Lohnes, REMOVE That Video!

[squirrel]

Really?

[Beagle]

Those guys were racing? I've seen 12 year olds drive trucks like that much better.



just looking for an excuse to post that. Or THIS which I like. They could have done the Lego version of destruct-o-truck!



It could be worse.. they could have done an LS swap into them first. haha.

[38P]

If the cars were not racing, they wouldn't get destroyed. They were intentionally placed in a risky situation. That should be pretty obvious just from looking at the safety equipment installed on the race cars.

You're seriously trying to compare, let's say Wal-mart mogul Rob Walton "risking" his 1-of-6 Shelby Cobra Daytona Coupe in the Monterey Historics with those barley-pop swilling yahoos bashing antique grain trucks in that insipid video?

Obviously, all motorsports has some element of risk. And it would be a really sad day if Rob were to go off at the Corkscrew and wreck that irreplaceable Daytona. But the organizers and the competitors do everything humanly possible to make sure that won't happen. Contact in a vintage race is severely disciplined. That's because the competitors are all also conservators. They realize they are only temporary caretakers of these historic cars . . . even the relatively cheap and common ones.

And it's not just about the monetary value of the race cars. A Spridget is a cheap and relatively common sports car, but you wreck one in a vintage race and its punished just as if you'd have hit a $52 million Ferrari GTO.

The grain truck people are racing with the clear and present intent to destroy as much equipment as possible. Accidents are not regrettable to them . . . they're part of the "show." In other words, they're not accidental! They seem to intend to create as much vehicular mayhem as possible. They are not preservationists, conservators, or caretakers. They don't care about whether or not any of their machines are available to future generations. It's their antique and they'll vandalize it if they want to.

Sorry that you're not seeing the difference.

[38P]

you can't reason with a troll Jim....

If you don't have anything useful to add to the discussion, at least try to keep the ad hominem quips to yourself.

[38P]

It could be worse.. they could have done an LS swap into them first. haha.

Yuk, Yuk, Yuk. You almost always can undo an engine swap, so that's hardly worse than vandalism-as-sport.

Perhaps all this is "Pearls before swine" as they say . . . .

[JOES66FURY]

If you don't have anything useful to add to the discussion, at least try to keep the ad hominem quips to yourself.

Its a public forum douchebag...I can pretty much say or add any damn thing I want...troll...Are you gonna bash me with your big fancy words,...give me a good keyboard warrior lashing with long boring paragraphs so my feelings get hurt and I lose sleep...please.

you're a troll, you know it, I know it and everyone else here knows it.

[NewEnglandRaceFan]

Red herring! Nobody is arguing the lawfulness of vandalizing your own antiques. But just because one lawfully can do something stupid doesn't mean that the community or the media ought to be celebrating it or promoting it.

you took your mustang on drag week.. and beat on it.. and if I remember correctly was going to or did use happy gas..
sorry.. some could say the same about drag racing a vehicle. or road racing it. or .well you name it..
it's not your's to say they can't or shouldn't do as they please.. nor is it a crime to show a video of it.. if you don't like the idea.. don't do it.. and then don't watch it.. that's the beauty of this land of ours.. you are free to do as you wish.. and no one forces you to watch something you don't want to see..
do I like see'n a 70 chevelle getting balled up on a dragstrip wall.. nope but it's not my car. and the owner is ENJOYING IT..
he/she might not enjoy wrecking it, but they enjoyed using it as THEY SAW FIT...same with the video in question.. no matter what others think..

[squirrel]

You're seriously trying to compare, let's say Wal-mart mogul Rob Walton "risking" his 1-of-6 Shelby Cobra Daytona Coupe in the Monterey Historics with those barley-pop swilling yahoos bashing antique grain trucks in that insipid video?

Nope. I'm comparing the typical race incident video to a grain truck racing video.

Hyperbole will get you nowhere.

[squirrel]

If you don't have anything useful to add to the discussion, at least try to keep the ad hominem quips to yourself.

If you think his description of you as a troll is an ad homenim attack, then you might want to quit trolling.

[38P]

everyone else here knows it.

I'm confused . . . I thought that SBG was the designated spokesperson for "everyone." Are you a "sockpuppet?"

[JOES66FURY]

For those who arent as polished as the outsider...


ad homenim

1. appealing to emotions: appealing to people's emotions and prejudices instead of their ability to think

[38P]

Nope. I'm comparing the typical race incident video to a grain truck racing video.

Hyperbole will get you nowhere.

Jim punts . . .

[squirrel]

Not a punt...a gotcha.

[38P]

For those who arent as polished as the outsider...


ad homenim

1. appealing to emotions: appealing to people's emotions and prejudices instead of their ability to think

You left out the second part of the definition (presumably because it's actually descriptive of what some on here repeatedly do)

2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1.Person A makes claim X.
2.Person B makes an attack on person A.
3.Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...d-hominem.html

[38P]

Not a punt...a gotcha.

No, it's a punt, because it's not remotely responsive to the main point of the comparison . . . that there are qualitative differences in types of races turning on the intent of the parties to tear up their stuff . . . and the precautions taken against pointless carnage.