|
ScreamingLlama posted:I was busy doing stuff and I forgot. Your membership to the thread-creating crew has been revoked. You'll have to appeal if you want a chance at the November thread.
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2015 12:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 09:44 |
|
|
KennyTheFish posted:People who suffer excessive trauma when they are involved in a collision expect the state to pick up the bill for their ongoing care and support. The danger is foreseeable, and helmets help mitigate it. I think the idea is that the overall benefit (reduced CO2 emissions, general health benefits) of getting more people to cycle outweighs the cost of care from increased numbers of TBIs from cycling accidents. People really should just wear helmets though. I don't understand why some people lack self-preservation awareness. I commute 20 km a day via bike and I have crashed at speed - luckily my knee took the brunt of the fall and my helmet was unscathed, but still it's scary. I was laughed at by a friend when I went skiing for the first time and I wore a helmet, "You don't need a helmet, it's snow". The helmet more than paid for itself when on my third stack I hit my head hard enough to make me want to sit down for half an hour to stop my head spinning.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
Hi AusPol. Apologies if this is the wrong place to ask. Tangent - a friend on Facebook wrote:  His argument is that exemption should not be made for religious garments (remember those men who were denied sitting in Parliamentary Pubic Gallery because they were wearing KKK hood/motorcycle helmet), because religion is comprised of an arbitrary belief system*. He argues that if you allow for religious exemption for articles of clothing, then you should also allow for religious exemption for other things, such as vaccines (his example). I believe that you can exempt clothing, because in my opinion it's not an 'arbitrary' belief system - it is built upon centuries of thought process and decision making which has led that particular religion to where it is today. On the other hand, I am against exemption for vaccines for religious reasons - most of the science performed to date has a statistically favourable outcome for vaccination vs non-vaccination. I believe it is better for humanity as a whole to vaccinate those who can be vaccinated (only exemption being health reasons), regardless of whatever beliefs you hold. I know that is a horrible thing to say, because I believe in bodily autonomy, and forcing vaccination (discouraging anti-vaxxers by denying benefits is as good as 'forcing' for me, and ultimately it's the child who suffers) upon those who do not want it is wrong. How can I reconcile these two beliefs? *He argues that if the helmet wearer is security screened and checks out ok, then he should be allowed to sit in in the Parliamentary Public Gallery, just as those who wear religious garments are allowed. I argue that the helmet is not a core piece of identity for the wearer - the absence of their helmet doesn't affect their identity as a person and they're just wanting attention for being a unique snowflake. He argues that 'what if the helmet suddenly does become part of their identity - similar to how you have 'born-again Christians', or people who convert faiths'; to which I have no response.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2015 10:54
|
|