Camaros in the news: Two young men dead along with 2 Camaros

[mhood]

Originally Posted by 98_Camaro

Just because something is chaotic doesn't mean we can throw the laws of the universe out of play.

That doesn't make your assumption of the trajectories and forces at play in this particular accident any less erroneous though...now does it? You don't even know what seat the survivor was sitting in much less the actual cause of death. It could have been a tree limb through the windshield for all you know. You have failed to "prove" anything.

[98_Camaro]

Originally Posted by mhood

That doesn't make your assumption of the trajectories and forces at play in this particular accident any less erroneous though...now does it? You don't even know what seat the survivor was sitting in much less the actual cause of death. It could have been a tree limb through the windshield for all you know. You have failed to "prove" anything.

Since when were we talking about the survivor? I'm trying to argue that seat belts save lives. I wasn't even using this particular example. I'm talking about a simple, inelastic collision in general.
Thusly, my argument becomes no less valid. Consequently, it shows you're just trying to claw for any form of validity with your argument.

[mhood]

Originally Posted by 98_Camaro

I'm talking about a simple, inelastic collision in general.

Nonsense. We are talking about a specific collision and your assumptions totally invalidate any psuedoscientific conclusions you might think you've deduced. You don't legislate safety, you educate.

[ron10]

2 more needless deaths of 2 young men.

[camarorange]

shut up mhood. Lets put it this way, lets say your going 100 mph. would rather be wearing your seatbelt or not?

[98_Camaro]

Originally Posted by mhood

Nonsense. We are talking about a specific collision and your assumptions totally invalidate any psuedoscientific conclusions you might think you've deduced. You don't legislate safety, you educate.

No, that's a hasty assumption right there. I did not, at any given point in my defense, even begin to relate my information to this car crash. You, on the other hand, only dissect my own information, and still relate nothing to this specific accident. In fact, we weren't even discussing the survivor until you brought them into this a couple posts ago. Furthermore, these are not pseudoscientic conclusions; these are basic Newtonian formulas.

You argued that there's no way to know if a seat belt can save you in a car accident. I presented the most basic car accident there is, explained the science behind it, and attempted to prove you wrong.

The assumptions I made do not disprove any of my logic; they simply set the course for my math. If we wanted to, we could plug in the actual numbers. 65mph was probably a conservative guess since the article said the car was traveling at a high speed. Maybe the guy didn't weigh 220lbs, maybe he was only 150lbs. Regardless, the basic forces at work here are still the same forces used in my example, the same forces present in just about any car accident. The variables might be different, but the same basic idea is there.

And please, feel free to actually prove me wrong instead of just telling me that I am.

[mhood]

Originally Posted by camarorange

shut up mhood. Lets put it this way, lets say your going 100 mph. would rather be wearing your seatbelt or not?

You tell me to shut up and then ask me a question? Wow! As I have said, I always wear my seat belt and insist all my passengers are buckled up as well. That of course, has nothing to do with this tragic accident or my contention that you best instill safe driving practices through education rather than through nanny laws. Do you really want to live in a world with random road blocks to check on seat belts? Shut up!

[mhood]

Originally Posted by 98_Camaro

You argued that there's no way to know if a seat belt can save you in a car accident.

I'm afraid you'll need to show me where I discussed anything other than this specific accident...that of which neither of us have any specific knowledge. Please see the subject of this thread.

[Scarlett'sOtherRide]

Originally Posted by AmericanMuscle4.6GT

these cars are a lot of fun but most people don't respect just how dangerous they can be. they'll turn on you like THAT and throw you into a ditch before you even have any idea what's going on.


be careful out there guys!!! buckle up and if you're not sure if you can negotiate a maneuver, DON'T DO IT!!! even then, don't do anything stupid! i'd hate to see this happen to anyone else!

"they'll turn on you like THAT and throw you into a ditch before you have any idea what's going on"

They are not Transformers with AI. Or animals with their own personalities and will. That statement works well with what I do for entertainment, recreation and extra cash.. working with horses. Ex race horses to be more exact. But is so out of line with dealing with a car. Any car. Not just the Camaro. While the deaths of these young men is tragic.. it was brought about by their own choices. The car didnt suddenly decide to end it all. Didnt want to be driven anymore or the like. I am saddened by their deaths since who knows what they would have done with their lives, who they would have married or become fathers to. But it is not the fault of the car. I see plenty of stupid speeding fools around here driving cars that have no legal right to be on the roads, never mind highways. A car is just as much a potential weapon as a gun. in fact it is more so since many more people have cars than guns. I am just somewhat comforted by the fact that innocent lives were not taken. If I ever lost my daughter, husband or even my bitch of a sister due to a car accident.. I would never be able to forgive the flaming asshole who was behind the wheel.

[porscheis1]

Two less morons on the road. I'm glad these jackoffs didn't kill anyone else.

[98_Camaro]

Originally Posted by mhood

I'm afraid you'll need to show me where I discussed anything other than this specific accident...that of which neither of us have any specific knowledge. Please see the subject of this thread.

Originally Posted by mhood

...and we have an incorrect usage of the word "your". You probably meant "you're" but who knows for sure? It's like the seat belts...you can't be sure they would prevent any specific traffic death anymore than I can be sure you are educated enough to know the proper usage of a contraction.

Besides, name calling and personal attacks are supposed to be rule violations around here, aren't they?

Of course, that also proved to be a false analogy as well, but we'll save that for another day.
Now, you could argue that you did say "specific" but there's a plethora of specifics. As irony would have it, specific in this sense is incredibly vague. I can tell you that in most specifics, seat belts would prevent deaths, the obvious exceptions being the ones that aren't necessarily collisions (i.e. driving off a cliff, being crushed by a tanker, etc.), but if we want to bring the specific cases into this, we can naturally presume that the lack of a seat belt was the most likely reason they didn't walk away from this (so to speak).

[mhood]

Originally Posted by 98_Camaro

Now, you could argue that you did say "specific" but there's a plethora of specifics. As irony would have it, specific in this sense is incredibly vague. I can tell you that in most specifics, seat belts would prevent deaths

There's not only a plethora of specifics, there are only specifics and they are the opposite of vague in any sense. You of course, can tell me anything but your use of the qualifier "most" reveals your fallacy.

[98_Camaro]

Originally Posted by mhood

There's not only a plethora of specifics, there are only specifics and they are the opposite of vague in any sense. You of course, can tell me anything but your use of the qualifier "most" reveals your fallacy.

Cutting off my quote mid-sentence to try and prove a point- very tactical. For that, you've earned my respect.
Obviously, I could not say "all"; that's a fallacy. I say most and address the rest beyond the cutoff point, addressing situations where your logic is correct and a seat belt would not help.

Most and any do go pretty hand in hand. Any person can win the lottery, most people don't. Any person can go to college, most people do.
Simply because "all" wasn't used doesn't mean my logic contained a fallacy. Had I used "all", it would have been a fallacy- a hasty generalization to be exact- and an incorrect gesture as a seat belt can't save a person from every circumstance.

[chevydude26]

Originally Posted by porscheis1

Two less morons on the road. I'm glad these jackoffs didn't kill anyone else.

I mean can we really blame the passenger...we don't know if he egged him on but if he didn't he sounds like a victim to me