Science would tell us that the human body isn't designed to go 60 mph. Common sense would tell us that an accident at that speed would be very dangerous.
Compassion would dictate that instead of condoning getting into a car, it should be discouraged.
By your logic, I mean.
But despite tens of thousands of people getting killed each year....tens of thousands!... we encourage people to take measures to do it more safely instead of attacking the activity itself.
Are we monsters?
You missed my logic completely, and threw up a strawman.
Science has shown us that the human body can go in excess of 17000 miles per hour and with the proper accessories and precautions, survival is quite likely.
It isn't the velocity that is the problem; it is colliding with other objects and bodies which are in a fixed position or in motion on a different vector which causes the damage.
In fact we not only spend fortunes on an increasing array of devices to help prevent those collisions, and to mitigate their effects when they do happen. For most of my lifetime we have been bombarded with educational broadcasts designed to get people to use those devices, and to not engage in activities which make collisions more likely. For example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WYWOc4L9_0We educate our children to not engage in those collisions.
We even have people who are paid, when they find people engaging in those reckless behaviours which are more likely to lead to a collision, will stop them and fine them under the law.
As I said, we discourage other harmful behaviour. We even pass laws against it. Even when 20% or more do it (tobacco smoking) regularly.
Unless they are part of the 1-2%. There really is no parallel between transportation accidents and using a rectum as a vagina, all jokes about being 'rear ended' aside. Nor are car wrecks spreading the disease that will cost the rest of us over a trillion dollars, just for those currently infected, and will destroy the health care system in this country.
If Barrack Obama had grabbed a trillion dollars out of the CR and said it's to pay for gays to get medical care for HIV/AIDS and we're taking it from you, Mr. and Mrs. (straight) Taxpayer, there would have been a revolt. Instead, in collusion with Pelosi and the Democrats in the House and Senate, they crafted a mucked up leviathan of a "healthcare" bill to "Insure the uninsurable and provide health care for all" Of course, the uninsurable thy showed you were children with cancer, not the Folsum Street Fair, and they made it look like everyone who wants freebies was going to get something for nothing. Sandra Fluke was going to get free fifty cent condoms. Women's 'health' was going to be covered, whether you needed it or not, dammit! (Ask a bunch of elderly nuns about that one). And if you were poor (and already on medicaid) the Government was going to issue you subsidies and get you on board. And if you were nasty straight middle-class white people you would either pay up 28K a year for your health "care" or do without insurance and be fined for the privilege.
It was shoved up our ass (funny how that has always been a description of an undesirable outcome) by the Democrats and upheld after some truly unprecedented departures from jurisprudence (Roberts re-writing law) by a SCOTUS surrounded by K-street et al in one of the most homosexually saturated areas outside San Francisco and Hawaii.
Source:
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/press-releases/lgbt-percentages-highest-in-washington-dc-and-hawaii/This isn't some simple fender bender, we're talking about. It is the reallocation and redistribution of wealth of a whole country to a very small percentage who is suffering from a self-inflicted wound, and we can't even counsel against the practices, but instead are repeatedly told we have to "celebrate" them.
We don't "celebrate" driving like an idiot, we don't celebrate playing with explosives in the general population, in fact, even tobacco smokers are treated like second class citizens and charged more for their health insurance, despite many tobacco consumers living well into their 80s and beyond, and paying extra for everything from health, fire, life, and auto insurance.
But don't try to charge a homosexual more for insurance based on their behaviour. The question doesn't even get asked, despite the risks. If two percent of the US population is homosexual that's 6.6 million people. If only half of the 1.3 million AIDS/HIV patients acquired it through homosexual behaviour, the rate is 1000/10,000 of that population. Epidemiologically, that is huge, there still is no cure, and treatment will cost between $600,000 and $750,000
per patient over their remaining lifetime.
If similar numbers of licensed drivers in the US were to be involved in accidents, of 214 million drivers, there would be 21.4 million fatal or disabling accidents.
There are estimated to be roughly half that number of accidents of all severities, with roughly 5 million reported to police, and with roughly 1.5 million injuries, most of which are minor. Not all would have a fatal prognosis (actually, only about 37,000 annually). Those fatalities represent about 18/100000 of licensed drivers. But we don't tolerate (much less "celebrate") that, either, and instead do what we can to discourage the sort of behaviour that leads to that relatively small number of deaths.
