Originally Posted by
acidfast7
Quite simple:
1. You're suggesting that the escalation of lighting power needs to stop.
2. You don't provide a solution.
3. The only way that works is regulation to prevent the free market economy from giving people what they want (more lumens).
4. You tend to dump on "socialistic" governmental practices.
I don't really see how you can say 1 and 2 without thinking of 3 automatically and your posting history suggests 4.
It adds a huge amount to the conversation, as you just realised why the StVZO was created, which you've dumped on in the past.
5. Don't tell me that something doesn't add to the conversation when you haven't thought it through.
Have a great day
A. Don't tell me what to tell you.
B. I don't know where you get the idea that I "You tend to dump on "socialistic" governmental practices." Not that it's germane here, but my politics are mostly far to the left, often embracing socialistic solutions to things.
C. I don't know what the "StVZO" is, so I can't speak to what it is you think I "dumped on" though. So I definitely didn't "realise why it was created". So I really doubt that adds anything to this conversation, much less a "huge amount". I bet most of the readers of this forum also have no idea what that is.
D. Again, you aren't adding anything to the conversation, once again you are picking a fight with me for some reason, and derailing someone else's thread.
Don't tell me that something doesn't add to the conversation when you haven't thought it through.
I didn't realize that offering a teatise on solutions was a pre-requisite for posting.
The only way that works is regulation to prevent the free market economy from giving people what they want (more lumens).
I'm not even sure to begin with all the fallacies contained in this sentence, but I'll give it a shot:
1. Who says what people really want is to have ridiculously bright lights on their bikes? It'd be interesting to see what people wanted if they were subjected to facing such lights themselves very regularly, and shown adequate lighting instead, and not being constantly marketed to in a predatory manner to convince them that they need ever more power.
2. It is quite possible to have public opinion turn against things, thus having an affect on their proliferation without resorting to regulation. Your use of an absolute statement here is silly and indicative of your proclivities, which are blinding you.
Again, I think you are derailing someone else's thread with your weird penchant for going after me.