus defaulting, creating more expensive bills for medical care, etc.

The seat belt issue is simply of of practicality. If the state were not forced to absorb the cost of the idiocy, then I would be fine with people offing or mutilating themselves in whatever way made them happy. The state DOES absorb it though, therefor it should be regulated to help mitigate the costs.

Especially since it doesn't really make any difference at ALL to your driving experience, unless you have some sort of psychological issue.

tl/dr. The state will act in it's own best interests where it is forced to absorb costs that can be easily mitigated. Thus, seat belt laws.

Monkeyhouse Zendo: skullkrusher: Monkeyhouse Zendo: skullkrusher: this exemption could be applied across the board. If the only danger is to people of the age of consent who are willfully within the home, I don't really see a downside aside from the practitioners dealing with the potential consequences of their voluntary actions.

The lack of smoke alarms decreases early detection of some fires which means they have longer to spread. This places firefighters attempting to combat the blaze at greater risk.

do Amish have fire dept services?

More to the point, do the Amish reject assistance from local fire service? If they are willing to allow their homes to burn to the ground for their religious principles or organize their own horse and cart fire fighting service then I see no reason to impose fire related building codes on them except in the instance that their structures are in proximity to non-Amish structures.

2 problems:

1. Amish people are not always the only ones in Amish homes.

2. A house built for an Amish person may be sold to a non-Amish person.

Philip Francis Queeg: That's a pretty stupid argument. Any safety action can be looked at that way. Not removing the open pail of gasoline next to the furnace does not increase the chance of death and harm, you simply failed to take the opportunity to decrease the chances of death or harm

That's an equally stupid rebuttal. How did the gas pail get there? Someone put it there? Seems that does not fit what I was saying.

lennavan: Philip Francis Queeg: That's a pretty stupid argument. Any safety action can be looked at that way. Not removing the open pail of gasoline next to the furnace does not increase the chance of death and harm, you simply failed to take the opportunity to decrease the chances of death or harm

That's an equally stupid rebuttal. How did the gas pail get there? Someone put it there? Seems that does not fit what I was saying.

That's just the way they built the house, just the same as a house built without a smoke detector.

compesconsisus: Eh. You DO pay for the idiots who don't wear their seat belts, or rather you did until it became force of law. They were significantly more like to become more seriously injured then those who did not wear them, and therefor significantly more likely to create hospital bills that they could not cover, thus defaulting, creating more expensive bills for medical care, etc.

First - We'd have to establish what you are saying is actually true. It is also possible everything you say is true except the people without seatbelts die and therefore a significantly cheaper to cover in the hospital.

Second - I also pay for idiots who eat at McDonalds, weigh over 300 pounds and never exercise. Should we legislate that?

Third - I get some of the problems you are bringing up, I'm actually for universal health care to address at least a large portion of them.

Philip Francis Queeg: lennavan: Philip Francis Queeg: That's a pretty stupid argument. Any safety action can be looked at that way. Not removing the open pail of gasoline next to the furnace does not increase the chance of death and harm, you simply failed to take the opportunity to decrease the chances of death or harm

That's an equally stupid rebuttal. How did the gas pail get there? Someone put it there? Seems that does not fit what I was saying.

That's just the way they built the house, just the same as a house built without a smoke detector.

So building a house with something is the same as building it without something? I disagree. One requires action and effort, the other does not.

I got no beef with a house that has no furnace. But if you want to put a furnace in, I'm cool with regulations that require that furnace to not increase the chances of harm/death. I got no beef with a house that has no paint. But if you wanna paint, I'm cool with regulations so you can't do so in a manner that increases the chances of harm/death. You know, lead paint and all. I got no beef with a house that has no electricity. But if you want electricity, I'm cool with regulations so you can't do so in a manner that increases the chances of harm/death. I got no beef with a house that has no smoke detector...

