IOM TT Pros/Cons

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by MGDavid

yup; and I reckon you are in the minority on this one.

I'm certainly in the minority on here !

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by Andy77

Maybe my second statement above was a bit unclear so I have quoted your post again and give it another try. I fail to see a difference between remaining families of rta's and remaining families of racers who died at a circuit or the TT in particular. And because I do fail to see a difference here, the argument you brought up, is zero and void to me personally.

OK. There are underlying reasons too... but you appear to be rooted in one position so there's not much point in my discussing them here.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by jhansen

A group's ability to impose its will on the freedoms of individuals, when said freedoms do not impede the freedoms of the group, is not civilized society.

It's darn right scary.

The State of California does more than just impose its will on the freedoms of individuals, it actually puts them to death under law.

[jhansen]

Originally Posted by davyboy

The State of California does more than just impose its will on the freedoms of individuals, it actually puts them to death under law.

Yes, for taking away the freedom of others...

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by jhansen

Yes, for taking away the freedom of others...

An interesting, and rather frightening, way of looking at things.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by davyboy

The article is one sided from beginning to end. It concluded with the glorification of those who take part and the derision of those who believe its too dangerous to carry on.
OF course, those who are not connected have the right to moan and groan, but no logical reason to have a fit, or try to stop something, which in no way, affects their lives, except from a self-righteous or paranoid fear.

I've two points to make :

o As a civilised society, there are many of activities that we've collectively decided are too dangerous to remain legal. The rights of the individual to pursue such activities lie below the values of our society. So people can't do what they like, even if it only has consequences for themselves.

o Quite often the consequences go beyond the individual. There are many children without parents as a result of the TT and households suffering as a result of the loss of a breadwinner. These people had no choice in this matter, yet they're profoundly affected by it.

Point A- "Civilized society" is a Street-Hustler (or politicians [ pretty much the same thing]) term for a false standard.
Define civilized. society.
The "civilized" society you so want to brag up was exposed in such tomes as 1984 and Fahrenheit 451.
In a- civilized- society where one cannot do as one pleases, when it in no way affects more than the individual, much less the society as a whole, the individual HAS NO RIGHTS.
If the ones who are the over-masters say "crap", then the one had better drop his/her pants and squat.

Point B- A women who marries these men, had damn well better expect to accept him and his endeavors, and any consequences that come with it, or marry someone else, period.
She had EVERY choice to make, whether to marry him, OR NOT.
If she did not expect..., or some other ****ant excuse- stupidity has just rewards.

The "Oh the poor children" false sympathy is sad at best.
There are thousands children without father, mother, family in countries with tiny fractions of the standard of living of the West, much less the UK.
If you want to act concerned about fatherless children, you had damn well better be as concerned about them, but no those with such "concern" about the children, would rather spend time trying to stop a sporting endeavor.


Those such as you, expect others to live by their standards, because that will make you and those such as you happy, and to hell with others standards or their enjoyment in life.
Such a point of view is self-righteous in general and at an individual level narcissistic.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by davyboy

In a democracy such as ours... a majority of us.

You do not live in a Democracy, nor does any nation on Earth. (Possibly some small Pacific Islands, live in something close to one.)

In a Democracy, majority rules at all times, by DIRECT vote, period, so do not throw out that false dichotomy.

[jhansen]

Originally Posted by davyboy

An interesting, and rather frightening, way of looking at things.

You find it frightening that a convicted murderer can be put to death.

I find it frightening that the majority can decide that an individual cannot partake in a sport willingly because it is too risky.

Interesting indeed.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by davyboy

The State of California does more than just impose its will on the freedoms of individuals, it actually puts them to death under law.

Convicted criminals have few to zero rights, as dictated by U.S. law.

States have the Right to impose penalties, on the States convicted criminals as they see fit, as long as it does not violate the U.S. Constitution, or States Constitution.

The U.S. Supreme Court over-turned the Florida Supreme Court in an election decision, because it found that the Florida Supreme Court violated the Florida Constitution.

[garcon]

Bike fans discussing political and social theory...

Any chance we could get back to bikes, booze and birds?

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by garcon

Bike fans discussing political and social theory...

Any chance we could get back to bikes, booze and birds?

This is a very heavy thread, after all its about life and death... literally. It's not unreasonable to expect it to weave the direction it has I'm afraid.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe

Point A- "Civilized society" is a Street-Hustler (or politicians [ pretty much the same thing]) term for a false standard.
Define civilized. society.
The "civilized" society you so want to brag up was exposed in such tomes as 1984 and Fahrenheit 451.
In a- civilized- society where one cannot do as one pleases, when it in no way affects more than the individual, much less the society as a whole, the individual HAS NO RIGHTS.
If the ones who are the over-masters say "crap", then the one had better drop his/her pants and squat.

Point B- A women who marries these men, had damn well better expect to accept him and his endeavors, and any consequences that come with it, or marry someone else, period.
She had EVERY choice to make, whether to marry him, OR NOT.
If she did not expect..., or some other ****ant excuse- stupidity has just rewards.

The "Oh the poor children" false sympathy is sad at best.
There are thousands children without father, mother, family in countries with tiny fractions of the standard of living of the West, much less the UK.
If you want to act concerned about fatherless children, you had damn well better be as concerned about them, but no those with such "concern" about the children, would rather spend time trying to stop a sporting endeavor.


Those such as you, expect others to live by their standards, because that will make you and those such as you happy, and to hell with others standards or their enjoyment in life.
Such a point of view is self-righteous in general and at an individual level narcissistic.

