OWS: Justification - Page 13 - Snowboarding Forum - Snowboard Enthusiast Forums
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-28-2011, 09:27 PM   #121 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
HoboMaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 2,314
Default

Having debates with Cheese would be so much easier if he would just stop talking like a Theoretical Physicist. I guess he's an engineer, can't blame him too much....
__________________
PowderHound and TreeNinja
HoboMaster is offline  
Old 10-28-2011, 09:35 PM   #122 (permalink)
With extra cheese.
 
CheeseForSteeze's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,750
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Outlander View Post
Just because I state an opinion based on my observations and perceptions does not mean I am "all butt hurt" I find your tone here insulting.
Sorry, but you seemed rather upset that I hadn't watched the videos yet. I planned to this weekend when I had time.

Quote:
Bottom line on this is we have some very fundamental differences in opinion regarding regulation. We can keep going back and forth, parsing each other`s words for ever and in the end it is not going to change either of our opinions. I strongly believe that my position is correct and that yours is not. You obviously feel as strongly the other way. If we were actually in the position to create a solution, each would have to give some ground to reach the middle where a workable compromise was attainable. I have given you plenty of that ground and credited you where your points made sense. You on the other hand stubbornly refuse to accept the possibility that my position has any merit to it. This is no longer a conversation but rather a long winded version of "I`m right your wrong" and has outlived its usefulness.
To the contrary, I have granted you regulatory measures do serve the functions are you suggesting you do. My main concern with this is that necessity of regulatory mandate supplanting people from performing their due diligence themselves which creates a positive feedback mechanism as well as the lack of oversight as to how burdensome and unintelligible the language and volume of regulatory guidelines becomes. It wouldn't be a problem if regulatory administrations would have been implemented in a manner consistent with The Constitution. It would have made the deployment of such agencies more thoughtful, deliberate and precise.

Quote:
As to the videos I posted, they are Discovery Channel shows that would only really interest people who are interested in aviation, so watch if you like or don`t. In the ones that I selected, there is glaring evidence to support my assertions that if left unregulated, industry does not serve the interests of their customers or the general public. I am not convinced that your theories would not make this situation significantly worse. You are entitled to those views but I am thankful that those views are not supported by the majority and therefore have little chance to see the light of day in practice.
I do intend to watch them. I took several courses in compressible fluid mechanics which are critical to the design of objects traveling at near sonic or supersonic velocities. So it's is a pet hobby interest of mine, at some level.

Quote:
Now, as to the original topic of this thread that we have both strayed way away from, hopefully, you can see how strongly people feel about the direction that business interests have taken and how the masses are feeling increasingly disenfranchised and cheated. Whether you share that belief or not is unimportant; what is important is that more and more people do in fact feel this way and that is why you are seeing these protests against Wall Street.
Of course, they have every right to feel cheated. However, when dealing with business regulations we also have the luxury that errors made oftentimes don't have fatal results. I understand they feel this way; I think most people do. But there is a divide in the movement itself and no clear understanding of what they want and more critically, how they are going to achieve it. We have to understand how the mechanism works before we can deconstruct it.

Quote:
The people are not buying these tired, old "free market" theories any more and at some point, change is inevitable. The Reagan-esque idea that reducing government to the point that you could drown it in a bathtub, will make the lives of Americans better is disproven. No one, except a tiny minority of "fiscal conservatives" (hope that is not too strong a label for you) believe that theory any longer. The change that is coming can be in the form of peaceful compromise if the rich and powerful accept the fact that there are societal limits and they must work within those limits or suffer the consequences. If they do not soften their position and remain as steadfastly stubborn in their pursuit of wealth at any cost; totally disenfranchising the majority as they have been, that change is going to involve violence.
What limits? This is a point of contention that I've asked numerous people (not necessarily here, but in general) and no one seems to know how to answer it. What are we trying to improve? Their quality of life? The ratio of wealth distribution? One doesn't require the change of the other.

In addition, it's a fallacy that people commonly attribute anything in the last 100 years (and more) as free market as we've had business interest protection rackets imposed by the Governmeent in the form of subsidies, protectionist tariff policies and punitive measures.

