Pro compulsion

[david k]

That is very sad to hear.
Did you in your younger days wear a helmet when learning to ride a bike?

no

 

[david k]

As Martin Luther King said

"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."

if your suggesting what i think your suggesting then i would have to disagree. how can me or anyone else wearing a helmet be dangerous in the way you suggest. if this is correct there are a lot of dangerous people

 

[ianrauk]

no

So you know what I am going to ask/say....

Isn't that hypocritical? Ok for you to ride a bike without but not your children.

Would you honestly deny your kids the very simple & safe pleasures of riding a bike if they didn't want to wear a helmet?
If one of them asked you if you wore a helmet when you was younger what would you say and how would you deal with that?

 

[david k]

So you know what I am going to ask/say....

Isn't that hypocritical? Ok for you to ride a bike without but not your children.

Would you honestly deny your kids the very simple & safe pleasures of riding a bike if they didn't want to wear a helmet?
If one of them asked you if you wore a helmet when you was younger what would you say and how would you deal with that?

theres lots o things i did as a kid that we dont find acceptable these days such as standing in the middle of the car as my dad raced down the east lancs road at 80mph. i wouldnt let my kids do that either even though i did. if im a hypocrite then so be it

as they and i always wear a helmet it isnt an issue for any of us, just like putting on a seat belt

 

[ianrauk]

theres lots o things i did as a kid that we dont find acceptable these days such as standing in the middle of the car as my dad raced down the east lancs road at 80mph. i wouldnt let my kids do that either even though i did. if im a hypocrite then so be it

as they and i always wear a helmet it isnt an issue for any of us, just like putting on a seat belt

So the not wearing of a helmet is not acceptable? Why is it unacceptable and who are the 'we' that has said it's unacceptable?
And you equate the not wearing a helmet with standing up in a car speeding at 80mph?

 

[ufkacbln]

" improved design to increase facial protection"

they did not say it doesnt protect but that they want improved protection, therefore i maintain my initial view. As i saw your original post there was no question just a statement, i didnt see the need to respond as i didnt see a question and as i read it the post did not disagree with mine

So you are still claiming that the present non full face helmets provide facial protection?

 

[david k]

With my own kids i ensure they wear a helmet, i have this view because of my belief that helmets are beneficial. By 'we' i mean society, theres many things society accepted years ago that they dont now, do you agree?

I used the 80mph purely as an example of things being accepted 30 years ago but not now.

 

[david k]

So you are still claiming that the present non full face helmets provide facial protection?

obviously to a far lesser degree than a full face helmet

 

[ianrauk]

With my own kids i ensure they wear a helmet, i have this view because of my belief that helmets are beneficial. By 'we' i mean society, theres many things society accepted years ago that they dont now, do you agree?

I used the 80mph purely as an example of things being accepted 30 years ago but not now.

Yes I agree with the above point, but I don't agree that society finds not wearing a helmet unacceptable. How do you come to the conclusion that society finds it unacceptable.

 

[ufkacbln]

because you say you are anti pro compulsion, and you say no discussion can take place regarding benefits of helmets without it relating to compulsion and anyone doing so is hiding the subject, therefore the only conclusion i can draw is that if you are against compulsion you are against anyone considering a helmet beneficial, therefore anti helmet

Weird, inaccurate and above all still wrong!

The simple question was how correcting an erroneous claim was "anti-helmet" or because one "hates people who wear helmets"

This is simply a reiteration of your previous ramblings and lies.

Why is the concept that informing people of the pros and cons anti-helmet?

Now we are being accused that stating helmets don't offer facial protection relates to compulsion?

 

[ufkacbln]

obviously to a far lesser degree than a full face helmet

But surely printing that is anti-helmet, by your own standards?

 

[david k]

Yes I agree with the above point, but I don't agree that society finds not wearing a helmet unacceptable. How do you come to the conclusion that society finds it unacceptable.

sorry didnt mean that, just meant 'things'

but back to your point, i dont find it acceptable although i didnt wear a helmet when i was young, this doesnt make me a hypocrite as tthere are other examples, if you follow me

im not saying all people agree with me, just that im not a hypocrite

 

[ufkacbln]

Yes I agree with the above point, but I don't agree that society finds not wearing a helmet unacceptable. How do you come to the conclusion that society finds it unacceptable.

Its like a "Race Card"

Anything that becomes too difficult to answer gets diverted into "you hate people who wear helmets"

To paraphrase Ali G :

"Is it because I am black wearing a helmet?"

The hope is if you claim it enough times it will be accepted as a distorted version of reality

 

[david k]

Weird, inaccurate and above all still wrong!

The simple question was how correcting an erroneous claim was "anti-helmet" or because one "hates people who wear helmets"

This is simply a reiteration of your previous ramblings and lies.

Why is the concept that informing people of the pros and cons anti-helmet?

Now we are being accused that stating helmets don't offer facial protection relates to compulsion?

can anyone step in please and make sense of this quote above, please anyone?

 

[ufkacbln]

obviously to a far lesser degree than a full face helmet

So if someone had read and took your original post at face value they would not have been informed of the real facts - that facial protection requires a full face helmet?

Thank you for modifying your claims