View Single Post
Old 12-31-2012, 12:06 PM   #257
Schlug's Avatar
Joined: Jan 2006
Location: put something on and stay in that position.
Oddometer: 7,451
Originally Posted by PhilB View Post
Ah, the core problem. You have exactly zero idea what the concepts of individual rights and liberty and freedom mean, and completely disregard them in your analysis. Your argument allows for the government to violate any and every right a person has, if only they can come up with an adequate cost-benefit rationale. That is NOT what having rights means. That is not what liberty means. That is not what freedom means.

This was the decision of 25 state Supreme Courts, not me. I.e, people smarter than you, likely smarter than the both of us. Stop making this an ad hominem attack. (look it up)

Apology accepted.

Originally Posted by Wraith Rider View Post
You are incredibly selfish as well every time you hop on your bike and accept high amounts of emotional distress to the persons who like you, just for a bit of irrational, personal fun. You are preaching water and drinking vine. THAT is bewildering.

16 times as dangerous as car driving you said, 16 times as expensive to society, 16 times as likely to badly hurt the ones who love you. And YOU get off giving talks to us about being incredibly selfish. Ludicrous.

Why do you insist on ignoring that fact that wearing a helmet is the easiest way to mitigate these risks?

point 1.
Riding a motorbike is more dangerous than driving a car. And does cost the non-motorbike riding public more money.
point 2.
Outlawing motorbikes is an unreasonable burden on civil society. For, to be sure, there are actual positive arguments for riding motorbikes.

point 1.
Riding without a helmet is a selfish, costly act in that one may suffer an otherwise avoidable head injury which causes pain and suffering and financial ruin to one's family and increased cost to the helmet-wearing and non-motorbike riding public.
point 2.
Insisting that motorbike riders wear helmets is not, as 25 State Supreme Courts (read: NOT ME) have found, an overly burdensome act to the rights of civil society. And indeed there are no true arguments against it including an asanine 'freedom of choice.'

Originally Posted by PhilB View Post

If you claim the right to decide what level of safety another person must take, don't be a bit surprised if someone else claims the same right over you. THERE is your double standard. You are reserving the right to engage in your choice of a dangerous activity, while arguing against respecting the rights of others to do the same.
I certainly am engaging in any double standard. You are mistaken in assuming that, should a law be passed in my locale outlawing motorbikes (a completely ridiculous assertion that you, and only you propose) I wouldn't abide by that law. And I tell you, sir, that I would either relocate or I would abide by such a ruling.

Of course this is total hogshyte and anyone who believed for a minute that motorbikes would be outlawed based on the standard of justification put forth by the state supreme courts is thicker than pigshit.

For what it's worth, your argument is a called a 'straw man' argument. You dislike one law and then you point out another law that is well nigh impossible and wave the flag of danger. It is worthless and fallacious and, even worse, might convince others. Please don't bring that line of reason up again.
"So what makes this protest different is that you're set to die, Bobby?"
--May well come to that.
"You start a hunger strike to protest for what you believe in. You don't start already determined to die or am I missing somethin' here?"
-- It's in their hands. Our message is clear. They're seeing our determination.

Schlug screwed with this post 12-31-2012 at 12:16 PM
Schlug is offline   Reply With Quote