Quote:
Ultimately it will be the fault of these elites because they are the only party in this who have room to move. The people have their backs against a wall. If these business interests keep pushing, there will be another bloody revolution in this country. People can spout conservative economic theory all they want; they can proclaim the "correctness" of it all. But, in the end that does not matter. The people will ultimately force the changes that they desire and in the end, those who do not go with these changes will be swept away by it. You might reject this move toward "socialism" as you see it, but in the end it will come down to a case of "deal with it". Universal health care, living wage, and all of these demands that the OWS crowd are demanding, will, eventually become reality. It might not all happen in out lifetimes, but this change is going to eventually happen and nothing you or I can do will stop that, not that I really want to stop it...
They need to decide precisely what it is they want, first. And I don't mean in the sense they are presenting their case right now. It's akin to that episode of South Park where Canada went on strike because they wanted "more money".
CheeseForSteeze is offline  
Old 10-29-2011, 12:24 AM   #123 (permalink)
Outlander
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CheeseForSteeze View Post
Sorry, but you seemed rather upset that I hadn't watched the videos yet. I planned to this weekend when I had time.
I was not upset, pissed or even irritated. Sorry if I came across that way; it was unintentional. I will admit to feeling like you were unwilling to honestly try to understand some of the basis for my logic in this matter and that feeling may have given my words an unintended tone.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CheeseForSteeze View Post
To the contrary, I have granted you regulatory measures do serve the functions are you suggesting you do. My main concern with this is that necessity of regulatory mandate supplanting people from performing their due diligence themselves which creates a positive feedback mechanism as well as the lack of oversight as to how burdensome and unintelligible the language and volume of regulatory guidelines becomes. It wouldn't be a problem if regulatory administrations would have been implemented in a manner consistent with The Constitution. It would have made the deployment of such agencies more thoughtful, deliberate and precise.
Okay. I can understand that even though I do not share that view.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CheeseForSteeze View Post
I do intend to watch them. I took several courses in compressible fluid mechanics which are critical to the design of objects traveling at near sonic or supersonic velocities. So it's is a pet hobby interest of mine, at some level.
I actually think you would enjoy the series; that is why I posted them partly. Not every episode lambasts corporations; so many of these terrible accidents are simple pilot error. Nonetheless, I think you would find the shows of interest. try a few out; I am curious what you think of them outside the scope of this topic.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CheeseForSteeze View Post
Of course, they have every right to feel cheated. However, when dealing with business regulations we also have the luxury that errors made oftentimes don't have fatal results. I understand they feel this way; I think most people do. But there is a divide in the movement itself and no clear understanding of what they want and more critically, how they are going to achieve it. We have to understand how the mechanism works before we can deconstruct it.
I think any movement in its infancy is naturally going to have splinter factions like we are seeing here. Part of the problem as I see it is people are just now beginning to wake up from the materialistic, media driven consumeristic stupor they have been in for years and are still trying to figure out exactly what is going on. It is going to take time to really organize and focus this effort in a meaningful and effective way. I suspect that is exactly what "the establishment" fears and why they are being so heavy handed with unarmed non violent people.



Quote:
Originally Posted by CheeseForSteeze View Post
What limits? This is a point of contention that I've asked numerous people (not necessarily here, but in general) and no one seems to know how to answer it. What are we trying to improve? Their quality of life? The ratio of wealth distribution? One doesn't require the change of the other.
One problem is there really is no "one size fits all" answer to this. I think the "limits" are defined individually and as such are going to be all over the map. Again, I see this movement as something in its infancy and if allowed to grow, will gain more focus. I do believe that wealth distribution is the focal point and while I understand your point here, I do not necessarily agree with it. At some point, this uneven wealth distribution takes on the air of aristocracy and those shut out of that aristocracy feel that what is keeping them down is the wealth inequality.

Take for example the figures, and I am paraphrasing so don`t hold me to exact accuracies, of wealth ratios. In the 50`s and 60`s it is said that the average CEO of a company made 30 or 40 times what a factory worker made. The worker enjoyed a wage that granted a fairly comfortable middle class lifestyle; the "American Dream". Today, it is said that that CEO now makes 300 to 400 times what the factory worker makes. That in itself is not the root of the discontent. What is really pissing people off is at the same time that CEO is making that kind of money, the worker is being forced to take pay cuts or at the very least produce substantially more for the same and give up most of his benefits such as decent health care insurance, bonuses, paid holidays retirement etc.