Wow Bob... that's certainly a stone cold way of looking at things. Should I stoop just as low to respond ?

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by garcon

Bike fans discussing political and social theory...

Any chance we could get back to bikes, booze and birds?

It is political and social -theories- that get items like the IOM TT shut-down.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by davyboy

Wow Bob... that's certainly a stone cold way of looking at things. Should I stoop just as low to respond ?

Low-- hmmmm-- who used homicide bombers as an analogy?

Stone cold, absolutely, at a very young age, it was hammered home to me, you start dying the day you are born-- get used to it.

I attended my first funeral at age 4, when I asked about my "aunt" in the coffin, some tried the "she is just sleeping..." blah-blah-blah.
When I challenged that by saying "why doesn't she wake-up and get out of there." my father took me aside and gave the facts of life.

Those of the more liberal tendencies, try to use "shades of grey" as an excuse, as to why seeing things in black and white does not work.
Grey is not a color, it is a shade of black, the world operates around a black and white schism.

[Andy77]

Originally Posted by davyboy

OK. There are underlying reasons too... but you appear to be rooted in one position so there's not much point in my discussing them here.

And you are in another. What's the point in using something that will be proved a fifty fifty thing before hand?

[mountainstar]

I don't want any rider to die at the IoM.

But as I have pointed out already in this thread to no avail, consider the amount of deaths rock climbing, boxing, surfing, skiing, rafting, flying, push bike riding, running, etc.

There is no outrage about any of that really, when often the toll can be just as high or higher.

I think if this was something where it was some death race deal running people over, you'd have a case, but this is a closed course and those involved know the risks.

[MGDavid]

Originally Posted by mountainstar

I don't want any rider to die at the IoM.

But as I have pointed out already in this thread to no avail, consider the amount of deaths rock climbing, boxing, surfing, skiing, rafting, flying, push bike riding, running, etc.

There is no outrage about any of that really, when often the toll can be just as high or higher.

I think if this was something where it was some death race deal running people over, you'd have a case, but this is a closed course and those involved know the risks.

AND horse-riding, and fishing, and pot-holing, canooing/ kayaking, the list is endless. After the crusade stopped the IOM which would be the next target?

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by mountainstar

But as I have pointed out already in this thread to no avail, consider the amount of deaths rock climbing, boxing, surfing, skiing, rafting, flying, push bike riding, running, etc...

Your point [and that of others] wasn't to no avail. Yes there can be danger associated with just about any human activity. That's not the issue here however. The issue here is probability. You can die riding a push bike in the park and you can also die taking part in the TT. The probability of the latter is far greater than the former. That's the problem. Russian roulette carries and even greater probability of injury/death than the TT. Because of that, it's illegal.

The question we're debating here is what level of risk constitutes a probability of death so unacceptable, that it should no longer be allowed to take place. I believe that the TT falls into that category. Most others on here don't. Its as simple as that.

[cg7aa]

Has anyone considered the theory of risk homeostatis?

[Bob Riebe]

Originally Posted by davyboy

The question we're debating here is what level of risk constitutes a probability of death so unacceptable, that it should no longer be allowed to take place.

To whom?

Russian Roulette is another inane analogy that has no relation.
In Russian Roulette, as in dueling, if played properly, the loser always dies.

[MGDavid]

Originally Posted by davyboy

........The question we're debating here is what level of risk constitutes a probability of death so unacceptable, that it should no longer be allowed to take place. I believe that the TT falls into that category. Most others on here don't. Its as simple as that.

It could be simpler; probability is a discrete mathematical measurement - so why not stop 'believing' and 'feeling' and being all emotive about it, do some proper research, and get some numbers together across different activities? Then instead of a circular argument backed up by the occasional nonsensical analogy we can discuss the numbers.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by MGDavid

It could be simpler; probability is a discrete mathematical measurement - so why not stop 'believing' and 'feeling' and being all emotive about it, do some proper research, and get some numbers together across different activities? Then instead of a circular argument backed up by the occasional nonsensical analogy we can discuss the numbers.

In order to demonstrate that the probability of dying while competing in the TT is higher than dying while riding a push bike in the park ?

[MGDavid]

Originally Posted by davyboy

In order to demonstrate that the probability of dying while competing in the TT is higher than dying while riding a push bike in the park ?

if you're going to be silly you can find someone else to debate with

[Dave Brand]

Originally Posted by MGDavid

It could be simpler; probability is a discrete mathematical measurement - so why not stop 'believing' and 'feeling' and being all emotive about it, do some proper research, and get some numbers together across different activities? Then instead of a circular argument backed up by the occasional nonsensical analogy we can discuss the numbers.

Why spoil a good argument by quoting facts?

[Hubble]

Originally Posted by davyboy

In order to demonstrate that the probability of dying while competing in the TT is higher than dying while riding a push bike in the park ?

I don't think you're doing yourself any favours using ridiculous arguments.....

As we've alluded to on this thread before, everything carries a degree of risk - even riding a push bike in the park....any form of racing will naturally be more hazardous, even if it's cycle racing....think of Wouter Weyland, who died after a crash on the Giro D'Italia this year....

Obviously any activity which pits competitors against each other at high speeds is going to be inherently dangerous, and therefore carries a higher probability of injury/death in relation to riding a push bike in the park. The higher the speeds involved the greater the risk. Find a few comparable activities, get some numbers, then come back with some figures. Then we can discuss probabilities