KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,973|6602|949

DrunkFace wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:

your forbidden closet of mystery
If you're keeping guns just sitting in your closet, you don't deserve to own guns.
Everyone deserves guns, it's a right. Haven't you read the 2nd amendment?
The holiest of holy infallible document of peace, love and freedom which has been altered 17 times is beyond reproach.

pls kindly fuck off with your freedom hating liberal propaganda.
The Supreme Court has ruled and created precedent that Congress and municipalities are allowed to pass legislation aimed at regulating firearms.  I don't agree with the position that gun ownership is a right, but your argument loses luster when a) you use hyperbole to describe the constitution and b) you lack a basic understanding of the rules and regulations as spelled out in the constitution and ensuing legal cases and legislation.

The only people who pretend to tout the Constitution in any way close to what you describe are fringe elements of the US that the rest of the population by and large recognize as fringe elements.  Just because Donald Trump says something doesn't mean he's parroting the general consensus of the denizens.

It is interesting to get outsiders' perspective on what they think the zeitgeist is in the USA, but it's a bit frustrating when that perspective is so far outside what reality is that it almost becomes a joke.  I have no doubt you're being hyperbolic to make your point, but you (DrunkFace) have also displayed a serious lack of understanding about American Government that skews your often legitimate criticisms into bizarro world. It's almost to the level of Shahater's "free world democracy brainwashed sheeple" tone.

FYI 17 times in 228 years equals an average of once every 13 years.  That's not too bad when talking about a large country, and that only counts amendments directly to the constitution.  The constitution is constantly being reinterpreted by "the courts" and laws are passed that are deemed unconstitutional and/or struck down by various courts.  Things that were seen as perfectly legal 200 years ago are now interpreted as legal, and vice-versa.  It's hardly a static document.
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+634|3690
FYI 17 times in 228 years equals an average of once every 13 years.  That's not too bad when talking about a large country, and that only counts amendments directly to the constitution.  The constitution is constantly being reinterpreted by "the courts" and laws are passed that are deemed unconstitutional and/or struck down by various courts.  Things that were seen as perfectly legal 200 years ago are now interpreted as legal, and vice-versa.  It's hardly a static document.
The last amendment to the constitution was in 1992 and it ratified an amendment that was sitting around since 1789. Before that it was 1971. You tend to get amendments in clusters of 2-3 in very short time spans of only 1 year or so. Some no-brainer amendments were stopped between 1971 and now like the Equal Rights Amendment to prevent discrimination based off of sex. Amendments making voting a right never got out of congress. Amendments protecting privacy never got anywhere. There is not going to be any amendments to the Constitution anytime soon outside of a serious political crisis.

And many people on the right do treat the constitution like a holy document. If you listened to the words of politicians even at the GOP debates they talk about "defending the constitutions". I blame Christian fundamentalism that causes people venerate old documents and books and not think critically of them.

And the fact that SCOTUS reinterprets the constitution every so often does not build my confidence in the system. If a few judges die in a short period of time or a terrorist attack wipes out half of them, it gives the congress and president the ability to stack the court with whoever they want without any restrictions on ability or merit.

The political system of the U.S. is pretty lousy and it annoys me how the Americans here usually fall in lie behind each other to yell at whatever foreigner who makes the mistake of commenting about it.



i also wrote about some of the ways we can fix the political system here a few days ago.
https://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?p … 3#p3937233

Last edited by SuperJail Warden (2016-02-11 15:21:51)

https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+794|6655|United States of America

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:


If you're keeping guns just sitting in your closet, you don't deserve to own guns.
Everyone deserves guns, it's a right. Haven't you read the 2nd amendment?
The holiest of holy infallible document of peace, love and freedom which has been altered 17 times is beyond reproach.

pls kindly fuck off with your freedom hating liberal propaganda.
The Supreme Court has ruled and created precedent that Congress and municipalities are allowed to pass legislation aimed at regulating firearms.  I don't agree with the position that gun ownership is a right, but your argument loses luster when a) you use hyperbole to describe the constitution and b) you lack a basic understanding of the rules and regulations as spelled out in the constitution and ensuing legal cases and legislation.

The only people who pretend to tout the Constitution in any way close to what you describe are fringe elements of the US that the rest of the population by and large recognize as fringe elements.  Just because Donald Trump says something doesn't mean he's parroting the general consensus of the denizens.

