Speeding vs. law enforcement discussion

[Fjones]

Well, three things. First, I don't think his argument was invalid. His point was that speed limits reduce fatalities, and that our desire to simply get somewhere a few minutes--or hours--quicker seems rather petty weighed next to the cost of a human life. Second, if you want to make the argument more empirical, cost/benefit analyses generally value each human life at around 2.5 million dollars. For a family of 4, that comes to 10 million dollars. 10,000 speed tickets at $225 a ticket comes to 2.25 million. So, if those 10,000 speeding tickets save that family, then society net is better off. Three, there are exceptions in the law for extenuating circumstances with respect to speeding.




Well... with all due respect, this comes across as a little haughty in itself, not least in its presumption that whomever you're speaking to must not have higher education or, if he doesn't, then must not be familiar with logic and argument. No?

Also, higher education or not, it's quite normal to argue points with which one may have vivid personal connections with passion. Hell, if you've ever witnessed a faculty meeting at a university, it's quite normal for those with immense amounts of higher education to argue points with which they have little personal connection with enormous amounts of passion.

Where did you get the figure of 2.5 million? It's an interesting notion, but I am sure I agree with it.

Time is also worth money. And right now, we have millions of people not getting where they need go as fast as they could. This could easily translate into billions of dollars. It's not reasonable for you to attach such a gaudy figure to human life but then completely downplay the significance of time saved.

Also frustrating is that one of the primary reasons given for not raising speed limits is that "people aren't capable of driving that speed safely."

Ehh. Yes, some people aren't, but MOST are. Why should the vast majority suffer because a small minority are incompetent?

With everything we have accomplished in science and transportation and physics, are we really to accept that we haven't figured out a safe way to drive faster than 55 or 65 MPH yet?

With regard to what Redleader said, you can call it haughty or arrogant if you want, it doesn't really matter. The point Redleader was making, and that I agree with, is that most people on this forum display a startling lack of understanding of the basics of logical reasoning.

I am not saying anythign about a person's educational level. A person can graduate college and complet a PhD program without ever having to take a class in logic. That si a failing of the system, but a failing nonetheless, as arguments made without a logical basis are invalid and nonsensical.

 

[Fjones]

Also, higher education or not, it's quite normal to argue points with which one may have vivid personal connections with passion. Hell, if you've ever witnessed a faculty meeting at a university, it's quite normal for those with immense amounts of higher education to argue points with which they have little personal connection with enormous amounts of passion.

What is your point here? I am not trying to be rude or snarky. In all seriousness, I am not sure what point you are making.

Redleader wasn't saying people are uneducated IN GENERAL, he was saying people are uneducated about the rules of logic.

What does that have to do with whether people argue passionately about topics?

 

[RedLeader]

Well, three things. First, I don't think his argument was invalid. His point was that speed limits reduce fatalities, and that our desire to simply get somewhere a few minutes--or hours--quicker seems rather petty weighed next to the cost of a human life. Second, if you want to make the argument more empirical, cost/benefit analyses generally value each human life at around 2.5 million dollars. For a family of 4, that comes to 10 million dollars. 10,000 speed tickets at $225 a ticket comes to 2.25 million. So, if those 10,000 speeding tickets save that family, then society net is better off. Three, there are exceptions in the law for extenuating circumstances with respect to speeding.

I was calling him out on using an appeal to pathos in an argument, not necessarily that his assignment of tickets, though an economic argument, could not be shown that society is net better off. I generally frown on appeals to pathos, regardless of whether or not they're empirically shadowed by correct factual data (more often they're not, and used to manipulate people's emotions into making choices they would not make if otherwise empirical data was examined). People should, in my opinion, come to decisions based on either deductive reasoning, or through an optimal choice using rationality, not through emotional manipulation. Call me cold-hearted or like the guy from Along Came Polly, but you are only giving one combination of variables which leads to society being better off economically, whereas particular appeals to pathos tend to happen in a wider variety of cases.

Well... with all due respect, this comes across as a little haughty in itself, not least in its presumption that whomever you're speaking to must not have higher education or, if he doesn't, then must not be familiar with logic and argument. No?

Also, higher education or not, it's quite normal to argue points with which one may have vivid personal connections with passion. Hell, if you've ever witnessed a faculty meeting at a university, it's quite normal for those with immense amounts of higher education to argue points with which they have little personal connection with enormous amounts of passion.

