Climbing Mt Everest is not motorsport, kills more people, we allow it, because it is something incredible.
BTW the slippery slope is clear for anyone to see. Macau GP is NOT as dangerous as TT, but safety crusaders want to ban both. What's next? Oval races? Rallys? Suzuka?
Thanks, but I prefer freedom.
I fully agree with you that the Macao GP is not as dangerous as the TT, that is exactly why I only mentioned the Ilse of Mann TT and focussed on that race. My argumentation was not a slippery slope since I only mentioned the TT and not other races in my arguments, I did not even mention Macao.
You are however using a major fallacy yourself and therefor they are not valid arguments. You are changing the subject (to other races or to the Mount Everest), that is however not the subject, the subject where I talked about is specifically the Isle of Mann TT.
The fallacy you used is called 'whataboutism'. 'But whatabout....' (a popular falacy constantly used by Fox News).
I am not a safety crussader, like you I am a motorsport fan and I am not against a small amount of danger involved.
Your sentence 'I prefer freedom' is also a fallacy,
It is also an "argumentum ad populum", it's a false cheap settler.
It's also what they call a 'false dillema', George W. Bush used this fallacy with his 'if you are not with us, you are against us statement'.
This is a particulary dirty and dishonest fallacey. You are using a variant and basically saying 'if you don't agree with me you are against freedom' or the variant 'if you are against the Isle of Mann you are against freedom'. A very untrue argument.
The dillema here is not choosing between a race and giving up our freedom, the dillema is choosing between a race and allowing people to do an event that will kill a number of participants in it. That is the dillema and that does not bring our freedom, which is a human right, in danger. In fact it protects a human right, the right to live. The right to kill yourself is not a human right.
And for your information: I hold a degree in law and am specialised in human rights and constitutional law (state law).
You are also using 'false correlation' with that statement because not beiing able to participate in the Isle of Mann TT because it is canceled does not mean that your freedom is taken away from you since there is no correlation between that race and a human right (freedom).
You are also using an 'ad hominum' with that, you suggest that I am against freedom but I am merely stating that we should not organise events that kill an average of 4 participants per year. That does not show that I would be against freedom. So you are making a personal attack on me by saying that 'ad hominum', you are claiming that you are for freedom and that I am against it, false argument.
Again you are doing exactly the same as the first person I originally replied to. You are reaction out of your emotion. So you feel an emotion because of my statement and you form an opinion out of that emotion and then you try to justify that opinion by rationalising it. That is exactly what Trump voters (not that I am comparing you with them in any way) are currently doing with their false accusations of voter fraud in the US. What you should do is let that emotion be what it is, look at different viewpoints at the statement then rationalise without the emotion influencing it or attaching your personal value to it, and then rationalise you argument based upon that process. You stated your argumentation using your emotion (and your hobby, watching motorsport, that triggers an emotion with you) as baseline and not using rationalising as baseline. That is why you react subjectively.
But the Isle of Man TT is a matter of a different order, if you look at the casualty / death rate it is plain for everyone to see that it kills a massive amount of people and people die there every year, usually around 3-4 and sometimes up to 6.
If you analise those fatalities numbers and look at the average amount of deaths per year, the facts or there but you won't be able to accept those numbers because you are allowing your emotion to influence the way you look at those facts and that clouds your judgement, hence the reason why people use fallacies to justify and rationalise their thinking:
Edited by William Hunt, 20 November 2020 - 20:34.