"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message

No, you're right - those who draw invalid conclusions from
observational studies use them to try to ram through legislation,
whereas I am not trying to compel anyone to do anything beyond think
for themselves.

Ah, but on Usenet, you see that people don't think, they argue, mostly
ineffectively, in an attempt to convince others that whatever behavior they
engage in is right. And unfortunately, as many posts in this thread
demonstrate, they lack the logic skills to convince anyone. Just look at the
posts by Roger and Frank!

The key to defeating MHLs is not to babble like Frank and Roger, it is to
formulate a position based on factual information. You will never convince
politicians to listen to you, as opposed to listening to ER and trauma
physicians, in regards to the statistics on the severity of injuries of
helmeted versus non-helmeted patients; you have no data only speculation.

If you use the personal freedom argument they'll counter with the seat belt
argument. One valid argument is to look at the percentage of catastrophic
head injuries incurred by bicyclists as a percentage of all catastrophic
head injuries, but the MHL people will counter that even if this is true,
any reduction is worth it. The New Zealand statistics regarding reduction of
bicycling after MHL represent a good argument (if they are true).

One good source in learning to argue effectively on Usenet can be found over
at: http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html.