Cogent or Fallacious 4

I wanted to step outside the box a little this week by looking at the other forms of multimedia.  After trying some of the more reliable sources I wanted something with a little more humor, so I tried Facebook.  It did not take me long before I landed on this story about a woman claiming that Disney was racist.  The claim is that Disney is racist because they only use white princesses.

The mere thought of this is wonderfully funny because all you have to do is go to Disneyland to see for yourself.  If you look at their employees you will see that white people are the minority.  If you look at all of the Princesses walking around you will notice Princesses Jasmine, Pocahontas, Esmeralda and Tiana, along with all of the others.

One man dared to go against this gal who most likely was a troll from some blog as defined by Eric Young.  He said that the main reason why we were seeing the Princesses white were because of Disney sticking to the authentic ethnicity of the story.  He related that Rapunzel is a German story; Frozen is a story by Hans Christian Anderson who is Danish.  The same can be said about Brave that was set in Scotland.  If we were talking about something else then Disney would have created it as so.  Oh wait a minute they did.

Based off of this woman’s reasoning her ideas and claim are completely fallacious and unwarranted.   The reasoning of the gentleman who wrote his rebuttal to her was cogent in the fact that if we were to take any ethnic story and make it real we would have to take the animals, clothing, plants, hair styles and even the wording of phrases into consideration.  By doing this Disney would make it more culturally correct.

Cogent or Fallacious 3

I was searching the internet earlier and found a heart warming article on Yahoo entitled "Michigan Officer Gives Young Mom Car Seat Instead of a Ticket" A public safety officer had received a call to intercept a vehicle that had a child not in her booster seat.

The law requires that children in Michigan stay in a booster seat until the age of 7 and this little girl was 5.  Officer Hall of Emmett Township, Michigan was going to give her a ticket for failing to have her daughter in a booster seat.  Alexis DeLorenzo the mother informed the officer that her car was reposed that morning and her daughter booster seat was in.  She said that her family was living from paycheck to mouth and that was all they could do for the moment.  Her friend was driving them around and did not Officer Hall asked her to meet him over at Wal-Mart where he purchased her a new booster seat and kindly gave it to her instead of the ticket.

I believe this story to be a cogent story that was originally aired on KTLA 5 news in West Michigan then later on many other media channels.  The officer also received an accommodation from his police department for his public service.  I was not sure if this was a made up story or not but after several media stations reported about the article with different interviews I found it to be cogent.

Cogent or Fallacious 2

As I was researching an article I came across this news feed on Yahoo news.  An article titled "First Whitewater prosecutor says 'serious crimes' were uncovered in probe" .  This article talks about the former U.S. attorney Robert Fiske who is publicizing his new book.  The book is about why he was let go from the investigation of Whitewater and because he was getting to close to the Clinton's and their connection to the  Whitewater scandal.

Robert details in his memoirs book about how he was actively going after several indictments as well as another attorney.  Fiske says he was replaced by a team of federal judges who were manipulated to find an escape goat.  He contests that yes there were arrests made but that there was not sufficient evidence for the arrests.  Robert explains that in his book he details the evidence and what the people were arrested for was insufficient.  Expressing that the individuals that he as well as another attorney were going to indict had more to do with the Whitewater scandal and would have implicated the Clinton's in the scandal.  Fiske says that the arrests were made to pacify the public and to stop inquiring about the Clinton's and their roles in the Whitewater mess. 

Fiske is hoping that the truth will come out before Hilary has a chance to run for the Presidency.  I feel that this is a fallacious story because he gives no evidence other than to buy his book as to why he feels so.  If this is so important and that he really wants the public to be aware of such an event, then why not disclose this to the media in one fail swoop.  He could still make his money from the interviews or a book deal.  But the most important thing is that the information would get out.  However, seeing as how he has not done this and is pushing his book then it cant be that important.  I do not doubt that the Whitewater scandal is fishy at best.  Even here in Utah I can smell the hypocrisy.  Neither the White house nor Fiske have disclosed all of the information.  Unfortunately  government from the beginning has always felt they were above the law and did not need to abide by the same rules as everyone else.  This scandal could have come back to so many people that covering it up is a possibility.  The truth is going to be in the middle of it all but I don't believe we will every know it.

Oppostion Constructives

The seat belt law is in place because seat belts do affect not just us but others. 

