|
Guavanaut posted:Trains actually kill more people than they save. We should allow cars on the tracks instead. They do Traincars
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 05:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 16:19 |
|
|
Brawnfire posted:They do 
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 09:38
|
|
|
Brawnfire posted:They do 
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2022 17:55
|
|
|
Help I think I’m having a stroke. “And considering what happens in reality is not subjective but it's required to be a subjective argument to say people are safer if they do what you tell you them to you need the opposition to be subjective also or you are not on the same plane of reality.” 
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2022 06:31
|
|
|
GrunkleStalin posted:Help I think I’m having a stroke. NotEvenWrong.txt
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2022 06:45
|
|
|
This is what I think he's saying. Reality is objective, not subjective. Philosophical arguments aside, I think we can all accept things like "If a person flies through a car windshield in a wreck they are going to be hurt badly and maybe die" as objective. Next, he says that "People are safer if they do what you tell them" is a subjective argument. He provides no proof that this is a subjective statement, he merely asserts it is so. What I think he's talking about is like, going back to the first post and the thing about seatbelts at the end, you would probably say it is an objective statement that "People are less likely to die or be seriously injured in an accident if they are wearing a seatbelt." He would say no, this is subjective, because if you look at some accidents where people were unable to exit the car because they had a seatbelt on, they died, thus it can make you more likely to die or be seriously injured. So, his conclusion is that if your statement that people are safer if they follow safety rules/regulations is subjective, then his statement that sometimes following safety rules is more dangerous is equally subjective. Since both statements are subjective, who can say which is right and which is wrong? It's all just, like, your opinion, man.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2022 06:53
|
|
|
Thank you for the transaction Twelve by Pies. You really got to their meaning even if I think their logic makes no sense. Here is a huge rant I got when asking about a boots. ***** ***** ***** ive seen that roast, and nothign about it implies he took it badly. But there were news articles which reported he must have because of reading into his facial expressions. so, once again, i want to remind you, yoru joke was "you claim you have no fear of flying, and im going to upend that assumption by claiming you do" my criticism of your supposed joke, was that its lazily formed as a joke, ie you didnt go into the work of setting it up, and you didnt go into the work of laying a punchline down. i compared it to someone claiming trump is a nazi, because they are likewise not establishing a foundation or setup, and just repeating bullshit they already assumed. Either thats not a joke, ie its just the kind of thing youd accuse a husband of being abusive for by reminding his wife shes poo poo at driving all the time. or its a joke in which you relied on the audience to set up the expectation to be subverted, then you subverted it by just disagreeing with the audience. When someone heckles a comedian, and the comedians best response is "nuh uh" thats generally seen as evidence that the comedian isnt actually funny. When they havent prepared a script they sound like a retard. and that isnt to say the comedian cant oppose the heckler, theres countless examples of comedians snapping back at hecklers and it makes a large section of highly watched and appreciate material, but its almost entirely consistent of actual subversion, setup with something like a compliment, used as a backhanded insult. you are using an insult, as an insult, and calling it a joke. And the worst part of it all, is its not even insulting to the person your using it on. Your literally insulting a strawman you made up, and calling it humor, and your not even doing it in a discordant way to subvert expectations like calling me a cabbage baby. And what im doing here with these long winded responses, is showing you how to be funny while doing what you claim you were doing. I am insulting you, repeatedly. And im pointing out how it flies against your protection narrative by being inherently abusive. And the expectation im subverting, is the assumption that im going to reply to your piddling little comments. Like, im sure you think youve got some clever little comment there with the spokane bit, but again youve not set it up, you probably came from a conversation mocking the idea of a place called whites, and so you think its commonplace knowledge. Or you did another poo poo google of my name and think i own a house in spokane now. the setup, for all of your punchlines, is entirely in your mind, youve not conveyed them to the audience so the jokes dont subvert any expectations but your own. And the only expectation your subverting, is the idea that you could listen to someone else for a second, and actually take on what they are saying. nothing about me saying id buy a ticket implies that i dont fear flying, but thats waht you got from what essentially was me rejecting your money