What's reasonable? As in the original post, what's reasonable is that if someone disregards a traffic control, and loses their life for it, the person driving the car has no obligation, period. No jail time, no traffic citation.
Well that's the law, but what about morally? What's the reasonable moral conclusion? If someone is irresponsibly exposing others to a deadly weapon and another loses his life for it.
After all it's not fair to say that disregarding the traffic control is the sole cause of the death. On the contrary, both the disregard of the traffic control and the exposure to a deadly weapon are both causes. Since each party is solely responsible for their own cause, then it only makes sense that the responsibility for the end result be shared between the two parties. So one party would be half responsible for the death of themselves, while the other party would be half responsible for the death of another. Which is a worse moral crime?
The law, obviously, doesn't always correspond with morality, does it?
In answer to your last paragraph, the answer is no if the person is not the one that framed me for the crime, but a definite yes if it's the person that framed me.
Ah. Well that would certainly be illegal. So am I correct when I say that you don't think the law always corresponds with morality?
makeinu
10-28-07, 04:58 PM
Don't need to, you provided it all. In fact you so well, you got a bunch of folks, some of whom I don't think have ever agreed on anything else, to band together to tell you that you have some really screwed up ideas.:D
Have a nice day.:)
No. You do need to.
Despite whatever strong feelings you might have to the contrary, other people can't read your mind. If you want them to be able to understand whatever internal justification you might have then you need to provide it.
As I said, I'm not going to sit here and randomly guess at what your justification might be. It's not worth my time. So unless you decide to provide justification for your argument, this conversation will not proceed. Sorry, that's my policy and I think almost anyone would agree that it's a reasonable one.
Let it suffice to say that if you believe I am trying to justify an action which I know is wrong, then you are quite mistaken. Unfortunately, without any justification for your argument, I cannot illustrate what the root of your error is. If it is the swirls in your Cocoa Pebbles then be assured that reading swirls, of any kind, is not a reliable indicator of truth.
Dchiefransom
10-28-07, 05:55 PM
Well that's the law, but what about morally? What's the reasonable moral conclusion? If someone is irresponsibly exposing others to a deadly weapon and another loses his life for it.
A motor vehicle is not a weapon unless used as one. Normal use for a motor vehicle is as a tool that can be deadly if used irresponsibly. The driver is not being irresponsible by operating the motor vehicle within the rules established.
Brian
10-28-07, 06:17 PM
Well that's the law, but what about morally? What's the reasonable moral conclusion? If someone is irresponsibly exposing others to a deadly weapon and another loses his life for it.
After all it's not fair to say that disregarding the traffic control is the sole cause of the death. On the contrary, both the disregard of the traffic control and the exposure to a deadly weapon are both causes. Since each party is solely responsible for their own cause, then it only makes sense that the responsibility for the end result be shared between the two parties. So one party would be half responsible for the death of themselves, while the other party would be half responsible for the death of another. Which is a worse moral crime?
The law, obviously, doesn't always correspond with morality, does it?
You're trying to make a comparative liability issue where there is none. The driver is still not responsible for the dead person's actions.
My puppy just came into my office, and is begging for cuddles. Consider that a gift.
makeinu
10-28-07, 07:59 PM
A motor vehicle is not a weapon unless used as one. Normal use for a motor vehicle is as a tool that can be deadly if used irresponsibly. The driver is not being irresponsible by operating the motor vehicle within the rules established.
1. Nothing is a weapon unless used as one, even.....a weapon.
2. Just because there are rules established that doesn't mean they define responsible action. You have not given an answer here, but a dogma. You say it is responsible because the rules say it is, but you haven't given any indication that the rules are right, whereas I have gave many compelling reasons to question the validity of those rules. There was a time when human slavery was in accordance with established legal rules in America. Established rules and legality are irrelevant to the question of moral correctness. I am asking you to take an honest look at the established rules and ask yourself, "Do these rules define a moral standard?"
As you said, use of a motor vehicle can be deadly if used irresponsibly. How can you argue that it can also be deadly if used responsibly? How can a set of rules which call a deadly action a responsible action be a moral set of rules? Perhaps if we're talking about a kill or be killed scenario you could make a case for such a set of rules, but here we are talking about kill or give up your suburban lifestyle scenario.
You're trying to make a comparative liability issue where there is none. The driver is still not responsible for the dead person's actions.
Everything you do affects another human being. From a moral standpoint, there is always a comparative liability issue. You can't just absolve yourself from that liability just because you don't want the responsibility.