I apologise if you found my statements to be a bit haughty. Perhaps I was just in need of a vent - it was not my intention. I think Fjones defended me fairly well above. And I have been at such meetings, and to be honest it does peeve me. Sure, one can argue (passionately) over which suggestion is most rational, but no amount of passion in the universe can lead one to a bachelor who is married. Emotions could be taken into consideration in inductive reasoning (if not simply knee-jerk stuff), but deductive reasoning leaves absolutely no room for emotional influence. Nevermind that most people don't know the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning, but regardless of whether they know this or not, in the deductive case their arguments are sound/valid no more or less than the most genius man in the world. And I think Fjones in particular likes trying to come up with simple ways to explain this, and it irritates me too.

 

[Heuristic]

I was calling him out on using an appeal to pathos in an argument, not necessarily that his assignment of tickets, though an economic argument, could not be shown that society is net better off. I generally frown on appeals to pathos, regardless of whether or not they're empirically shadowed by correct factual data (more often they're not, and used to manipulate people's emotions into making choices they would not make if otherwise empirical data was examined). People should, in my opinion, come to decisions based on either deductive reasoning, or through an optimal choice using rationality, not through emotional manipulation. Call me cold-hearted or like the guy from Along Came Polly, but you are only giving one combination of variables which leads to society being better off economically, whereas particular appeals to pathos tend to happen in a wider variety of cases.

Well, but I think his post was ambiguous as to the argument he was making, and there is such a thing as charitable interpretation. I don't think you were being cold-hearted; but I also think it's fairly easily to spot the valid argument in his post.

Also, most people, in general conversation, on a message board, will generally express their arguments informally and quickly. For a reader or listener who wants to analyze the expressed argument into its operative parts and understand it, that sometimes requires reading assumptions and logical relationships into the statements given.

I apologise if you found my statements to be a bit haughty. Perhaps I was just in need of a vent - it was not my intention. I think Fjones defended me fairly well above. And I have been at such meetings, and to be honest it does peeve me. Sure, one can argue (passionately) over which suggestion is most rational, but no amount of passion in the universe can lead one to a bachelor who is married. Emotions could be taken into consideration in inductive reasoning (if not simply knee-jerk stuff), but deductive reasoning leaves absolutely no room for emotional influence. Nevermind that most people don't know the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning, but regardless of whether they know this or not, in the deductive case their arguments are sound/valid no more or less than the most genius man in the world. And I think Fjones in particular likes trying to come up with simple ways to explain this, and it irritates me too.

I didn't think it was intentional. But you essentially told the guy that you and FJones were academically trained to engage in argument on a logical and rational level, and that he was not; and then you proceeded to lecture him on the value of logical and rational argument. That's what caught my eye. And whether I'm correct or incorrect in my perception, I didn't think it was intentional, and I've done far, far worse in some of my responses.

Re emotions. This will be quick, so apologies if it's vague.

My point was that it's normal to make arguments with passion in one's delivery. It's not a sign that the underlying argument is unsound or invalid.

As far as appeals to emotions themselves, I think the extent of his emotional appeal was to the value of the human lives lost in car accidents. That's reasonable; without emotions we are literally incapable of assessing value or engaging in practical reasoning; so statements which seek to draw out the value of this or that to us, emotionally, are NOT NECESSARILY a sign of an unsound argument. I didn't think they were such a sign in his case.

 

[RedLeader]

Also, most people, in general conversation, on a message board, will generally express their arguments informally and quickly. For a reader or listener who wants to analyze the expressed argument into its operative parts and understand it, that sometimes requires reading assumptions and logical relationships into the statements given.

Ya, and for being one who actually does (seemingly) understand logic and in/deductive reasoning, I admire your ability to not not flip out like me and Fjones tend to do - self-control is a great thing. I have a hard time arguing informally (heck, it cost me my last relationship!), maybe because I was raised by a hot-headed attorney. As for the emotional stuff, clearly I only (rightfully) have a reason to concern myself with how people use emotions witin inductive arguments; on this matter, I'll agree that we can see the intentions of the LE poster from different angles and it's okay. From this point, I'd gladly shake your figurate hand and stop derailing the thread

 

[SHHMCJOOAPOYS]

Redleader and Fjones should open up a logic / grammar school.

