Re: Lamps and brakes

Alan Braggins wrote:

>>> Cyclepaths contain junctions.

>> X contains Y, therefore Y is X??

> That's nonsense.

Damn tootin' right it is!


>> What is this idiotic nonsense?
>
> If you realize it's nonsense, why bring it up? It's not as if Tony
> suggested Cyclepaths _are_ junctions.

No, the suggestion was the converse, that junctions are cyclepaths. Rather,
the glib statement, 'roads are safer than cycle paths' was proferred, and
after some to-ing and fro-ing, it turns out that roads are safer than the
junctions between cycle paths and roads. Ergo, the original reference,
'cycle paths' didn't actually refer to cycle paths in their entirety, but to
the few metres cycle paths that interface with roads. In seeking to justify
this, the earlier argument was presented - in other words, it's okay to use
the term 'cycle paths' to refer to the junctions between same and roads,
because cycle paths *contain* junctions. The structure of the argument is
essentially...

X contains Y, therefore Y is X

....which has got to be the biggest pile of *** this side of the Coca Cola
mountains.


>> Do you think junctions are the same thing as cycle paths?

> I'm boggled that you could even think that was a possibility.

I can assure you that I think no such thing. Tony and Guy, however, seem
quite willing to use this notion. I asked the question nthe hope of getting
a straight answer - to see if the clear implication of the justification
(cycle paths contain junctions) is something that they/he would baldly state
outright.

Here it is in another form...

Cycle paths contain junctions.
The junctions are more dangersous than roads.
Therefore, cycle paths (unqualified - ie, in their entirety) are more
dangerous than roads.

Another interesting aspect of this third rate pile of pish...

The junctions are between roads and cycle paths. *At the junctions*, okay?
If a junction between a road and a cycle path can be called 'a cycle path',
then it must surely be the case that it can also be called 'a road'. The
stats for accidents at junctions are thereby unclassifiable in terms of them
being on either a cycle path or a road, and thus cannot be admitted in
either category.


> Even if you don't understand the difference between "is" and
> "contains", have you never encountered a road junction?

Of course I have. Maybe you should re-read the thread - you don't seem to be
sure of who is trying to say what.


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk


.

Loading