As I've argued many times, the driver is not responsible for anyone else's actions. However, it takes two to tango, without the role of the driver the dead person would not be dead. This fact must be reconciled. I have provided one way to reconcile it, while you have simply ignored it.
Dchiefransom
10-28-07, 08:10 PM
1. I am asking you to take an honest look at the established rules and ask yourself, "Do these rules define a moral standard?"
As I've argued many times, the driver is not responsible for anyone else's actions. However, it takes two to tango, without the role of the driver the dead person would not be dead. This fact must be reconciled. I have provided one way to reconcile it, while you have simply ignored it.
Yes, they do define a moral standard. Not everyone has the same morals as you.
No, it does not have to be reconciled. That's what people have been trying to tell you.
makeinu
10-28-07, 08:24 PM
Yes, they do define a moral standard. Not everyone has the same morals as you.
You keep repeating that, but you also keep ignoring the hard questions I am posing which suggest that they don't define a moral standard. What morals do you have which allow them to define a moral standard? What kind of morals allow someone to responsibly kill another out of neither punishment or self defense?
No, it does not have to be reconciled. That's what people have been trying to tell you.
That's all fine a dandy, but we are talking about people's lives here. We are talking about preventable deaths. Just because you decree that we don't have to reconciled why these preventable deaths were not prevented that does not make it so. Unless you can give a damn good reason why a potential death prevention does not need to be considered then it sure as hell does need to be reconciled.
Dchiefransom
10-28-07, 09:23 PM
You keep repeating that, but you also keep ignoring the hard questions I am posing which suggest that they don't define a moral standard. What morals do you have which allow them to define a moral standard? What kind of morals allow someone to responsibly kill another out of neither punishment or self defense?
That's all fine a dandy, but we are talking about people's lives here. We are talking about preventable deaths. Just because you decree that we don't have to reconciled why these preventable deaths were not prevented that does not make it so. Unless you can give a damn good reason why a potential death prevention does not need to be considered then it sure as hell does need to be reconciled.
Just because you you decree that they have to reconciled does not make it so. No reason is needed. We do not need to post signs on the shore of the ocean stating that swimming in it is dangerous. We do not need to remind people that hiking in the mountains is dangerous and they could be killed. If people use a circular saw while building houses, some of them are going to be injured. Nothing is perfectly safe or preventable. If people want to prevent getting run over by a moving motor vehicle that's driving within the rules established, then they should not step out in front of it. If YOU don't like motor vehicles, that's too bad.
I-Like-To-Bike
10-29-07, 06:29 AM
If YOU don't like motor vehicles, that's too bad.
But it sure is amusing when makeinu posts sanctimonious over-the-top morality sermons due to this hysterical dislike of motor vehicles AND the dizzying height of his high horse. What would really be too bad is if someone is demented enough to take his nonsense seriously.
makeinu
10-29-07, 07:10 AM
Just because you you decree that they have to reconciled does not make it so. No reason is needed. We do not need to post signs on the shore of the ocean stating that swimming in it is dangerous. We do not need to remind people that hiking in the mountains is dangerous and they could be killed. If people use a circular saw while building houses, some of them are going to be injured. Nothing is perfectly safe or preventable.
Please. Your argument is flat out ridiculous. Of course you need a reason. How else did you pick your examples? Without reconciliation it is, by definition, impossible to distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable deaths. I think it's quite obvious that no one (and I mean no one, including you) would agree that any and all deaths should be treated equally. Therefore, every death needs to be reconciled among the acceptable and the unacceptable.
For the examples you gave, we find reconciliation in the fact that the mountains and the ocean are not controlled by people. Generally there are signs posted warning people of the danger because it is recognized by most that we are, in fact, morally obligated to post such signs. However, if someone decides to put themselves at risk despite the signage then things become more complicated. We can stop them against their will, but that might be just as immoral as allowing them to die. We might be able to prevent the deaths of careless individuals by taking EMS crews and assigning them as lifeguards, but then we are trading off lives, which is somewhat of a moral wash. So in fact, we can easily reconcile current practice with acceptable moral loses as opposed to the egregious moral failure that is automobile usage.
