• Ryktes@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 hours ago

    To 1, your “example” is a bad faith gotcha based on an insane hypothetical. It does absolutely nothing to prove my argument wrong that everyone would be safer is speeders slowed down to a reasonable speed.

    For 2, nearly all highways in the US are set for a speed limit that is both safe for that road and allows for reasonable efficiency of travel. Your example here is once again a bad faith gotcha argument based on insane hypotheticals.

    It’s become clear that you have nothing meaningful to contribute here. Have a nice life, I’m out.

    • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      your “example” is a bad faith gotcha based on an insane hypothetical.

      This you?

      you somehow think that if someone is doing 90 in a 55 and hits someone actually doing 55 that it was the normal person’s fault.

      As for:

      It does absolutely nothing to prove my argument wrong that everyone would be safer is speeders slowed down to a reasonable speed.

      Your argument has never mentioned “reasonable speed”. You have been repeatedly saying “slower is safer” and I pointed out how such a mind numbingly simple statement is useless and incorrect. “Reasonable speed” is a reasonable argument, but then the question becomes “what is a reasonable speed?”

      Your example here is once again a bad faith gotcha argument based on insane hypotheticals.

      Arguing through absurdity is not bad faith or invalid. The point I was making is that just because the sign next to a road says a certain number that doesn’t magically make that number a “reasonable speed”. It has already been mentioned that politicians will lower speed limits below a “reasonable speed” for the road conditions in order to claim it’s now safer.