Snowmobile Clothing & Helmets

Nov 18

Helmet Snell

Tags

art atv bike black never boots camping clothes clothing design fashion gear gloves goggles helmet helmets inspiration jacket jackets mask mens motocross motorcycle motorcycles outdoor outdoors pants parts photo photography polaris portfolio shopping ski ski doo snow snowmobile snowmobile apparel Snowmobile Boots snowmobile helmets Snowmobile Jackets tools video web2.0 webdesign winter

One response so far

One Response to “Helmet Snell”

1. # goldironon 27 Dec 2010 at 9:43 am

   Dear Still Alive,

   Author : Still Alive (IP: 99.29.238.33 , adsl-99-29-238-33.dsl.pltn13.sbcglobal.net)
   E-mail :
   URL :
   Whois :

   Normally, I would afford all comments to pass without interjection. Yours was pathetic and pithy. I shall raise an objection to your rationale, logic and understanding of the constitution.

   “These bikers are idiots, through and through.”
   Which bikers are idiots? Let's use names if you are calling individuals out. (Makings of a keyboard commando toughing up. Let's see all of the flex.)

   “What’s worse, I’ll bet they rode bikes with loud pipes that annoy everyone around them.”
   I wonder if you are right? It would seem odd that the multitude of Police used in the stop and citation in a school zone would not have issued a citation for the loud pipes that you have bet on. (As unfactual and weak as your argument is so far, I wonder if you would bet anything, much less your life upon this. So, I am guessing that you are just kidding because you aren't prone to sucker bets are you?)

   “If you don’t want to wear a helmet, then sign a release of liability for both your insurance company and me as a taxpayer that frees us from the medical bills that you will rack up when you wreck.”
   Let me understand you here. You are suggesting that in your perfect world that any motorcycle rider or passenger that are riding on private or public property, roadway, thoroughfare or off-road operation of a motorcycle must wear a helmet of your approval? Which helmets have you approved thus far? None? You are in good company, DOT does not approve helmets, either. However, you didn't say that. What you said, was really nothing. I know you are a do-gooder and a helmet nazi that uses a shielded address of , you can't save the world nor yourself in this argument.

   You want the motorcyclists to purchase insurance and then agree not to collect on the insurance because of your share of the public burden. I know that the poor Insurance Industry needs extra profits because of the massive contributions made to politicians and the multitude of lobbyists that they must
   employ to to legalize stealing and theft. Afterrall, they are in the business of gambling for a profit and, as such, want to collect premiums without payout if they can help themselves or a shill like yourself.

   Let's say that we are in full agreement with your public burden argument. Why are you willing to pay for the head injuries that occur in crashes in cars? Why are you not insisting that helmets must be worn by persons showering? Certainly you are well enough informed to agree that we should put the blame where the blame is due for the higher amount of head injuries and Traumatic Brain Injury coming from these sources rather than the few from motorcyclists and their passengers. (Oooh, you pathetic pissant, no argument there, is there?)

   Finally, you herald the argument that all the sanctioning bodies for racing require with a “full coverage helmet with Snell or DOT standards testing”. Motorcycling is not racing. Your sanctioning bodies are in the majority covering 4 wheeled vehicles under racing conditions on closed courses. What is so similar about your apples and oranges in the San Jose, CA area?

   Most people don't think in distinct, specific concepts. They “think” (if it can be called that) in vague blobs of mush. They can't follow simple trains of logic, and have a complete lack of what I call “clarity of thought.” For example, my friend just showed me an online poll, asking people whether they thought “healthcare”
   should be considered a “basic human right.” What a fine example of meaningless mush. Similar, I think, to your name calling argument, above.

   Most people answered “yes,” no doubt feeling very compassionate for having done so. Trouble is, none of those “compassionate” people have any idea what a “human right” is. They haven't bothered to THINK about it, because merely FEELING good is enough for them. Had they THOUGHT about it, they might have realized how stupid the question is.

   What most people probably interpreted the question to mean is something like this: “Wouldn't it be nice if everyone got the healthcare they needed?” Well, duh, of course it would. But that wasn't the question. The question is whether the thing called “healthcare” is a basic “human right”–whatever that is. The implication is that if someone doesn't get the healthcare they need, someone's “rights” are being violated.

   Think that example is silly? Yes, it is, but no more silly than asking if healthcare is a “basic human right.” If you hit a deer with your car, out on a country road at night, and careen into a ditch, there's a good chance that you'll be wanting some
   healthcare. So WHO, exactly, would be violating your “basic human right” to such healthcare when you don't get any? (Try suing the deer.) And who has an obligation to supply you with the alleged “basic human right” of healthcare, when no one even knows you're in need of any?

   Sorry for stating the bleeding obvious, but you can't violate someone's “rights” unless you DO something to them. If you torture them, rob them, assault them, or murder them, you may very well be violating their “rights.” In other words, a “right” is a purely NEGATIVE concept: something that should NOT be forcibly interfered with by anyone else. “Rights” aren't a bunch of goodies that someone has to provide for you; they're the things that no one should STOP you from doing yourself. For example:

   1) If you have a right to “freedom of religion,” it means only that no one should forcibly prevent you from practicing the religion of your choice, or force you to practice a religion you don't want to. It does NOT mean that anyone has to make you a church, or listen to you pray, or pray with you.

   2) If you have a right to “freedom of speech,” it means only that no one should forcibly stop you from speaking your mind. It doesn't mean anyone has to give you a stage, a microphone, or an audience.

   3) If you have a right to be free from unreasonable searches, or from being forced to testify against yourself, or from being imprisoned without a trial, or from being tortured–and the list could go on for ages–all it means is that no one should use force to STOP you from exercising your individual liberty.

   So what would it even MEAN to say that “healthcare” is a “basic human right”? It means nothing, and makes no sense. A “right” cannot be something positive; it cannot be some THING that someone else should be FORCED to give you, like a house, or a job, a helmet, or healthcare. To have such a “right” would require that someone else be FORCED to serve you. Unless you think you have the right to enslave others, you can't possibly have the “right” to any service or any product. You have the right to be left alone, and that's all. ALL true rights boil down to that.

   The trouble is, collectivists like to hijack and mangle the concept of “rights,” in order to justify the INITIATION OF VIOLENCE–the exact opposite of what a “right” really is. For example, when people try to pass off “healthcare” as a “human right,” they are advocating the use of state VIOLENCE (via “taxes”) to FORCE some people to serve other people. For example, socialists like Obama
   are pushing a system in which the government can forcibly rob some people, and/or forcibly conscript doctors and nurses, to give out healthcare to other people. They are advocating nothing less than widespread government violence, under the euphemism of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” (Sound familiar?) And they have the audacity to talk about it in terms of “rights.” And the American people are so clueless they actually buy it.

   (Apparently the old world slave-masters just needed better PR guys. Had they managed to pass off “affordable cotton clothing” as a “basic human right,” they might still have those slave plantations.)

   Unfortunately, having been thoroughly indoctrinated for years, most Americans not only believe, but PROUDLY believe, that no one has a right to keep what he himself produces, but that everyone has a “right” to what his NEIGHBOR produces. And it's hard to get any more economically idiotic, morally schizophrenic, and logically insane than that.