Indeed, as I already discussed on page one, nothing is perfectly safe or preventable. That is why we must seek to minimize loses, rather than eliminate them, by recognizing that, among our available choices, it is immoral to pick activities which present a higher risk of harming other individuals. It is immoral to not slow down when driving next to a school regardless of whether or not there are signs dictating such. It is immoral to set off firecrackers over your neighbor's house (potentially setting it on fire) regardless of whether or not it violates state law. The reason activities such as these are immoral is not because any other activity is guaranteed to do less harm. On the contrary, it's entirely possible that by some strange circumstance setting fire to your neighbor's house could end up saving your neighbor's life. Activities such as these are immoral because they are more likely to cause more harm than the other choices available to you.
This biggest shame of all is that I actually have to say these things. Didn't your mother ever teach you right from wrong?
If people want to prevent getting run over by a moving motor vehicle that's driving within the rules established, then they should not step out in front of it. If YOU don't like motor vehicles, that's too bad.
But that's not true. In fact, it's so common for people behaving lawfully to get run over by moving motor vehicles that the word "accident" has become practically synonymous with the event.
It has nothing to do with whether or not I like motor vehicles. It has to do with life and death and preventing death is unequivocally more important than your vehicle preference.
Brian
10-29-07, 07:14 AM
So if you use your hair dryer in the tub, who shares responsibility - Whirlpool, the electric company, or the hair dryer company? What if you run, knowing the sidewalk is icy, and have a fall, Dr. Atkins style? Who shares the responsibility?
You have a moral obligation to lighten us.
Brian
10-29-07, 07:27 AM
It's amusing to see someone attempt to justify their ridiculous beliefs, when no one is ever going to be convinced you're not a borderline nut case. And as your posts get longer, they contain less substantial content.
makeinu
10-29-07, 07:43 AM
So if you use your hair dryer in the tub, who shares responsibility - Whirlpool, the electric company, or the hair dryer company? What if you run, knowing the sidewalk is icy, and have a fall, Dr. Atkins style? Who shares the responsibility?
You have a moral obligation to lighten us.
As shocking as it may be, everyone is responsible for the consequences of their own actions. :eek:
Just because you think someone else is too stupid, too fat, too white, too black, too old, too poor, too unamerican, etc, etc, it does not absolve you of the moral responsibility for your own part.
Why do I feel like I'm speaking to a serial killer? ("No Brian, it doesn't matter that those girls were all walking on ice, that doesn't make their lives any less important")
[And just so you don't accuse me of not answering your questions. The obvious answer is that everyone who has a causal effect on the outcome shares in the responsibility, duh. What's boggling my mind is why you are so averse to this concept. Do you believe the consequences need to be multiplied by the number of shares? I don't see any reason why that should be the case. Are you against the notion that responsibility should ever be shared or do you just think that responsibility should never be shared in a public context? Is it that you think the law should always correspond with morality and that such shared responsibility would be too difficult to enforce legally? If you actually have any reasons for your beliefs then it would be great to hear them. If you don't have any reasons then, well....I guess ignorance is bliss.)
makeinu
10-29-07, 07:55 AM
It's amusing to see someone attempt to justify their ridiculous beliefs, when no one is ever going to be convinced you're not a borderline nut case. And as your posts get longer, they contain less substantial content.
And people wonder why there are so many trolls around here. :rolleyes: The forum owner is one of them.
Of course my post are containing less substantial content as they get longer. Explaining to you clowns why you need a reason to let someone die should not be necessary. The fact that I am forced to explain it means that I need to do a lot of typing just to get to square one.
gabdy
10-29-07, 08:14 AM
makeinu, you were talking about a concealed weapon earlier. Do you carry or own a gun?
Brian
10-29-07, 08:16 AM
Of course my post are containing less substantial content as they get longer.
Indeed! You finally posted something we can all agree on.
I-Like-To-Bike
10-29-07, 09:21 AM
It's amusing to see someone attempt to justify their ridiculous beliefs, when no one is ever going to be convinced you're not a borderline nut case. And as your posts get longer, they contain less substantial content.
And people wonder why there are so many trolls around here. :rolleyes: The forum owner is one of them.
Of course my post are containing less substantial content as they get longer. Explaining to you clowns why you need a reason to let someone die should not be necessary. The fact that I am forced to explain it means that I need to do a lot of typing just to get to square one.
I'm not convinced the poster is "borderline."
"Forced to explain, eh?" By what, the voices in your head; or is it the omnipresent Troll Conspiracy that conspires to post messages disagreeing with your nuthouse ramblings ?
makeinu
10-29-07, 10:45 AM
makeinu, you were talking about a concealed weapon earlier. Do you carry or own a gun?