It is interesting to get outsiders' perspective on what they think the zeitgeist is in the USA, but it's a bit frustrating when that perspective is so far outside what reality is that it almost becomes a joke.  I have no doubt you're being hyperbolic to make your point, but you (DrunkFace) have also displayed a serious lack of understanding about American Government that skews your often legitimate criticisms into bizarro world. It's almost to the level of Shahater's "free world democracy brainwashed sheeple" tone.

FYI 17 times in 228 years equals an average of once every 13 years.  That's not too bad when talking about a large country, and that only counts amendments directly to the constitution.  The constitution is constantly being reinterpreted by "the courts" and laws are passed that are deemed unconstitutional and/or struck down by various courts.  Things that were seen as perfectly legal 200 years ago are now interpreted as legal, and vice-versa.  It's hardly a static document.
Wasn't he being sarcastic?
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,973|6602|949

Unlike Jay, I think the political failures are more a result of the people involved (and the general political process during the 'formative' years (ie. 1860 or so to 1945) than the actual system as devised by the original political players.  I have no delusion of being able to create a perfect political system when there are so many moving parts, but I disagree that the US political system itself is lousy.

Cool, so there's been more than 13 years between amendments.  My point wasn't that we change our constitution every 13 years (note I said average), it's that it DOES change.  Whether through amendments or legal doctrine, the constitution itself is not some infallible document. 

Yes, some people on the right and left view the constitution as an infallible document.  That doesn't contradict my claim that they are fringe elements.  Christian fundamentalists (evangelicals, mostly) are a powerful and vocal minority.  Most sane people don't give them the light of day, and they were nothing as a voting block until Reagan.  There was a pretty good write up I read recently that goes into how the religious right came to power and what it means.  I'll try to find it if you're interested.

There's nothing wrong with criticizing the US government or the system itself.  But know what you are talking about if you want to be taken seriously.  That's my beef.  I don't go and comment on Australian or Euro political processes or governmental systems here because I'm not going to pretend to know the intricacies or become a wiki warrior just to debate.  In my opinion it just makes you look stupid.  Arguments from ignorance can make points otherwise not being considered, but offering up blanket criticisms without understanding the entire process is a bit silly.

Regarding your proposals-
I am not a fan at all of first past the post for any federal office.  I am in favor of proportional representation in general and the coalition governments popular in parliamentary systems.  I think the President has too much power (specifically regarding the use of executive orders) and I think Congressional committees serve as lobby and job farms more than the informed decision-making teams they were intended to - which echoes my feelings that the people themselves sully the system.  I don't agree with you regarding shrinking down the senate seats by region or population - that's defeating one of the main points of the bicameral system we have and the formation of a "United States". We already have one section of Congress elected according to population.  Yes, your example is a shitty reality of American politics - no doubt.  Your alternative negates the idea of a United States though.  Might as well dissolve borders for States in those regions then too, right?

In my opinion, the most basic way to adjust the American political system is to put term limits on Congress and further explicitly enumerate the powers of the legislative and executive branch, decentralize federal power regarding internal issues, and remove any ability for the consolidation of power by any branch.  All lofty goals without any concrete and granular proposals on how to achieve it, but identifying key critical problems with the system itself is the first step.  And it's better than blindly saying "the system is broken1!!1" without offering any recommendations to change it.  One thing I've learned in business is that if you don't agree with something, you clearly state why and offer alternative recommendations.
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,973|6602|949

DesertFox- wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:


Everyone deserves guns, it's a right. Haven't you read the 2nd amendment?
The holiest of holy infallible document of peace, love and freedom which has been altered 17 times is beyond reproach.

pls kindly fuck off with your freedom hating liberal propaganda.
stuff
Wasn't he being sarcastic?
the "altered 17 times" comment was directly related to me explaining the constitution isn't a holy infallible static document and the idea of constitutional amendments.  He's adding layers to his hyperbole, definitely.  But he (and Dilbert) have also shown an amount of ignorance to the US political system and processes.  That's perfectly fine, I don't expect anyone who hasn't seriously studied American government to have a strong working knowledge of it, but when you offer criticisms based in ignorance or partial understanding, over and over, it gets old.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5328|London, England

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Unlike Jay, I think the political failures are more a result of the people involved (and the general political process during the 'formative' years (ie. 1860 or so to 1945) than the actual process as devised by the original political players.  I have no delusion of being able to create a perfect political system when there are so many moving parts, but I disagree that the US political system itself is lousy.

