Page 5 of 7

Re: Motorcycle Rider Deaths and Helmets

Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 11:35 pm
by artisticsolution
Hi Bob,

I have 2 sons who were required to sign up for the draft when they reached the age of 18.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscripti ... ted_States

I consider that an 'active' draft. If the government needs them...they will go to war ( well, in theory anyway...as in.... it would be over my dead body.)

Re: Motorcycle Rider Deaths and Helmets

Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 12:18 am
by John
bobevenson wrote:The U.S. has not drafted anybody in more years than you or your countrymen can count.
So tell us oh wise one: who ended the draft first, the USA or the UK?

Re: Motorcycle Rider Deaths and Helmets

Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 12:54 pm
by bobevenson
artisticsolution wrote:Hi Bob,

I have 2 sons who were required to sign up for the draft when they reached the age of 18.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscripti ... ted_States

I consider that an 'active' draft. If the government needs them...they will go to war ( well, in theory anyway...as in.... it would be over my dead body.)
Sorry, signing up for selective service is not an active draft. You can't have an active draft if nobody is drafted, and the U.S. has not drafted a single person in a great many years.

Re: Motorcycle Rider Deaths and Helmets

Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 12:57 pm
by bobevenson
John wrote:
bobevenson wrote:The U.S. has not drafted anybody in more years than you or your countrymen can count.
So tell us oh wise one: who ended the draft first, the USA or the UK?
All I know is that the U.S. has bailed out the UK since we booted your butts out of this country in 1776.

Re: Motorcycle Rider Deaths and Helmets

Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 1:31 pm
by John
bobevenson wrote:
John wrote:
bobevenson wrote:The U.S. has not drafted anybody in more years than you or your countrymen can count.
So tell us oh wise one: who ended the draft first, the USA or the UK?
All I know is that the U.S. has bailed out the UK since we booted your butts out of this country in 1776.
You don't half like avoiding questions when the answer doesn't suit you.

Re: Motorcycle Rider Deaths and Helmets

Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 4:12 pm
by bobevenson
John wrote:You don't half like avoiding questions when the answer doesn't suit you.
Oh, now you want to talk about past history! OK, let's talk about the 95% tax rate applied to George Harrison when he wrote "Taxman," stupid!

Re: Motorcycle Rider Deaths and Helmets

Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 9:07 pm
by Arising_uk
Not that I agree any more with the way tax is raised. But it was not 95% per se, it was 95% on everything over £20,000/annum. Given that the average nominal earnings in the mid '70s were about £2000/annum they were hardly being poverty stricken. Still, that didn't stop their accountants and companies recommending that they move abroad and become tax-exiles, as did other such 'luminaries' as Michael Caine, David Bowie, Sean Connery, Mick Jagger, etc. Unfortunately many came back when Thatcher came to power.

What all this has got to do with helmet laws only the boob knows.

Re: Motorcycle Rider Deaths and Helmets

Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 9:16 pm
by bobevenson
Arising_uk wrote:Not that I agree any more with the way tax is raised. But it was not 95% per se, it was 95% on everything over £20,000/annum. Given that the average nominal earnings in the mid '70s were about £2000/annum they were hardly being poverty stricken. Still, that didn't stop their accountants and companies recommending that they move abroad and become tax-exiles, as did other such 'luminaries' as Michael Caine, David Bowie, Sean Connery, Mick Jagger, etc. Unfortunately many came back when Thatcher came to power.

What all this has got to do with helmet laws only the boob knows.
Thank you for setting John straight. Of course I wasn't talking about a 95% tax on dollar one, but it is absolutely criminal for the government to take 95% at any level. Why don't those motherfucking socialist politicians take 100% and call it a day??? That's the stupid thinking that pervades Europe, and please don't insult my intelligence, as great as it is, by suggesting that I'm wrong!!!

Re: Motorcycle Rider Deaths and Helmets

Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 10:26 pm
by SpheresOfBalance
tbieter wrote:"Brittany Larson wanted to feel the wind in her long hair as she rode her motorcycle rather than stuffing it under a helmet.

Now her mother is preparing to bury her 22-year-old daughter, who suffered extensive head injuries Wednesday when she hit road debris and was thrown into the path of a SUV on Interstate 694 in Ramsey County. Once she says her final goodbye, Inge Black pledged Thursday, she will push lawmakers to mandate helmets for motorcyclists.

"I am on a rampage about this. We need to pass a mandatory helmet law. She would've had to wear one," said Black, who added that she had sparred with her daughter about getting a helmet.

