Well yes you did miss my point, tiger, as only now are you arguing against what I said

ANY opinion anyone has, any utterance of logic ever spoken has assumptions in it if deconstructed and probed enough. To say logic is free or independant of assumption is simply wrong. For example .. every hypothesis and theory in science has a list of assumptions associated with it. Science is only a latin word for knowledge - something based on rationale and logic. As the very great Richard Feynman once said, "In general we look for a new law by the following process: first we guess it..."

Anyway, my logical trail of thought filled with assumptions ..

1.) I'm saying people feel safer inside an airbag filled metal box than on top of one. That is one assumption that seems quite logical to me. Another assumption I have made is that a typical person is aware that drinking alcohol inhibits their ability to drive a vehicle. Another fairly logical assumption I feel. Coupling these two assumptions to the assumption that a typical person is concerned with self-preservation - I have concluded that those that drive motorbikes drink less alcohol than those that drive cars before getting into or on top of their vehicle, etc. I have come to a logical conclusion based on 3 logical assumptions. Of course, if you're from a different world those assumptions may be wrong .. but in the western world I feel they stand well. Feel free to disagree.

2.) I have assumed that if a non-alcoholic is exposed to less alcohol on a day to day basis, they have less chance of becoming addicted to the substance. I am aware that there are more factors to consider in what leads to alcoholism other than daily consumption (genetics, upbringing, social environment) .. it is both a mental and physical disease. But it is well established in research that the more alcohol a person drinks the more physically dependant they become on it. I'm sure there's a shit load of assumptions in that research too , but through the scientific method, through tremendous peer review before recognition as a theory instead of hypothesis ... I am assuming that the conclusion from that research is sound. But lets not get into an argument about the philosophy of science.

Now coupling these two conclusions leads me to believe motorcyclists are less prone to alcoholism than car drivers . If you've spotted some lack of logic anywhere in that feel free to shout!

I don't suppose we can get back on topic? Start your IQ thread elsewhere .. I only mentioned mine because it ticks me off when someone starts ridiculing someone they know very little about .. they start throwing weak assumptions out there when it's likely that a fair chunk of the people that they are ridiculing for their intellect are more intelligent than they are.