Pardon me?
He mentioned basically 3 points of topic - the "Nanny State", cited his chosen example of seatbelt wearing, and his perception of posters' hypocrisy.
All I did was question the objection to compulsory seatbelt wearing - and that argument had nothing (in what I wrote) that pre-supposed his behaviour - I was questioning his objection and given that this was his context for referencing the "Nanny State", a reasonable thing to question, IMO.
the nanny state 1104But not 2? So why raise seatbelts, then? Merely a poignant example, but not be explored any further? Without including that, there may be some who are wondering...
You can claim to "know" my mindset, if you wish. You can claim some kind of subverting argument from me, if that's what you think. But my comments address his objection. I don't reference his actual behaviour, apart from noting that he's previously posted about seatbelts.
Kinda ironic, that you choose to condemn something I wrote, based on your perception of my "mindset".
You can interpret it any way you like. That's your choice. But it's pointless trying to argue against something you think was my mindset, when my words don't actually show what it is your objecting to.
Personally, I think your aimlessly following some strawman. I care little whether he does or doesn't wear a seatbelt. But citing it as an example of the government imposing a "know better" type atbreastude, it's quite reasonable to question the objection. And given that Brimstone has cited behavioural reasons, before, it's quite reasonable to truly question whether the objection is really based on this, or the nannying thing.
