No, my response is quite rational.

I asked how one person could decide how much safety was "sufficient" for another. Your claim was that a bicycle helmet provided "sufficient" protection ... what is the logical underpinning there?

Further, you said that comfort was a priority over safety. By that standard, if I am more comfortable wearing nothing, why would that not be a higher good that wearing a bicycle or motorcycle helmet?

This is the same old tired and empty debate---everyone thinks their standard is more right.

Except me. I think you should do whatever as long as you don't endanger someone else.

So ... again, how do you calculate "sufficient" protection?