If you haven't bothered to read this thread then why should I waste my time talking to you?
Indeed! You finally posted something we can all agree on.
Fair enough. I think I've argued my point in a straightforward and eloquent manner. If you have nothing to offer in response apart from unsupported assertions and shallow insults then I see no reason for this conversation to continue.
Brian
10-29-07, 10:58 AM
Fair enough. I think I've argued my point in a straightforward and eloquent manner. If you have nothing to offer in response apart from unsupported assertions and shallow insults then I see no reason for this conversation to continue.
You've argued, but not with anything of substance. Foolish opinions are best kept to oneself.
makeinu
10-29-07, 11:41 AM
Fair enough. I think I've argued my point in a straightforward and eloquent manner. If you have nothing to offer in response apart from unsupported assertions and shallow insults then I see no reason for this conversation to continue.
You've argued, but not with anything of substance. Foolish opinions are best kept to oneself.
I think my argument has plenty of substance. You certainly haven't offered anything which suggests otherwise. However, I guess I can't fault you for keeping your reasons for disagreeing to yourself. As you said, foolish opinions are best kept to oneself.
Brian
10-29-07, 11:45 AM
I think my argument has plenty of substance.
Correct. But you are alone in your thinking.
I-Like-To-Bike
10-29-07, 11:54 AM
Correct. But you are alone in your thinking.
Still think "borderline"?
makeinu
10-29-07, 11:56 AM
Correct. But you are alone in your thinking.
I doubt it.
Brian
10-29-07, 11:57 AM
I doubt it.
No one on here seems to agree with you. Don't you find that telling?
makeinu
10-29-07, 12:35 PM
No one on here seems to agree with you. Don't you find that telling?
Oh really? Did I miss the poll that asked if anyone here agrees with me?
The only thing I find telling is that the few that have voice any disagreement have refused to provide any kind of justification for their opinions.
Brian
10-29-07, 12:39 PM
Oh really? Did I miss the poll that asked if anyone here agrees with me?
The only thing I find telling is that the few that have voice any disagreement have refused to provide any kind of justification for their opinions.
Justify what exactly? We need to justify that we are having trouble seeing any sort of logic in your posts?
makeinu
10-29-07, 12:49 PM
Justify what exactly? We need to justify that we are having trouble seeing any sort of logic in your posts?
Justify your statements. For example, you claimed that there is no comparative liability issue. I responded that, due to the fact that every action in which you partake affects another human being, there is always some liability which can, subsequently, be compared. You offered no justification for your assertion, as if it were an irrefutable fact, when the clear facts and implications of my response seemed to show that your assertion isn't even true, much less a fact.
Justify your statements. For example, you claimed that there is no comparative liability issue. I responded that, due to the fact that every action in which you partake affects another human being, there is always some liability which can, subsequently, be compared. You offered no justification for your assertion, as if it were an irrefutable fact, when the clear facts and implications of my response seemed to show that your assertion isn't even true, much less a fact.
Saying it doesn't make it so. When I handled insurance claims, another adjustor tried that logic. He felt that since our insured chose to drive that day, they were 10% at fault. Choosing to do something, or even not do something, does not automatically make you liable for the negligent actions of another.
If someone chooses to run a red light, and I hit them, I do not somehow bear liability simply because I "chose to operate an automobile" that day. Except in your world, apparently.
makeinu
10-29-07, 01:32 PM
Saying it doesn't make it so. When I handled insurance claims, another adjustor tried that logic. He felt that since our insured chose to drive that day, they were 10% at fault. Choosing to do something, or even not do something, does not automatically make you liable for the negligent actions of another.
If someone chooses to run a red light, and I hit them, I do not somehow bear liability simply because I "chose to operate an automobile" that day. Except in your world, apparently.
Insurance and morality are, obviously, worlds apart. Do you snatch the cheetos out of your wife's hand and say, sorry honey, but this action does not present a legal liability to me? Whether you like it or not your actions affect other people, not just your loved ones, but also strangers. Yes, it is your legal right to not take responsibility for some of those actions, but the fact remains that you are still physically responsible. In the real physical world you are the cause to an effect, regardless of what conclusions you draw from the paper and pen world of insurance and law.
Choosing to do something, or even not do something, absolutely does automatically make you liable. You can not refute this. It is a physical fact. Physics connects you to the fruits of your actions and no judge or insurance provider can absolve you from it. These are the consequences of the real world, no matter what imaginary world you choose to live in.
