So it took me 1 hour and 34 minutes to get home from work today. 1 hour and 34 minutes to travel 25 kms! That means an average speed of 15.96 km/h. Does anyone know where I can find a cheap used helicopter?
Dave Westy
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Sola Scipture
My good friend Dr. Pipa is going to be speaking at a Sola Scriptura conference this weekend, together with Dr's Hakin and Beeke. All of these men are great speakers and will have a lot of helpful stuff to say. This year's topic is "The Doctrine of Scripture" and the conference is being held in London. It will be well worth going to and if you need a place to sleep let me know and I'll arrange for you to have your own personal space of carpet to sleep on. See you there!
Dave Westy
Dave Westy
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Chemistry
Seeing that this blog is supposed to be about a Crazy Chemie I though I would share with you some facinating chemical news. They have discovered (or more precicely, made) the 118th element. See, I knew y'all would find that most exiting.
Dave Westy
Dave Westy
Friday, October 20, 2006
More on Seatbelts
Well, well well, who would have guessed that seatbelts are so exciting they warrent two posts on this blog? I want to fist of all say thank you to all those that posted comments on my last post, they have been really helpful to me in seeing where the weaknesses in my argument are and in seeing where I am being misunderstood. I'm not always so good at expressing what I mean and your comments help me figure out what assumptions I have that I need to make more articulate and where I need to smack myself on the head and say, 'duh, what were you thinking Dave?'
So, a little clarification on what I was saying in my last post, this time having spent a little time thinking about it instead of just spouting some thoughts off the top of my head. I still stand by my original point in that I think the government should not be considering this type of legislation and that to do so is put its hands where they don't belong, but I want to expand and clarify why exactly I think so. First of all I want to talk about my argument that this legislation will discriminate against the poor. This statement is in fact true. People with less money have less vehicles per person and so are more likely to overcrowd a vehicle with more occupants than seatbelts, and hence this law affect one group (poor people) more than another group (the wealthy) and thus is discriminatory. However, discrimination is not necessarily a bad thing (for example I could have a very disciminatory taste in wines)and the fact that a law influences one group more than another says nothing at all about the propriety or acceptability of that law. The reason I included this argument in the first place was that most of the politicians that support this law would be against the idea of discrimination and so their support of this law is illogical, however, if someone was to use this argument against a law I liked I would dismiss it out of hand and so I should not use it myself. My apologies for a poor use of terminology.
Also, it seems that there is some disagreement as to how much this law would actually cost society. I personally think that it would be expensive because anything that the government gets its fingers into ends up costing us (as well as for a number of other reason that I can share if you really want me too) but without having actual numbers it is pretty much useless to argue about this point, although I do think that the government should try to understand the cost of its legislation versus the benifits that will be gained by it. It is true that its hard to put a price on human life but there comes a point where it is outrageous to keep spending money for the possibliity of extending someone's life by a few years.
However, those points were not at all the main idea that I was trying to get across, they were more like extra points of consideration, while the main thrust of what I was saying was that the government needs to keep out of stuff that is not its business. Let me say first of all that I have no problem with seatbelts. I think they are a great invention and I wear mine as a matter of habit. I think it is foolish not to wear one without good reason and I have no doubt that they do help protect you in case of an accident. What I am arguing against here is seatbelt LAWS, particularily trying to stop someone from riding in a vehicle that has more occupant than there are seatbelts in that vehicle. I certainly agree that to do so is more dangerous than not; after all I did link to an article where 4 people where killed in just that situation. My problem is not that it is a dangerous activity, it is that the government has absolutly no right at all to tell me what level of danger is acceptable for me. I am a responsible adult and am quite aware that I would be putting myself in a higher risk situation, and I don't need some allknowing government to tell me that I can't. I am reponsible for my actions (even God's soveriegnty doesn't abdicate me of that responsibilty) and to try and pawn that responsibily off onto the government is utterly rediculous. If I choose to ride in a car with more people than seatbelts, I am responible for anything that happens to me, not the government. It doesn't matter how 'stupid' I may be for not wearing it, I am still the one that is responsible for my actions and not the government. The government may not tell me how safely I have to live my life because to do so overstep its realm of authority.
I suppose that is the crux of the argument: when can the government tell me what to do and when does it need to stay out of my life? There are some areas where the government is obviously allowed (and required) to tell me what to do, for example it has every right to tell me not to kill you for disagreing with me, but there are also areas where it just as obviously does not have control over me, for example in telling me what kind of toothpaste I need to use tonight. The problem is discovering what sets the line. What is it that determines wether or not the government has jurisdiction over a particular activity? What exactly is the role of government in society? As Ruth pointed out, the role of government is to punish evil and approve of good (see Romans 13). This does not mean punish evil and mandate good, but punish evil and approve of or encourage good. Thus it is appropriate for the government to forbid and punish murder as being a sinful action, but it is not appropriate for it to require me to use only Crest toothpaste, even if there were studies that indicated that it better for my health to use Crest than any other kind of toothpaste. It might be a good thing for me to use only Crest toothpaste but the government would be overstepping its authourity to require me to use it.
