This online argument at the bottom of this blog post was found in the comment section in r/Showerthoughts. The post stated, "People who jog on the roads in the dark, wearing dark clothing and no lights or reflectors are a unique combination of a person who cares about their health and well-being and doesn’t care about their health and well-being." This was someone's response to the "shower thought" when searching by controversial.
The argument is tiring to read considering it's completely unnecessary, and neither commenters are going to change their viewpoint. I chose this argument because I think it's important to see how trivial many online arguments can be. I have a few concerns with this argument in particular.
- Improper analogy - Poster: "If I break into your home all the time to take your stuff and one day you decided you've had enough and refuse to cooperate, and I shoot you, it's not "suicide", it's 'homicide.'" I have a hard time seeing the relevance of this situation to what the poster had first stated. Because the relevance is difficult to see, I think it proves that it's a poor analogy to use and does not help the argument.
- Aggression - Anon: "What the hell is the relevance of the latter part of your comment? We're talking about people who dress themselves in essentially camo when they don't have to." This is in response to the "break-in" analogy. This is the first sign of aggression within the argument. Now that emotion is involved, the argument is less about trying to see someone else's view, and instead to prove them wrong and or make them look bad.
- Fictitious statement - Poster: "Is there ever a time when the driver bears any responsibility at all, ever? No of course not, that's why you say "accident" when it's a car and "murder" when it's a gun." This statement is false and has been thrown into the discussion to prove a point. There are many cases where the driver is at fault and is prosecuted. Examples include Driving under the influence, Driving underage, hitting a pedestrian, etc.
- No rude/hostile comments.
- Only factual statements/evidence used.
- Intend to change someone's view rather than prove them wrong.
- Effectively explain your reasoning.
- Be open to others' perspectives.
People aren't normally jogging on 4 lane freeways, they're jogging on residential streets with a 25mph limit. If you actually operated your car like the deadly weapon it is, this wouldn't be a problem. The problem is that cars insulate the operator from consequences, both physically and via the laws that blame the victim even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the driver was at fault.
So there's no possible way this guy could've done any better on his jog, right?
They say the graveyard is full of people who had the right of way for a reason. There's absolutely no reason to be effectively suicidal when you can mitigate the risks of encountering an idiot.
They say the graveyard is full of people who had the right of way for a reason
There's no reason to be effectively suicidal when you can mitigate the risks of encountering an idiot.
If I break into your home all the time to take your stuff and one day you decided you've had enough and refuse to cooperate, and I shoot you, it's not "suicide", it's "homicide"
What the hell is the relevance of the latter part of your comment? We're talking about people who dress themselves in essentially camo when they don't have to. Ab more sensible analogy would be you living in a street where break ins happen constantly and you still refuse to lock your door.
You can drive as carefully and be as attentive as you want, people in dark clothes on a dark road are almost invisible. There's is a decent chance that you won't see them until they are right next to your car, with the headlights on. Just put on a safety vest.
Ab more sensible analogy would be you living in a street where break ins happen constantly and you still refuse to lock your door.
Maybe if the burglars repeatedly redefined "lock your door" to fit the circumstances:
Schalge? You call that a lock? Asking for it!
When you're opening and closing the door when you come home at night you should always check if you're being followed, give that person a darwin award
You call that checking? You should always do a tactical recon while wearing MARPAT tactical camo, if the adversary can see you it's hardly security, uhhh, hello!?!?!
They didn't secure the window though, you want sunlight? You can have sunlight when you're dead, this was a suicide
What are you talking about? Who is redefining what? Just wear a hazard vest and everyone is happy.
Just wear a hazard vest and everyone is happy.
I don't know what you mean by "happy" but if it means they won't be blamed for their own death, wrong. Drivers will find another reason to call it a suicide.
You think the jogger bears 0 responsibility in this situation?
Is there ever a time when the driver bears any responsibility at all, ever? No of course not, that's why you say "accident" when it's a car and "murder" when it's a gun.
No comments:
Post a Comment