because you cant actually afford to take on such costs due to your inability to work in risk environments that challenge limits. youve built in your head this scenario where i said, i dont fear flying, then i said, i would buy my own ticket, and that is somehow the lady doth protest too much. and that, is the setup for your joke...do you see? its all in your head. I dont fear flying, and i mock your ability to make money because your afraid not wearing a mask will kill the employed, especially laborers who are 95% of workplace fatalities, none of which even include covid. and that doesnt even begin to count the injuries, where they are wearing their gloves, the gloves get caught in the machine, and they loose their hand so they cant work heres an interesting story for you, do you know how osha states sheep breeders should castrate tehir sheep? they tie a rubber band around the testicles, so tightly, that it cuts off circulation, eventually the husk falls off, this process takes about this takes nearly 2 weeks, and on the ground farmers state that the sheep doesnt recover its playfulness until up to 2 months after. on the ground method however, is for herderrs to simply bite the testicles off teh sheep and this is why i find your position so utterly reprehensible, it fundamentally cares about no one all the way down the ladder, but you play it off as compassionate. It doesnt care about teh sheep, it doesnt care about the laborer already in dangerous conditions because it places him at greater risk, and it doesnt care about the infinitely long history of mankind risking things for the betterment of the species. sometimes to even invent safety equipment for others. you would gently caress over the world to appear compassionate in theory, but never in practice. all osha regulations do, is cover a companies rear end, and allow them to blame the worker for getting caught in an improperly maintained peice of equipment theyve been avoiding fixing because its costly, because they werent wearing a facemask to prevent covid. ***** ***** ***** There is a lot going on so this rant was kinda hard to follow. Here are some some highlights. 1. Definitely not butt hurt about that joke at all. 2. They are insulting me?? 3. They feel castrated by safety equipment? 4. It’s OSHA’s fault companies make employees use improperly maintained equipment. 5. Tortured metaphors/analogies about A. Comedians and hecklers. B. Sheep castration and safety regulations
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2022 07:45
|
|
|
GrunkleStalin posted:Help I think I’m having a stroke. Hit them as hard as you can, and keep hitting them until they fall down. Run away.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2022 07:51
|
|
|
Real men bite their sheep's balls off.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2022 11:32
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2022 16:01
|
|
|
Is there a fancy term for blaming OSHA or another agency instead of your boss/company for something? For example, blaming OSHA when management does not provide the OSHA required training.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2022 21:21
|
|
|
I've also seen it with say people blaming unions for cuts in pay and benefits that the corporation demanded. I don't mean like, blaming the union leadership for selling out and wanting a pro-worker leadership put in, I mean like saying it was all the union's fault and that's why we should bust them all and trust in the providence of the corporation to give us a better deal once the union is out of the way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2022 22:00
|
|
|
I wish ghosts were real and that the ghost of Charles Schulz would haunt these motherfuckers until they go insane from lack of sleep. VitalSigns posted:I've also seen it with say people blaming unions for cuts in pay and benefits that the corporation demanded. Remember that airline that ran those ads (I want to say Delta?) targeting young people that was like "Want to buy a new video game system? You could if you weren't paying union dues! Help us get rid of the union so you can have more money!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2022 00:23
|
|
|
GrunkleStalin posted:Is there a fancy term for blaming OSHA or another agency instead of your boss/company for something? Capitalism?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2022 00:36
|
|
|
And then more people get shot because no one knows who's the shooter. Meanwhile, the actual shooter slips away in the chaos.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2022 00:55
|
|
|
Kaiju Cage Match posted:And then more people get shot because no one knows who's the shooter. Meanwhile, the actual shooter slips away in the chaos. Yeah I always feel more safe in direct correlation to the amount of gunfire surrounding me at any given time And god that poo poo's lazy. Not even an effort to match the font.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2022 01:04
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Yeah I always feel more safe in direct correlation to the amount of gunfire surrounding me at any given time About as much effort to make the meme as it did to think of the solution.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2022 02:12
|
|
|
