Are cyclist just too superior to keep their masks/buffs on

[PygaSchmyga]

https://community.bikehub.co.za/topic/168504-wtf-csa/page-56?do=findComment&comment=3389852

It just seems in congruent to argue on the one topic that rules and regulations are important only to call for dissent on another.

 

 

This is a big problem with modern discourse - the need to point out apparent inconsistency, and use it as a "GOTCHA", so now everything you say is bollocks.  This is such immature logic and lazy thinking.  Do you have no ability to distinguish between situations/issues - do you have a 100% samesame approach to everything you do?  Its like the political debates in the USA.  Everything is "all or nothing", "with us or against us".  Every situation is different, and needs to be considered on its own merits, and a one-size-fits-all approach is just dumb

[PygaSchmyga]

Let's all be rebels it's the smart thing to do.

I've said it before, critical thinking is uncomfortable, and not for everyone.

[Paul Ruinaard]

This is a lazy argument, and ignores the real point.  The pseudo moral high ground "Think of the children when you buy that next plane ticket man" can be used to to rain judgement on ANY behaviour, if you want to be perfectly righteous.  If, however, you want to try to balance workable solutions that adequately protect society, while at the same time critically considering the laws around you, then sure, you have to get into the weeds.  And THIS is the real point that is being debated.  Responsible, clear thinking citizens have considered SOME of the lockdown regulations, and have decided to ignore them.  If this makes you uncomfortable, then so be it.  I guess you can take the moral high ground because "RULES IS RULES", but society also has critical thinkers that ultimately effect change that benefits everyone

Maybe i am late to the debate but i will say i do agree with your point. 

 

However there are areas where the decision and consequences are more binary i.e. stop/dont stop. 

 

For the other calls that fall in to a greyer area there are a series of guiding principles. 800 years ago it was the bible and the priests. Today its individual choice and what we think is right. Have a read of a book called Homo Deus which i am going through at the moment- some interesting ideas. Also his prior one was Homo Sapiens.

 

We have very little in the way of free choice other than the perception we have it.

Edited June 4, 2020 by Paul Ruinaard

[PygaSchmyga]

Maybe i am late to the debate but i will say i do agree with your point. 

 

However there are areas where the decision and cosnequences are more binary i.e. stop/dont stop. 

 

For the other calls that fall in to a greyer area there are a series of guiding principles. 800 years ago it was the bible and the priests. Today its individual choice and what we think is right. Have a read of a book called Homo DEus which i am going through at the moment- some interetsing ideas. Also his prior one was Homo Sapiens.

 

We have very little in the wya of free choice other than the perception we have it.

ONE HUNDRED CEMENT - St Thomas Aquinas and the concept of Natural Law.  We are DEEP in the grey on this one and some just don't like it.

 

@RiverRat check out:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/mar/05/thomas-aquinas-natural-law

[River Rat]

This is a big problem with modern discourse - the need to point out apparent inconsistency, and use it as a "GOTCHA", so now everything you say is bollocks.  This is such immature logic and lazy thinking.  Do you have no ability to distinguish between situations/issues - do you have a 100% samesame approach to everything you do?  Its like the political debates in the USA.  Everything is "all or nothing", "with us or against us".  Every situation is different, and needs to be considered on its own merits, and a one-size-fits-all approach is just dumb

So let me see if I got this right, I made the point that Diesel was all for the rules when the argument was about whether the CSA deserved our support. There was no lives at risk for most of us on the opposite side of his argument on CSA, it was rather straight forward. He now advocates dissent as if he was born to it in a situation where the consequences of breaking the rules have far more dire consequences and you can't see the difference? So careful with the immature, lazy and dumb comments it is a boomerang that's just hit you in the head.

 

Edited June 4, 2020 by River Rat

[PygaSchmyga]

So let me see if I got this right, I made the point that Diesel was all for the rules when the argument was about whether the CSA deserved our support. There was no lives at risk for most of us on the opposite side of his argument on CSA, it was rather straight forward. He now advocates dissent as if was born to it in a situation where the consequences of breaking the rules have far more dire consequences and you can't see the difference? So careful with the immature, lazy and dumb comments it is a boomerang that's just hit you in the head.

