How's This for Irony?
 

First Read This

Then read this

HA !!!!!
I beleve the saying is " live by the sword , die by the sword "!!!!!!!

Yeah, ironic, but stupid at the same time. There's such a thing as taking contrariness too far.

Oh yeah? How about this?

http://fox.org/~vince/out/ironing.jpg

Oh, you meant...

So smart and at the same time, so stupid.

I don't see any irony. He was a libertarian who supported removing seat belt laws so people could make that choice for themselves. The result of that choice are irrelevant. He chose not to wear one. When you're in the back of an SUV and it rolls, you probably wouldn't make it even if you were wearing one.

It's a shame to lose a decent and bright guy who was on the right track when so many others aren't.

So are all Libertarians firm believers in Darwinism?

The irony is that he let his ideology (read as "replacement for critical review of thought processes) get in the way of doing what is a good idea regardless of your feelings for the idea.

So the question becomes, was he really that bright after all?

Seems to me if the law said to this guy "don't drink battery acid", ten minutes later he'd neck a pint of it.

If someone doesn't want to wear a motorcycle helmet and fights against such laws because they make it tougher for him to see and he accepts the risks involved. Then later this same guy dies from head trauma he got in a motorcycle accident, that's not irony, and it's not allowing his feelings to keep him from exercising a good idea.

It's a man accepting the risks involved in a certain activity even when he falls victim to those risks. It's like Evil Kenevil jumping cars on a motorcycle and crashing. He accepted the risks and he didn't make it. That doesn't mean he was wrong for accepting the risks.

If you choose to play baseball and get hit by a ball in the eye, choosing to play baseball wasn't wrong.

Society feels it has the right to specify the use of seat belts because society also pays a price: So the argument that society should not intrude because it only affects me is a fallacy.

So Darwinism is compatible with Libertarianism...that's what I was thinking.

That can be used as an argument against anything; people should not be allowed to drink, smoke, ride bicycles, ski, etc. since they are increasing their probability of getting injured by participating in such activities. Since theses injuries cost society more money in health care costs, these activities should be outlawed. If everyone wore helmets while driving, injuries and hospital costs would be reduced. Is this an argument for enforcing such a law?

So the argument that society should not intrude because it only affects me is a fallacy.

Yes, but a Libertarian would say do away with the (partially) socialized healthcare too, that way society wouldn't be paying for it.

the costs go beyond the loss of lives and result in higher taxes, health care costs, and insurance costs

Unsure about the taxes, health care, etc, but I know any insurance company in their right mind should deny payment or compensation to any dumbass that doesn't wear a belt and ends up on the pavement.

Driving without insurance is and should be against the law because that action has the ability to impact many other people in very negative ways. Driving without a belt is the driver's problem.