Originally Posted by glaucon
Pro-helmets: Helmets are demonstrably safer, non-obtrusive, and give me the warm fuzzies. I don't understand why someone would purposely put themselves at additional risk by not wearing one, but at the same time I desperately want everyone on the mountain to wear one because then I'll feel like less of a dork.
Fail. First you accuse other people of creating straw persons, then you create one. As eastside pointed out, and as I pointed out, we don't give a flying fuck whether or not someone wears a helmet. We also don't care if they do or do not wear gloves, a tutu, a yeti costume, bat wings, or someone else's skin. The argument comes from someone making a statement or statements that we consider to be either untrue, illogical, a non sequitur, or downright moronic. Whether the argument is about helmets, weather, politics, religion, bindings, cars, pets, or girlfriends, no one has a right to expect to make a statement and demand that no one else respond. This is a discussion
forum, not a speech
You called snowolf on the car injury statement not because you are religious about statistics, or because you are religious about cars, or a recently converted car faithful -- you called it because he made a statement that you considered to be wrong and a poor reason for taking a particular stance. If you're going to play the objective outsider, then please extend everyone the same courtesy.
An objective version of the above would have read something like "Pro-helmets
: If you want to not wear a helmet that's your right, but if you're going to try to rationalize the decision with nonsense arguments, I'm going to call you on it."