NYC fights terrorists, bans walking in groups

Flawed argument, the chance for being "at risk" due to playing a video game is a personal choice whereas being hit by a bike is not.

 

Your argument is flawed, you switched between the video game users perspective and the person being hit by the bikes perspective without changing the risk analysis.

You would have to say "It is not a choice to ride a bike" in order to fit what you have just said.

 

Listen, you're trying to argue that someone can ride their bike in a place where there is a chance they might hit someone. I'm saying you don't have that right. No one has the right to put someone else in danger for their own convenience. And why would I change "the risk analysis" (whatever that means, lol)? I was making the point that the banning of video games is wrong because the person is taking the risk into their own hands, while on the other hand the banning of unsafe bicycling is acceptable because the person at risk is not the person who is choosing to ride the bicycle.

No I wouldn't.

Reading comprehension is your friend.

 

How many times would you like a repeat?

-What part of the above quote indicated:

Is this really that difficult - anyone?

At any rate, I don't enjoy arguing merely to play games. Once shown how your own words, your own cited sources, your own logic doesn't support your stand, you seem to me to simply bounce all over the map. All the best. Again.

 

And my point is that people who want to ban video games do so because they feel that the kid would be more of a danger to others, do the other people have a choice to be shot by this kid if he is turned into a serial killer by video games?

Have you read what I have written? I said if the potential was a direct one then it should be made illegal.

 

I'm having trouble, you don't articulate your point very clearly. Not to mention your argument is inane, what does a video game have to do with the right to ride a bicycle dangerously? Stop trying to draw an unrelated parallel and defend the point you've already made. You said that someone should be able to ride their bike even though there is a chance they might hit someone. I'm saying you don't have that right and that the law is just. What is your defense?

And for the sake of semantics, the risk of someone being hit by a cyclist is direct if the cyclist is intentionally riding in a manner that is unsafe. So please, don't bother back pedaling to that again.

 

Oh, the humanity.

 

They are two different things, get with the program.

A direct potential is not where the potential has to go through a second step to reach the conflict.

If you give the government the power to regulate things of the same nature as riding a bicycle with no direct potential for harm(like ramming it into a group of people) they can also regulate video games on the same principle.

 

Christ, you're funny. I'll take this as an indirect (lol) conceit. You're argument was flawed from the beginning and it was most entertaining to watch you argue it. Thanks for the laughs.

 

You know, it's funny. You decry law, but then make the attempt to practice the most obfuscatory of dissembling language to justify what is inherently a ridiculous position. (In my opinion).

However, I'll play. Please define the moment "direct" turns to "indirect" in any human encounter, in terms of the potential for harm.

 

Some people like a little extra safety at the expense of other peoples liberty, others don't. It's all a personal preference.

 

An extra step from what a person is doing to the harm it can cause, if I ride a bike I would have to seek a situation where harm can be done and then do the act(hit someone); if I am deliberately ramming my bike into a group of people all I would have to do is continue along my path to hurt someone.

 

I find it funny that you can be so caught up in "fighting the man", to not realize that this law is about protecting liberty; the liberty to walk down the street without having to worry about being knocked down by unsafe cyclists.

 

You guys are missing something. Walking or biking without complying with traffic laws is already illegal for most purposes, whether it's 1 person, 10, or 100. We don't need new any new laws to regulate it. What these new rules refer to is situations when it's legal, like demonstrations for example.

 

OK. Try to see this:

You are riding a bike at 30 mph down a narrow sidewalk. No one is on the sidewalk, besides yourself. You're loving the fresh air, the smell of flowers. All of a sudden, outta nowhere, and with no chance for braking, a pedestrian exits a business as a normal matter of course. You don't see him, he doesn't see you, until it's too late. You cannot stop, you hit the ped, and kill him.

A law says: "hey - well intentioned bicyclist - you can't ride your bike down the sidewalk, because there is a decent chance you could waste a kid eating an ice cream cone coming out of the sundry shop." In other words, we don't swim in your toilet, don't pee in our pool. In other words, your "liberty" is confined to established routes for bikes.

I'm sorry this is so difficult.

 

No, Demosfen - as I earlier said, I was only thrown by your saying "without complying with traffic laws...", but after seeing what you later wrote, I understand where you are coming from.

My issue is what I would call Math20's religious attention on "individual liberty" at the cost of safety - here, or on the other thread, it is nonsense, in my opinion.

Which is why I've just added our Math to my ignore list. I've got better things to pursue. Best, all.

 

As far as I know large demonstrations are already illegal if they are stopping people from doing their business. Ever seen riot police move a non-violent demonstration? They did it because the people were stopping other people from doing what they normally do. You don't have the right to cause disturbances like that. You need to have a permit to do those kinds of things.

Anyways, why you're so paranoid about this is beyond me. Do you think the government is out to get you? Wrap some tinfoil around your head.

 

Same type of reasoning used to justify anti-smoking laws, you do not have the right to be comfortable.

I'm driving a car down a side-street and next thing you know this kid with an ice-cream cone pops out of now where! With no chance for braking I hit him and he's dead. Now of course this is a made-up story because driving, or doing anything dangerous for that matter, is now illegal. That kid is still alive, thank you government control!

 

Apparantly I do since anti-smoking laws typically pass with little trouble.

... wow you drop pretty low on the reasoning scale to try and make an argument.

 

Power is used to its fullest extent no matter what the good intentions are.

That sums it up right there, you think the government should control what we do as long as its in our best interest and I don't.