Re: cyclists attack auto driver

On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 07:56:42 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
 

On 8/17/2024 7:07 AM, floriduh dumbass wrote:

On Sat, 17 Aug 2024 07:01:33 -0400, zen cycle
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>

On 8/17/2024 6:57 AM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 22:32:14 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>

On 8/16/2024 10:18 PM, AMuzi wrote:

On 8/16/2024 8:08 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 8/16/2024 3:59 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

>
Krygowski has yet to comprehend the simple fact that benefits and
detriments are subjective.

>
Benefits and detriments can very often be measured. The benefits of
bicycling have been measured in terms of increased health, reduced
health care costs, years of life saved, pollution reduced, etc. etc.
I've seen and filed at least five studies that have done that, each
one showing that the benefits of bicycling far outweigh its tiny risks.
>
The detriments of American gun craziness can also be measured. As just
one example, huge numbers of schools now hire full time security
guards in case some whacko with an AR attempts to enter the building.
The buildings themselves are now often "hardened," with various weapon
detecting and weapon resisting technologies. That was never the case
until the current gun mania came into fashion; and taxpayers pick up
the bill for that extra security - as they do for advanced protective
equipment for most policing. So we all pay for the gun fetishists
fantasy hobby.
>
It would make sense to levy a massive tax on every gun with, say, more
than 6 rounds capacity, to pay for the security expenses they
generate. But of course, the "Gotta have a big gun" crew is also the
"No new taxes" crew. They want others to pay for their play toys'
consequences.
>
>

>
They can indeed be measured but only within preselected parameters,
which are subjective.
>
'What's important?' is the first question.

Are you saying that increased spending of public funds are not
important? Really?

>
Another dishonest Krygowski strawman argument...

>
Another dumbass misunderstand of "straw man"

>
Straw man fallacy is the distortion of someone else’s argument to make
it easier to attack or refute. Instead of addressing the actual
argument of the opponent, one may present a somewhat similar but not
equal argument.
https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/straw-man-fallacy/

>
cutting and pasting is not an indication that you understand the
concept, dumbass, and you very clearly don't.

 More irony from Junior.

 

"Are you saying that increased spending of public funds are not
  important?"
>
is not a straw man argument.