Old 09-20-10, 04:52 PM
  #19  
ianbrettcooper
Senior Member
 
ianbrettcooper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Silver Spring, MD, USA
Posts: 612
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Seattle Forrest
Well the last sentence translates to "My mind is made up and no amount of evidence will change it."
Straw man. Personal opinion is not 'evidence'. It was merely the surviving cyclists' opinion that the driver could not have avoided the girl. That is not evidence that would hold up in a courtroom unless the cyclists were experts in the field of road accident analysis.

But the rest of the paragraph, to me, says "Only some cyclists are worth advocating for."
Yet here we are, and I feel like I'm the ONLY one still here advocating for the cyclist. There's a big difference between advocating for a cyclist (which is what I'm doing here) and supporting a cyclist's opinion when such opinion actually advocates for a car driver (and AGAINST the cyclist). Defending a cyclist's testimony does not necessarily advocate for cyclists.

If the surviving girls were ever in an accident, I'd be the first to advocate for them. It's pretty sad that, in a cycling advocacy thread, I'm one of only two here (Skye being the other one) who has shown a willingness to defend a cyclist when a car driver kills her.

Remember folks, this is about a guy who killed a cyclist and got a book deal for telling his story. However well the book is written (and apparently it is well-written), it is still a guy turning a profit over the corpse of the girl cyclist he killed. I think that's pretty obscene. Clearly I'm in a small minority on that, which I think is pretty damned sad, given that this is a cycling forum.

Last edited by ianbrettcooper; 09-20-10 at 05:23 PM.
ianbrettcooper is offline