So, you've said it's absurd to wear protective equipment in case you crash and when challenged you agree that protective equipment may sometimes be warranted, yet you call the poster who pointed it out a dipshit..... Tribike53 made a pertinent and logically consistent point. He's not the dipshit.

Risk is usually assessed by considering both the probability of something happening and the severity of the consequences if it does. Both are a spectrum. After you've assessed the risk, there's still a decision to be made about what mitigation you think is worthwhile. People vary greatly in both their realism when assessing risk and their willingness to tolerate said risk.
Your willingness to wear a helmet demonstrates you know a crash and injury is possible. So all that's up for debate is what mitigation is warranted. You seem to think it's reasonable to simply say your head matters, the skin on your hands doesn't and anyone thinking differently is an idiot. That's really ignorant and utterly misses the other poster's valid point.

Given the quality of your argument, your assessment might be called into question. Most of us use hands to type posts to ST, but do we all use our brain? ;)