Comment by dtj1123
2 days ago
Does that line of reasoning extend to things like fast food and motorcycles in your eyes? Not trying to undermine your point, just genuinely curious.
2 days ago
Does that line of reasoning extend to things like fast food and motorcycles in your eyes? Not trying to undermine your point, just genuinely curious.
I think motorcyclists should pay more for health insurance insurance considering they will use it way more often no matter how well a driver they are, the risks are simply always present.
If they die more often in accidents, and their organs are harvested from that, they should pay less though, right?
I was going to say that but apparently motorcyclists only make up a small percent of organ donation
> things like fast food and motorcycles in your eyes?
motorcycles...? in... my eyes?
What wizardry is this? First "computers in my brain", now this. I'll have the singularity that you're smoking pls :)
EDIT: was at first genuinely confused, and then tickled by my own misunderstanding
'in your view' would probably have been a better choice of words.
I don't see why not. Maybe no need to ban altogether, but a heavy tax on both might be useful. For motorbikes maybe just exclude accidents from coverage.
I guess they aren’t very widespread anymore, but should this cover police who ride motorbikes? Or farm/ranch workers (they might ride ATVs)?
I guess we could do something like:
But I think we will have trouble puzzling out the last term!
One has to draw the line somewhere. What you are doing is called a slippery slope fallacy.
4 replies →
> For motorbikes maybe just exclude accidents from coverage.
From personal experience, this is de-facto true regardless of what anyone thinks the law says.