 

[RedLeader]

^ As stated before, we're going to become a comic-book duo, "Obsessive" and "Compulsive" and together rid the world of all its pet peeves. I'd love a Hollywood contract, but some emo kid in his basement with an artistic side could suffice.

 

[Heuristic]

Where did you get the figure of 2.5 million? It's an interesting notion, but I am sure I agree with it.

I actually understated the normal value used by quite a bit. Here's an example of what the EPA uses:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92470116

Time is also worth money. And right now, we have millions of people not getting where they need go as fast as they could. This could easily translate into billions of dollars. It's not reasonable for you to attach such a gaudy figure to human life but then completely downplay the significance of time saved.

2.5 million isn't gaudy at all. It's an extraordinarily conservative estimate. In the link I provided you, the EPA uses an estimate closer to 7 million.

As far as millions of people of taking longer to get somewhere... the primary problem in drive-time is congestion, not speed. And what contributes to congestion? Accidents. And what contributes to accidents? Speeding. Full circle.

Also frustrating is that one of the primary reasons given for not raising speed limits is that "people aren't capable of driving that speed safely."

Ehh. Yes, some people aren't, but MOST are. Why should the vast majority suffer because a small minority are incompetent?

What's most? 80%? So that means 1 out of every 5 drivers isn't. How about 90%? That's now 1 out of every 10 drivers. See the problem? How many drivers passed you on the road when you were in the center lane going precisely the limit? 61? If we assume 90% can drive safely at a higher speed, and 10% are not, that means that 6 of those drivers passing you can't. And I'm guessing that your actual opinion as to the skill level of other drivers is quite a bit lower, particularly if we asked you while you were on the road in heavy traffic.

"Should" has nothing to do with this. This is about human reality. Lots of things "shouldn't" happen, but they do. Good planning takes that into account. Bad planning doesn't. When someone is designing speed limits, I'd prefer they take bad drivers into account, as such drivers will exist regardless of whether they "should."

With regard to what Redleader said, you can call it haughty or arrogant if you want, it doesn't really matter. The point Redleader was making, and that I agree with, is that most people on this forum display a startling lack of understanding of the basics of logical reasoning.

I disagree both with the characterization of most people on this forum, and with the characterization of the poster's argument in the posts above. There is a difference between reading a post for understanding, in an effort to understand the rationale and argument that your interlocutor is making, and reading a post uncharitably in an effort to avoid finding such rationale and argument. The former effort is rewarding, and frankly I think is a duty of a reader or listener; the latter effort is at best a game of "gotchya."

 

[Fjones]

I actually understated the normal value used by quite a bit. Here's an example of what the EPA uses:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92470116




2.5 million isn't gaudy at all. It's an extraordinarily conservative estimate. In the link I provided you, the EPA uses an estimate closer to 7 million.

As far as millions of people of taking longer to get somewhere... the primary problem in drive-time is congestion, not speed. And what contributes to congestion? Accidents. And what contributes to accidents? Speeding. Full circle.



What's most? 80%? So that means 1 out of every 5 drivers isn't. How about 90%? That's now 1 out of every 10 drivers. See the problem? How many drivers passed you on the road when you were in the center lane going precisely the limit? 61? If we assume 90% can drive safely at a higher speed, and 10% are not, that means that 6 of those drivers passing you can't. And I'm guessing that your actual opinion as to the skill level of other drivers is quite a bit lower, particularly if we asked you while you were on the road in heavy traffic.

"Should" has nothing to do with this. This is about human reality. Lots of things "shouldn't" happen, but they do. Good planning takes that into account. Bad planning doesn't. When someone is designing speed limits, I'd prefer they take bad drivers into account, as such drivers will exist regardless of whether they "should."



I disagree both with the characterization of most people on this forum, and with the characterization of the poster's argument in the posts above. There is a difference between reading a post for understanding, in an effort to understand the rationale and argument that your interlocutor is making, and reading a post uncharitably in an effort to avoid finding such rationale and argument. The former effort is rewarding, and frankly I think is a duty of a reader or listener; the latter effort is at best a game of "gotchya."

Are you serious? Or was this post just an attempt to get under my skin? I mean, you claim to read my arguments thoroughly, and you get offended when Redleader or I suggest that he and I have more training in logic than other people here, and then you go and post utter nonsense like this --

"the primary problem in drive-time is congestion, not speed. And what contributes to congestion? Accidents. And what contributes to accidents? Speeding. Full circle."

