Posted on 03/19/2009 11:05:05 AM PDT by JoeProBono
And how is it not the same thing? You really are a jerk, has anybody ever told you that.
It could be, as the photo isn't dated. However, according to the caption, it was taken at Rovaniemi, a town well to the west of the Soviet border which was destroyed by the Nazis during the 1944-45 Lapland War.
But you seem to think that it is entirely proper behavior for you to be on the same slopes with thousands of reckless morons?
To me, that is reckless behavior.
Being in denial about the consequences of an event that will probably not happen isn't reckless.
Protective gear doesn't prevent the incident and if you're truly that concerned then perhaps you should avoid the slopes? The truth is that sport itself is the root of the deaths and injuries, not lack of protective gear.
Epileptic? Recent skull surgery? No matter. It’s nobody’s business.
The first state to pass this will drive MILLIONS of dollars to their neighbors.
Expand that thought:
If we pass it this nonsense nationally, Canada will gladly take our money -
If Canada were to fall on their heads again and pass something like this I’m quite certain Jackson Hole will welcome our socialist brethren to the north with open arms.
All the time.
No. Personal responsibility, not more Nanny BS.
That's a great point. Using a cross-walk instead of jaywalking doesn't prevent a person from being hit by a car. Eating a low-fat diet doesn't prevent heart attacks. Not smoking doesn't prevent lung cancer. Kevlar doesn't prevent soldiers from being shot. Wearing a seatbelt doesn't prevent an automobile accident. Being a good parent doesn't prevent your kid from making bad choices. Posting on FR doesn't prevent your IQ being lowered by reading mindless drivel.
You're a genius! Instead of posting here, you should be telling Obama and Geithner how to fix the world.
Absolutely NO!
Your list of self congratulatory sarcastic responses has nothing to do with what I stated.
Protective gear does not prevent the incident; it may prevent or lesson injuries from the incident but does not prevent the incident.
Using a cross-walk instead of jaywalking doesn't prevent a person from being hit by a car.
No it doesn't but it does put you in a zone to which drivers are supposed to be more alert and yielding to pedestrians.
Eating a low-fat diet doesn't prevent heart attacks.
Not smoking doesn't prevent lung cancer.
Again, you are correct, it doesn't. Lung cancer can occur in nonsmokers. But this has nothing to do with the fact that PPE does not prevent incidents.
Kevlar doesn't prevent soldiers from being shot.
Here you are incorrect and prove my point. Kevlar reduces or eliminates the injury from the bullet but does not prevent the soldier from being shot. A soldier that is shot in the helmet or vest is still shot. Try to convince one otherwise.
Thank you for proving my point that PPE does not prevent the incident, but may prevent or reduce injuries. May.
Wearing a seatbelt doesn't prevent an automobile accident.
You are correct, it doesn't and helps prove my point...protective devices don't prevent the incident, they may prevent or reduce the severity of the injuries resulting from the incident.
Thank you for again proving my point.
Being a good parent doesn't prevent your kid from making bad choices.
Correct and again irrelevant.
Posting on FR doesn't prevent your IQ being lowered by reading mindless drivel.
I read your posts and it was not sufficiently mindless drivel to reduce my IQ a bit.
Something tells me you've been wearing a helmet for most of your life and probably rode in a very special school bus for uniquely abled persons.
That's totally uncalled for.
No self safety device should ever be compulsory. Part of freedom includes risk, the more we demand the government wrap us in nerf the less free we are.
My whole point was to show how obvious your “protective equipment doesn’t prevent the incident” observation really was. It applies to almost everything. The question then is this. Why use PPE at all since it can’t prevent an incident?
You proved my initial point, and you don’t even realize it.
No! (from a life long skier).
Too bad we'll never know for sure, but a helmet would have helped.
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/arts/2009/03/19/2009-03-19_medical_examiner_natasha_richardson_died.html
Tony-winning actress Natasha Richardson was killed by a blunt trauma to the head and her death was ruled an accident, the city Medical Examiner reported Thursday...
So you’re a doctor now? Perhaps you should read the medical examiner’s report.
Michael Kennedy, Sonny Bono, Natasha Richardson all die on the slopes from head trauma. Guess what all three of them had in common?
I don’t agree with legislation mandating the use of helmets, however.
The government has no authority to require helmets to be worn.That has never stopped them in the past but it should have and people should have raised he** about motorcycle helmets and seat belt laws. NO, they should not be forced on to the skiing public. If the skiers want to wear them, great, if not, then great also.
Calling millions of skiers reckless morons was what was uncalled for, but you proved that wearing a helmet doesn't prevent one from being a moron.
Unless, of course, you do consider yourself to be a reckless moron and took offense to me calling you out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.