Re:Federal safety agency launches probe of Tesla battery fires
by jhayward on Wednesday November 27, 2019 @04:09PM
(#21652165)
Ok, I provided one example. It's on you to prove the point then. Please provide relevant facts proving your case. Prove my point is wrong.
Oh, and the majority of present-day ignitions in automobiles are still the exact same mechanical interlock switching types used since the 60's. Higher-end vehicles have solid state switching, but it's not the majority of vehicles.
Also:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/bmw-recalls-million-vehicles-fire-...
Re:Federal safety agency launches probe of Tesla battery fires
by OnlineGladiator on Wednesday November 27, 2019 @04:17PM
(#21652217)
You made a claim, not me. I just said your argument is flawed. I didn't say you're wrong - I believe you're probably right. But you didn't actually provide any data for your claim.
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFalla...
Re:Federal safety agency launches probe of Tesla battery fires
by jhayward on Wednesday November 27, 2019 @04:20PM
(#21652234)
Perhaps you could contribute positively to the discussion rather than just taking badly aimed potshots. You objected, you do better.
Re:Federal safety agency launches probe of Tesla battery fires
by OnlineGladiator on Wednesday November 27, 2019 @04:28PM
(#21652296)
I consider criticizing an argument to be a contribution - I did not even say you are wrong. It seems you want me to provide a clearly detailed argument for why you are wrong, but I don't have that because I don't even believe you are wrong. I haven't looked at the data - I just looked at your argument.
Anyway, agree to disagree I guess.
How many modern vehicles spontaneously burst into flame? I could easily believe it's orders of magnitude larger than for Teslas, but when you make comparisons like you did it just discredits your entire argument.