He also never said we should not have helmet laws.

This is his MO:   (1) don't commit to either side;  (2) lecture in favor of on the side that's opposite what the majority thinks -- state why it's wrong to be on the majority                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              side; (3) argue no matter which side someone you're arguing with takes.

Simple

Not sure why objectivity is such a foreign concept to you. Maybe it is due to your need to argue with anything I say? It wouldn't matter which side I argue for anyway, you would take a contrary position just to argue. You couldn't even address my point directly, you had to make it personal.

Not everything needs a committed position and even then I can have a committed position and still recognize the strong arguments on the other side of my position. Maybe stop jumping to the conclusion that just because I recognize the arguments of the other side I am on that side or undecided.

Not sure why objectivity is such a foreign concept to you. Maybe it is due to your need to argue with anything I say? It wouldn't matter which side I argue for anyway, you would take a contrary position just to argue. You couldn't even address my point directly, you had to make it personal.

Not everything needs a committed position and even then I can have a committed position and still recognize the strong arguments on the other side of my position. Maybe stop jumping to the conclusion that just because I recognize the arguments of the other side I am on that side or undecided.

An objective person would state their objective opinion.  That's not you.  If you can't form an opinion, then apparently your objectivity is very limited to just arguing with no purpose in mind.

An objective person would state their objective opinion. 

Wrong. A good reporter gives you the facts of a story without weighing in on the issue. If a war correspondent reported finding 20 bodies from a genocide grave but doesn't say "genocide is bad" in their story do you conclude they have no opinion or are not being objective?

If you can't form an opinion, then apparently your objectivity is very limited to just arguing with no purpose in mind.

Recognizing both sides of an issue is its own purpose.

Here is a novel thought, if you actually wanted my opinion on the issue, why not just ask? Instead you assume I have no opinion and then proceed to argue three pages over your silly assumption.

Wrong. A good reporter gives you the facts of a story without weighing in on the issue. If a war correspondent reported finding 20 bodies from a genocide grave but doesn't say "genocide is bad" in their story do you conclude they have no opinion or are not being objective?

Recognizing both sides of an issue is its own purpose.

Here is a novel thought, if you actually wanted my opinion on the issue, why not just ask? Instead you assume I have no opinion and then proceed to argue three pages over your silly assumption.

Are you a reporter?  We know what you're not and that's HPD as you've never confirmed it.

Are you a reporter?  We know what you're not and that's HPD as you've never confirmed it.

Is that your best argument? A suggestion that unless I am a professional reporter I am unable to understand basic journalistic objectivity?

I'll remember next time you complain about a biased media and point out that you aren't a reporter...

Is that your best argument? A suggestion that unless I am a professional reporter I am unable to understand basic journalistic objectivity?

I'll remember next time you complain about a biased media and point out that you aren't a reporter...

SWOOOOOSSSHHHHHHHH

They should pass helmet laws for newborns because it sounds like someone got dropped when they were delivered.

They should pass helmet laws for newborns because it sounds like someone got dropped when they were delivered.

They didn't have one in his size.