Cool, so there's been more than 13 years between amendments.  My point wasn't that we change our constitution every 13 years (note I said average), it's that it DOES change.  Whether through amendments or legal doctrine, the constitution itself is not some infallible document. 

Yes, some people on the right and left view the constitution as an infallible document.  That doesn't contradict my claim that they are fringe elements.  Christian fundamentalists (evangelicals, mostly) are a powerful and vocal minority.  Most sane people don't give them the light of day, and they were nothing as a voting block until Reagan.  There was a pretty good write up I read recently that goes into how the religious right came to power and what it means.  I'll try to find it if you're interested.

There's nothing wrong with criticizing the US government or the system itself.  But know what you are talking about if you want to be taken seriously.  That's my beef.  I don't go and comment on Australian or Euro political processes or governmental systems here because I'm not going to pretend to know the intricacies or become a wiki warrior just to debate.  In my opinion it just makes you look stupid.  Arguments from ignorance can make points otherwise not being considered, but offering up blanket criticisms without understanding the entire process is a bit silly.

Regarding your proposals-
I am not a fan at all of first past the post for any federal office.  I am in favor of proportional representation in general and the coalition governments popular in parliamentary systems.  I think the President has too much power (specifically regarding the use of executive orders) and I think Congressional committees serve as lobby and job farms more than the informed decision-making teams they were intended to - which echoes my feelings that the people themselves sully the system.  I don't agree with you regarding shrinking down the senate seats by region or population - that's defeating one of the main points of the bicameral system we have.  We already have one section of Congress elected according to population.  Yes, your example is a shitty reality of American politics - no doubt.  Your alternative negates the idea of a United States though.  Might as well dissolve borders for States in those regions then too, right?

In my opinion, the most basic way to adjust the American political system is to put term limits on Congress and further explicitly enumerate the powers of the legislative and executive branch, decentralize federal power regarding internal issues, and remove any ability for the consolidation of power by any branch.  All lofty goals without any concrete and granular proposals on how to achieve it, but identifying key critical problems with the system itself is the first step.  And it's better than blindly saying "the system is broken1!!1" without offering any recommendations to change it.  One thing I've learned in business is that if you don't agree with something, you clearly state why and offer alternative recommendations.
The entire basis of my belief system is that the problem is with the people who seek power, not the concept of government itself. The problem with government is that it gives assholes the ability to fuck with and fuck over each other. We don't really differ all that much, you know, except I'm a cynical asshole that has zero faith in politicians to represent my interests in any way, shape, or form, while you still retain some idealism. Because I'm cynical, I can't agree with any enlargement of the government in either size or scope, because frankly I don't trust the people that would be running the programs (see: Obamacare). I don't like regulations, not because I think rules are inherently bad, but because the rules are almost always written by the people they are meant to regulate and entrench existing stakeholders and create barriers to entry. I'm not an anarchist, I just don't like bullies.

Last edited by Jay (2016-02-11 16:45:06)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6742|PNW

I'm always bumping into the "if it's not in the constitution, it doesn't belong in the law" gun crowd when it comes to firearms (and only firearms). But I see nothing specifically about speed limits in the constitution either. Let's abolish them!

For real, people need to lock these things up when they're not using them. And I'm not talking about inside a Walmart safe that can be opened with a rare earth magnet and a sock.
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+634|3690

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Unlike Jay, I think the political failures are more a result of the people involved (and the general political process during the 'formative' years (ie. 1860 or so to 1945) than the actual system as devised by the original political players.  I have no delusion of being able to create a perfect political system when there are so many moving parts, but I disagree that the US political system itself is lousy.

Cool, so there's been more than 13 years between amendments.  My point wasn't that we change our constitution every 13 years (note I said average), it's that it DOES change.  Whether through amendments or legal doctrine, the constitution itself is not some infallible document. 

Yes, some people on the right and left view the constitution as an infallible document.  That doesn't contradict my claim that they are fringe elements.  Christian fundamentalists (evangelicals, mostly) are a powerful and vocal minority.  Most sane people don't give them the light of day, and they were nothing as a voting block until Reagan.  There was a pretty good write up I read recently that goes into how the religious right came to power and what it means.  I'll try to find it if you're interested.

