Roethlisberger injured in motorcycle accident

[mheisig]

Originally Posted by TheInspector

I missed the sarcasm. My mistake. You win. I lose. (no sarcasm here)

P.S.: it's not a philosophy lesson--it's ethics (maybe you should look it up first *sarcasm*).

An "Ad Hominem" is a logical fallacy and logical fallacies and logical reasoning typically fall under the scope of Philosophy, not Ethics.

DAMMIT I said I wasn't going to respond to this thread anymore!

[TheInspector]

Originally Posted by mheisig

An "Ad Hominem" is a logical fallacy and logical fallacies and logical reasoning typically fall under the scope of Philosophy, not Ethics.

DAMMIT I said I wasn't going to respond to this thread anymore!

"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument against the person") or attacking the messenger, involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. It is usually, though not always, a logical fallacy."

Sorry, but I think you're wrong. It is splitting hairs anyways since you could consider ethics a branch of philosophy. That is the argument you should have made (and what I was expecting ).

...and didn't I already tell you that you win?

[BrudLee]

Originally Posted by LadyT

Ok, then anyone who chooses to ride without a helmet should be uninsurable. Just like morons who build homes in hurricane alleys or flood plains.

Personal freedom is fine, but I don't want to have to pay for mistakes made by someone else who was exercising their right to personal freedom. I feel for the guy, but that's not going to make him whole again. I doubt seriously that he will be ready to play in September.

I'd have no problem with insurance failing to cover (or capping damages) for helmetless (or seat belt-less) drivers. That's a function of a free economy, rather than an edict handed down from on high.

[BMF21]

Originally Posted by Redskins8588

I hope that he is ok but I do not feel bad or sorry for him...

for sure........

[mheisig]

Originally Posted by TheInspector

"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument against the person") or attacking the messenger, involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. It is usually, though not always, a logical fallacy..."

Sorry, but I think you're wrong. It is splitting hairs anyways since you could consider ethics a branch of philosophy. That is the argument you should have made (and what I was expecting ).

...and didn't I already tell you that you win?

I should have made that argument For some reason I was thinking business/corporate ethics given the nature of the discussion on business/healthcare, not ethics in the larger, philosophical sense.

Though, if we're going maintain that it's not ALWAYS a fallacy, perhaps I'll say my initial comment was an Ad Hominem but not fallacious! NOW we're splitting hairs

I did win I just can't turn down a good discussion on philosophy, ethics and fallacies

[TheInspector]

Originally Posted by mheisig

I should have made that argument For some reason I was thinking business/corporate ethics given the nature of the discussion on business/healthcare, not ethics in the larger, philosophical sense.

Though, if we're going maintain that it's not ALWAYS a fallacy, perhaps I'll say my initial comment was an Ad Hominem but not fallacious! NOW we're splitting hairs

I did win I just can't turn down a good discussion on philosophy, ethics and fallacies

Last word.

[TheInspector]

Good news for Ben:
http://kdka.com/topstories/local_story_164162049.html

[redskinsfanatic]

they said the bike benny boy was riding could go up to 194 mph just a few moments ago on espn.why the hell would you ever want to go that fast on a motorcycle?you do crap like that and you'll likely be called the local"Brain Donor."!

[mooby]

Originally Posted by TheInspector

Good news for Ben:
http://kdka.com/topstories/local_story_164162049.html

lol as soon as i saw the headline, i started thinking, the steelers are gonna release big ben? lol then i remembered he's still in the hospital and they're probably talking about that.

[Bozzy]

This is why there should be a clause in every player's contract that states that they cannot ride motorcycles... don't say they have a right to either... the owners have too much money in these guys to have it wasted like this.

[Hog1]

Let me wedge this in between the Philosophy, Sarcasm, and "add', and ...........................(damn latin) Ad Homenum!
Listening to a sports show in SW Florida earlier. The caller, called to rant about having to pay for non-helmeted scooter drivers that are injured as a result of their ignorance. The host had some data ready that purportedly detailed, that currently 9 states do not require helmets when riding a motorcycle. Those 9 states health care costs were dramatically less per incident than those states requiring helmets be worn. Reason-far greater number of non-helmeted riders go to the morgue, rather than the hospital. So, I guess from a financial standpoint, all states should repeal helmet laws??????

[warriorzpath]

Originally Posted by Hog1

Let me wedge this in between the Philosophy, Sarcasm, and "add', and ...........................(damn latin) Ad Homenum!
Listening to a sports show in SW Florida earlier. The caller, called to rant about having to pay for non-helmeted scooter drivers that are injured as a result of their ignorance. The host had some data ready that purportedly detailed, that currently 9 states do not require helmets when riding a motorcycle. Those 9 states health care costs were dramatically less per incident than those states requiring helmets be worn. Reason-far greater number of non-helmeted riders go to the morgue, rather than the hospital. So, I guess from a financial standpoint, all states should repeal helmet laws??????

After reading this and considering that an insurance company's main goal is to make money/profit: they should push to outlaw helmets for all motorcycle riders.

[TheInspector]

Originally Posted by Hog1

Let me wedge this in between the Philosophy, Sarcasm, and "add', and ...........................(damn latin) Ad Homenum!
Listening to a sports show in SW Florida earlier. The caller, called to rant about having to pay for non-helmeted scooter drivers that are injured as a result of their ignorance. The host had some data ready that purportedly detailed, that currently 9 states do not require helmets when riding a motorcycle. Those 9 states health care costs were dramatically less per incident than those states requiring helmets be worn. Reason-far greater number of non-helmeted riders go to the morgue, rather than the hospital. So, I guess from a financial standpoint, all states should repeal helmet laws??????

Brilliant!

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

After reading this and considering that an insurance company's main goal is to make money/profit: they should push to outlaw helmets for all motorcycle riders.

cause dead people don't pay bills.

[steveo395]

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

After reading this and considering that an insurance company's main goal is to make money/profit: they should push to outlaw helmets for all motorcycle riders.

if people get hurt, they have to spend money on them

they want them to stay healthy so they keep paying their bill without getting anything back