There is a claim that “The seatbelt law assumes that motorists are not aware of the benefits of seat belt use and are unable to make correct decisions regarding their own personal safety in vehicles”

We will return to this comment later but I want you to think about it as we talk about all the points that were brought up.

This articles premise was that the government is violating our personal rights.  Unfortunately it was taken from a testimony written by Erik Skrum.  Erik Skrum commented on behalf of The National Motorists Association.  He is a communications director, not a scientist nor a research analyst.  But a person who stands in front of people, trying to persuade by whatever means possible, to throw you off track.  He has no credibility other than being a spokesperson for TNMA.  For that matter The National Motorist Association is an organization design to stand up for driver’s rights and to fight against government, police and court systems.  Don’t take my word for it, it says so right in their credo.

The article of where so much of this misinformation comes from stats “A key component of our position regarding safety legislation is that such legislation shall "do no harm." No person should be compelled by government, no matter how well intentioned, to take action that harms themselves or others.” 

Where on Earth has a seatbelt ever killed a person?  Seat belts don’t kill!  That’s like saying that the seat belt got up, came over and strangled you to death.  Seat belts restrain provide control and save lives.

It could be argued that a person was trapped by their seatbelt when the vehicle went into the water.  However, what is not being thought of is the fact, based off of research.  That when a person goes off a road and hits the water if they were not wearing their seatbelt they would have hit their head and been thrown around the vehicle.  The loss of conciseness would make it impossible to escape.  But the individuals that were seat belted were aware of what happen and were able to unbuckle their seat belts allowing themselves to escape.  If a person is hit from the side they would be tossed to the other side of the vehicle preventing them from keeping control of their vehicle.  This example can be applied to a burning vehicle or being rolled down a mountain side.  The fact of the matter is that if your body is not strapped to the seat your head is banging against the windshield or the roof where it can either break your neck or kill you.  But if buckled you may have a head laceration or head concussion but it will help prevent unconsciousness.

Again Erik argues “There is ample proof, that in certain accidents, people have survived only because a seat belt was not used -- injured, perhaps, but not dead. In 30% of fatal accidents, where a person is ejected from the vehicle, the person remaining in the vehicle is the fatality.”

 My question is where is your documentation?  What was the certain case?  Because what the CDC says is something a little different.  It says “Seat belts prevent drivers and passengers from being ejected during a crash. People not wearing a seat belt are 30 times more likely to be ejected from a vehicle during a crash. More than 3 out of 4 people who are ejected during a fatal crash die from their injuries.” 

Now let’s go back to the opening statement.  “The seatbelt law assumes that motorists are not aware of the benefits of seat belt use and are unable to make correct decisions regarding their own personal safety in vehicles”

Then why is it that in only 51% of fatal accidents, drivers were wearing a seat belt?  Had the other 49% been wearing one more than 4000 lives would have been saved in one year.  Research shows that during the day time hours 45% of passenger vehicle occupants killed in crashes were not wearing their seat belt and during the night time hours the percentage increased to 64%.  On the flip side of that is the medical.  According to the CDC in non-fatal crash injuries resulted in more than $50 billion in lifetime medical and work loss costs in 2012.  The question I have for you is who gets to pay for that?  Who gets to have their insurance premiums raised in order to help pay for those?  Many insurance companies are changing their policies based on the claims that they will not cover any medical expenses unless the driver was wearing a seat belt.  Now to think of the little girl or other patient in the emergency room that now gets over looked because of the driver or passenger that thought they had a right not to wear a seat belt but are not critical.  I want to help impress the understanding of not controlling yourself inside your vehicle.  If you hit something at 15 mph when your vehicle stops your body will continue moving at a rate of 15 mph.  But at a speed of 30 mph you will hit at four times harder than that of 15 mph.  To put it another way it’s the same as if you feel three stories.  Sometimes we cannot control the first collision which is the initial impact.  But the second collision is where we keep moving.  Many times this is more fatal.

Now this leads me back to my original statement.  If the government decided to not jump in and mandate a seat belt law we would be faced with turmoil and issues that we as a nation are trying to avoid.  Things like

Loss of lives increases each year because of the speed limit and quality of vehicles

Insurance costs rising and claims being denied

Medicare and Medicaid costs rising

Health care workers not being able to attend sick individuals

Higher taxes

If we knew all of this then why are we not wearing them?  Seat belt laws benefit us in so many ways we don’t realize them.