Originally Posted by
Six jours
Actually, someone who supports the ACLU but not the NRA really isn't interested in personal freedoms. He's only interested in the ones he thinks are important. He's a hypocrite, IOW.
Not exactly. A person could be genuinely interested in/supportive of, say, freedom-of-speech issues and simply not care about gun rights, or vice versa. Not actively supporting one type of personal freedom does not mean your support of another one is false or hypocritical. Now, if someone went around saying he supports
all civil liberties, personal freedoms, the Constitution, etc. and then only supported one right while ignoring or actively fighting against others, that would be hypocritical and dishonest. (The ACLU itself actually adopts such an exclusionary, some would say contradictory, stance regarding gun rights:
http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_p...cond-amendment but that's getting into a whole other issue.)
But that really doesn't have anything to do with what we're trying to get across to you re. helmets for non-cycling activities: the reason you don't wear a helmet while walking or driving or showering is that you don't think the level of risk demands it. And the fact is that you get to make that decision without input from anyone else. Well, many of us who ride without helmets do so because we don't believe the risk demands it, and we'd like to be able to make that decision without input from the busybodies and safety nannies.
Already discussed and granted. By the same token, busybodies and anti-helmet nannies should allow others to come to their own conclusions regarding bike safety and what to do about it.