|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Warning: H*lm*t content
"Bleve" writes:
Gemma_k wrote: Stackhats went out in, oh, 1980? Modern helmets are light, well ventilated and comfortable. You miss the point. It doesn't matter how good a helmet is to wear, or how safe you feel in one, or how many vents there are or what kind of hairstyle you have. It's all about the choice of whther you WANT to wear a helmet, rather than mandating that you do.... Sure, I don't believe that helmets (or seatbelts) should be compulsory, but if you choose not to wear one, you're an idiot. History shows that there's rather more idiots in the world than is ideal. A society that does its best to look after everyone (free healthcare in particular) has a choice. Either make some level of safety equipment compulsory - and hopefully reduce the bills we all have to pay for healthcare through tax, or say "if you don't wear this/use this etc, then you void your healthcare privs." Option 1: Compulsory xyz Option 2: Refuse healthcare Unfortunately, both your options are unChristian. The first is unChristian because it involves the use or threat of violence (nothing can be "compulsory" unless one is ultimately prepared to use physical violence, such as imprisonment, to make it so[*]). The second is unChristian because it involves withholding from a person what he needs, which is something Christ would never do ("Give to those who ask.") It's never an easy choice, it's always a "where do you draw the line" issue. Such are the joys of living in the real world. The real world does not have to be unChristian. David [*] Though, in reality, even this is not compulsion. Compulsion could only conceivably occur through the use of what you would have to call mind-control techniques, such as, for example, the use of drugs and torture to induce dissociative identity disorder and a programmable mental state. Barring the possibility of such techniques, there is no such thing as compulsion, and when people tell you they "had" to do this or "had" to do that because it was "compulsory" or the "law", they are either lying or delusional (or mind controlled), since they are denying their own free will to choose to do the right thing. Nearly everything that is called "compulsory" is actually not. What people mean is that they are giving in to coercion of one type or another. In fact, what it normally comes down to is that they are not willing to lose their possessions in order to live according to ethical principles. This is how possessions (a) cause or encourage moral corruption; and (b) are deliberately used by governments to corrupt people by making them passive and obedient through fear of losing their "stuff". There is an inverse relationship between spiritual freedom and accumulated stuff. -- David Trudgett http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/ [Luis] Castro told Arab News: "A lieutenant in charge of the [United States] military police told me, 'My men are like dogs, they are trained only to attack, please try to understand'." -- http://globalresearch.ca/articles/GHA304A.html |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Warning: H*lm*t content
Terry Collins wrote: ritcho wrote: Dr Robinson is a well known anti-helmet law campaigner and does some pretty good research. However, I'm concerned that her pre-determined conclusions undermines her work. Umm, I thought that all scientific work was that; "I believe that this causes this and now I will go out a find evidence that supports my theory" Nope, or at least, that's not all of it. Scientific method works in one of two ways, usually; Observation of phenomena, hypothesis as to why/how, testing of hypothesis with core and edge cases. Hypothesis becomes theory if it passes tests. It's not really a case of looking for supporting evidence, but failing to find evidence that disproves the hypthesis. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Warning: H*lm*t content
David Trudgett Wrote: Unfortunately, both your options are unChristian. The first is unChristian because it involves the use or threat of violence (nothing can be "compulsory" unless one is ultimately prepared to use physical violence, such as imprisonment, to make it so ). The second is unChristian because it involves withholding from a person what he needs, which is something Christ would never do ("Give to those who ask.") It's never an easy choice, it's always a "where do you draw the line" issue. Such are the joys of living in the rea world. The real world does not have to be unChristian. I don't think that an option being 'unChristian' makes it invalid especially when we're dealing with a society/population which generall is not... Might be good principles, but i think they're better framed a 'unethical' rather than 'unChristian'... And while I appreciate your comments re consumerism, I think using the as an argument against mandatory helmet laws (or any law for tha matter) is odd and an awfully long bow. Eddie(Christian - not that there's anything wrong with that..) -- eddiec |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Warning: H*lm*t content