There's nothing wrong with criticizing the US government or the system itself.  But know what you are talking about if you want to be taken seriously.  That's my beef.  I don't go and comment on Australian or Euro political processes or governmental systems here because I'm not going to pretend to know the intricacies or become a wiki warrior just to debate.  In my opinion it just makes you look stupid.  Arguments from ignorance can make points otherwise not being considered, but offering up blanket criticisms without understanding the entire process is a bit silly.

Regarding your proposals-
I am not a fan at all of first past the post for any federal office.  I am in favor of proportional representation in general and the coalition governments popular in parliamentary systems.  I think the President has too much power (specifically regarding the use of executive orders) and I think Congressional committees serve as lobby and job farms more than the informed decision-making teams they were intended to - which echoes my feelings that the people themselves sully the system.  I don't agree with you regarding shrinking down the senate seats by region or population - that's defeating one of the main points of the bicameral system we have and the formation of a "United States". We already have one section of Congress elected according to population.  Yes, your example is a shitty reality of American politics - no doubt.  Your alternative negates the idea of a United States though.  Might as well dissolve borders for States in those regions then too, right?

In my opinion, the most basic way to adjust the American political system is to put term limits on Congress and further explicitly enumerate the powers of the legislative and executive branch, decentralize federal power regarding internal issues, and remove any ability for the consolidation of power by any branch.  All lofty goals without any concrete and granular proposals on how to achieve it, but identifying key critical problems with the system itself is the first step.  And it's better than blindly saying "the system is broken1!!1" without offering any recommendations to change it.  One thing I've learned in business is that if you don't agree with something, you clearly state why and offer alternative recommendations.
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me. No sarcasm, they do.

I actually have no issue with someone staying 50 years in congress. I understand how it is possible for someone to eventually become out of touch with the issues facing the average American when you are neck deep in Washington for 50 years but out of touch people are usually the ones making it on the party tickets anyway. If you are trying to limit corruption in congress, I don't think term limits will have a positive effect. The problem I see is someone getting into congress on a term limit and trying to maximize their earning potential in the private sector after congress because they are only going to be in the senate for 10 years and need to make a living once it is all said and done. So they pass and sneak in whatever they can into bills without regard to the effects because xyz corporate interest is going to give them a lobbying job afterward. If someone has the ability to hold a position until death, they theoretically have the incentive to not fuck things up. Of course that goes back to your point of "okay system, bad people join it". As for an actual positive of the current term system, there are often long-term projects especially in defense and infrastructure that are helped by having an actual good person in congress to help it along over the 20, 30 year course it needs to take. Rotating a new person into the position every 10ish years might not be the best.

I am not too worried about executive power creep. From what I understand about you, you want to prevent a president's ability to create wars more so than you want to stop a president from doing something like forcing through prison reform. The president's ability to guide foreign policy is the one thing that I never want to see constrained by congress or the courts. A unified military responsible to one man is how it should be.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6687

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:


If you're keeping guns just sitting in your closet, you don't deserve to own guns.
Everyone deserves guns, it's a right. Haven't you read the 2nd amendment?
The holiest of holy infallible document of peace, love and freedom which has been altered 17 times is beyond reproach.

pls kindly fuck off with your freedom hating liberal propaganda.
The Supreme Court has ruled and created precedent that Congress and municipalities are allowed to pass legislation aimed at regulating firearms.  I don't agree with the position that gun ownership is a right, but your argument loses luster when a) you use hyperbole to describe the constitution and b) you lack a basic understanding of the rules and regulations as spelled out in the constitution and ensuing legal cases and legislation.

The only people who pretend to tout the Constitution in any way close to what you describe are fringe elements of the US that the rest of the population by and large recognize as fringe elements.  Just because Donald Trump says something doesn't mean he's parroting the general consensus of the denizens.

It is interesting to get outsiders' perspective on what they think the zeitgeist is in the USA, but it's a bit frustrating when that perspective is so far outside what reality is that it almost becomes a joke.  I have no doubt you're being hyperbolic to make your point, but you (DrunkFace) have also displayed a serious lack of understanding about American Government that skews your often legitimate criticisms into bizarro world. It's almost to the level of Shahater's "free world democracy brainwashed sheeple" tone.