BTW, this conversation is getting rather tedious. I asked you several posts back if your inclination was that law and morality should coincide and you did not respond. Why are you bringing it up now? So I can retype what I already addressed?
Brian
10-29-07, 01:53 PM
How do you get out of bed in the morning, knowing you are killing innocent people by your actions?
Don't bother responding though. You are correct, and the rest of us are all mistaken. Your logic is impeccable. Even for a nut case.
makeinu
10-29-07, 02:06 PM
How do you get out of bed in the morning, knowing you are killing innocent people by your actions?
How many times do I have to address this. I already described the answer to this dilemma several times in this thread.
How many times would you like me to repeat it? Seriously, give me a number and I'll repost it exactly that many times.
Don't bother responding though. You are correct, and the rest of us are all mistaken. Your logic is impeccable. Even for a nut case.
Should I take that as your admission of defeat?
Brian
10-29-07, 02:12 PM
Should I take that as your admission of defeat?
Let's just say that I'm not dazzled by your brilliance, but I am certainly baffled...
makeinu
10-29-07, 02:16 PM
Let's just say that I'm not dazzled by your brilliance, but I am certainly baffled...
Baffling as it may be. My logic actually is impeccable, while yours can hardly be called much more than grasping at straws.
In any case, you've made it abundantly clear that you don't give a damn about anyone else unless forced to by your insurance provider or law official. I have no intention of trying to spur you towards altruism. So I guess this conversation is over. :(
Brian
10-29-07, 02:22 PM
My logic actually is impeccable
If that's what the voices in your head tell you, who am I to argue?
makeinu
10-29-07, 02:41 PM
If that's what the voices in your head tell you, who am I to argue?
uhhh...yeah, that's what I said :rolleyes:
Stop acting like a baby. If you have nothing to contribute to this thread apart from shallow insults then please just shut up.
I'm fine if you don't agree with my argument, but don't act like it's straight out of the loony bin. My argument, is in the very least one that's received a lot of careful consideration, which is way more than I can say for yours. Quite frankly, I have no idea where you get off criticizing me when you quite obviously haven't even carefully considered your own perspective, much less mine. Spouting off without first thinking is just plain rude and I don't appreciate it at all.
Brian
10-29-07, 02:44 PM
uhhh...yeah, that's what I said :rolleyes:
Stop acting like a baby. If you have nothing to contribute to this thread apart from shallow insults then please just shut up.
I'm pretty sure it doesn't work that way. Speaking of babies, I've seen some of the PMs you've sent lately. We're chipping in to get you a box of Kleenex.
zeytoun
10-29-07, 02:45 PM
My logic actually is impeccable
Not really.
Your argument is that we bear some level of moral responsibility for the unintended outcomes of our actions.
Some of those unintended outcomes are easily foreseeable. For example, driving recklessly on ice. This is legally recognized as negligent behavior.
Those behaviors that are not easily foreseeable should not be considered negligent. For example, not predicting that an adult would run a red light, and be struck by your car.
Here is your logical error:
If you assign moral responsibility for outcomes that are not easily foreseeable, then one would have to act to prevent any possible negative outcome in order to avoid guilt for it. If one so acted, then there would be no outcome to justify the person's preventative action. Therefore, any person could justify their actions as "preventative". For example, if you failed to kill a person who later fathered the world's next genocidal dictator, you are partly responsible for your actions that contributed. Conversely however, I could justify killing a person by saying that their offspring would become mass murderers.
In fact, since anyone who conceives a child is partly responsible for the child's inevitable future death, and that is a "foreseeable" consequence, then everyone is guilty of murder, and should be executed before the sum of human existence gets out of hand.
chipcom
10-29-07, 02:57 PM
I've always been amazed at the extent people will go to make excuses for not performing the simple act of stopping for a traffic control signal and placing blame on others for the results of their own stupidity.
Scaryspice
10-29-07, 03:05 PM
I've always been amazed at the extent people will go to make excuses for not performing the simple act of stopping for a traffic control signal and placing blame on others for the results of their own stupidity.
It's best to be sitting down when you read half the post in here, or you might fall over. I also seem to notice that the serious threads in here just get laughed at or ignore. This is why half the time I just sit back read and shake my head over and over again.
makeinu
10-29-07, 03:39 PM
Not really.
Your argument is that we bear some level of moral responsibility for the unintended outcomes of our actions.
