what a stupid thing to say since safe driving speeds obey a logical set rules, and are not subject to flights of fancy | [reply] |
And yet the point of that comparison was to make clear that the use of phrases like "flights of fancy" is circumlocution to ascribe either personally-malicious or maliciously-apathetic whim to judgements that depend entirely on the situation ("this has gone on too long") or to arguments based on premises with which the author disagrees.
| [reply] |
speed limits are a fixed point on a continuously variable scale. They do not vary with weather conditions.
When the conditions are inclement to driving at certain speeds under the limit (fog, torrential rain, flooding, ice on the road, twenty tonnes of spilled fudge topping, mass migration of camels), the traffic constabulary has the legal authority to infract you for "reckless driving".
Posted limits offer guidance in best conditions, not instruction under any condition. Conditions can and do demand that the vehicle operator use their faculties to determine a safe-for-driving pattern of behavior; the body of laws which include, but is not limited to, speed limits does the same.
This exchange began with the phrase "safe driving speeds". I do not appreciate the substitution of a reference to a body of laws, which must deal with changing situations, with a proper subset, which only applies to certain situations, in order to contradict the analogy which this exchange also epitomises.
| [reply] |
The M25 not withstanding, speed limits are a fixed point on a continuously variable scale. They do not vary with weather conditions. If you drive at 70 miles per hour in driving rain, black ice, snow or fog, you cannot be prosecuted for "speeding". Undue care, or dangerous driving are possibilities, but not speeding. There is no analogy there.
or to arguments based on premises with which the author disagrees.
Turn that around. I am being told to stop pursuing discussion that I find interesting, relevant or important because one (or some small number) of others don't share my opinion. One persons opinion is to be overidden in favour on one (or a few) other opinion. (And even those few cannot find agreement.)
By that "standard", about (guess) 30% of the threads here should never go beyond 2 levels deep, because I'm not interested in CGI. And that would be a nonsense. Despite that not so many years ago, in some other Perl forums, "conventional wisdom" had it that questions and discussion relating to CGI were "not interesting" to serious Perlers, and so were fair game to ridicule and censure.
Take this right back to the top of the thread and we're right back to the same question. What is "aggressive argument"? But more importantly, who gets to decide.
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
| [reply] |