WHOA SEE HOW THAT WORKED? WOW

2012 and we're still arguing about seat belts?

lennavan: Philip Francis Queeg: lennavan: Philip Francis Queeg: That's a pretty stupid argument. Any safety action can be looked at that way. Not removing the open pail of gasoline next to the furnace does not increase the chance of death and harm, you simply failed to take the opportunity to decrease the chances of death or harm

That's an equally stupid rebuttal. How did the gas pail get there? Someone put it there? Seems that does not fit what I was saying.

That's just the way they built the house, just the same as a house built without a smoke detector.

So building a house with something is the same as building it without something? I disagree. One requires action and effort, the other does not.

I got no beef with a house that has no furnace. But if you want to put a furnace in, I'm cool with regulations that require that furnace to not increase the chances of harm/death. I got no beef with a house that has no paint. But if you wanna paint, I'm cool with regulations so you can't do so in a manner that increases the chances of harm/death. You know, lead paint and all. I got no beef with a house that has no electricity. But if you want electricity, I'm cool with regulations so you can't do so in a manner that increases the chances of harm/death. I got no beef with a house that has no smoke detector...

WHOA SEE HOW THAT WORKED? WOW

How are you about houses built of flammable materials having regulations that you can't do so in a manner that increases the chances of harm/death, like, oh maybe having a system that warns you if said flammable material are on fire?

lennavan: starsrift: One of the most useless lawsuits ever. Even if the state wins, the Amish will install the devil's machinery - and never put batteries in. So what the hell is the point?

Uh, well the lawsuit is by the Amish to not have to pay the fine and install it. The state is not suing the Amish. The point of the lawsuit is their beliefs include rejection of modern technology. I don't understand why government should be allowed to force them to do it here. I like to think of it essentially this way, actions which endanger kids above the inaction should be regulated. A single direction, you should not be allowed to actively harm your kids. Here, it works in the other direction, not only are you not allowed to actively harm your kids, government is going to intervene and force you to actively protect your kids above the default situation. Government is not just preventing bad parenting, we're legislating good parenting. I don't think that's a good precedent to set.

So you're against the existence of child neglect laws? After all, neglectful parents aren't actively harming their kids; they're just passively not doing things that they are supposed to do in order to take care of them on a basic level. Your "logic" leads to really silly conclusions, which should be an indicator that the situation isn't as simple as your view of how things should be allows for.

We've already basically destroyed our mandated vaccination laws by carving out "religious" exemptions to them. These loopholes are now being widely abused by nutjobs who simply don't want to vaccinate for selfish or ill-informed reasons, since whether someone "really" holds a religious belief is not something you can verify in a fair and objective way. That idiotic level of deference to religion is a looming disaster for children and many others in our society. Why should we go even further and carve out more exceptions to otherwise rational child safety laws simply because some parents are deluded enough to believe that neglect is a good thing?

lennavan: compesconsisus: Eh. You DO pay for the idiots who don't wear their seat belts, or rather you did until it became force of law. They were significantly more like to become more seriously injured then those who did not wear them, and therefor significantly more likely to create hospital bills that they could not cover, thus defaulting, creating more expensive bills for medical care, etc.

First - We'd have to establish what you are saying is actually true. It is also possible everything you say is true except the people without seatbelts die and therefore a significantly cheaper to cover in the hospital.

Second - I also pay for idiots who eat at McDonalds, weigh over 300 pounds and never exercise. Should we legislate that?

Third - I get some of the problems you are bringing up, I'm actually for universal health care to address at least a large portion of them.

The first part of your first part (heh), unfortunately, is somewhat harder to establish. The costs of dead people are somewhat higher then nil though, especially, since if that person has a spouse, the spouse gets the social security, etc. Actually measuring reduced harm is difficult, in terms of absolute numbers, there there is some effort done in that area . From the CDC,

"Seat belts dramatically reduce risk of death and serious injury. Among drivers and front-seat passengers, seat belts reduce the risk of death by 45%, and cut the risk of serious injury by 50%"

The second is a difficult one. I do believe in personal freedom, so long as it doesn't significantly impact the freedom of others. Therefor I could not support making Mickey D's food illegal, or even controlled, beyond maybe forcing the fast food industry to provide healthy alternatives if asked. Most of the issues regarding eating habits are ingrained over large periods of time. If significant effort were undertaken in school systems, including how to cook, clean, and care for ones self, I think the issue would solve itself, to a large degree. Unfortunately, that would require significant expenditure, and is unlikely in the current environment, at least in the U.S.