When I talk to my civilian friends who express this frustration and most importantly feeling of total insecurity for any kind of financial future for a secure retirement, they really are not expressing class envy. What they are frustrated with is the fact that they work their asses off to make said company super profitable and not only do they not get to enjoy some of the fruits of their labors, they get kicked in the teeth and loose ground.

Wehn you are angry, it is difficult to think, speak and act logically and I think that is a part of why you are not getting these simple, logical answers you seek. The people honestly have not gotten to that point. All they know is that there is a huge problem and it is getting worse and they feel that no one is looking out for them and they are getting very, very pissed.

I don`t blame them either. You could not pay me enough to leave the military and deal with this economic anarchy that is modern "capitalism". I will gladly work a little harder for less pay and put up with military anal retentive bullshit happily because in the end, I know I will have a secure, comfortable economic future upon retirement. I actually feel very sorry for non military folks right now and any young person starting out looking for that college education should look long and hard at what the service offers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CheeseForSteeze View Post
In addition, it's a fallacy that people commonly attribute anything in the last 100 years (and more) as free market as we've had business interest protection rackets imposed by the Governmeent in the form of subsidies, protectionist tariff policies and punitive measures.
I totally agree with the statement but where we differ is the cause. I am willing to concede that what you say is a contributing factor but I am steadfast in my opinion that most of this is a natural evolution of the capitalist system. Like communism or any other ism, it has inherent, fatal flaws that are ultimately self destructive unless kept in check. I say that democratic government that acts as the tool of the people is the best method for maintaining these checks and balances. It certainly is not a perfect system, but I think it is the best we have right now. To, me allowing the components of that very system to "self police" makes no sense and I just cannot wrap my head around your ideas. Not saying you are absolutely wrong, but I just cant seem to get there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CheeseForSteeze View Post
They need to decide precisely what it is they want, first. And I don't mean in the sense they are presenting their case right now. It's akin to that episode of South Park where Canada went on strike because they wanted "more money".
I think this will, in time, as the movement evolves, become clearer and more focused.
 
Old 10-29-2011, 10:21 PM   #124 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
ThunderChunky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Kissing Bridge
Posts: 1,816
Default

The leaders know what they want, but most of the people there have no idea what it is actually about. According to the "leader" it is to get big business out of politics, stop them from having so much control over the government. The argue that a single corporation has more power than a single voter and that is wrong. I gotta agree, but don't try to argue with me cause I don't talk about politics.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2hipp4u View Post
Im all for having fun, showing your tits and getting fucked up on a river float but it can be done without being a pig.
ThunderChunky is offline  
Old 10-29-2011, 10:54 PM   #125 (permalink)
Official SBF Blogger
 
david_z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Detroit suburbs
Posts: 3,445
Blog Entries: 5
Default

there is no "leader".

The mainstream can't stand this idea, either. A leaderless organization is a lot harder to get rid of.
david_z is offline  
Old 10-29-2011, 11:04 PM   #126 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
ThunderChunky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Kissing Bridge
Posts: 1,816
Default

Apparently there is, can't remember his name. He was on a radio station the other day I was listening. He founded the website and the gathering I guess. It for sure isn't organized.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2hipp4u View Post
Im all for having fun, showing your tits and getting fucked up on a river float but it can be done without being a pig.
ThunderChunky is offline  
Old 10-29-2011, 11:23 PM   #127 (permalink)
Official SBF Blogger
 
david_z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Detroit suburbs
Posts: 3,445
Blog Entries: 5
Default

Most likely an opportunist and a charlatan. For instance there is some douchebag and his wife who filed for a trademark on "Occupy Wall St", this would give them exclusive legal privilege to capitalize from this phrase on t-shirts, bumper stickers, etc. Talk about irony.

Everything I read suggests that there is no leader and they do not want a leader.