Gemma_k Wrote: "till!" wrote in messag .. Gemma_k Wrote You miss the point....It's all about the choice of whther you WAN t wear a helmet rather than mandating that you do... Not at all true, I mean there is no mandate that requires you ride bike Which is the whole point. A lot of people have been lost to cyclin becaus of this mandate, they would prefer not to ride at all because th system ha become more onerous. Many more drivers now do not know what it's lik t ride a bike. These same drivers see cyclists a lot less on the road and d not know what to do when they do see one. The fact the government make yo wear a helmet makes cycling look inherently dangerous For those that do not understand Robinson's research, just think abou wha would happen to cycling if, say, fluorescent and reflectorized vest an flags were made mandatory at all times for cycling If people really wanted to save lives and injuries, then why don't the sto dicking around with the 1%ers in road safety and look at the entir healt system, and then outlaw things like smoking..... Unfortunately the people who count want to A) be re-elected, B) build large super fund, or C) both of the above. Saving lives is non-proveable outcome, within any 4 year period. Doing something tha supports A) and B) is more important, so minimising negative impact o majority of voters is their real goal. Case in point is mobile phone and driving. Ah, I have become so cynical PS. an interesting anomaly for me is the increase in bike sales (mor bikes are sold than cars). Is this due to more disposable nature o bikes, or are we on the brink of seeing a turnaround in number cycling -- sinus |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Warning: H*lm*t content
sinus Wrote: PS. an interesting anomaly for me is the increase in bike sales (mor bikes are sold than cars). Is this due to more disposable nature o bikes, or are we on the brink of seeing a turnaround in number cycling I think it's more that some people think they can buy fitness. Th same sort of person who buys that ab exerciser off of the infomercial etc. They've done something for their fitness, they've spent money o something that will make them fit Problem is that there's only one way to get fit and that's to work which is why most bicycles end up in the back of the garden she rusting away in to nothingness Now I'm depressed. Excuse me while a buy a Dr. Phil book -- EuanB |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Warning: H*lm*t content
David Trudgett Wrote: Unfortunately, both your options are unChristian Whoah. I hardly think it is appropriate to bring religion into this The discussion is not spiritual, it's about helmets. Same sort o issues impact us whether Christian, Jew, Moslem, anything else. You d your brethren no favours by attempting to align them with you particular point of view -- sinus |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Warning: H*lm*t content
Bleve wrote:
Euan wrote: At age five I rode head face in to a concrete lamp post (I sneezed, opened my eyes, saw lamp post and grabbed the front brake with predictable results.) I required two stitches but other than that, fine. At at age 12 I went sailing over the bonnet snip I wasn't wearing a helmet. I hit my head. I'm here and not a vegetable. So you say.:-) My crash had me land on the back of my head, from 2m, head first. That's the sort of concussion that can lead to brain damage and neck injury. I refute your refute, I can still read to after several cycling accidents which resulted in a bump on the head. I fully suspect that if you had not been wearing a helmet in your accident you'd still be able to read as well. Not given the nature of the crash and how I landed. You would need to do it again without the helmet to make any claims about what would have happened. It's not actually, it's only recently that humans have been traveling at an elevated height along concrete surfaces. A fall onto a natural surface (grass, dirt etc) is usually fine. A fall onto an unyielding surface is not to kind to our relatively fragile heads. As a kid, I did most of my falling off bicycles on brick or cobblrstone surfaces, and, like Euan, I'm not a vegatable either. As with all things of this nature, it's a "where do you draw the line" game. I'm constanly aware of the head-injury disaster area that is the inside of motor vehicles, But you want to have the liberty of deciding for yourself whether to wear a helmet in a car, and, in your daily car travel, you choose not to. Do helmets make riding safer? No, as they don't reduce the likleyhood of an accident. Do they make some classes of accident less likely to cause serious injury? Yes. Have head injuries to cyclists reduced since the introduction of helmet compulsion? Helmets may work in very limited scenarios, they do not make a significant contribution to cyclist safety that warrants compulsion. That's your opinion. It's what counts as a significant contribution that is where the argument lies here. For me, wearing a helmet made a significant contribution to *my* safety. So because of this perception of yours, you think it's fair to compel everyone to wear one? I have a perception people would be safer in cars if they all wore helmets. I would be happy for the government to compel you to wear one. :-) Theo |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Warning: H*lm*t content
