Warning: H*lm*t content

[Zoom]

David Trudgett wrote:
> "flaco" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>An oxymoron? If others had the same religious beliefs as I do, their
>>views would presumeably be similar to mine, by definition.
>
>
> That's what *I* said.
>
>
>
>>Not when it comes to helmets....
>
>
> In case it's not entirely obvious, I was talking about (a) laws in
> general; (b) compulsion in general; (c) helmet *laws* in particular;
> (d) *compulsion* to wear helmets in particular; and (e) the "option"
> of denying medical care to those who need it. I pointed out the
> violence inherent in all these things, and the fact that therefore the
> OP's two options were unChristian. (That is a reasoned deduction from
> facts, by the way.)
>
> I was not discussing the technical merits or demerits of helmets, as
> you seem to be implying; I left that to others. Personally, I'd
> generally rather be wearing a helmet than not, but that's my opinion
> only and not a deduction from facts. Compulsion is not only morally
> wrong, unChristian, and disrespectful of your right to choose for
> yourself, it's also stupid when all the facts are not in.
>
> David
>
>

That's a pretty poor argument regardless of what side of the helmet
debate you're on. Society compels us to do all sorts of things every
day. At some stage society has decided it's the right thing to do,
regardless of what you or I may think. Christians are experts at
compelling people to do things. Think your argument through and try again.

Zooom

 

[[email protected]]

Peter Keller wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 11:33:11 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >
> > Peter Keller wrote:
> >> On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 20:26:55 +1000, Claes wrote:
> >
> > Much clipped
> >>
> >> I think my head probably would crack. However i am not volunteering for
> >> the experiment!
> >> Helmets are certified up to a direct blow of 20kph (very simply put) Such
> >> a blow will not reliably crack my skull. French research seems to show
> >> that at direct blows of more than 23kph, the polystyrofoam shatters rather
> >> than squashes, thereby offering no energy absorption whatsoever! No, to
> >> keep myself as safe as possible in traffic, I am not going to rely on a
> >> h*lm*t, even if the stupid law forces me to wear one.
> >>
> >> peter
> >
> > Peter, would you have a reference to that French research? It sounds
> > interesting.
> >
> > John Kane
> > Kingston ON Canada
>
> Hi John
> Sorry, this is one of those snippets of information which flashed by me
> about 2 years ago, and I cannot find the reference. I will keep
> searching.
> In the meantime, I have found this from
> Edward B. Becker, Executive Director of Snell Memorial Foundation:
> http://www.smf.org/articles/soft.html
> which does describe this kind of catastrophic failure of helmets to which
> o alluded.
>
> Peter
>

Thanks for this.

John Kane
Kingston ON

 

[David Trudgett]

Gidday, Zoom,

Zoom <[email protected]> writes:

> David Trudgett wrote:
>> "flaco" <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>>An oxymoron? If others had the same religious beliefs as I do, their
>>>views would presumeably be similar to mine, by definition.
>> That's what *I* said.
>>
>>>Not when it comes to helmets....
>> In case it's not entirely obvious, I was talking about (a) laws in
>> general; (b) compulsion in general; (c) helmet *laws* in particular;
>> (d) *compulsion* to wear helmets in particular; and (e) the "option"
>> of denying medical care to those who need it. I pointed out the
>> violence inherent in all these things, and the fact that therefore the
>> OP's two options were unChristian. (That is a reasoned deduction from
>> facts, by the way.)
>> I was not discussing the technical merits or demerits of helmets, as
>> you seem to be implying; I left that to others. Personally, I'd
>> generally rather be wearing a helmet than not, but that's my opinion
>> only and not a deduction from facts. Compulsion is not only morally
>> wrong, unChristian, and disrespectful of your right to choose for
>> yourself, it's also stupid when all the facts are not in.
>> David
>>
>
> That's a pretty poor argument regardless of what side of the helmet
> debate you're on. Society compels us to do all sorts of things every
> day. At some stage society has decided it's the right thing to do,
> regardless of what you or I may think.

I can sympathise with the way you feel, Zoom, and you are certainly in
good company, since many feel the same way. It would make life a hell
of a lot easier if we could just accept what "society" says is
"right", but unfortunately, history proves that we cannot do that, no
matter how comforting we may find the thought.

Another you in another time and place would have supported slavery for
the same reasons. Even in this country not so long ago, Aboriginal
people were kept as virtual slaves, being the backbone of the economy
of outback Australia, and receiving very little if anything in
return. This was also accepted by many (but by no means all) as just
the way things were.

It is very difficult to understand and accept that the "society" in
which we live is based on some pretty fundamental lies and
hypocrisies. But it is true, and that is why we are sinking deeper and
deeper into the proverbial manure. That is why people pretend business
as usual while Australians are overseas helping commit murder, under
the cover of lies that are an insult to the intelligence of a
child. That is why people hate greed but worship capitalism as some
sort of god, even though it is quite obvious that capitalism is about
sharing in the same way that Tug-Of-War is about sharing the
rope. That is why people love peace but are willing to go to war and
kill people they've never met.

This sort of hypocrisy is intolerable, and it causes a deep moral
sickness and even a sort of insanity in everyone who tries to pretend
it is all normal and OK.


> Christians are experts at compelling people to do things.

Don't make the mistake of accepting anyone's claim of being a
Christian at face value (not even mine). A Christian is not a
Christian because he (she) says he is, but because of what he
does. George W. Bush and John W. Howard both claim to be Christian,
for instance, but you can't be a Christian and do what they've done.


> Think your argument through and try again.

It's not safe to assume people haven't thought through their
arguments.


Bye for now, and wear a helmet for the right reason, not just because
the law tells you to do it!

David



--

David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/

Who would Jesus bomb?

 

[Theo Bekkers]

David Trudgett wrote:
> "Theo Bekkers" <[email protected]> writes:

>> I didn't get to pick it. Else I might be David, or Sue.

> I'd definitely go for 'David'! I don't think 'Sue' suits you...

I could have become a lawyer.

Theo

 

[flaco]

David Trudgett wrote:
> >> OP's two options were unChristian. (That is a reasoned deduction ....

<snip>

> Another you in another time and place would have ...

<snip>

> George W. Bush and John W. Howard both claim to be Christian,


Have sex with a helmet on in the rain....

Bingo.

-Religion
-Politics
-History
-Sex
-Weather

This thread has now covered every conversation topic.
Even bicycles (to an extent)

 

[Zoom]

flaco wrote:
> David Trudgett wrote:
>
>>>>OP's two options were unChristian. (That is a reasoned deduction ....
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>Another you in another time and place would have ...
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>George W. Bush and John W. Howard both claim to be Christian,
>
>
>
> Have sex with a helmet on in the rain....
>
> Bingo.
>
> -Religion
> -Politics
> -History
> -Sex
> -Weather
>
> This thread has now covered every conversation topic.
> Even bicycles (to an extent)
>

Hmmm
I must have missed the bit about the bikes.

Zoom

 

[flyingdutch]

Hmmm
I must have missed the bit about the bikes.

Zoom

lordy knows most of you did

 

[TimC]

On 2005-08-22, Euan (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>>>>>> "Claes" == Claes <[email protected]> writes:
>
> Claes> I for one, can not understand how someone can say that
> Claes> helmets do no good. Must be me that is thick. Put a soft
> Claes> veggie in a helmet, drop it on the ground so the helmet hits
> Claes> the ground first, veggie will prolly survive from head
> Claes> height. Drop veggie from same height, veggie will go
> Claes> "splat". To me that shows it could help in accident, and I
> Claes> really can not see how it could make an injury worse.
>
> The human brain is not a vegetable.

Try telling that to Prado drivers.

--
TimC
If you tried to understand this, you'd be very confused, in the standard
way we talk about confusion. -- Some astronomer at a talk.

 

[TimC]

On 2005-08-22, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> David Trudgett wrote:
>
>> If a person adheres to a religion[*]
>> [*] And yes, +everyone+ adheres to a religion, even "atheists".
>
> Of course they do. Not believing in God is a religion, just as not believing
> in the Tooth Fairy is a religion.
>
> Theo
> Avowed Atoothfairianist.

You're not a Flying Spagetti Monsterist?

I first thought the squid that cfsmtb drew lastnight was His Noodly
Appendage.

--
TimC
A smoking section in a restaurant is like a peeing section in a
swimming pool. --Sheldon Brown

 

[TimC]

On 2005-08-22, flaco (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> "But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate
> of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation."
> 1 Thessalonians 5
>
> So, don't drink and don't wear a helmet and you'll have to hope for
> salvation. I assume you have been wearing a helmet? Religions is always
> riddles to me.
>
> I am not sure who Faith is though.

That cute girl from Buffy? The girl with the red hair, she was Faith,
wasn't she? Or am I getting confused in my excitement again?

--
TimC
Probably best see a real doctor and not take too much diagnostic advice
from a bunch of sysadmins who consider the body a meat computer that
needs debugging. -- Anthony de Boer on possible nerve damage in ASR

 

[TimC]

On 2005-08-22, David Trudgett (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> On the other hand, if your religious beliefs include a belief in the
> goodness of violence (which includes denying medical care to those who
> need it), then just come right out and say it.

I'm perfectly for a law stating that if you break a law in a severely
blatant and stupid manner, then you are responsible for your own
medical needs resulting from that action. On the other hand, yes,
society should share all medical costs resulting from something out of
a person's control.

Imagine how much smarter humanity would become in such a short time?
Evolution restored back to humanity, instead of humans becoming
stupider and stupider each year for the past 100 years. Imagine how
much more responsible car drivers may become for their own actions?

--
TimC
I bet the human brain is a kludge.
-- Marvin Minsky

 

[Euan]

>>>>> "TimC" == TimC <[email protected]> writes:

TimC> On 2005-08-22, Euan (aka Bruce) was almost, but not quite,
TimC> entirely unlike tea:

>> The human brain is not a vegetable.

TimC> Try telling that to Prado drivers.

Sweet.

Note: not following this thread, more a testament to my faith in Tim for
a witty comment
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

 

[TimC]

On 2005-08-23, Bleve (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
> Euan wrote:
>
>> Just about every paper published has an axe to grind. A paper doesn't
>> get written unless someone's trying to prove something.
>
> There's axes, and there's axes!

That's not a pair of axes. That's an abscissa and ordinate.

--
TimC
"And Rob convinced me to learn perl. But now that I'm
sober, I'm having second thoughts." -- Alan J Rosenthal

 

[TimC]

On 2005-08-22, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Resound wrote:
>> Ok, that's valid, assuming a dead flat surface wherever you ride a
>> bike...you know, no gutters, rocks, logs, parked cars etc.
>
> I think I said that. A bicycle helmet is only useful for an impact with the
> ground. Light poles are a serious health hazard.

As an ex amateur astronomer, I can heartily endorse banning
lightpoles (and all other forms of light pollution).

--
TimC
TELESCOPE, n.
A device having a relation to the eye similar to that of the
telephone to the ear, enabling distant objects to plague us with a
multitude of needless details. Luckily it is unprovided with a bell
summoning us to the sacrifice.
-- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

 

[TimC]

On 2005-08-23, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> I'm happy to take responsibility for my own health and welfare.

Are you sure about that? I was under the impression that *all*
healthcare, even private, is subsidised in .au?

--
TimC
The universe was strange after we had beauty and truth replaced

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Sat, 27 Aug 2005 18:05:08 +1000
TimC <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2005-08-23, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>> I'm happy to take responsibility for my own health and welfare.
>
> Are you sure about that? I was under the impression that *all*
> healthcare, even private, is subsidised in .au?


Definitely.

The 30% premium rebate, the medicare cap, various sweetheart deals with
insurers....

Zebee

--
Zebee Johnstone ([email protected]), proud holder of
aus.motorcycles Poser Permit #1.
"Motorcycles are like peanuts... who can stop at just one?"

