In answer to your first question. Yes, there is 'much point' in using logic with me. Perhaps you should consider trying it at some point!
In my last post I used your analogy and logic about GFM man being safer than DRIVING down a street to show that driving faster would make the car safer. This only shows a further flaw in your analogy. Nothing else.
In your new post you change the example by removing the generic 'driver' and replacing it with 'Lewis'. You then agree I was correct with your line that ends:- “then YES..... (with his skill) it probably WOULD have been safer for the public” Bringing 'Lewis' into your example allows you to write:- “however....... (do I even need to DISCUSS, the 'however'.....?)...... just in case I do....... do you think that Lewis's wheel spin moment lasted ONLY 0.15secs or achieved 700mph............?”
This of course tries to move a discussion about an analogy to a discussion about 'Lewis'. To the casual reader it probably all sounds reasonable because the original post was about Lewis. But our discussion is about your poor analogy.
If you can't defend your analogy, then fine, but I have no wish to discuss Lewis's actions because I don't have enough information to make a reasoned judgement.
As for your final points, here are three 'cut and pastes' from my previous posts that I feel still answer your questions. I am also very aware that I am not in full control of events when driving. I don't make the mistake that I am in full control and never have. If something unpredicted happens you still have the opportunity to change the outcome by braking, turning or even pulling the trigger again and accelerating more. You have this opportunity right up to the point you lose control.
|
|