Hi Eddie, Thanks for your comments. eddiec writes: I don't think that an option being 'unChristian' makes it invalid, If a person adheres to a religion[*] in which violence against people is OK (the end justifies the means[**]), and in which it is OK to deny medical care to those who need it (whether through their own stupidity or not), then that person should feel free to ignore my comments. On the other hand, Christians (still quite a few of us) can't ignore my comments. [*] And yes, +everyone+ adheres to a religion, even "atheists". [**] An ethical principle we are all taught as children to abhor, yet we find it everywhere in society; and most of us find that unremarkable. especially when we're dealing with a society/population which generally is not... Actually, our whole society is imbued with "Christian" principles at some level (some would say "contaminated"). Even those who profess no particular organised religion still hold "religious" beliefs (whether they realise it or not), and by default, many of those beliefs and values can be traced to Christianity (in the case of Western society). Meanwhile, a Christian does not need to apologise for promoting Christian values, whether to Christians or non-Christians. Of course, this does not imply the desire to force (impossible anyway) beliefs, values and practices onto the unwilling (as many "Christians" and adherents to other "faiths" would want to do). A Muslim or a Christian theocracy (forcing religious rules onto a whole "nation"), for example, must be abhorrent to all people who value human dignity and freedom (which a true Christian does). Might be good principles, but i think they're better framed as 'unethical' rather than 'unChristian'... An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is ethical and just. That is the rule of law in which retribution is taken for offences committed. Christianity is beyond "ethics", and that's why it was and still is so revolutionary. Even today, most people do not realise that Christianity is not simply a system of ethics. Although Christians are "ethical", Christianity cannot be reduced to a system of ethics. No philosopher has been able to define a system of ethics that is both (a) universal, and (b) not based on absolute Christian (or other religious) principles; and that is not from want of trying. Such attempts at ethical humanism will be forever condemned, in my opinion, to the hell of moral relativism, which ultimately means that one may do whatever one wishes, so long as the ends are perceived as "good" or desirable. So, ethics, in the sense the scientific humanist understands, is no protection against the likes of, for example, Hitler's nazism or Mussolini's fascism, or the secret policies of their present day followers who are hiding today in plain sight. And while I appreciate your comments re consumerism, I think using them as an argument against mandatory helmet laws (or any law for that matter) is odd and an awfully long bow. The answer must then be that my comments regarding the properties of... property... were not intended to be an argument against mandatory helmet laws. They were, in fact, intended to show a more general point about how people compromise their own ethical standards through fear of losing what they think they "own". Bosses, for instance, just love it when their employees have mortgages to pay, because it makes them so much easier to control (because the employee will do things that contradict their ethical values, and rationalise it by their "need" to look after their family). What has that got to do with helmet laws? Any law (of the type we are discussing) is backed by the threat of violent coercion. In our society, that means the threat to steal one's property, or to imprison. In other countries[***], state violence extends to torture and terrorism. We now know that this is the case in the United States, for instance. Since most people seem to be somewhat lacking in the fortitude department, or otherwise overly attached to their possessions and comfortable way of life, it is apparent that the mere threat to steal one's possessions is sufficient to keep most people in line, without having to resort to imprisonment and torture. Let's have a look at a hypothetical situation in a hypothetical time and place. (Yes, that means this example is entirely fictitious, though based on plausible elements.) Person A (P[a]) has a religious belief about head coverings that rules out wearing a helmet. He therefore rides