This statement is laughably absurd. The primary cause of congestion is NOT accidents, and I am baffled as to why you would think that. The primary cause of congestion is too many cars on the road. Accidents are definitely NOT necessary for congestion.

But the CONTEXT in which you are using your statement is even more absurd. For, if you had read ANYTHING I have written, you would know that I am not advocating SPEEDING THROUGH CONGESTED AREAS!!!!!!!!!! Obviously that would

A) NOT accomplish anything, and
B) Cause accidents.

I have been VERY clear that I do not advocate tailgating or unsafe lane changes. Obviously it is impossible to speed through a congested area without committing those two dangerous acts.

Thus, you have committed at least one fallacy and possibly several more. Seriously man, read a logic book. Or continue making flawed arguments, your choice.

Oh, as for my definition of "most" -- Well over 99%. I don't know where you got 80 or 90 % from. Do you really think 1 out of 5 people or 1 out of 10 people cannot drive a car at a speed of 80 MPH?

Yes, 61 people passed me -- and how many of them crashed? ZERO. How many of them came close to crashing? ZERO. So what is your point? Why did you bring that up?

Do you think that the fact they passed me indicates they are among your supposed 10 or 20%? Isn't that a circular argument? --

"They are speeding because they are bad drivers. And I know they are bad drivers because they are speeding."

 

[Heuristic]

Are you serious? Or was this post just an attempt to get under my skin? I mean, you claim to read my arguments thoroughly, and you get offended when Redleader or I suggest that he and I have more training in logic than other people here, and then you go and post utter nonsense like this --

Mmmm, in our discussions you've had the monopoly on taking offense. I've yet to be offended by you, much less Redleader. I do think an attempt to suggest you have more training in logic to a complete stranger is, to say the least, not exactly the greatest form of argument or courtesy in discussion. I've certainly been guilty of being rude in this forum myself, of course.

As far as my "utter nonsense"... I eagerly await your validation of this claim, but looking back in this thread, I must admit to a slight sense of pessimism about your odds of success. I'll reserve judgment until the end of your post. Here we go.

"the primary problem in drive-time is congestion, not speed. And what contributes to congestion? Accidents. And what contributes to accidents? Speeding. Full circle."

This statement is laughably absurd. The primary cause of congestion is NOT accidents, and I am baffled as to why you would think that.

I'm baffled as to where you believe I said that the PRIMARY cause of congestion is accidents. Perhaps you should read what I wrote again.

But the CONTEXT in which you are using your statement is even more absurd. For, if you had read ANYTHING I have written, you would know that I am not advocating SPEEDING THROUGH CONGESTED AREAS!!!!!!!!!! Obviously that would

A) NOT accomplish anything, and
B) Cause accidents.

Ah, yes, the context. The context was a discussion of costs/benefits analysis, and the value placed on human lives. In response to your comment that time, too, is valuable, I pointed out that accidents cause--apart from the damage of the accidents themselves--enormous delays. I fail to see where I stated that you advocated speeding through congested areas.

As far as reading what you've written, I've obviously read it and responded at length to it in the thread above. You seem to have abandoned discussion on most of our substantive points, your last post being an excellent example.

Thus, you have committed at least one fallacy and possibly several more. Seriously man, read a logic book. Or continue making flawed arguments, your choice.

Hmmm... so far we just have a series of reading comprehension errors on your part, but let's see how you fared in the rest of your post. Still, at this point you're getting ahead of yourself in suggesting logic books to others.

Oh, as for my definition of "most" -- Well over 99%. I don't know where you got 80 or 90 % from. Do you really think 1 out of 5 people or 1 out of 10 people cannot drive a car at a speed of 80 MPH?

"Well over 99%." Interesting. A few days ago you took a short trip, during which you traveled the speed limit. Here is how you described that short trip:

"I was driving the speed limit, and thus was the SLOWEST car on the road. I was driving in the RIGHT LANE (the SLOW LANE) so as to minimize the extent to which I was a road hazard. Sometimes I had to get into the middle lane to yield to the cars entering the highway (Yes, you read that right -- Though legally THEY are supposed to merge and yield to ME, they don't). While in the middle lane, cars were passing me on both sides and cutting me off and tailgating. [emphasis added by Heuristic]"

Now... gosh, it doesn't really sound to me like 99% of the drivers you encountered were driving safely. Does it sound like that to you?