FYI 17 times in 228 years equals an average of once every 13 years.  That's not too bad when talking about a large country, and that only counts amendments directly to the constitution.  The constitution is constantly being reinterpreted by "the courts" and laws are passed that are deemed unconstitutional and/or struck down by various courts.  Things that were seen as perfectly legal 200 years ago are now interpreted as legal, and vice-versa.  It's hardly a static document.
Just a side note, Aus had 8 amendments in just 115 years of federation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitut … Amendments

Not to mention we essentially have no guaranteed rights at all and can be subject to change due to politics.

protip, our constitution specifically allows our federal government to have the power to make racially based laws. eg blacks/asians/juden are verboten and it'd be 100% legal and no constitutional challenge can defeat it.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6687

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

I'm always bumping into the "if it's not in the constitution, it doesn't belong in the law" gun crowd
Guess they missed out the entire section that gives congress the power to pass legislation.

Last edited by Cybargs (2016-02-11 23:56:36)

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6076|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:

pirana6 wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:


A child dies every 4 seconds. Maybe if you get mad enough you can try to stop the avoidable ones.
I'm only allowed to hate children killing themselves if I make cunty comments about it?
No, you have to be able to exact moral outrage in order to further your agenda.
What kind of outrage is appropriate Jay?

I honestly think its a sad fact that the only thing which will snap you out of your superior mental fug is some horrible personal event of the sort I wouldn't wish on anyone.

I will enjoy reading your post-event rationalisation though

Jay wrote:

Today's building collapse/spree shooting/electrical fire/acute industrial pollution event which took the lives of my wife, young son and unborn daughter was highly improbable and the number of deaths statistically insignificant when you look at the big picture.
Only 8.57e-7% of the American population died today. When you factor in that a fetus isn't technically a person that brings it down to 5.74e-7% which is great result by itself if you think about it.

There's no point complaining or trying to get anything done to prevent it happening again, certainly no reason to involve the govt in getting legislation passed or any other kind of forward thinking which impacts so horribly on peoples lives.

In the long run the free market can deal with this kind of thing just fine, just as Ayn Rand said it would.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5328|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

pirana6 wrote:


I'm only allowed to hate children killing themselves if I make cunty comments about it?
No, you have to be able to exact moral outrage in order to further your agenda.
What kind of outrage is appropriate Jay?

I honestly think its a sad fact that the only thing which will snap you out of your superior mental fug is some horrible personal event of the sort I wouldn't wish on anyone.

I will enjoy reading your post-event rationalisation though

Jay wrote:

Today's building collapse/spree shooting/electrical fire/acute industrial pollution event which took the lives of my wife, young son and unborn daughter was highly improbable and the number of deaths statistically insignificant when you look at the big picture.
Only 8.57e-7% of the American population died today. When you factor in that a fetus isn't technically a person that brings it down to 5.74e-7% which is great result by itself if you think about it.

There's no point complaining or trying to get anything done to prevent it happening again, certainly no reason to involve the govt in getting legislation passed or any other kind of forward thinking which impacts so horribly on peoples lives.

In the long run the free market can deal with this kind of thing just fine, just as Ayn Rand said it would.
Why on earth would I do that? I'm not a point the finger kind of guy. I don't blame god when bad things happen to me. Would I be distraught if my wife or son died? I would be completely devastated.

I know you're just thinking like an engineer, the type that when a tragedy occurs he wants to sit around a table and rewrite the codes to prevent it happening again. Every time some major event like a crane collapse, or people dying in 9/11 because of flawed sprinkler systems, the codes get rewritten. It's mostly hubris. Does it make the world safer? Perhaps marginally. What it does do is make it more expensive to build while giving people a false sense of security.

You have to get out of this mindset where you're always looking backwards and fighting the last war.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
coke
Aye up duck!
+440|6679|England. Stoke

Jay wrote:

What it does do is make it more expensive to build while giving people a false sense of security.

You have to get out of this mindset where you're always looking backwards and fighting the last war.
I don't even...
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6742|PNW

Wait, are we saying now that codes and architecture shouldn't adapt in the face of new information or environmental challenges because of costs? Well, fire up that lead paint factory and stuff the walls with asbestos. Who's up for a good poisoning? While we're at it let's go back to early automotive technology because who needs things like air bags or two-wheel drives anyhow?
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5328|London, England