So what about seatbelts? Is it immoral to put more people in a car than available seatbelts? No, of course not. It is no more immoral than going snowboarding or parasailing or walking on the side of the road or doing any other activity that increases your chance of getting hurt or killed. Thus the government is overstepping the bounds of its authority in trying to pass this type of legislation.
That is the gist of what I was trying to say in my last post. I hope this helps clear up any confusion. Keep the comments coming and enjoy your weekend
Dave Westy
So, a little clarification on what I was saying in my last post, this time having spent a little time thinking about it instead of just spouting some thoughts off the top of my head. I still stand by my original point in that I think the government should not be considering this type of legislation and that to do so is put its hands where they don't belong, but I want to expand and clarify why exactly I think so. First of all I want to talk about my argument that this legislation will discriminate against the poor. This statement is in fact true. People with less money have less vehicles per person and so are more likely to overcrowd a vehicle with more occupants than seatbelts, and hence this law affect one group (poor people) more than another group (the wealthy) and thus is discriminatory. However, discrimination is not necessarily a bad thing (for example I could have a very disciminatory taste in wines)and the fact that a law influences one group more than another says nothing at all about the propriety or acceptability of that law. The reason I included this argument in the first place was that most of the politicians that support this law would be against the idea of discrimination and so their support of this law is illogical, however, if someone was to use this argument against a law I liked I would dismiss it out of hand and so I should not use it myself. My apologies for a poor use of terminology.
Also, it seems that there is some disagreement as to how much this law would actually cost society. I personally think that it would be expensive because anything that the government gets its fingers into ends up costing us (as well as for a number of other reason that I can share if you really want me too) but without having actual numbers it is pretty much useless to argue about this point, although I do think that the government should try to understand the cost of its legislation versus the benifits that will be gained by it. It is true that its hard to put a price on human life but there comes a point where it is outrageous to keep spending money for the possibliity of extending someone's life by a few years.
However, those points were not at all the main idea that I was trying to get across, they were more like extra points of consideration, while the main thrust of what I was saying was that the government needs to keep out of stuff that is not its business. Let me say first of all that I have no problem with seatbelts. I think they are a great invention and I wear mine as a matter of habit. I think it is foolish not to wear one without good reason and I have no doubt that they do help protect you in case of an accident. What I am arguing against here is seatbelt LAWS, particularily trying to stop someone from riding in a vehicle that has more occupant than there are seatbelts in that vehicle. I certainly agree that to do so is more dangerous than not; after all I did link to an article where 4 people where killed in just that situation. My problem is not that it is a dangerous activity, it is that the government has absolutly no right at all to tell me what level of danger is acceptable for me. I am a responsible adult and am quite aware that I would be putting myself in a higher risk situation, and I don't need some allknowing government to tell me that I can't. I am reponsible for my actions (even God's soveriegnty doesn't abdicate me of that responsibilty) and to try and pawn that responsibily off onto the government is utterly rediculous. If I choose to ride in a car with more people than seatbelts, I am responible for anything that happens to me, not the government. It doesn't matter how 'stupid' I may be for not wearing it, I am still the one that is responsible for my actions and not the government. The government may not tell me how safely I have to live my life because to do so overstep its realm of authority.
I suppose that is the crux of the argument: when can the government tell me what to do and when does it need to stay out of my life? There are some areas where the government is obviously allowed (and required) to tell me what to do, for example it has every right to tell me not to kill you for disagreing with me, but there are also areas where it just as obviously does not have control over me, for example in telling me what kind of toothpaste I need to use tonight. The problem is discovering what sets the line. What is it that determines wether or not the government has jurisdiction over a particular activity? What exactly is the role of government in society? As Ruth pointed out, the role of government is to punish evil and approve of good (see Romans 13). This does not mean punish evil and mandate good, but punish evil and approve of or encourage good. Thus it is appropriate for the government to forbid and punish murder as being a sinful action, but it is not appropriate for it to require me to use only Crest toothpaste, even if there were studies that indicated that it better for my health to use Crest than any other kind of toothpaste. It might be a good thing for me to use only Crest toothpaste but the government would be overstepping its authourity to require me to use it.
So what about seatbelts? Is it immoral to put more people in a car than available seatbelts? No, of course not. It is no more immoral than going snowboarding or parasailing or walking on the side of the road or doing any other activity that increases your chance of getting hurt or killed. Thus the government is overstepping the bounds of its authority in trying to pass this type of legislation.
