Quote:
Originally Posted by Jockey
Wow, whataboutism and a strawman, two logical fallacies in one argument.
Bravo!
By your logic, we shouldn't have seatbelts, crumple zones, airbags, etc because they might allow the driver to survive! And you know what happens when they survive, medical needs! Just think how we could cut down on the medical expenses in this country if they just died! Insurance would cost less and the hospitals would be less crowded!
Win, win
|
I love these fancy internet terms-of-argument everyone just throws around now: strawman... Whatabougtism...
It's your position that people who choose to ride a motorcycle without wearing a helmet are a burden on society. I can make that same argument with hikers, rock climbers, mountain bikers, drug users, unwed teenage mothers, smokers, dancers, etc. The list can go on and on. If two motorcyclists have the exact same accident, one wearing a helmet and one not, your position is the helmeted motorcyclist is less likely to sustain a head injury and most likely the unhemeted rider will suffer a severe head injury likely leading to his death. Brain injuries are caused by the brain being injured by hitting the inside of the skull. Brain injuries are what you are alluding to when you make the burden on society argument. Helmets do not protect riders from all types of brain injuries and their effectiveness is inverse to speed.
By my logic, people could CHOOSE to by a vehicle that has seatbelts, crumple zones, airbags; none of which a motorcycle has, so by your logic motorcycles shouldn't be sold to the public and allowed to be operated on the public road system.
My original argument was and still is about choice, not the effectiveness of the apparatus.