air leak in stretched tyres

[lolmclol]

See, i dont care what the law/popluar opinion says, i care that the person is free to do the things he wishes. I have no problems with punishment, but i dont like the idea of prevention.... the effectiveness doesnt really matter much to me. Clearly im idealistic nad dont put as much value on human life as most others. (Dont wnat people to die, but i fail to see how 'life' matters so have difficulty understanding why its important to NOT die... if that makes sense)

In reference to this thread, i have on problems with people saying that running stretched tyres is stupid. I have problems with you calling someone stupid for running stretched tyres.

That doesn't give anyone the right to again be on public roads where they're potentially endangering everyone/everything around them.

Just because you don't value life, doesn't mean everyone else thinks the same as you.

[Chernoby1]

That doesn't give anyone the right to again be on public roads where they're potentially endangering everyone/everything around them.

Just because you don't value life, doesn't mean everyone else thinks the same as you.

And im saying you or anyone else dont have the right tell me what is acceptable/not... so yes, im saying all laws are bogus and that everyone has the right to do everything.
Just because the majority believe something (eg. life is valuable) doesnt mean it is right.... The majority of people thought the earth was flat and they were wrong no?

I will only accept something that is universal. Even if it is true in 99.99% of cases, i wont accept it. The fact i am ABLE to disagree on a topic means that neither standpoint is correct. (i am not able to disagree on running stretched tyres being more dangerous, only the results of that danger; hence the truth is, runing stretched tyres is more dangerous.)

We have fundamentally different viewpoints that are incompatible, i think this is time to either make a new thread about it or for both(all three) of us to accept it.

What i will not accept is someone else calling someone else stupid, or what they did was wrong whne its a completely subjective topic... ie that Danger is bad; think for a moment of the good points of danger before responding with something like "nah mate, id like to live in a world with 0 risk, where nobody dies and there is nothing to do". sounds more like hell to me, An eternity of pointlessness.

[lolmclol]

And im saying you or anyone else dont have the right tell me what is acceptable/not... so yes, im saying all laws are bogus and that everyone has the right to do everything.
Just because the majority believe something (eg. life is valuable) doesnt mean it is right.... The majority of people thought the earth was flat and they were wrong no?

I will only accept something that is universal. Even if it is true in 99.99% of cases, i wont accept it. The fact i am ABLE to disagree on a topic means that neither standpoint is correct. (i am not able to disagree on running stretched tyres being more dangerous, only the results of that danger; hence the truth is, runing stretched tyres is more dangerous.)

We have fundamentally different viewpoints that are incompatible, i think this is time to either make a new thread about it or for both(all three) of us to accept it.

What i will not accept is someone else calling someone else stupid, or what they did was wrong whne its a completely subjective topic... ie that Danger is bad; think for a moment of the good points of danger before responding with something like "nah mate, id like to live in a world with 0 risk, where nobody dies and there is nothing to do". sounds more like hell to me, An eternity of pointlessness.

I'm not willing to accept a narrow-minded view that the public should be at risk because someone such as yourself wishes to run their vehicle in a manner which is potentially endangering everyone/everything around them.

But I won't be replying to you anymore, you're either a troll, or someone who is incredibly self-absorbed, self-centred and a menace to those whom are unfortunate enough to be in the same vicinity as yourself.

[Jasemas]

That doesn't give anyone the right to again be on public roads where they're potentially endangering everyone/everything around them.

Just because you don't value life, doesn't mean everyone else thinks the same as you.

Good guy mc

[Jasemas]

Have you been in a car when the tyre has shredded...? Not cool man
Especially having absurd amounts of stretch

Does that mean this Chernoby1 guy should neck himself? If he doesn't value life...

Tell you what, have a child/son/daughter then come back and say you don't value human life
Because i will hurt anyone that endangers my child

And all you do is want to argue a point - because you can?
/sigh

[Chernoby1]

I'm not willing to accept a narrow-minded view that the public should be at risk because someone such as yourself wishes to run their vehicle in a manner which is potentially endangering everyone/everything around them.

But I won't be replying to you anymore, you're either a troll, or someone who is incredibly self-absorbed, self-centred and a menace to those whom are unfortunate enough to be in the same vicinity as yourself.

Im saying that thy should have the option to potentially endanger everyone/everything around them, BUT i would much prefer them not to. I call it "trusting humanity"
And dont assume i would actually DO the things that i am arguing for others to have the freedom of doing: If i defend the right of people to be gay, that doesnt mean im gay myself now does it.
I hope you can understand my view point but if you cant, theres no point responding. The only reason i am responding is to try and clear up some confusion you have about me.

Have you been in a car when the tyre has shredded...? Not cool man
Especially having absurd amounts of stretch

Does that mean this Chernoby1 guy should neck himself? If he doesn't value life...

Tell you what, have a child/son/daughter then come back and say you don't value human life
Because i will hurt anyone that endangers my child

And all you do is want to argue a point - because you can?
/sigh

Never been in a car thats shredded a tire, but have been in many that have had them go pop (while overseas mainly on shitty roads, third world spec)

And trust me, ive considered suicide many times but it is just as pointless as living. The difference is that maybe i am wrong (and i am hoping i am), but there is no way to come back from the dead so not worth that risk. (If you havent guessed it, i value meaning and freedom most, survival is minimal.. unless it is a part of meaning).

The kid thing, nope, never had a kid. Never really had a pet or tbh anyone/thing ive ever been comfortable enough with to even share emotions with (family included). I agree completely that having a kid or basically anyone i care about would change my perspective of life and would go so far as to say i crave such intimacy... but even when people do want to, i never am able to let them in (im not 'loner', but i keep everyone/thing at arms length). If youre wondering why, it's because i know/believe it will be detrimental to their life and/or happiness if i was to become a 'central role'.

As for arguing, i do it to learn and am hoping that one day someone will able to show me why my beliefs are wrong. I will take any opportunity to challenge my beliefs regardless how unrelated it might seem on the surface (youd be surprised how many problems are fundementally the same 'issue')

[Super-DA9]

So anyway back to tyres

[Chernoby1]

Hahaha appropriate face is appropriate.
I think the OP got the message as did *most* other people

[Daveho1]

And im saying you or anyone else dont have the right tell me what is acceptable/not... so yes, im saying all laws are bogus and that everyone has the right to do everything.

a. you dont have a RIGHT to be on the roads, its a privilege..that we all pay for.
b. the government has the right to tell you whats acceptable as part of those licensing conditions.
c. i think we watch to much American tv where everyone has the right to talk like an idiot, be wrong, have guns etc etc because its protected by thier constitution but in Australia we dont operate under the U.S constitution so here you dont have the RIGHT to say/do what you want to the same degree, we just alow people to be idiotic cause we are nice.

d. interestingly enough the hypothetical man in a dress you brought up before has every right to be in the dress, op however dosnt have the right to endanger the rest of us with your car.

[lolmclol]

You must buy Daveho1 a drink before groping his anoose again.

[Daveho1]

potatoes aye

[Chernoby1]

Clearly you ave misunderstood what i am saying. I am suggesting that the entire system is wrong. The law/government/society should not be telling me what is my rights. The fact that they are deciding what my rights are is in my opinion wrong.

a. you dont have a RIGHT to be on the roads, its a privilege..that we all pay for.

In the world im imagining in my head i think that it is wrong of the government to not allow everyone on the roads. I accept that fatalities will go up initially, but i believe that after a few generations, they will start coming down, even without any forms of laws/restrictions.

b. the government has the right to tell you whats acceptable as part of those licensing conditions.

I believe that them telling em what is acceptable and is not is a fundemental breach to my rights, not as an australian raod user;citizen/ect, but as a human being.

c. i think we watch to much American tv where everyone has the right to talk like an idiot, be wrong, have guns etc etc because its protected by thier constitution but in Australia we dont operate under the U.S constitution so here you dont have the RIGHT to say/do what you want to the same degree, we just alow people to be idiotic cause we are nice.

Am well aware of the differences between aus/us but you mentioned something that is an intense issue. I dont hve the right to do something i believe to be correct/fair/just, just because the majority think it is the incorrect thing to do. I think this violates my rights as a human being.

d. interestingly enough the hypothetical man in a dress you brought up before has every right to be in the dress, op however dosnt have the right to endanger the rest of us with your car.

Again, the limitations presented limit my freedoms which, as a human being, i find 'wrong'.

Who has outlined what my rights should be as a human being? Many people. All of thetime. Who is correct? None of them / all of them, my own personal belief is that human rights are decided by each individual person and that many of them will conflict so all of them must be his right. If you are disagreeing with that statement, what you are saying is people should not have the freedom to think different and that people should be punished for thought crimes.