Dumb Arizona female runner calls out Olympic runner for running with headphones

So you’ve downgraded ‘evidence’ to ‘opinion’. That’s a start at least.

Have you seen how many people wear headphones these days? If there are these thousands of people involved in accidents, then the law of averages dictates that a certain number of them will be wearing headphones. Is that number disproportionately high? By all accounts no, not at all. Can you attribute these accidents specifically to the wearing of heapdhones? Until you can, all you’ve got is your opinion. You’re perfectly entitled to an opinion, but perhaps you should be a little more accepting of those who disagree as you have nothing to disprove them. And have you any idea how ignorant you sound when you refer to all headphone wearers as selfish pricks? Just think about it for a second

So you’ve downgraded ‘evidence’ to ‘opinion’. That’s a start at least.

Not at all, I have STATED my opinion, and I have SUPPORTED it with evidence. You are welcome to ignore my opinion, but in order to say that my opinion is wrong, you need to disprove my evidence.

You are welcome to have a go, but your amigos haven't been at all successful so far.

And have you any idea how ignorant you sound when you refer to all headphone wearers as selfish pricks? Just think about it for a second

Do I sound more or less ignorant than the posters who have been calling me names (rather than disproving my evidence) since the start of this thread?

I've been thinking about it for a lot longer than a second, and I maintain that people who are so ignorant and selfish as to wear headphones in traffic are pricks, end of.

How about you think about it for a minute; never mind statistical significance and all the rest of the gibberish if a headphone-wearing prick causes an accident that kills your kid, will you be so laissez-faire?

What evidence is that, exactly? I can’t disprove evidence if there isn’t any.

And beyond ‘troll’ I can’t see any other names you’ve been called. What did I miss? It seems that if anyone is happy to give underhand insults out, it’s been you. So in short, yes, you do seem more ignorant than them.

As far as your little scenario is concerned, of course I wouldn’t be laissez-faire if my kid was killed, but there are a million and one unlikely scenarios that could cause a fatal accident. We’re talking about a risk (if it is even that) so microscopically small that to be so harsh about EVERYONE who wears headphones near a road is, in my opinion, scaremongering ignorance.

And don’t expect any further response from me. I see how you simply cannot let things go and I don’t have a few days to spare. This is my opinion, you have yours. Goodbye

Where do you draw the line?

Line in the Sand wrote:

Where do YOU draw the line?

GenericID wrote:

So where's the line? How many people have to die before you are convinced?

Aside from that question, the problem is that it isn't just the headphone-wearers who are affected; do you honestly believe that the driver isn't affected in such a collision? Why should a driver, doing nothing wrong, have to be subjected to the trauma of running over another human being, just because that human being is dumb enough to voluntarily act negligently in traffic?

If you can honestly say that running over another human being wouldn't affect you in the slightest, whether or not that other person was at fault, I suggest you need to spend a little more time growing up, and a lot less time posting drivel on here.

What evidence is that, exactly? I can’t disprove evidence if there isn’t any.

I have presented evidence. The idea that you don't recognise the information presented as evidence is irrelevant, because I have also presented several other sources (any and all of which with more credibility than you) who analyse the information exactly the same way I do.

And don’t expect any further response from me. I see how you simply cannot let things go and I don’t have a few days to spare. This is my opinion, you have yours. Goodbye

Why get involved in the first place - you obviously have nothing to offer the debate. BTW, the correct phrasing of the second sentence is "This is my unsupported opinion, and you have yours which is supported by evidence".

BTW, I'll let you go with a little light reading, which may help you to understand WHY your opinion is worse than useless. Ever hear of "optimism bias"?

Where do YOU draw the line?

Line in the Sand wrote:

Where do you draw the line?

Line in the Sand wrote:

Where do YOU draw the line?

I'm starting to think this guy's a troll, and a very good one at that.

Either that or there's a massive disparity between his intelligence and his meta-rationality. See:

http://hanson.gmu.edu/deceive.pdf

He already said earlier that one was too many, so he draws the line at 1.

Line in the Sand wrote:

Where do YOU draw the line?

Line in the Sand wrote:

Where do you draw the line?

Yep, GenericID is a major troll. It kinda sucks, because I really thought that all the "evidence" shtick was for real, and that he'd respond rationally. But it's time to stop feeding him. He has been clearly disproved at this point, so my work here is done.

I'm excited for his next post though, should be a fun one about how he hasn't been disproved, how his (actually unsupported) opinion is good, I falsified numbers, sensationalist news sites support him, ad infinitum. But it's been real.

Evidently Ryan Hall doesn't give a f**k what you anti-headphone nazis have to say.

fofo wrote:

Sounds like she was just hitting on him. Way to go man.

He clearly should have started a thread on letsrun about whether she liked him or not before writing that article.

800 dude wrote:

I'm starting to think this guy's a troll, and a very good one at that.

Either that or there's a massive disparity between his intelligence and his meta-rationality. See:

http://hanson.gmu.edu/deceive.pdf

Nice, an absolutely text-book ad hominem

.

I guess logical fallacy is all you have left.

He has been clearly disproved at this point, so my work here is done.

Wasn't your work "done" 2 pages ago?

The fact that you have to hide behind the skirts of other posters is kind of pathetic, but not surprising.

I'm excited for his next post though, should be a fun one about how he hasn't been disproved, how his (actually unsupported) opinion is good, I falsified numbers, sensationalist news sites support him, ad infinitum.

So, still nothing to back up your made-up numbers then? What a surprise.

But it's been real.

I can't wait for your next post, will it be your new last post? Maybe if somebody else comes a long to take a pop at me you'll work up enough courage for another go.

My friend - you need to get a life.

86 people a day die from gunfire in the U.S. and you worry

about headphones.

elmore345 wrote:

My friend - you need to get a life.

Why are you bumping a random thread from a year ago?

Bump.