The only people who ignore them are the people who would never support them anyway. It still gets them plenty of attention from their target demographic

I’ve been asking this for days and have not gotten a clear answer in what way is the DNC fighting the candidate put forth to the generals by the DNC?

Here you go: https://lemmy.ml/post/32872265

Democrats would rather lose to Republicans than let a single social policy happen.

-sees traffic moving down the road with no accidents

“Is this Mad Max?”

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.

• calls random people assholes and psychopaths with little to no provocation

• claims other people lack empathy and consideration

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.

We are looking down on the mattress and it is casting a shadow on the step below it. If we were looking up at the mattress it would be casting a shadow across the stairs in front of it.

Yup, I’m sure the highway is much safer if everyone is traveling at 10. However, if I’m the only one traveling at 10 I have made the highway much more dangerous.

I’m advocating for not being a fucking idiot and causing an accident because in theory it’s safer to travel at slower speeds.

It’s not uncommon for people to record their whole trip for social media, not just take to a picture.

That’s still a distraction. Even if they don’t intend to upload the entire recording they are paying less attention to the road in order to pay attention to their “performance”.

Cool, they are the ones that will get in trouble for the accident that I am still involved in. I’d much rather not be involved in an accident than be “right”.

Is this about safety, or is this about blind adherence to the law?

If everyone is driving that fast and there aren’t accidents happening consistently then the posted limit does not reflect the reality of the road.

Is that why he’s suddenly criticizing Trump? He thinks he can split the Democratic vote?

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.

Honk means “pay attention”. If the light has been green long enough for me to honk at you you’re not paying attention to anything on the road, danger or otherwise.

So if the Supreme Court allows this I can just accuse record labels of copyright infringement to have their Internet cut off?

It means if you accuse an AI company if piracy the ISP will have to disconnect them.

Sorry, as per your own rules you already resigned from the argument.