Yes, 61 people passed me -- and how many of them crashed? ZERO. How many of them came close to crashing? ZERO. So what is your point? Why did you bring that up?

Boy, now I'm really confused. See, on the one hand you claim that all these people were failing to merge and engaging in sudden lane changes and tailgating, which you describe in your last post as "very dangerous acts." And now on the other hand you seem to think that they were all driving safely. Quite an inconsistency here. How would you like to rectify this?

Do you think that the fact they passed me indicates they are among your supposed 10 or 20%? Isn't that a circular argument? --

Gosh, the cars that were passing you, which you also described as "tailgating" you and "cutting you off" certainly sound to me like they were engaging in unsafe driving. Do you disagree?

In any event, I think you have some repair work to do on your argument. I won't recommend you read a text on logic, but an earlier post by Redleader springs to mind:

Look, I think something needs to be cleared up here. Fjones, me and a few others on here have been academically trained in the arts of logic and deductive/inductive reasoning. ... academic training seems to condition one to be able to hande discussions/arguments without taking things too personaly.

And, you know it's interesting. By reading the posts of others charitably, seeking to understand their arguments, one actually is better able to approach their arguments in a more dispassionate, more accurate, and more persuasive manner.

Now, I've been a bit less gentle with you in this post than I ordinarily am, but given your tone, I thought it was appropriate. No offense intended, though the advice certainly is.

 

[harley89]

Had I been in the LEFT LANE (the FAST lane) for ANY extended period of time, I would have been even more of a road hazard, and also just plain disrespectful and inconsiderate to the people who were trying to get somewhere and were in complete control of their cars, despite being over the speed limit.

Eventually, I came upon my exit, which is in the LEFT LAND AND FAST LANE. At this point, I had to cut across two lanes of faster traffic, and I nearly missed my exit waiting for an opportunity to do so without cutting someone off. And if you think turning on my left blinker would make people slow down to let me in, you are mistaken. I invite you to come to this state and try it.


Also, what is this crap you keep saying about "in your country?" Was there any part of my post that was discussing the driving laws in WALES? I am talking about BALTIMORE, MARYLAND, USA! I mean, I am sure MANY things are different there, some for the better, some not. But I sure wouldn't voluntarily jump into a thread about a discussion of the laws and rules in WALES and say things like, "Well in my country blah blah blah therefore your point is invalid!"

This is to put the argument into context. I think i have also only said the phrase "In my country" in one of my posts, not sure.

I have yet to see an exit, on the side of the road with the fastest moving traffic.

Could some one please clarify to me if this is the case? As i have not drove on many of the roads of the world and really don't know the various in's and out's of differing states highway systems. Thank you.

 

[RedLeader]

I have yet to see an exit, on the side of the road with the fastest moving traffic.

Consider a highway where traffic is slowed to a creeping pace due to, say, a local sporting event occuring soon nearby exist 5. So if you want to get off at exit 4, by getting into the exit lane and being in the vast minority of cars wanting to get off at 4 as opposed to 5 (or further), you naturally will be able to accelerate to a speed greater than the creeping pace of the highway.

There ya go. Really not that hard.

 

[harley89]

^ The reason for that, was due to external variables. I am not dumb enough to have not been able to work that one out myself. I'm talking about normal highways, no outside interference, just an average highway.

 

[RedLeader]

A highway with no outside interference would necessarily have no cars ever leaving it (or getting on). You will always have external variables, if you treat a highway as a dynamical system. Everyone, for example, has a final destination.

You asked a question and I gave you an answer that fit it. If you want a more specific answer, than "just an average highway" needs to be described more clearly (i.e. qualifying and parameterizing all of your internal and external variables).

 

[Heuristic]

Harley,

In the US there are sometimes exits on the left side of the road, which is also where the passing lane is located. Usually the exit is on the right side.

I think the main problem with FJones account is that he describes himself as a road hazard if he were to be in the middle lane going 65 mph. Assuming that people in the center are driving as fast as 80 mph, this means even a 15 mph speed differential is enough to create a significantly greater risk of accident (if not, then the self-description of 'hazard' isn't accurate).

And if a 15 mph speed differential is enough to create this risk, then driving 80 mph on a roadway where some drivers may be legally driving 15 mph slower isn't a safe idea.

 

[harley89]

Harley,

In the US there are sometimes exits on the left side of the road, which is also where the passing lane is located. Usually the exit is on the right side.