Some of those unintended outcomes are easily foreseeable. For example, driving recklessly on ice. This is legally recognized as negligent behavior.
Those behaviors that are not easily foreseeable should not be considered negligent. For example, not predicting that an adult would run a red light, and be struck by your car.
Here is your logical error:
If you assign moral responsibility for outcomes that are not easily foreseeable, then one would have to act to prevent any possible negative outcome in order to avoid guilt for it. If one so acted, then there would be no outcome to justify the person's preventative action. Therefore, any person could justify their actions as "preventative". For example, if you failed to kill a person who later fathered the world's next genocidal dictator, you are partly responsible for your actions that contributed. Conversely however, I could justify killing a person by saying that their offspring would become mass murderers.
In fact, since anyone who conceives a child is partly responsible for the child's inevitable future death, and that is a "foreseeable" consequence, then everyone is guilty of murder, and should be executed before the sum of human existence gets out of hand.
On the contrary, it is not fair to say that any preventative action would be justifiable. As I've mentioned in a previous post, the best way to avoid guilt is not to try to prevent each instance of guilt, but to minimize the expected guilt (in the statistical sense). Saying that any preventative action is justifiable would be like saying that any investment is financially sound. This isn't true. Investments which have a high probability of failure (such as gambling) are not financially sound despite the possibility that they could pay off. Likewise preventative actions which are not likely to result in the intended consequence would not be justifiable.
The error is not in my logic, but in yours. You are assuming that all cause-effect relationships are equivalent. This isn't so. The fact that some causal relationships can be forseen with a higher probability than others allows you to leverage your intuition about easily foreeable events and apply it to almost all kinds of causal relationships. Every opportunity for guilt can be weighted according to its probability. The paradox you created only happens when all causal relationships are equally likely, which is just as "statistically impossible" as all causal relationships giving a guaranteed outcome.
You see, the probability of the causal relationship holds regardless of whether or not the outcome actually occurs. So the justification is independent of the outcome. One could not justify an uncertain preventative action without supporting statistical data, such as the automotive epidemic which is ravaging our country worse than any war ever has.
In the case of the child, you need to consider the net sum of having the child. Yes, one of the effects is death, but one of the effects is also life. Every cause has many effects. You can't just take one and treat it as if it were the only effect. Furthermore, I am not necessarily advocating that this kind of determination should be used to derive legal penalties (such as execution). Obviously the kind of determination I described would create an enforcement nightmare if applied to law. But I am not proposing this philosophy for law. These are principals of morality meant to guide people of their own volition. How the law can best encourage people towards such principles is another question.
zeytoun
10-29-07, 05:03 PM
You are assuming that all cause-effect relationships are equivalent.
I thought that's what you were arguing... was that the cause-effect relationship between a person choosing to drive, and accidentally hitting a law-breaking cyclist was somehow comparable to the cause-effect relationship between a person choosing to cycle in a law-breaking manner, and being hit by a law-abiding motor vehicle driver.
Brian
10-29-07, 05:20 PM
Can someone please agree with him?
chipcom
10-29-07, 05:27 PM
Okay fine...makeinu you are of course correct and the smartest feller in the world. We mere mortals can only hope to someday match your mental prowess....perhaps by experiencing a nice head injury, or perhaps shock therapy. Which would you recommend for a doofus like me?
syn0n
10-29-07, 06:03 PM
Obviously the cross traffic.
They are the ones in possession of deadly force. It is their responsibility to control it. Period.
I drive and cycle pretty much every day. I typically obey the law, especially ROW laws. I'm attentive when I cycle and drive alike. That said, here's my philosophy, illustrated:
http://i22.tinypic.com/otiuqe.png
This represents me, in my car, driving towards an intersection with the ROW on green. I'm going to assume that if you want to peg drivers with responsibilty for an accident due to your red light running and failure to yeild, this scenario is plausible. Now lets look at what's there. There's oncoming traffic, a pedestrian, a lightpost, and you. I really think you and riders with your mentality should understand that I'm not going to swerve for you if the alternative is an accident that's my fault.
See the car? I'm not going to swerve into him for a head-on collision, which I would be at fault for, to save you.
See the pedestrian, patiently waiting to cross? I'm not going to swerve into him and almost certainly kill him and be found at fault for the accident, to save you.
I'm not going to swerve into a lightpost and injure myself and cause severe damage to my car and city property, to be found at fault for the collision, to save you.
