Torillian said:
Apologies for how pedantic this point is going to be, but my "ears" perked up when I read this as a biochemist. What you stated was true for carbon dioxide (the stuff you breath out) as the only danger from that is that oxygen gets displaced, but carbon monoxide is actually more deadly than that. It's thought to be related to CO binding heme rather tightly. Originally this was assumed to be because CO replaced O2 in one's blood, but some studies on dogs (obviously before this was deemed no cool) showed that you could replace a dog's blood with 80% CO bound blood and they could survive, but if their blood become 20-30% CO bound from CO they are breathing they'll die. Now it's hypothesized that CO binds other important heme proteins like cytochromes and myoglobin. Here's a study that references the dog study if anyone is curious (it's surprisingly difficult to get the dog study itself as its from a smaller journal and published in 1975: https://bmcvetres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12917-018-1385-4 |
It's also true for Carbon Monoxide, that it displaces oxygen in a room, hence why we wear breathing apparatus, the other aspects you pointed out is true as well.
Biology isn't exactly a strong point for me, even if I am a Hazmat operator, so I will take your word for it. :P
| Azzanation said: and I guess we are at a disagreement here. Just so you know I have been a mechanic for majority of my life and cars use to be my thing every day. Just so you know I have been a mechanic for majority of my life and cars use to be my thing every day. |
You can disagree all you want... I am speaking from a highly educated perspective, you can choose to ignore it if you so wish, but with all due respect... That is appealing to ignorance logical fallacy.
A mechanic doesn't deal with road crash at a technical level like a road crash technician, it's as simple as that, you are going to need better credentials.
| Azzanation said: I will say this, Australia is a peaceful country but its not because we removed guns in my opinion, its because the Australian culture is just simply different. We still banned video games and heavily censored them in the 90s and early 2000s even after banning guns, because why not, we took guns away, why not take everything else that can be assumed deadly for the public as well. |
So unless you can remove all crime, guns shouldn't be banned? That is silly reasoning.
You introduce laws that target specific problems, because no singular law can solve every problem.
Gun related massacres stopped after we introduced gun legislation, that's hard evidence you cannot refute, it's proven to work.
| Azzanation said: The USA is ran completely different, the public have a lot more freedom and less monetisation than Australia.. for what we know of anyway with the insane amount of restrictions we have here. |
What do you mean less monetization?
And again... I have already provided evidence that Australia is extremely free, even more-so in many aspects than the USA...
| Azzanation said: I just wanted to add, there are two ways on lowering a car, there's professionally and unprofessionally. We use to get a bunch of P platers come in every week wanting there springs cut because they wanted a low car, sure I 100% agree that caused strain on the chassis and wheels etc. However a professionally lowering on a car includes supporting the chassis with minimal wear and tear and allowing the car to have increased handling and traction without much flaws. |
Great, you recognize that it can negatively impact steering and breaking.
| Azzanation said: Yes I will agree when it comes to head on collisions it will affect the impact however its a two way street here too. Where you fail in one aspect you gain in another. Even when cars have head on collisions it still doesn't always end well regardless of your cars height, its just more of a slighter chance you will survive obviously depending on the accident at hand. That will always differ because each accident is different to the other. However with a professionally lower car you add more traction and wheel grip to avoid other kind of accidents etc. But the government choose to take that away because well.. back to my original point. |
Well no. We need to harken back to the example I provided about trucks, you haven't refuted that.
Yes each accident is different, but that is why there are "tolerances" in design codes to account for that, modifying a vehicle undermines all of that.
In saying that... When it comes to road crashes, there are usually a limited number of causes, more often than not it's drivers at fault, but the mechanical issues do occur, more so in heavier vehicles or cars which have been modded from it's original intended design.
Even with a professionally lowered car, the physics of the vehicles handling is changed, it's tolerances are changed, wear and tear on certain components are changed...
| Azzanation said: I also ride a motorbike and the face shield on a helmet is considered the same as a car's windscreen. We accept we are not allowed to tint the front windscreens on our cars black, same would go for bike helmets as well otherwise it would be dumb as you need to see in front of you at all times. I 100% agree with that but disagree with the tinting of the sides and rear windows. People just are not allowed to have privacy it seems. |
Driving is a privilege, not a right. Don't like the rules? Don't drive.
If you want privacy? Stay at home and don't go out in public in the first place.
The rules are there for safety, not for simply making peoples lives more difficult.
| Azzanation said: Your last point is spot on, that is also a universal point you make. Same can be said the other way around. Anyway, lets just agree to disagree. Again no disrespect just my point of view on the topic at hand. |
I am not debating with you to change your mind, clearly that isn't going to happen even with evidence provided for certain contentious points that you have chosen to ignore. (I.E. Freedom.)
Agree to disagree is usually brought up as one individual is tired of debating or can't really refute the other persons perspective, so it's a way to save face.
I am doing it for others who may be browsing this thread, they get to learn a thing or two.
| VAMatt said: Pemalite..... You really need to step back, read what you wrote, and think about how you became such an apologist for the state. I'm not trying to talk shit here, really. It's not meant as personal attack. I truly think you should try to look as objectively as possible at your words and think about what they really are saying You're in here arguing that laws about window tint aren't an example of government control, and saying stuff like "don't break the law and you're fine'. That's some Orwellian stuff right there. |
Apologist for the state? No. I have already established that some laws introduced by the state were bullshit. (Loud Exhausts.)
The other points I am speaking from experience and as a trained professional... At the end of the day, I am the one who goes out to a vehicle crash to cut you out, I am the one who jumps on a boat to search for you floating in the middle of the ocean once your boat has sunk and your EPIRB has activated, I am the one who scales down the side of a cliff-face to rescue you from the bottom of a cliff, I am the one who runs inside a burning building to drag your children out.
I have actually been to vehicle accidents where a driver "didn't see" an oncoming vehicle at night because the side window tints were far to dark, that isn't being a state-government apologist... That is someone who has seen first hand why these laws exists.
If you are whinging about being fined for breaking a law... The solution is simple, conform to your laws.
If you believe the laws are incorrect, then petition your council/member of parliament etc' and try to enact change with your own view, it's the appropriate process.
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
