B
Bill Z.
Guest
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:
> On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 19:40:03 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> wrote in message <[email protected]>:
>
> >> Logical fallacy: burden of proof. We are not proposing an
> >> intervention, the burden of proof lies solely with those who are.
>
> >Wrong - your "side" is making statements that helmets are ineffective.
> >It is up to you to back up that claim. Neither Steven nor I have
> >proposed any "intervention" (so suggesting that on your part is a red
> >herring.)
>
> My "side" is challenging the helmet zealots to prove their case,
> especially in the context of those zealots trying to force their
> judgment on others (check the thread title). The fact that they seem
> unable to do so, preferring to resort to ad-hominem, reversed burden
> of proof, appeals to belief or simply putting their fingers in their
> ears and chanting "tra la la I'm not listening" may be seen as
> significant.
There are no "helmet zealots" posting in this discussion, although
there are several anti-helmet zealots. Those of us disagreeing with
you have simply been pointing out that you haven't proven your case.
>
> You downplay your position here - I wonder why?
I'm not "downplaying" it. I'm stating what I've been stating for the
past 10 years (your sides attempt to pretend otherwise
notwithstanding.)
<plonk for the rest of today>
--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
> On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 19:40:03 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> wrote in message <[email protected]>:
>
> >> Logical fallacy: burden of proof. We are not proposing an
> >> intervention, the burden of proof lies solely with those who are.
>
> >Wrong - your "side" is making statements that helmets are ineffective.
> >It is up to you to back up that claim. Neither Steven nor I have
> >proposed any "intervention" (so suggesting that on your part is a red
> >herring.)
>
> My "side" is challenging the helmet zealots to prove their case,
> especially in the context of those zealots trying to force their
> judgment on others (check the thread title). The fact that they seem
> unable to do so, preferring to resort to ad-hominem, reversed burden
> of proof, appeals to belief or simply putting their fingers in their
> ears and chanting "tra la la I'm not listening" may be seen as
> significant.
There are no "helmet zealots" posting in this discussion, although
there are several anti-helmet zealots. Those of us disagreeing with
you have simply been pointing out that you haven't proven your case.
>
> You downplay your position here - I wonder why?
I'm not "downplaying" it. I'm stating what I've been stating for the
past 10 years (your sides attempt to pretend otherwise
notwithstanding.)
<plonk for the rest of today>
--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB