• 6 Posts
  • 3.98K Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: August 21st, 2023

help-circle




  • your “example” is a bad faith gotcha based on an insane hypothetical.

    This you?

    you somehow think that if someone is doing 90 in a 55 and hits someone actually doing 55 that it was the normal person’s fault.

    As for:

    It does absolutely nothing to prove my argument wrong that everyone would be safer is speeders slowed down to a reasonable speed.

    Your argument has never mentioned “reasonable speed”. You have been repeatedly saying “slower is safer” and I pointed out how such a mind numbingly simple statement is useless and incorrect. “Reasonable speed” is a reasonable argument, but then the question becomes “what is a reasonable speed?”

    Your example here is once again a bad faith gotcha argument based on insane hypotheticals.

    Arguing through absurdity is not bad faith or invalid. The point I was making is that just because the sign next to a road says a certain number that doesn’t magically make that number a “reasonable speed”. It has already been mentioned that politicians will lower speed limits below a “reasonable speed” for the road conditions in order to claim it’s now safer.



  • If you’re argument requires everyone on the road to be a psychopath you might want to reconsider it.

    You also haven’t been listening, perhaps you’re too busy ranting about “psychopaths” to pay attention: I’ve already said if someone is doing the speed limit and gets hit it is the fault the person speeding. However, I’d much rather not be in an accident at all than “be right” and not the person at fault.

    I’m saying nobody needs to be doing more than the speed limit.

    1. that’s not what you’ve been saying. You’ve been repeating “slower is safer” over and over and it was trivial to provide an example that made that argument absurd and untrue.

    2. that statement is making a lot of assumptions. The primary one being that the speed limit is set accurately and appropriately. Again, if some politician decided “in the name of safety” to change the speed limit on the highway to 10 would you be arguing against increasing it because “nobody needs be doing more than the speed limit”? Would the people doing 20 on the highways now be psychopaths because the sign on the side of the road changed?


  • You’re in the wrong argument.

    Looks like you’re in the wrong argument. The person I was replying to has repeatedly been saying “going slower is safer” and that is what I replied to. It was trivially easily to provide an example where “going slower” is 1) absurd and 2) more dangerous.

    If that is not their argument then they need to stop repeating it as if it is and say their actual argument.








  • CileTheSane@lemmy.catoMemes@lemmy.mlLike its a drag race
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    the original discussion was about people who honk instantly.

    The top of this thread is someone saying they don’t know if you’re paying attention. I was replying to your comment about “honking meaning move immediately.”

    Conversations shift as people say things. If I wanted to comment on the original discussion I would have started a new thread relplying to the original discussion. I was replying to you about the thing you said.


  • There is a period of time in which it becomes reasonable to honk at someone who hasn’t moved. In the extreme example it is not polite to sit behind someone who misses the green light entirely because they aren’t paying attention to the road. At some point the person in front is holding up traffic for everyone behind them and they are the one being rude.