That is the gist of what I was trying to say in my last post. I hope this helps clear up any confusion. Keep the comments coming and enjoy your weekend
Dave Westy
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Seatbelts
There was a fatal crash in Toronto this weekend. Apparently 10 Koreans were riding in a minivan, which of course means that there were more people than seat belts, and so now; 'Ontario moved swiftly yesterday to close a loophole in the province's 30-year-old seat-belt law' by introducing legislation that requires there be no more passengers than seat belts in a vehicle. This is a wonderful new development isn't it? Seat belts save lives, and so anything that forces people to wear their seat belts more is a good thing isn't it? Well, as you might have guessed, I think there is another side to the story and so I would like to present you with a few of the reasons that I think this move is another example of how our government runs on 'feel good' principles instead of 'do good' principles.
1. Its my life. If I want to go bungee jumping, or skydiving, or work as a crane operator or do any other high risk activity I am free to do so. Why? because it is my life and I am free to decide what level of risk is acceptable. If I am allowed to place myself in additional risk for my pleasure or convenience with these kind of activities why not with packing more people into my car?
2. It discriminates against the poor. You might have 2 cars to choose from every time you want to go riding but I might not have that luxury and cramming 8 people into my goe metro might be the only way I can get the whole family around. Ok sure I could make two trips but I'm poor remember? I can't afford the gas.
3. It makes for good rhetoric, but not necessarily good sense. It sounds really good to talk about how we are going to save lives, and how it is all worth it if we even save one life but that is not necessarily true. There are risks in life that we have to live with,and it hard to decide what is acceptable risk. We will never get rid of all risk in life and so we have to make decisions as to what is acceptable risk. Is it acceptable to drive a car at all? even with seat belts people still die in car wrecks. Is it an acceptable risk to get out of bed in the morning? There is no way some generic law can come up with what is acceptable risk because it is different for each person. Let me decide what is an acceptable level of risk, it'll save us all a lot of money in trying to enforce a useless law.
4. Speaking of money: Its going to cost a lot of money to come up with the law, to make the legislation, and to enforce it. Is this money well spent? we have already established that it is hard to decide what level of risk is acceptable, but what about quantifying the risk itself? I haven't seen any numbers, but I suspect the benefit is marginal. Most people that are going to wear a seat belt already do and changing legislation won't change that. You see proliferating laws doesn't solve problems. The laws have to address actual problems and have to make sense.
Dave Westy
1. Its my life. If I want to go bungee jumping, or skydiving, or work as a crane operator or do any other high risk activity I am free to do so. Why? because it is my life and I am free to decide what level of risk is acceptable. If I am allowed to place myself in additional risk for my pleasure or convenience with these kind of activities why not with packing more people into my car?
2. It discriminates against the poor. You might have 2 cars to choose from every time you want to go riding but I might not have that luxury and cramming 8 people into my goe metro might be the only way I can get the whole family around. Ok sure I could make two trips but I'm poor remember? I can't afford the gas.
3. It makes for good rhetoric, but not necessarily good sense. It sounds really good to talk about how we are going to save lives, and how it is all worth it if we even save one life but that is not necessarily true. There are risks in life that we have to live with,and it hard to decide what is acceptable risk. We will never get rid of all risk in life and so we have to make decisions as to what is acceptable risk. Is it acceptable to drive a car at all? even with seat belts people still die in car wrecks. Is it an acceptable risk to get out of bed in the morning? There is no way some generic law can come up with what is acceptable risk because it is different for each person. Let me decide what is an acceptable level of risk, it'll save us all a lot of money in trying to enforce a useless law.
4. Speaking of money: Its going to cost a lot of money to come up with the law, to make the legislation, and to enforce it. Is this money well spent? we have already established that it is hard to decide what level of risk is acceptable, but what about quantifying the risk itself? I haven't seen any numbers, but I suspect the benefit is marginal. Most people that are going to wear a seat belt already do and changing legislation won't change that. You see proliferating laws doesn't solve problems. The laws have to address actual problems and have to make sense.
Dave Westy
Monday, October 16, 2006
Sundin
500th goal in overtime, while down a man, as a hat trick, and his 365th goal as a leaf to tie for second place on the leafs all time goal scorers. This man truly is one of the greats in this game. Matts Sundin:
Saturday, October 14, 2006
sweet videos
Here are a couple of incredibly amazing, and maybe just a little bit geeky videos. These guys are my heros
now why couldn't my physics class be this interesting?
I WILL build this someday. Except mine will include explosions and be loud and crazy as well as awesome
now why couldn't my physics class be this interesting?
I WILL build this someday. Except mine will include explosions and be loud and crazy as well as awesome
Thursday, October 12, 2006
SNOW!!
Its October 12 and its snowing!!!! Does anyone else find that insane?!?! hmmm Maybe we'll have some good snowboarding this year. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)