Of course that doesn't stop people from claiming to be leaders, and it won't stop the media from trying to pin the "leader" name tag on someone.
david_z is offline  
Old 10-30-2011, 08:00 AM   #128 (permalink)
Outlander
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CheeseForSteeze View Post
Businesses actually committing crimes which are already codified and generally accepted as criminal is not the same thing as someone making something not adequately safe. Why is it necessary to have a regulatory body to ensure this process is controlled? You still haven't made any poingant inroads in that regard. Most of safety specific things you seemed concerned with really stem from technology in its infancy, not a brazen and callous disregard for safety. Furthermore, regulation cannot prevent gross negligence because gross negligence is exactly the willful disregard for safety. That's like saying gun laws prevent criminals from buying guns.
No I am not talking about "technology in its infancy" I am talking about case after case after case where industry established procedures were not followed that led to disasters. You ask why is it necessary to have a regulatory body to ensure this controlled? Really? Do you seriously have to ask this question? It is because time and time and time again, business proves that it can not or will not exercise the self discipline to do it without the threat of punitive measures from a regulatory body.

I most certainly have many poignant inroads in the regard complete with video documentation to back it up. Your refusal to admit that there is truth (at least in many cases) to my assertions does not equate to a failing on my part. Everyone else here is getting it just fine. No regulation can`t prevent ALL willful disregard for safety but it has been proven to greatly reduce a lot of it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CheeseForSteeze View Post
I am adament that the concerns you bring up can be controlled and influenced by public opinion and auditing/investigation by third party proxies without bringing down the hand of regulation.
History disagrees with your assertion here.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CheeseForSteeze View Post
A handful of examples doesn't mean there isn't largely a lack of oversight for regulatory bodies. I'm not even suggesting that most of the time a case of negligence or intentional disregard but rather, sheer incompetence. Most of all, no one is held accountable for the sheer redundancy, complicated nature and volume of guidelines.
It is not a handful of examples. Actually, as I stated, there most certainly is accountability and industry leader are in constant communication with regulatory agencies and regulations are always under review. This is nothing more than another talking point.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CheeseForSteeze View Post
That's why I'm arguing the removal regulatory mandate, favortist subsidization and arbitrary punitive measures so there is nothing to take advantage of.
That action would make the problem worse and history has proven this. The very reason we have regulation is because the actions of the capitalist prove that regulation is required to prevent thos actions from damaging others.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CheeseForSteeze View Post
I already made it a point that the boundary between these things isn't some sort of clear, obvious self-evident line. It is always easier to try to choose the illusion of security over natural risk and it becomes all too easy to categorize a great many things as grossly negligent when they simply aren't.
Yes, there will be gray areas but this statement is a cop out. It is quite clear to any reasonable person when something is obviously negligence. The boundary is actually pretty clear to anyone who wants to view it objectively without an agenda to be an apologist for industry.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CheeseForSteeze View Post
They have to serve the interest of the consumer because the consumer is the one negotiating the terms of purchase with the business. You're just upset that people, in general, don't do their due diligence and generally are apathetic.
Please quit this accusing me of being "upset" anytime I do not agree with you. I am not upset at all unless it is becoming upset at your constant accusations that I am upset. I disagree with your opinion that people don`t do due diligence and I already addressed this. No one is expected to be an aerospace engineer to be an informed flyer. There is an accepted "assumption of safety" in most of life`s endeavors. When procedures and regulations are in place to ensure this level of safety, people have every right to expect that they are being complied with. When they are not, it is absurd to try to blame it on the consumer for not "not doing their due diligence".


Quote:
Originally Posted by CheeseForSteeze View Post
I have my own reasons as outlined above, that being that the Government cannot adequately protect consumers as well as an informed consumer can protect himself. Since government is an extension of the people's will, as you have asserted, what do you think the result of government heled responsible by uninformed, apathetic people?
This is absurd. No matter how informed the consumer is, it is unreasonable and impossible for that consumer to oversee every operation and procedure undertaken to ensure it was done by the book. Again, you seem willing to blame the potential victim for the negligence of the perpetrator in you effort to champion this "industry can do no wrong and if only the damn government would get out of the way, things would be great" cause.

You are being very intellectually dishonest when you try to make the statement that the government regulatory agencies are being held responsible by "uniformed, apathetic people". These agencies are held responsible by panels of highly trained and educated experts in the field. The FAA is staffed and supervised by aviation experts with hundreds of thousands of flight hours combined, not some hosuewife who rode on a plane once.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CheeseForSteeze View Post
So what? Does it demonstrate that burdensome regulation which doesn't increase safety is overseen? Does it demonstrate that there isn't a sense of infalliability on the FAA's part which can cause negligence on the airline's part because "The FAA will take care of it"? Does it even demonstrate that what level of safety the FAA provides is greater than the airlines' own initiative or that this culture is common to hundreds of analgous agencies in other industries?
I love this cry of "burdensome regulation"...Oh boo hoo, we have to comply with regulations and do a little more work so people don`t die. What a total pain the ass; that damn evil government. Sorry, I have no sympathy for the cries from industry about the suffering they are going through.