 

[Resound]

> That cute girl from Buffy? The girl with the red hair, she was Faith,
> wasn't she? Or am I getting confused in my excitement again?
>
I think you're thinking of Willow (I used to live with a bunch of Buffy
fanatics) and yes Alyson Hannigan (I think that's her name) is most cute.

 

[dave]

TimC wrote:
> On 2005-08-22, Euan (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
>>>>>>>"Claes" == Claes <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>> Claes> I for one, can not understand how someone can say that
>> Claes> helmets do no good. Must be me that is thick. Put a soft
>> Claes> veggie in a helmet, drop it on the ground so the helmet hits
>> Claes> the ground first, veggie will prolly survive from head
>> Claes> height. Drop veggie from same height, veggie will go
>> Claes> "splat". To me that shows it could help in accident, and I
>> Claes> really can not see how it could make an injury worse.
>>
>>The human brain is not a vegetable.
>
>
> Try telling that to Prado drivers.
>


So true. but it makes the assumption they are human

 

[David Trudgett]

TimC <[email protected]> writes:

> On 2005-08-22, David Trudgett (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>> On the other hand, if your religious beliefs include a belief in the
>> goodness of violence (which includes denying medical care to those who
>> need it), then just come right out and say it.
>
> I'm perfectly for a law stating that if you break a law in a severely
> blatant and stupid manner, then you are responsible for your own
> medical needs resulting from that action.

You should keep in mind that people who break the law in a "severely
blatant and stupid manner" could possibly be doing so because they (a)
are a lot smarter than you; or (b) know something that you don't; or
(c) are unlucky, not stupid; or (d) are suffering from mental illness
of various types and severities; or (e) are suffering some emotional
distress; or (f) had a momentary lapse in concentration; or (g) was
distracted at a critical moment; or (h) ... any one of countless other
circumstances about which few if anyone is in a position to
judge. Judge not and ye shall not be judged. I seem to recall someone
in this forum recently getting a little taste of such judgement based
on ignorance when she "rolled" (rode) her bicycle on the
footpath... <shudder/>

Being "perfectly for" such a law is really being quite lacking in
compassion and empathy for other people, as well as showing a fair
degree of hubris in proposing to attempt to set some standard worthy
of Solomon for judging the stupidity of people.

Moreover, judging people on their stupidity really is the dregs of the
totalitarian barrel, because there is no limit to what can be judged
stupid. Do you have your papers with you? No? How stupid of you!


> On the other hand, yes, society should share all medical costs
> resulting from something out of a person's control.

Once we track down this "society" person, you mean?

Practical problem: we can't define what's in a person's control
(unless you don't care about injustices occurring).



>
> Imagine how much smarter humanity would become in such a short time?
> Evolution restored back to humanity,

You speak as if evolution by natural selection, survival of the
fittest, is a forgone conclusion, instead of a flimsy hypothesis which
the evidence doesn't support.


> instead of humans becoming stupider and stupider each year for the
> past 100 years.

Think television, think sausage factory obedience schools. Then
consider that schools and TV didn't get that way by chance. Then
you'll have some appreciation for why people are getting stupider and
stupider: they are are being made that way because stupid, passive,
and obedient people are easy to control.


> Imagine how much more responsible car drivers may become for their
> own actions?

Sounds like a brave new world. Can hardly wait! ;-)

David



--

David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/

Technological progress has merely provided us with more efficient
means for going backwards.

-- Aldous Huxley

 

[ProfTournesol]

.... Dr Dorothy Robinson's concern, instead, is bicycle safety. She has
just published a study in the Health Promotion Journal of Australia that
is likely to send shock waves through Australian cycling communities
with its claim that mandatory bicycle helmet laws increase rather than
decrease the likelihood of injuries to cyclists.

http://melbourne.citysearch.com.au/profile?id=53571

Personally I'd still use a helmet in winter 'cause it's a handy place to
put lights Summer I'd leave the lid behind and wear a sun hat.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

Robinson dismisses the idea that repealing the laws will result in masses of helmetless cyclists taking over the city. "Most cyclists are interested in their own health and safety, learn to read road conditions and would choose to wear a helmet when they feel it might be needed."

I hope that I'd remember to put it on when I know that I'm going to fall off