And the third, yeah. A universal health care, single payer option would be utterly fantastic. I simply cannot wrap my mind around why people would oppose it, other then idiocy.

Mnemia: So you're against the existence of child neglect laws? After all, neglectful parents aren't actively harming their kids

Now I know you disagree with me. I know you're all herped up on derpahol right now trying super hard to disagree with me. That's cool. But put some thought before you start mashing at your keyboard.

Kids do not die from no smoke detector. Kids do die from not being fed. Perhaps your analogy was fundamentally stupid.

lennavan: Mnemia: So you're against the existence of child neglect laws? After all, neglectful parents aren't actively harming their kids

Now I know you disagree with me. I know you're all herped up on derpahol right now trying super hard to disagree with me. That's cool. But put some thought before you start mashing at your keyboard.

Kids do not die from no smoke detector. Kids do die from not being fed. Perhaps your analogy was fundamentally stupid.

Bullshiat.

fire tore through a two-story home that had no functioning smoke detectors Saturday in West Virginia's capital city, killing eight family members, including six children, the city's mayor said.


The Decatur Street house that caught fire in January, killing 7-year-old Joel Smith and injuring several other residents, lacked a working smoke detector-an issue found in most fatal fires, according to FDNY officials.

The Jan. 15 fire at 1066 Decatur St. broke out when someone in Smith's first-floor apartment fell asleep with a lit cigarette, FDNY officials said. The flames spread to the top two floors and to the adjacent building. Firefighters arrived just 2 1/2 minutes after it received the call, but the little boy had already passed out in the rear bedroom and was soon pronounced dead.

"In 70 percent of fatal fires, no working smoke detector is present," wrote FDNY spokesman Frank Dwyer in an email. "Having a working smoke detector and checking it regularly is crucial to surviving a fire in the home."

lennavan: Now I know you disagree with me. I know you're all herped up on derpahol right now trying super hard to disagree with me. That's cool. But put some thought before you start mashing at your keyboard.

Kids do not die from no smoke detector. Kids do die from not being fed. Perhaps your analogy was fundamentally stupid.

lol wut?

Link
Link

"The death rate per 100 reported fires was twice as high in homes without a working smoke alarm as it was in homes with a working smoke alarm."

They DO save lives, which is why they're required.

compesconsisus: The second is a difficult one. I do believe in personal freedom, so long as it doesn't significantly impact the freedom of others.

Exactly, that's the point. I'm arguing for the legalization of being stupid, so long as that stupid doesn't harm anyone else (to a relevant degree, let's not be sillypantses here). Fires hurt people, empty sections of the ceiling where a smoke detector could go do not hurt people.

compesconsisus: And the third, yeah. A universal health care, single payer option would be utterly fantastic. I simply cannot wrap my mind around why people would oppose it, other then idiocy.

They work for the health insurance industry, or their campaigns are funded by the health insurance industry. Bleh.

Philip Francis Queeg: fire tore through a two-story home that had no functioning smoke detectors Saturday in West Virginia's capital city, killing eight family members, including six children, the city's mayor said.

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest the fire and/or smoke killed the kids in that situation. Apparently you disagree. I'm gonna agree with you however, that had a functioning smoke detector been present, they may have lived.

I want you to know, a 6 year old girl was shot and killed in Chicago a few months ago. I believe this tragedy was caused by gunfire. You believe this tragedy was caused by the 6 year old not wearing a kevlar vest. I don't agree with you but I assume you are on a crusade to jail the mother. Best of luck.

Mnemia: Kids do not die from no smoke detector. Kids do die from not being fed. Perhaps your analogy was fundamentally stupid.

lol wut?

Kids are killed by fires and smoke, not by lack of a smoke detector. More at 11.

lennavan: Philip Francis Queeg: fire tore through a two-story home that had no functioning smoke detectors Saturday in West Virginia's capital city, killing eight family members, including six children, the city's mayor said.

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest the fire and/or smoke killed the kids in that situation. Apparently you disagree. I'm gonna agree with you however, that had a functioning smoke detector been present, they may have lived.

I want you to know, a 6 year old girl was shot and killed in Chicago a few months ago. I believe this tragedy was caused by gunfire. You believe this tragedy was caused by the 6 year old not wearing a kevlar vest. I don't agree with you but I assume you are on a crusade to jail the mother. Best of luck.

Really officer, the bullet didn't kill her, she died of blood loss. You can't blame me!

I'm sorry I brought up seatbelts everyone.

Philip Francis Queeg: lennavan: Philip Francis Queeg: fire tore through a two-story home that had no functioning smoke detectors Saturday in West Virginia's capital city, killing eight family members, including six children, the city's mayor said.

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest the fire and/or smoke killed the kids in that situation. Apparently you disagree. I'm gonna agree with you however, that had a functioning smoke detector been present, they may have lived.

I want you to know, a 6 year old girl was shot and killed in Chicago a few months ago. I believe this tragedy was caused by gunfire. You believe this tragedy was caused by the 6 year old not wearing a kevlar vest. I don't agree with you but I assume you are on a crusade to jail the mother. Best of luck.

Really officer, the bullet didn't kill her, she died of blood loss. You can't blame me!

What caused that blood loss:
Lenny: The bullet.
Philip Francis Queeg: Lack of a kevlar vest.

What caused the burns and smoke inhalation:
Lenny: The fire.
Philip Francis Queeg: Lack of a smoke detector.

What caused the rape:
Lenny: The rapist.
Philip Francis Queeg: Lack of a chastity belt.

What caused WWII?
Lenny: Hitler.
Philip Francis Queeg: Jews not sucking it up.

You can't spell Godwin without WIN.

lennavan: Philip Francis Queeg: lennavan: Philip Francis Queeg: fire tore through a two-story home that had no functioning smoke detectors Saturday in West Virginia's capital city, killing eight family members, including six children, the city's mayor said.

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest the fire and/or smoke killed the kids in that situation. Apparently you disagree. I'm gonna agree with you however, that had a functioning smoke detector been present, they may have lived.

I want you to know, a 6 year old girl was shot and killed in Chicago a few months ago. I believe this tragedy was caused by gunfire. You believe this tragedy was caused by the 6 year old not wearing a kevlar vest. I don't agree with you but I assume you are on a crusade to jail the mother. Best of luck.

Really officer, the bullet didn't kill her, she died of blood loss. You can't blame me!

What caused that blood loss:
Lenny: The bullet.
Philip Francis Queeg: Lack of a kevlar vest.

What caused the burns and smoke inhalation:
Lenny: The fire.
Philip Francis Queeg: Lack of a smoke detector.

What caused the rape:
Lenny: The rapist.
Philip Francis Queeg: Lack of a chastity belt.

What caused WWII?
Lenny: Hitler.
Philip Francis Queeg: Jews not sucking it up.

You can't spell Godwin without WIN.

I encourage you to remove any of the tyrannical smoke detectors that exist in your home, along with their evil cousin the Fire Extinguisher. No harm can come from that decision. Strike a blow for liberty for you and your children. If they burn horribly to death it won't be your fault. You won't have endangered them. You will be able to visit their grave secure in the knowledge that you are faultless for their agony.

lennavan: Mnemia: Kids do not die from no smoke detector. Kids do die from not being fed. Perhaps your analogy was fundamentally stupid.

lol wut?

Kids are killed by fires and smoke, not by lack of a smoke detector. More at 11.

You've got to be kidding.

Hey, was that meow upthread?

Welcome back, buddy!

/Guys, he's playing with you. Settle down.

All the people claiming "the Amish do/believe ...." sound like farking morans. Amish people adhere to the rules of the ordnung they live in and don't have a group philosophy. Not all have lights, not all have buttons, not all have rumspringa etc etc etc. Now stfu.

skullkrusher: Maybe younger than 16 to coincide with Rumspringa. If you choose to remain in the community after that age, you've made the decision.

