3 ms·

> Again, you're using appeal to emotion, which is not a solid argument. Nah. Appealing to emotion would be like e.g. if I told you you should visit somebody wh

> Again, you're using appeal to emotion, which is not a solid argument. Nah. Appealing to emotion would be like e.g. if I told you you should visit somebody who's lost a loved one to a collision with a pickup truck and tell them to their face that there would have been no "clear and compelling benefit" to reducing the odds of that tragic outcome. If you think (and you evidently do) that simply stating we should endeavor to save lives where we can is an "appeal to emotion", well, I don't even know what to say to that. It's absolutely asinine, almost unbelievable. > Way to cherry pick from your article. If anybody here's cherry-picking it's you, by failing to respond to the point I actually cited the article for. It's great that things are getting better! But do you seriously have nothing to say to the 2.5x figure? Come on. Respond to it, I dare you. Tell me there's no "clear and compelling benefit" to keeping those vehicles off the road in cases where there was no good reason for them to be on it in the first place. 2.5x. Also, I actually live in the US. I think your takeaway from that other comment (about my UK citizenship) and its context is quite telling. > I don't want a ban in the US Yeah, I noticed.

giantg2 5y ago
"Come on. Respond to it, I dare you. Tell me there's no "clear and compelling benefit" to keeping those vehicles off the road in cases where there was no good reason for them to be on it in the first place." See, you are making the assumption that there are not any good reasons. This premise is false and brings us back to your subjective comment about reasonable and practical vehicles. You even stated that large truck serve a purpose, but you somehow do not see any purpose for pickups. You have not stated a clear and compelling reason to ban these vehicles. What is the other number that 2.5x is modifying? I'm guessing it's quite low. Please do some research on appeal to emotion. I thought you were disengaging?
- caconym_ 5y ago
  > I thought you were disengaging? Hmm. What do you think I meant by that? On that subject, though: this is why getting into it with people like you is a waste of time. You say where are the data, where are the data, and then when you are shown the data you debase yourselves with endless intellectual contortions to avoid acknowledging it. > I'm guessing it's quite low. Keep guessing, then. Relevant public data^[1] are yours for the taking if you decide, probably offline, that you'd rather not remain willfully ignorant. But I'm not going to hold your hand anymore, because it is an absolute waste of time. ^[1] https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/state-by-state https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/state...
  - giantg2 5y ago
    That's not the data I'm asking for. I'm asking for the calculations used to come to that 2.5x number. Those numbers do not address the base risk vs enhanced risk, nor the rate at which this occurs. Please don't resort to personal attacks.
    - caconym_ 5y ago
      > I'm asking for the calculations used to come to that 2.5x number. If you want to understand the data and methodology behind that particular number, you should go read the paper. That's how this works. I've given you more than enough information to find it. > Please don't resort to personal attacks. I am simply calling a spade a spade. I spent far too much time here responding to your comments in good faith, when it is now clear that you will misrepresent my statements at every possible opportunity while consistently contributing nothing to the discussion yourself. If you feel that there was more value to be extracted from this discussion, I recommend that you take these "personal attacks" as constructive criticism.

giantg2 5y ago

"Come on. Respond to it, I dare you. Tell me there's no "clear and compelling benefit" to keeping those vehicles off the road in cases where there was no good reason for them to be on it in the first place." See, you are making the assumption that there are not any good reasons. This premise is false and brings us back to your subjective comment about reasonable and practical vehicles. You even stated that large truck serve a purpose, but you somehow do not see any purpose for pickups. You have not stated a clear and compelling reason to ban these vehicles. What is the other number that 2.5x is modifying? I'm guessing it's quite low. Please do some research on appeal to emotion. I thought you were disengaging?

caconym_ 5y ago
> I thought you were disengaging? Hmm. What do you think I meant by that? On that subject, though: this is why getting into it with people like you is a waste of time. You say where are the data, where are the data, and then when you are shown the data you debase yourselves with endless intellectual contortions to avoid acknowledging it. > I'm guessing it's quite low. Keep guessing, then. Relevant public data^[1] are yours for the taking if you decide, probably offline, that you'd rather not remain willfully ignorant. But I'm not going to hold your hand anymore, because it is an absolute waste of time. ^[1] https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/state-by-state https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/state...
- giantg2 5y ago
  That's not the data I'm asking for. I'm asking for the calculations used to come to that 2.5x number. Those numbers do not address the base risk vs enhanced risk, nor the rate at which this occurs. Please don't resort to personal attacks.
  - caconym_ 5y ago
    > I'm asking for the calculations used to come to that 2.5x number. If you want to understand the data and methodology behind that particular number, you should go read the paper. That's how this works. I've given you more than enough information to find it. > Please don't resort to personal attacks. I am simply calling a spade a spade. I spent far too much time here responding to your comments in good faith, when it is now clear that you will misrepresent my statements at every possible opportunity while consistently contributing nothing to the discussion yourself. If you feel that there was more value to be extracted from this discussion, I recommend that you take these "personal attacks" as constructive criticism.