 

Why don't you rather ask him what his reasoning is, than to blandly GOTCHA! him about being APPARENTLY inconsistent?  It SEEMS like you are only interested in exposing his apparent hypocrisy. 

 

And even IF he is 100% inconsistent, hypocritical, call it what you will, so what?  Does your world not allow people to evolve and change their minds over time?

[River Rat]

Why don't you rather ask him what his reasoning is, than to blandly GOTCHA! him about being APPARENTLY inconsistent?  It SEEMS like you are only interested in exposing his apparent hypocrisy. 

 

And even IF he is 100% inconsistent, hypocritical, call it what you will, so what?  Does your world not allow people to evolve and change their minds over time?

I have absolutely no problem if he changed his mind, but I can't see that he has. But there's something really fundamental in arguing in one topic that rules are important and in another that they're not. Unfortunately, hypocrisy and credibility go hand in hand especially when your argument is proposing to be a principled one. That is fundamentally different to saying I hate the rules and I won't abide by them, but his argument and yours for that matter are trying to cast people on my side of the argument as some sort weak individuals that are simply cowering to the demands of an oppressive government. Added to this you attempt to create doubt that we are even capable of critical thought but demand to be treated as an equal when we point out inconsistency and hypocrisy. I'm sorry but you will have to do better than that.

 

[Eldron]

People just didn't pay.  It was the law to pay, but they considered it an unjust and irrational law - don't you get that?  OUTA took over to try to get the law changed. 

 

Exactly! People did nothing. They didn't act. They didn't contact their local politician etc. There were some sporadic protests but by and large the public in general did diddly squat to change the law other than sit on their arses not paying. To claim it as some sort social movement is ridiculous.

 

If OUTA hadn't solved the problem for us it never would have changed.

 

You're still missing the part about social responsibility. I'm all for you breaking laws that you feel are not good enough for you - on condition that your actions don't harm or potentially harm others.

 

Not paying tolls fees? Have at it. Dodging your tax? No problem. Not having a flu or HPV vaccine? Great.

 

Things like not wearing a mask can have devastating consequences to your fellow citizens. Not getting a polio vaccine, driving at 200kph past a nursery school etc also. Do the right thing.

[Jewbacca]

Maybe i am late to the debate but i will say i do agree with your point. 

 

However there are areas where the decision and consequences are more binary i.e. stop/dont stop. 

 

For the other calls that fall in to a greyer area there are a series of guiding principles. 800 years ago it was the bible and the priests. Today its individual choice and what we think is right. Have a read of a book called Homo Deus which i am going through at the moment- some interesting ideas. Also his prior one was Homo Sapiens.

 

We have very little in the way of free choice other than the perception we have it.

Yuval Noah Harari! He is great... Homo Deus is hilarious while at the same time poignant.

 

He has a few other pretty good reads too. He is a fantastic critical thinker. Some of his interviews etc are also worth a watch/listen.

 

(No surprise I'm a fan.... hahaha) 

[DieselnDust]

https://community.bikehub.co.za/topic/168504-wtf-csa/page-56?do=findComment&comment=3389852

It just seems in congruent to argue on the one topic that rules and regulations are important only to call for dissent on another.

 

 

 

 

Ah I see you are arguing that it's a black or white scenario. 

 

Terms and conditions of a license vs laws forced upon you that infringes upon your basic rights.... Not quite the same thing is it.

 

BTW I don't agree with CSA rules around non sanctioned events nor was I advocating that the position is right. I did sketch the thinking of the CSA which is not equal agreeing with them. 

[NickGM]

I've said it before, critical thinking is uncomfortable, and not for everyone.

When it comes to applying critical thought to disregard rules, who gets to decide who is included in the "not for everyone" set? It would be great to leave it up to Darwin, but unfortunately that puts others at risk.

 

I suspect there are far more people that overestimate their ability to do this than underestimate it. All you need to do is look at our attitude toward driving (speed, drinking, mobiles, etc) to see this.

[Fisan]

Those who changed their minds based on any of the arguments presented here please raise your hands... I know I haven't.

 

How can you expect a car or motorist to respect you if you refuse to abide by the laws of the road that are operative. If everyone used your logic no matter what vehicle they were in there would be underlying chaos. The system needs people to subscribe especially as the number of participants gets bigger otherwise chaos results.