Black said the two of them fought Tuesday over wearing a helmet and had shopped unsuccessfully for one that fit. Black had even offered to drive her daughter to work on the day of the crash, but Larson said, "'Oh, no, I'm going to ride my motorcycle.'"
http://www.startribune.com/local/east/157789085.html

Her death is not a tragedy in the sense of the word highlighted below. An intelligent rational adult, she surely engaged in a (primitive) risk analysis. Or she just decided to gamble with her life. Either way in freedom she made a rational choice not to wear a helmet.
I, a stranger, would not be justified in mourning her death and calling the event a tragedy.

I see that you can only account for "you" as a 'stranger,' as such, justification, assuming it's what's important here, comes from a particular individual perspective, as in:
"the event," as colored by any continuously variable quantity of the fear of death; attributed ignorance; attributed importance of life; what houses, and the importance of, freedom, ETC, ETC.

What is distressing, in any particular event, that would lend to being labeled a tragedy, is to be found in any particular individuals perspective, as surely any events multifaceted-ness, is defined by the particular observer in question.

As to freedom, as Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young sang on 4 Way Street: "Find the cost of freedom, buried in the ground, Mother Earth will swallow you, lay your body down."


___________________
trag·e·dy (trj-d)
n. pl. trag·e·dies
1.
a. A drama or literary work in which the main character is brought to ruin or suffers extreme sorrow, especially as a consequence of a tragic flaw, moral weakness, or inability to cope with unfavorable circumstances.
b. The genre made up of such works.
c. The art or theory of writing or producing these works.
2. A play, film, television program, or other narrative work that portrays or depicts calamitous events and has an unhappy but meaningful ending.
3. A disastrous event, especially one involving distressing loss or injury to life: an expedition that ended in tragedy, with all hands lost at sea.
4. A tragic aspect or element.
[Middle English tragedie, from Old French, from Latin tragoedia, from Greek tragidi : tragos, goat + aoid, id, song; see wed-2 in Indo-European roots.

Re: Motorcycle Rider Deaths and Helmets

Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 10:47 pm
by bobevenson
What does that have to do with a 95% British tax rate?

Re: Motorcycle Rider Deaths and Helmets

Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 10:56 pm
by Arising_uk
bobevenson wrote:What does that have to do with a 95% British tax rate?
Its on-topic boob. As usual you have lost the plot.

Re: Motorcycle Rider Deaths and Helmets

Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 11:43 pm
by bobevenson
Arising_uk wrote:
bobevenson wrote:What does that have to do with a 95% British tax rate?
Its on-topic boob. As usual you have lost the plot.
I guess a little humor is lost on you, huh? OK, let's get back to motorcycle helmets. Why don't those motherfucking socialist politicians make 100% of the people wear helmets no matter what the fuck they're doing, and call it a day???

Re: Motorcycle Rider Deaths and Helmets

Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 11:45 pm
by John
bobevenson wrote:
Arising_uk wrote:Not that I agree any more with the way tax is raised. But it was not 95% per se, it was 95% on everything over £20,000/annum. Given that the average nominal earnings in the mid '70s were about £2000/annum they were hardly being poverty stricken. Still, that didn't stop their accountants and companies recommending that they move abroad and become tax-exiles, as did other such 'luminaries' as Michael Caine, David Bowie, Sean Connery, Mick Jagger, etc. Unfortunately many came back when Thatcher came to power.

What all this has got to do with helmet laws only the boob knows.
Thank you for setting John straight.
You're an idiot Bob. I never denied the high tax rate I said that it didn't apply now and it was inconsistent of you to criticise the UK for past actions when you didn't do the same for the USA.

It's impossible to have a coherent discussion with you anyway because you slither like a snake constantly shifting goalposts and misinterpreting the simplest of statements.

Re: Motorcycle Rider Deaths and Helmets

Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 11:52 pm
by bobevenson
The fact that the British people ever let their government take 95% of somebody's honestly-earned income shows their basic criminal instinct that exists to this very day!

Re: Motorcycle Rider Deaths and Helmets

Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2012 1:07 am
by Arising_uk
bobevenson wrote:Why don't those motherfucking socialist politicians make 100% of the people wear helmets no matter what the fuck they're doing, and call it a day???
Because they're called "motorcycle helmets" boob.

But you have a point in your country as you have private health so I presume that if you are injured you won't be covered by insurance if you're stupid enough to ride a bike without one. But over here its a national health system so its cheaper to lose a little liberty to save the rest the extra medical bills. Although I recall doctors saying organ 'donations' went down as a result.