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Wait, are we saying now that codes and architecture shouldn't adapt in the face of new information or environmental challenges because of costs? Well, fire up that lead paint factory and stuff the walls with asbestos. Who's up for a good poisoning? While we're at it let's go back to early automotive technology because who needs things like air bags or two-wheel drives anyhow?
No, I'm saying that overreaction to one-off events is dumb. After 9/11 new york city rewrote the building code as if planes crashing into buildings was going to become a regular occurrence.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
uziq
Member
+492|3423
a freak accident is one thing but a preventable death or malfunction calls for quite a different response. you seem to be idly conflating the two. isn't part of engineering and systems design to identity these limit points? like do you can say 'the crane fell over because it was overloaded' and then devise a safe load limit. this seems pretty obvious. no one is suggesting trying to legislate our way out of chance or bad luck.
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,973|6602|949

Jay wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Wait, are we saying now that codes and architecture shouldn't adapt in the face of new information or environmental challenges because of costs? Well, fire up that lead paint factory and stuff the walls with asbestos. Who's up for a good poisoning? While we're at it let's go back to early automotive technology because who needs things like air bags or two-wheel drives anyhow?
No, I'm saying that overreaction to one-off events is dumb. After 9/11 new york city rewrote the building code as if planes crashing into buildings was going to become a regular occurrence.
The WTC towers were built to withstand an impact from one of the largest commercial planes in service at the time of planning.

“We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side… Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. [But] the building structure would still be there.”
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource. … ug=1687698


Bush knocked down the towers!

they didn't build out for that though
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5328|London, England

uziq wrote:

a freak accident is one thing but a preventable death or malfunction calls for quite a different response. you seem to be idly conflating the two. isn't part of engineering and systems design to identity these limit points? like do you can say 'the crane fell over because it was overloaded' and then devise a safe load limit. this seems pretty obvious. no one is suggesting trying to legislate our way out of chance or bad luck.
We do it constantly and it fucks up a lot of people's lives. How many people have been placed on sex offender registries for having underage sex, or sexting, or peeing in public? Lives have been ruined because one mother went on a crusade and politicians saw it as an easy can't lose slam dunk of a law.

People need to stop looking for the government to solve their problems. Simple stuff like not calling the cops on your neighbor for a noise complaint, and instead talking to them in person. Here in the US at least, you have to assume that the cops might shoot your neighbor rather than getting him to turn down his music. Is it worth it?

It's human nature to overreact. Rise above.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5328|London, England

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Wait, are we saying now that codes and architecture shouldn't adapt in the face of new information or environmental challenges because of costs? Well, fire up that lead paint factory and stuff the walls with asbestos. Who's up for a good poisoning? While we're at it let's go back to early automotive technology because who needs things like air bags or two-wheel drives anyhow?
No, I'm saying that overreaction to one-off events is dumb. After 9/11 new york city rewrote the building code as if planes crashing into buildings was going to become a regular occurrence.
The WTC towers were built to withstand an impact from one of the largest commercial planes in service at the time of planning.

“We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side… Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. [But] the building structure would still be there.”
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource. … ug=1687698


Bush knocked down the towers!

they didn't build out for that though
Everything has to be sprinklered and seismically braced now like we live on the San Andreas fault. There's no inherent harm in the code change, but when you stack enough of these requirements on top of each other it's easy to understand why costs have exploded.

But hey, I get paid a percentage of the construction cost so the higher the better
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
coke
Aye up duck!
+440|6679|England. Stoke
I'm starting to think Jay has some form of cognitive dysfunction/is a sociopath.
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+634|3690
Just a typical libertarian. Nonsensical outlook and ridiculous ideas.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
coke
Aye up duck!
+440|6679|England. Stoke

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Just a typical libertarian. Nonsensical outlook and ridiculous ideas.
None of which seem to have any form of cohesiveness, I'm not talking about "Libertarians" in general here, just Jay.

Last edited by coke (2016-02-12 17:51:15)

Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5328|London, England

coke wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Just a typical libertarian. Nonsensical outlook and ridiculous ideas.
None of which seem to have any form of cohesiveness, I'm not talking about "Libertarians" in general here, just Jay.
Ok
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5328|London, England

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Just a typical libertarian. Nonsensical outlook and ridiculous ideas.
Because advocating for bans that won't effect you but will force others to live by your moral code, and bombing people who pose no real threat to you just so you can pretend you're taking part in a real world version of Risk, is clearly the apex of rationality. I'm clearly being ridiculous.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+634|3690
It is about helping people. You get the percentage of smokers down from 17% to 10% and you just saved 21,000,000 people from bad heath effects from smoking including cancer. That improves the overall healthcare system, increases the tax base, and provides millions of more parents to maintain households, and less of a burden on the social safety net.


You just can't argue the math.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard