Originally Posted by
Brian Ratliff
I am pretty sure the former does not imply the latter. Your use of "breakneck" as an adjective undermines your otherwise high minded argument. What you have is a bunch of disconnected items you support attempting to be tied together by using an analogy you state up front is not applicable. This is a politician's argument. Try again.
Also, I don't think we have determined whether a "Strava for cars" would be legal or not. It doesn't exist, never has, so we don't really get to assume this as a point of fact, no?
Speaking of political arguments, I love how you parse words instead of discussing concepts. I don't believe I've discussed the legality of a Strava for Cars, I've asked whether it would be acceptable to the public at large. You're right, we have not determined whether it would be acceptable to members on this site as those that support Strava won't discuss whether they would support a Strava for Cars. Instead they do as you do and parse words and nibble at the edges trying to explain why a Strava for Cars isn't comparable. It's funny to answer the question "Would a Strava for Cars be acceptable?" with "It doesn't exist". It's a form of bloviating, speaking of political methods of arguing.
As far as word parsing goes, I figured breakneck was a reasonable term given the outcome of the two cyclists discussed in the article being discussed. I can live with the idea that you think it undermines my argument. Your earlier reference to The Amazing Race made me think I was arguing with my teen. The idea that Strava for Cars could be comparable to a highly produced/directed tv show where multitudes of cameras are following one or two dozen people through a city that has has no doubt been warned that filming will occur, permits have been approved & attained etc. is pretty funny. You do realize that these reality "stars" don't race through town with a GoPro attached to their heads right? Great analogy though... it really stands up.