I don`t see that there really is a sense of infallibility on the part of the FAA. The organization is always under review from within and from oversight panels made up of government and industry leaders to correct errors.

The FAA as a regulatory agency sets all of the standards for flight safety from aircraft certification to pilot training. The airline industry is not in the business of providing safety, it is in the business of transportation and doing so in accordance with safety standards set by the entire aviation industry who has charged the FAA with enforcing those adopted standards.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CheeseForSteeze View Post
Get over it. You act so obstensibly offended.
Why does every post have to have some snide remark about my needing to get over something or being offended? What I see is you twisting simple disagreement with being offended or butt hurt or some other imaginary emotion. What I am beginning to suspect is that you are projecting here and it may be you who is offended and upset. Instead of dealing with it, you project that emotion onto others. Your uncalled for personal attacks on Snowjeeper clearly show who here is really starting to get upset.

Last edited by Outlander; 10-30-2011 at 08:29 AM.
 
Old 10-30-2011, 08:21 AM   #129 (permalink)
Outlander
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CheeseForSteeze View Post
No one is talking about ignoring grossly negilgent faults.
For 3 pages now that is EXACTLY what I have been talking about and you keep denying that these exist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CheeseForSteeze View Post
Quit oversimplifying the problem. Many things can fail on an aircraft or any other manmade device.
Granted and no one is disputing that. In those cases, accident investigators with the NTSB and FAA get together with industry leader to figure out how to improve or change those things to reduce the odds of it ever happening again. Without these agencies, history shows us time an again that industry will not of their own volition spend the resources to do this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CheeseForSteeze View Post
That's gross negligence, and it's illegal. That's already established regardless of regulation.
Not always the case. Sometimes "gross negligence" does not have a criminal component. When it is, just exactly how would it be determined to "be illegal" without regulation? It is regulation that determines standards and when violations to standards occur.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CheeseForSteeze View Post
The regulation we're discussing is that which micromanages industry as though it knows the technology better than those practicing the maintenance and operation of it.
I disagree with this oversimplification of regulation. It is the industry that sets the standards. Boeing for example establishes a new maintenance procedure for an airplane they build based on evidence of a found problem and issue an Air Worthiness Directive. The FAA is the body that is charged with ensuring that airlines comply with Boeing`s directives.

You seem to have a big issue with it being the evil government doing this; would it make you feel better if Boeing hire Black Water to storm Airline facilities with guys dressed in black with automatic weapons to enforce this, then bill Boeing for the cost of their "service" which Boeing then adds to the cost of their airplane? Yeah, it sounds ridiculous but in effect this is what you are arguing for; having private industries do the job that government is doing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CheeseForSteeze View Post
It's impossible to argue against regulation because it's taken for granted that the agency performing the design and administration of the "how, when, where and what" knows what is safest.
You are still operating on a total false premise. It is the industry experts who know best charging the regulatory agency to enforce their standards. In your railing against regulation, you have totally misrepresented what regulation is and where it even comes from. You blame those who enforce the regulation for coming up with the regulation. This is as absurd as blaming to cop who writes you the ticket for speeding for setting the speed limit in the first place. You are symbolically shooting the messenger when you rail against regulation and regulatory agencies.
 
Old 10-30-2011, 11:22 AM   #130 (permalink)
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: WI
Posts: 1,922
Default

It would totally make sense if cheese is an engineer of some sort, hilariously typical even. Go back to the CATO institute cheese, your arguments are completely hollow.
snowjeeper is offline  
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:30 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
VerticalSports
Baseball Forum Golf Forum Boxing Forum Snowmobile Forum
Basketball Forum Soccer Forum MMA Forum PWC Forum
Football Forum Cricket Forum Wrestling Forum ATV Forum
Hockey Forum Volleyball Forum Paintball Forum Snowboarding Forum
Tennis Forum Rugby Forums Lacrosse Forum Skiing Forums