[tallpaul]

What about preparing children for safer occupations like Wall Street or Oxford--what lessons do avoiding lethal cars infuse into them?

Gee, are you really serious?

I'll take you at your word. They're likely to have to WALK to get their job on Wall Street, and it wold be good is they didn't get squashed on the way to work, wouldn't it?

I really find it hard to believe we're having this conversation. If tomorrow, all automobiles magically vanished, there would STILL be things about which children must learn to stay alive and unharmed.

For example, you'd teach them not to touch the top of the stove, wouldn't you?

You'd teach them not accept candy from strangers, wouldn't you?

You'd teach them to brush their teeth, wouldn't you?

You'd teach them not get on the back of a horse with a stranger, wouldn't you?

[Zyx]

tallpaul, seriously, sometimes you're a moderately impressive poster, but give me a break here. Are you seriously arguing for children to live in a life of fear?

[tallpaul]

tallpaul, seriously, sometimes you're a moderately impressive poster, but give me a break here. Are you seriously arguing for children to live in a life of fear?

No, and I have said nothing of the sort.

Teaching children that some things in life may hurt them is not teaching them to live in "a life of fear". It's teaching them to avoid death or injury.

[Zyx]

You miss the part where vehicles are incredibly limiting for children. Yes, a kid can be burned on a stove, but not being able to touch a stove doesn't stop a kid from going outside and playing sports in front of its house or riding a bike around its neighborhood. You're comparing cats and dogs. If your argument is that kids need cars in order to learn that the world is out to kill them, then you have a gift. I say gift because I can't tell how you're typing after being able to make sense of such a stupid position.

[tallpaul]

Yes, a kid can be burned on a stove, but not being able to touch a stove doesn't stop a kid from going outside and playing sports in front of its house or riding a bike around its neighborhood.

The kid can't play int he back yard?

Kids can't ride their bikes around the neighborhood? Why not?

If your argument is that kids need cars in order to learn that the world is out to kill them, then you have a gift. I say gift because I can't tell how you're typing after being able to make sense of such a stupid position.

As your argument seems to consist of misrepresenting things that I say, I guess we're even. I can even refrain from being personally insulting while doing so. You might try that.

[Zyx]

The kid can't play int he back yard?

You ought to go outside more. The front of the house is where a kid can play with a community of neighbors.

Kids can't ride their bikes around the neighborhood? Why not?

Are you dense? They'd get hit by a car . . ..

[tallpaul]

Are you dense? They'd get hit by a car . . ..

I'll refrain from indulging in insult as you do so readily.

Funny, somehow kids manage to ride bicycles and not get killed, it happens every day.

[Zyx]

Funny, somehow kids manage to ride bicycles and not get killed, it happens every day.

You're ignoring entire branches of statistics: namely all of them. Yes, not all kids get hit by cars, what's your point? What are you trying to communicate to me? All that I am getting is that you don't know what normal distribution is or why statistical analysis matters.

[tallpaul]

You're ignoring entire branches of statistics: namely all of them. Yes, not all kids get hit by cars, what's your point? What are you trying to communicate to me? All that I am getting is that you don't know what normal distribution is or why statistical analysis matters.

I think we've gone quite far enough off the topic. The topic was someone feeling they had the right to do damage to someone else's property, because that person had done something to anger them.

Others took this way off track, as a forum for heir feelings we should not have cars at all.

Good luck with that one, folks!

[QatzelOk]

The topic was someone feeling they had the right to do damage to someone else's property, because that person had done something to anger them.

Yes, tallpaul. And then you stated that car-owners have the right to destroy childhood because the commercials make their products look so normal.

[Evilive]

I have a dream....That one day Steel cars and squishy children, will both roam the streets in peace, free at last free at last...

[QatzelOk]

Steel cars and squishy children

These "two sides" have always been at war, haven't they.

[Evilive]

Pretty much, its been a one-sided "war" though...may those squishy children rest in peace...

[tallpaul]

Yes, tallpaul. And then you stated that car-owners have the right to destroy childhood because the commercials make their products look so normal.

Thanks, Qatz, for making it clear that you're willing to lie outright to appear to have a point.

[QatzelOk]

Thanks, Qatz, for making it clear that you're willing to lie outright to appear to have a point.

I just summarized your "argument" by removing all the rhetoric.

If you can't stand by your own opinions unless they're wrapped in the swaddling memes of an apologetic vocabulary, then perhaps it's time to look more closely at those opinions.

[tallpaul]

I just summarized your "argument" by removing all the rhetoric.

If you can't stand by your own opinions unless they're wrapped in the swaddling memes of an apologetic vocabulary, then perhaps it's time to look more closely at those opinions.

If you can't appear to have a logical argument other than by lying outright about the posts of others, find another topic, or perhaps another hobby.

And then you stated that car-owners have the right to destroy childhood

It's just plain absurd to make the claim that car owners destroy childhood, and even more absurd to claim that I said anything of the sort.

But then, "theater of the absurd" seems to be Qatz's specialty.

[QatzelOk]

It's just plain absurd to make the claim that car owners destroy childhood

And yet the argument has been put on the table, and you haven't been able to disprove it.

, and even more absurd to claim that I said anything of the sort.

Well, you did say that cars provided an opportunity for parents to teach their kids about how to protect themselves from injury. Maybe you think cluster bombs are great for children's education as well? They learn (the hard way) not to trust their environment, after all.

In fact, your entire "defense" of cars was a bit like a defense of weapons that can kill children.

I realize that cars are really fun for their parents, and that the move to the suburbs (sponsored by car companies) made these child-killing toys indispensable. Perhaps suburbia is what is dispensable, rather than childhood?

Or is childhood just a phase in your life where you learn to stay indoors to avoid being killed by your parents vehicle?

[tallpaul]

And yet the argument has been put on the table, and you haven't been able to disprove it.

Nor have you proven it. You seem to be implying that any argument can be put on the table, and must be accepted as true until proven false.

Well, you did say that cars provided an opportunity for parents to teach their kids about how to protect themselves from injury. Maybe you think cluster bombs are great for children's education as well? They learn (the hard way) not to trust their environment, after all.

I realize that cars are really fun for their parents, and that the move to the suburbs (sponsored by car companies) made these child-killing toys indispensable.

More theater of the absurd. No rhetoric or hyperbole there, no sir!

[QatzelOk]

More theater of the absurd.

I've painted a picture of suburbia as theater of the absurd. And I've provided many examples of the absurdity.

If you want more absurdities about suburbia, there's always the Kunstlercast.

You have painted my paint job as theater, but in what way is child death by car absurd? In what way is criticizing suburban consumption patterns absurd?

Is suburbia really based on common sense for you, tall?

[tallpaul]

Is suburbia really based on common sense for you, tall?

Why don't you go start a thread on "the evils of suburbia", as this is way off the topic of someone feeling they have the right to damage or destroy someone else's property because they're angry with them.