After being brainwashed for 16 years, I don't know if I'd call it "making a decision."

lennavan:
Exactly, that's the point. I'm arguing for the legalization of being stupid, so long as that stupid doesn't harm anyone else (to a relevant degree, let's not be sillypantses here). Fires hurt people, empty sections of the ceiling where a smoke detector could go do not hurt people.
.

I would argue that this is highly circumstantial. For instance, in any crowded area, fire alarms would significantly increase the chances of a fire being detected before it could create large-scale destruction. To use a somewhat sillypantses argument, if Bessy the Cow had a fire alarm in her barn, the London Fire could have been averted. Over the top of course, but I hope you get my point.

Also, the protection of those unable to protect themselves (children, in that they are subject to the tyranny of their parents stupidity, for example) unfortunately falls to the state. Thus, to me, the state would be well within it's rights to require smoke alarms for any home that would house children. Unfortunately, making exceptions to the law is a lot harder then simply painting with a broad stroke, thus "Everyone has to have smoke detectors", instead of "Everyone who has children has to have smoke detectors, except you idiots who have no children, live clear of all other individuals, and will not endanger all of your neighbors by being idiots".

HeartBurnKid: Codenamechaz: Subs, this was a state issue. Federal had nothing to do with it.

And it happened in 2007.

Doesn't matter; the bill of rights applies equally to state governments.

So? Bill of rights only demands that we not establish a state religion or directly take a hand in religious doctrine. Regulating public safety is still quite legitimate so long as the government isn't doing it for the purpose of picking on a specific religion. We're obligated not to get in the way of religion intentionally but we've no obligation to step out of the way because they happen to be headed in a certain direction (that could burn the whole city down).

Generally speaking if the Amish were being inconvenienced by a law demanding they cut off their stupid beards, they'd have an argument: such a law serves no purpose but to harass them and no other group has the stupid beards in question. In the case of fire protection and building codes, everyone is inconvenienced to the same degree and there is a practical purpose to the law (not burning the city down), so first amendment doesn't apply and they can farking deal with it.

//Or, you know, have someone else install the alarms and change the batteries for them.
lennavan: You can't spell Godwin without WIN.

Not taking reasonable precautions against an easily forseeable and preventable situation is actually considered a legitimate source of partial liability in the case of equipment failure (not replacing your spare tire with a real tire after a flat and then having the spare pop and kill a passenger in a wreck = you are liable for your passenger's death). Legally speaking, while the fire would have killed the people, properly maintaining the equipment would most likely have prevented their deaths, so whoever was responsible for said maintenance is partially liable.

Note that this only really applies to negligence, crimes involving actual malice aforethought (shooting someone, rape) legally place 100% of the blame on the aggressor. There is something of a grey area regarding things that are a mix of stupidity/negligence and mutual malice, such as getting in a bar fight, where "fighting words" doctrines apply.

Funny, because I saw a dozen Amish yesterday, waiting for a train. This in itself isn't funny, except that they were in Orange County, CA. I wanted to say "Oh, so DIESEL trains are okay then?!?!"

Okay, so maybe it wasn't that funny. But coupled with the fact that there was a group of midgets in the same train car as me, it tends to stack in hilarity.

colon_pow: we should not question governmental regulations.


Unless it's not letting gays get married, then it's doing God's work.

I'm encouraged to know that intolerance is not limited to the religious, but is alive and well (and blossoming) amongst atheists. you must be proud, you have become what you hate.

Proteios1: I'm encouraged to know that intolerance is not limited to the religious, but is alive and well (and blossoming) amongst atheists. you must be proud, you have become what you hate.

"Why aren't you letting me put my children at risk? INTOLERANCE!"

*skims TFA*

God what a farking whiner.

qorkfiend: Proteios1: I'm encouraged to know that intolerance is not limited to the religious, but is alive and well (and blossoming) amongst atheists. you must be proud, you have become what you hate.

