Originally Posted by
MMACH 5
I am a helmet nanny. I've had two crashes that involved head strikes. In one of those, I'm fairly certain that the helmet saved me from more severe injury.
Your implying that those who don't choose to wear a helmet are somehow incapable of thinking and your mistification at their lack of reason is insulting. So far, I'm afraid you've made only emotional pleas and done little for logically arguing a pro-helmet theory.
Here we go again, putting enough words into my mouth (which I did not write) until you have a case against me. It's a grotesque rhetorical device. Is that all you can contribute?
You should pay more attention to the the thread. A few post back a fellow stated that he sees no need for a helmet because in fifty years or riding he never hurt his head.
His implicit argument is that fifty years of safe riding mean somehow that he has better odds of not having accidents in the future, and I pointed out that this argument is fallacious. At no point I said this guy is incapable of thinking. And yes it mystifies me because most people don't believe that their future luck depends on their past luck. So bloody what?
If you choose to see insults where none can be found, that is entirely your outlook, and has nothing to do with me. I see how victimhood looks attractive to many for its perks, but equating disagreement, even mystified disagreement, with a verbal attack is inane.