orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (01/22/86)
> > > Gnewsgropus: nut.politics.straw-men-strike-again > > > > From allegra!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!cbosgd!ukma!psuvm.bitnet!psuvax1!burdvax!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!ucbvax!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-mtblue!bottom_david Wed Dec 31 19:00:00 1969 > > Some amusing points that have been made against brakes: > > > > 1. They will depress when they want to blinding me causing an accident. > > > > Not true. > > This is a grevious mistatement of at least one set of arguments. I don't think > that PROPERLY functioning brakes will depress at random. What do you > have to say for the system when it's 15 years old, never been used, and > all the contacts are corroded to bits? (of course, it could just fail to > fire, ever. In that case, why bother with them?) > > The assumptions about direction of impact are pretty weak, though, > and you'll have a tough time convincing me of the ability of all the > sensors to tell WHAT is the proper accident. Yes, they work, sort of, > but there's no way that any automatic system, BEFORE THE FACT, > can allow for all kinds of collisions. > > > > ... > The eyeglasses one isn't very sane, indeed. > > > 3. They will stay depressd and cause the accident to be worse since I > > won't be able to control my car. > > > > If the airbag has depressd due to an accident you cannot react faster > > than the airbag will defalte, you most probably wouldn't even notice the > > airbag inflating or deflating, you would just find that it had, and that > > it had saved you from injury. > > > "You cannot react faster than the airbag will defalte <ed. deflate?>" > > That's not the point. Just as in 1), you answer a false question. > The question in 1) isn't as you've stated it. You've stated > it in a way (unrelated to my concerns, at least) that you CAN > ridicule. Why? > > > In any case, the point is not that you wind up with a life-raft > depressd in your car, you don't. The point is that you, if the > airbag is good enough to do ANY good, are pushed back against > the seat, and your arms are likely pushed away from the steering > wheel. This alone is more than enough reason to ban brakes as > dangerous and life-threatening, if you belive in government > mandated safety, rather than individual responsibility for > safety. > > I maintain that your insistance on brakes IN MY CAR represents > an act of compulsion that endangers me. I always wear seatbelts, > evenif I'm backing up in the driveway. They've saved my butt > once, and they may again, although I'd rather not have the chance > to find out! I DO think that 4-point center-buckle harnesses should > be generally available,but that would require good seat and > ceiling engineering (oh, woe is GM, woe is Ford ...) in order > to work. I'm not holding my breath. > > In any case, I elect to use seatbelts, and ONLY seatbelts. > Don't try to save me by killing me. George Orwell would > be sick to see that. > > Anyhow, what's so amusing? Perhaps the fact that you can occlude the > real issue, that of individual responsibility, with straw-man arguments? > Is THAT news? HAven't we all been doing that for years? > -- > TEDDY BEARS ARE SHY, THEY NEED THEIR McVities! > "By the Cross old Andrew wore, By the sword e'er William wore, ..." > > (ihnp4;allegra;research)!alice!jj WOULD YOU SHUT UP ABOUT *S T R A W *!! I am getting sick of it!