"Why aren't you letting me put my children at risk? INTOLERANCE!"

yeah but where does "omg the children" stop? Do we lock up people who let their kids play in the front yard without supervision? Do we say people aren't allowed to take their children skiing? Why are kids even allowed to eat happy meals? Should people have to mandatorily vaccinate their children (please oh please?)? The likelihood of fire is relatively low, and as someone pointed out above, even if they installed them they would just not buy batteries anyway. Seems rather pointless.

/have a great aunt who DIAF at age 6. It haunts my 90 year old grandma to this day
//have fire alarms

In response, the House of Representatives' hearing on the issue will contain a panel of experts consisting entirely of Mennonites

So the Farm hive-mind is OK with "Oh my God! Think of the children!" so long as that is anti what some religious group wants...

QUICK! Someone different than me! Time to persecute and force them to change!

/beginning to wonder when he left America.

Guidette Frankentits: When a house catches fire, it can quickly spread to neighboring homes in the community. Failing to detect fires early isn't just a personal decision - the ramifications are huge.

Not to mention tax dollars are wasted by the fire department putting out unnecessary fires that would have been prevented had they been alerted earlier.

Because their fire detector is wired directly to the fire department, or you think they'll get to a phone in a reasonable period of time? Maybe you think Amish are living in densely populated towns, because everyone knows that's how agrarian societies tend to live.. Maybe you think a fire alarm inside of someone else's house will wake you up.. inside of yours. yes, they're loud, but not when the sound has to travel through their walls, the distance to your house.. then through your walls.

This actually ends up getting to a core issue regarding the role of government, just like seatbelt laws (mentioned above).

Do your fellow citizens (ie, the government) have the right to demand you take certain actions, because of the potential ill effects if you do not take those actions?

Take seatbelts. Just driving down the road with no seatbelt on, you're not hurting anyone. But the minute you or another driver miscalculates, all of a sudden you are at much higher risk for injury, and you become a projectile harming anyone else in the car.

My personal experience, as a firefighter/paramedic, is that I can't tell you the number of seriously hurt/killed people I have seen who probably would have been okay if they had been wearing one. But the problem is, there's all these shirtless beer-swilling knuckleheads who will tell you they never wear seatbelts because they heard about a cousin's girlfriend's nephew who only survived an accident back in 1985 because he was NOT wearing a seatbelt.

Sadly, a lot of people simply refuse to believe a thing could really happen to them until it does. And then we fly them to a trauma center. And then, since their part-time job at the tire shop won't cover the hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical treatment, they end up declaring bankruptcy and the rest of us pay for it through increased rates the next time we have a sinus infection. Best health care system in the world, baby!

But yeah, that's where the rubber hits the road re: the role of government. After all, if the government can require you to wear a seatbelt, or install smoke detectors, can it not also require you to eat broccoli? To circumcise your child? To exercise 3x/week?

I almost think we need a check and balance sort of structure to this question, the same way we have for separation of powers. Not sure what it would be, probably just through the court system, but needs to have a standard or test that must be met before imposing restrictions on the behavior of adults.

As a rough draft, have to demonstrate strong and compelling possibility of direct harm from a single instance (i.e., not cummulative, lifestyle sort of stuff) to life and health. I think that would permit seatbelt & helmet laws, but keep out broccoli & exercise.

Your thoughts?

Will he surrender to the Amish? Not!

Philip Francis Queeg: I encourage you to remove any of the tyrannical smoke detectors that exist in your home, along with their evil cousin the Fire Extinguisher.

I don't have any fire extinguishers in my home, never have in my entire life. I'm still alive. Weird how that works.

I removed my smoke detector yesterday, so at one point, I had neither a fire extinguisher nor a smoke detector. I'm still alive. I'm thinking not having a smoke detector or fire extinguisher does not cause death. What do you think?

qorkfiend: lennavan: Mnemia: Kids do not die from no smoke detector. Kids do die from not being fed. Perhaps your analogy was fundamentally stupid.

lol wut?

Kids are killed by fires and smoke, not by lack of a smoke detector. More at 11.

You've got to be kidding.

By all means, argue why a smoke detector should be legally required. But no one is forcing you to completely make shiat up.