his bicycle without a helmet and is booked several times by the police. He refuses to pay the fines for several reasons: (1) he will not pay a fine for following his religious beliefs; (2) his government sent troops to help kill people overseas who were defending their country from foreign invasion, and therefore paying a fine voluntarily would be providing material assistance to a criminal, terrorist organisation; and (3) he will not pay a fine for refusing to abdicate his personal responsibility for deciding what is the best thing to do in his own personal circumstances. As a result, P[a] was taken to court, where a judgement was made that his car would be taken from him by force, and his driving licence cancelled (in this place, unbelievably, you might think, people actually have to have permission to operate a motor vehicle, regardless of their abilities to do it safely). There was no practical way that P[a] could get to work without driving a vehicle, so he lost his job, and lost his house. Luckily, he found another job within cycling distance, though it barely paid enough to pay the rent. Unfortunately, he was booked several more times for riding without a helmet. The second time before the courts, he was found to have nothing worth stealing, so he was imprisoned. In prison, he was abused in countless ways by prisoners and prison officers alike, with no possibility of redress, because nobody is interested in the plight of a criminal. Now, Person B (P[b]) on the other hand, also has a religious belief about head coverings that rules out wearing a helmet. He, however, does not own a car, and must cycle to work to support a wife and fifteen children. But wearing or not wearing a helmet is such a trifling matter, he reasons, especially compared with clothing and housing a family. So, although he knows that wearing a helmet is wrong (because his sincere religious beliefs tell him so), he nevertheless compromises his religious and ethical beliefs and wears a helmet while cycling. P[b], now a hypocrite because of fear of losing possessions, continues to live a plentiful life as the shell of a human being. I hope you enjoyed this fairy tale! :-) I hope the exaggeration explains what possessions, and the fear of losing them, has to do with helmet laws (or any other law which purports to take away an individual's inalienable right to choose for herself what is right according to her own conscience). [***] And possibly secretly even in our own. Eddie(Christian - not that there's anything wrong with that..)c Well, you know, that Bush guy claims to be Christian, too... ;-) Catchya. David -- David Trudgett http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/ All these men who were going to murder or to torture the famishing and defenseless creatures who provide them their sustenance had the air of men who knew very well that they were doing their duty, and some were even proud, were "glorying" in what they were doing. -- Leo Tolstoy, "The Kingdom of God is Within You" |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Warning: H*lm*t content
sinus writes:
David Trudgett Wrote: Unfortunately, both your options are unChristian. Whoah. I hardly think it is appropriate to bring religion into this. Whoah. I don't think it appropriate to exclude religion from life. Religion *is* life, you know. Bye for now, David -- David Trudgett http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/ You wu hun cheng Xian tian di sheng. -- Laozi, Dao De Jing, Chapter 25 Trans: "There was something in a state of fusion Before the heavens and the earth came into existence." |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Warning: H*lm*t content
EuanB Wrote: I disagree. It means they've come to a different conclusion than yo have. That doesn't make them an idiot. Who are you to say otherwise? Show me the data that head injuries hav decreased per kilometer cycled as a result of compulsion and you ma have a point. Current data points to the opposite trend. if you think more people wearing helmets hasnt decrease head-injurie arriving in emergency departments acroos the country i think you hav lost me (and applying 'convenient ignorance' ) replace 'helmet' with 'safety belt'. what's the difference? they ar compulsory too after initially not being so. This helmet debate is done and dusted in Oz. There 'may' have been som fallout initially, but then there was against new cars that ha seatbelts installed too when they were intro'd. just buy that Surly and ride : -- flyingdutch |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
RR: On The Road (Warning: GRS Content) | Ride-A-Lot | Mountain Biking | 0 | June 6th 05 02:29 AM |
severe weather warning | joemarshall | Unicycling | 15 | January 14th 05 05:41 AM |
Weather warning ... | elyob | UK | 11 | January 4th 05 11:54 PM |
Warning! OT Political Content!!! | Steven Bornfeld | Racing | 15 | October 31st 04 11:06 PM |
Today (warning: on topic content) | Just zis Guy, you know? | UK | 3 | April 25th 04 12:40 AM |