See you, the cyclist, running the red, and failing to yeild ROW to traffic that has the ROW? Yes, indeed I will brake hard and swerve to avoid you if it's a viable option, but if I hit you, tough ****. You'll be found at fault, and the only thing you'll be able to do about it is ***** on BF about the evil evil motorist who didn't kill someone else because your lazy ass couldn't stop at a light.
Consider that. Like I said, I'm attentive when I drive. I always leave myself an out if possible to avoid potential accidents like the one someone like you might cause. But if I don't have an out, and you violate my ROW, I'm not going to injure or kill someone else or myself for you.
Scaryspice
10-29-07, 10:26 PM
Ouch!!!!
dobber
10-30-07, 04:24 AM
http://i22.tinypic.com/otiuqe.png
What model is that car?
Makeinu needs to see his LBS about a bike fitting, he's way to stretched out on that frame.
Chris L
10-30-07, 05:37 AM
Stop acting like a baby. If you have nothing to contribute to this thread apart from shallow insults then please just shut up.
I'm fine if you don't agree with my argument, but don't act like it's straight out of the loony bin. My argument, is in the very least one that's received a lot of careful consideration, which is way more than I can say for yours. Quite frankly, I have no idea where you get off criticizing me when you quite obviously haven't even carefully considered your own perspective, much less mine. Spouting off without first thinking is just plain rude and I don't appreciate it at all.
Hey, kewl, maaan! Let's all hurl invective at moderators to cover our inability to write a coherent argument, maaaaaaan!
Now if I can just remember what 'invective' means, maaaaaaaaan!
Makeinu needs to see his LBS about a bike fitting, he's way to stretched out on that frame.
That is a rather melty rendition of the Hyundai I drive. I don't really have any MSPAINT skills. :o
And makeinu has bigger problems than his poorly-fitted bike. ;)
makeinu
10-30-07, 10:09 AM
I thought that's what you were arguing... was that the cause-effect relationship between a person choosing to drive, and accidentally hitting a law-breaking cyclist was somehow comparable to the cause-effect relationship between a person choosing to cycle in a law-breaking manner, and being hit by a law-abiding motor vehicle driver.
Comparable is not the same as equivalent. Comparable means you can give some finite measure of how far two things are from being equivalent. Equivalent means that that measure is zero.
Okay fine...makeinu you are of course correct and the smartest feller in the world. We mere mortals can only hope to someday match your mental prowess....perhaps by experiencing a nice head injury, or perhaps shock therapy. Which would you recommend for a doofus like me?
Look, by no means do I think I'm the smartest feller in the world, but if someone can't see that my ideas have at least some merit, then, yes, I am most likely much more intelligent than them.
I can understand respectful disagreement, but some of you fools seem to think that what I'm saying doesn't make one whit of sense. I'm sorry, but the only explanation I have for that kind of attitude is sheer stupidity.
See you, the cyclist, running the red, and failing to yeild ROW to traffic that has the ROW? Yes, indeed I will brake hard and swerve to avoid you if it's a viable option, but if I hit you, tough ****. You'll be found at fault, and the only thing you'll be able to do about it is ***** on BF about the evil evil motorist who didn't kill someone else because your lazy ass couldn't stop at a light.
Consider that. Like I said, I'm attentive when I drive. I always leave myself an out if possible to avoid potential accidents like the one someone like you might cause. But if I don't have an out, and you violate my ROW, I'm not going to injure or kill someone else or myself for you.
How can you sleep at night knowing that you're going put yourself in a position where you might have to injure or kill someone?
My opinion is that if you hit me then tough **** for you. Both of us are eventually going to die, the most striking difference is that you'll die with blood on your hands while I'll die with a clean conscience. But I suppose you think I'm just crazy for not cowering at the sight of your weapon. I suppose you think Martin Luther King Jr was a fool for not cowering at threats of violence against him. Right?
Hey, kewl, maaan! Let's all hurl invective at moderators to cover our inability to write a coherent argument, maaaaaaan!
Now if I can just remember what 'invective' means, maaaaaaaaan!
What is this, bizarro world? Brian was the one resorted to hurling invective because he couldn't write a coherent argument. I gave a very coherent argument, which is why I'm so frusted when I get dumb ass responses like this. Brian's inane and specious ramblings about my mental health have absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread. Seriously, of everyone that's posted in this thread thus far, the only person other than me to give a coherent argument is zeytoun.