 

Do you get indignant when taxis run red lights? What happened if they had "checked" and thought it was safe and took you or your loved ones out? Would you sue them for hopping a red light and would you be happy if their defence in court was a video of you doing the same on your bike that it was a commonly accepted practice?

 

You wnat cars to respect you on your bike behave like a road user that is safe. You behave otherwise you get the same back from them.

 

...

 

#just saying

Thanks your comment was mostly the point I was trying to make: that there are a lot of hypocrisy in this fred re. wearing a mask because it's the law(?). Myself included.

 

There are some good arguments on both sides of the spectrum, especially on why rules should be challenged. But whenever I see Jews, Nazis, Apartheid Sheeple or Bill Gates thrown in the mix it goes out the window.

 

Like my votes and recycling - even if it's just a drop in a bucket (almost literally) I'll wear it.

 

Heck, maybe in 5 years time research will show that it WAS spread by 5G and the mask wearing was all for nothing /s

[DieselnDust]

Let's all be rebels it's the smart thing to do.

 

 

There you go again black or white. Go to youtube and find a guy named Thomas Sowell. Listen to the interviews with this guy. I found him years ago and read his book, Discrimination and Disparities. It's a massive insight into the vast area of grey.

Does require you question your present thinking critically. Approaching it with a black or white perspective won't get you past the introduction. Heavy read but its like opening the Sunroof in a BMW Z4.

[River Rat]

Ah I see you are arguing that it's a black or white scenario. 

 

Terms and conditions of a license vs laws forced upon you that infringes upon your basic rights.... Not quite the same thing is it.

 

BTW I don't agree with CSA rules around non sanctioned events nor was I advocating that the position is right. I did sketch the thinking of the CSA which is not equal agreeing with them.

 

Look it's going to be pointless to go through the CSA argument again.

 

But to the part in bold, many of us are of the view that there are many of the regulations that are irrational and need to be challenged. We are also of the view that wearing a mask is not irrational and it is the right thing to do. Somehow you want to equate doing the right thing as to capitulating to an oppressive government and it isn't.

[dave303e]

your logic encourages blind obedience, and is equally problematic.  There is no substance to your earlier argument that by critically considering laws we will end up in an inevitable societal breakdown.  Quite the opposite, and the e-tolls saga is a perfect example

 

OK E-toll in a perfect world- we all pay, they plough millions into the road network and in 2 years time the whole N1 is a double decker and at 7am on a Monday morning you can do 120kmh from PTA to JHB.

 

E-Toll in SA- money gets stolen, no one pays, and we still stuck with bottlenecks and it takes 90 mins to get 60km on a Monday morning. 

 

Lockdown in a perfect world(NZ) a few weeks everyone obeys the "silly" laws like no surfing or running. Boom ow they have no new cases, their economy is recovering and they are good to carry on without masks and other stupid ****.

 

Lockdown here- Me, me, me, I, I, I, do as we please from ministers down to hobos and now the economy is poked, the disease runs rampant and we are going to deal with this until a vaccine is out.

 

Great stuff, it is a bit like masturbation- some short term satisfaction but the end of the day you are just F***** yourself...

 

Edit typos**

Edited June 4, 2020 by dave303e

[Blokman]

OK E-toll in a perfect world- we all pay, they plough millions into the road network and in 2 years time the whole N1 is a double decker and at 7am on a Monday morning you can do 120kmh from PTA to JHB.

 

E-Toll in SA- money gets stolen, no one pays, and we still stuck with bottlenecks and it takes 90 mins to get 60km on a Monday morning. 

 

Lockdown in a perfect world(NZ) a few weeks everyone obeys the "silly" laws like no surfing or running. Boom ow they have no new cases, their economy is recovering and they are good to carry on without masks and other stupid ****.

 

Lockdown here- Me, me, me, I, I, I, do as we please from ministers down to hobos and now the economy is poked, the disease runs rampant and we are going to deal with this until a vaccine is out.

 

Great stuff, it is a bit like masturbation- some short term satisfaction but the end of the day you are just F***** yourself...

 

Edit typos**

Only on very short rides.