I think the main problem with FJones account is that he describes himself as a road hazard if he were to be in the middle lane going 65 mph. Assuming that people in the center are driving as fast as 80 mph, this means even a 15 mph speed differential is enough to create a significantly greater risk of accident (if not, then the self-description of 'hazard' isn't accurate).

And if a 15 mph speed differential is enough to create this risk, then driving 80 mph on a roadway where some drivers may be legally driving 15 mph slower isn't a safe idea.

Thank you Heuristic, that was all I wanted to know.

 

[n3ophy7e]

I have yet to see an exit, on the side of the road with the fastest moving traffic.

Could some one please clarify to me if this is the case?

I have seen one, and only one, in Sydney Australia. I believe it's on the right side of the road (our fast lane is on the right) purely because there were buildings in the way on the other side so they couldn't put it in the usual left lane.

 

[harley89]

^ In that instance Neo, i can see why. I was not trying to be deliberately awkward, just i would never think of a reason for the exit to be in the fast lane. The fast lane is on the right in most countries isn't it, no matter which side of the road the traffic is, as you said in an earlier post about driving on different sides of the road and how it can have a difference.

 

[alasdairm]

I have yet to see an exit, on the side of the road with the fastest moving traffic.

i have yet to see the taj mahal but i'm reasonably sure it exists

while not common, i have seen exits in the us on the opposite side of the freeway (the left) from usual (the right).

alasdair

 

[Fjones]

Mmmm, in our discussions you've had the monopoly on taking offense. I've yet to be offended by you, much less Redleader. I do think an attempt to suggest you have more training in logic to a complete stranger is, to say the least, not exactly the greatest form of argument or courtesy in discussion. I've certainly been guilty of being rude in this forum myself, of course.

As far as my "utter nonsense"... I eagerly await your validation of this claim, but looking back in this thread, I must admit to a slight sense of pessimism about your odds of success. I'll reserve judgment until the end of your post. Here we go.



I'm baffled as to where you believe I said that the PRIMARY cause of congestion is accidents. Perhaps you should read what I wrote again.



Ah, yes, the context. The context was a discussion of costs/benefits analysis, and the value placed on human lives. In response to your comment that time, too, is valuable, I pointed out that accidents cause--apart from the damage of the accidents themselves--enormous delays. I fail to see where I stated that you advocated speeding through congested areas.

As far as reading what you've written, I've obviously read it and responded at length to it in the thread above. You seem to have abandoned discussion on most of our substantive points, your last post being an excellent example.



Hmmm... so far we just have a series of reading comprehension errors on your part, but let's see how you fared in the rest of your post. Still, at this point you're getting ahead of yourself in suggesting logic books to others.



"Well over 99%." Interesting. A few days ago you took a short trip, during which you traveled the speed limit. Here is how you described that short trip:

"I was driving the speed limit, and thus was the SLOWEST car on the road. I was driving in the RIGHT LANE (the SLOW LANE) so as to minimize the extent to which I was a road hazard. Sometimes I had to get into the middle lane to yield to the cars entering the highway (Yes, you read that right -- Though legally THEY are supposed to merge and yield to ME, they don't). While in the middle lane, cars were passing me on both sides and cutting me off and tailgating. [emphasis added by Heuristic]"

Now... gosh, it doesn't really sound to me like 99% of the drivers you encountered were driving safely. Does it sound like that to you?



Boy, now I'm really confused. See, on the one hand you claim that all these people were failing to merge and engaging in sudden lane changes and tailgating, which you describe in your last post as "very dangerous acts." And now on the other hand you seem to think that they were all driving safely. Quite an inconsistency here. How would you like to rectify this?



Gosh, the cars that were passing you, which you also described as "tailgating" you and "cutting you off" certainly sound to me like they were engaging in unsafe driving. Do you disagree?

In any event, I think you have some repair work to do on your argument. I won't recommend you read a text on logic, but an earlier post by Redleader springs to mind:



And, you know it's interesting. By reading the posts of others charitably, seeking to understand their arguments, one actually is better able to approach their arguments in a more dispassionate, more accurate, and more persuasive manner.

Now, I've been a bit less gentle with you in this post than I ordinarily am, but given your tone, I thought it was appropriate. No offense intended, though the advice certainly is.

I get it now. You are trolling me, and I have been inadvertantly playing into it by responding to you in a serious manner.

Well played sir