Kaiju Cage Match posted:And then more people get shot because no one knows who's the shooter. Meanwhile, the actual shooter slips away in the chaos. Honestly I'm surprised there hasn't been a situation that descended into anarchy as a bunch of strapped people just started blasting at random when there was a mass shooting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2022 03:15
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:Honestly I'm surprised there hasn't been a situation that descended into anarchy as a bunch of strapped people just started blasting at random when there was a mass shooting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_of_the_Patriarchs_massacre#Massacre quote:However, The New York Times interviewed over 40 Palestinian eyewitnesses, many of whom were confined to hospital beds with gunshot wounds, and thus "unable to compare notes". All witnesses corroborated that three Israeli guards opened fire, likely in panic amid the confusion, as the Muslims fled the shrine, with at least one soldier firing into the crowd.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2022 04:09
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:Honestly I'm surprised there hasn't been a situation that descended into anarchy as a bunch of strapped people just started blasting at random when there was a mass shooting. This is going to happen any day now. Already things are getting to where more and more guns are pulled in very mundane situations. With this idiotic law in Texas pretty much every chud is going to be packing everywhere they go so it's only a matter of time before someone pulls out a gun in a mundane situation and triggers a free-for-all firefight a Home Depot or some poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2022 13:42
|
|
|
We had at least one instance where a cop killed a guy who shot an active shooter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2022 16:20
|
|
|
Local Weather posted:This is going to happen any day now. Already things are getting to where more and more guns are pulled in very mundane situations. With this idiotic law in Texas pretty much every chud is going to be packing everywhere they go so it's only a matter of time before someone pulls out a gun in a mundane situation and triggers a free-for-all firefight a Home Depot or some poo poo. I've had chud coworkers for years who actively fantasize about being in a situation where they get to pull out their gun. They talk about how they'll pull up to a red light in a black neighborhood and automatically start looking for cover spots and potential threats in case some thug gangbanger tried to take down the cracker. They are all Ralphie from the Christmas Story movie, and they all think they're going to singlehandedly scare off a hoard of bandits.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2022 16:31
|
|
|
V-Men posted:We had at least one instance where a cop killed a guy who shot an active shooter. There was also the one where the cop killed the security guard who had subdued the shooter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2022 17:13
|
|
|
the_steve posted:I've had chud coworkers for years who actively fantasize about being in a situation where they get to pull out their gun. They talk about how they'll pull up to a red light in a black neighborhood and automatically start looking for cover spots and potential threats in case some thug gangbanger tried to take down the cracker. Same I worked with a guy briefly (I'll call hum Gunny) who open carried at work every day (it was a print shop and we were in the graphics/cpu dept.) During lunch, he would typically recycle shell casings or whatever it's called from his weekend trips to gun shooting places where you go through the mazes with all the pop up targets and poo poo. Dude LOVED guns. He once talked about being at the movies in a sparsely crowded theater (John WIck 2, naturally) and some dude kept getting out of his seat , leaving and then coming back in. "Acting weird". You could tell that Gunny was really hoping that the other dude was trouble and that he'd get to save the day with his gun. He described unstrapping the holster snap/strap thingy and sliding the safety off. He said that "some people call that 'living in fear'. I call it being aware." No, dude It's living in FEAR. I told Gunny that, most likely, the guy was doing coke and making frequent bathroom visits to rip lines, had drank a lot of beer and had to pee a lot or was getting text bombed by his wife or someone and politely went into the lobby to handle the conversation instead of disturbing the theater. But, nah, it was probably a crazed gunman waiting for the right moment to murder *checks notes* ten people tops and you were this close. Surprisingly, Gunny was a real rear end in a top hat. One afternoon, he and I got in an argument (since he also liked to critique everyone else's job performance and he was the only one who knew what he was doing) he told me "gently caress you", management refused to do anything about it and I walked out. Thing that sucked about it is that he WAS very good at his job. Anyway, that's the story of Gunny.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2022 17:14
|
|
|
the_steve posted:I've had chud coworkers for years who actively fantasize about being in a situation where they get to pull out their gun. They talk about how they'll pull up to a red light in a black neighborhood and automatically start looking for cover spots and potential threats in case some thug gangbanger tried to take down the cracker. LMAO are they looking for snipers or something? I don't think it's very common for people to shoot at your car from the sidewalk. Tends to draw attention.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2022 19:34
|
|
|
Brawnfire posted:LMAO are they looking for snipers or something? I don't think it's very common for people to shoot at your car from the sidewalk. Tends to draw attention. Pretty sure that in their minds, it would just become a shooting gallery where they're never in any actual real danger and any bad guys are clearly highlighted and in plain sight.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2022 19:47
|
|
|
Dreaming of a day when my wife and kid are in mortal peril so that I can shoot at something and probably die anyways
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2022 19:54
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:
Speaking as somebody that has to pee at least 3 times every time I go to the movies (it's hell) yeah... That's hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2022 20:02
|
|
|
CuddleCryptid posted:Dreaming of a day when my wife and kid are in mortal peril so that I can shoot at something and probably die anyways It reminds me of the increasingly tasteless pro-cop scenarios that people kept tossing at me in 2020. "What if SOMEONE was IN YOUR HOME and HAD A GUN TO YOUR DAUGHTER'S HEAD and was THREATENING TO KILL HER" Do... you think my answer in this scenario is going to be "call the cops"? And then what? Please, tell me how this ends well for me because of cops
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2022 20:05
|
|
|
If you wanna hear something really  hosed up, there's this version of three little pigs, except it's one pig and 3 ni-wolves and how by ignoring federal firearm laws and hiding the bodies where they'll never be found, the lone little pig ends crime in his town by picking off two wolves and the third moving somewhere where the food can't fight back. Fake Edit: Ah, here it is https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-ntKGowPCBI
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2022 20:06
|
|
|
I asked TheLogicalOne for their definition of risk. “My personal definition which is really completely irrelevant to the conversation is the risk doesn't actually exist it's too nebulous of a concept to actually be paired into an idea. Effectively everything is a risk or has risk attached to it therefore risk is really just the process of understanding cost benefit analysis. In a sense risk is a derogatory word to describe behavior that you don't agree with other people doing. It's essentially a way of saying this person shouldn't have done that without getting the concept of morality involved largely because if you were to make the morality case against such things it would be very clear that preference is all you're referring to. For example I may say drugs are a risk meanwhile somebody who is dealing with extreme abuse might say me taking alcohol to put my mind in a healthier place is the least risky thing that I do in my entire life. I eat it keeps me from going completely insane and being violent to people.” Ngl, I still don’t understand what they mean by risk nor how morality comes into play here. It does kinda of explain why they perceive disagreement as judgment though. As a follow-up I asked them what they think my definition of risk is, we’ll see where that goes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2022 21:58
|
|
|
"Risk doesn't actually exist," I tell myself, as I do 130 mph down an ice covered road with no brakes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 00:21
|
|
|
GrunkleStalin posted:
It reads like just cause fallacy and also someone trying to come off as smarter than they really are. He seems to be arguing that just getting in your car is a risk therefore no one ever need wear a seatbelt or over drive a car because everything is dangerous and people die all the time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 01:40
|
|
|
Triggered a bit of rant when I said that conversation relies on a shared definition of words. They don’t believe that using a shared definition helps conversation as that will cause semantic debates instead of focusing on the semiotics. Which is confusing since one method of assigning meaning is by using a word with a specific definition, but I don’t really know what semiotics is so I’m not sure what TheLogicalOne is trying to convey. If anyone can provide some background on semiotics it would be greatly appreciated. After their rant about shared definitions I found this line. “For him to actually take the risks that he takes he has to convince himself that they are not as risky as they are. And I by proxy necessarily have to have a different definition about those risks or I would take them”. - TheLogicalOne If I’m understanding them right, in order for risk to be taken you must convince yourself the risk is not risky. Which explains why they think risk does not exist. No one would engage in act they think is risky, therefore risk does not exist. As if there is no distinction between risk, risk analysis, nor risk tolerance in their mind. What I don’t understand is how they go from risk not existing to risk being “a derogatory word to describe behavior that you don't agree with other people doing.” Did they merge the concepts of risque and risk? How do you describe the merging of several concepts into one incoherent mess? Or their thinking in general? Has anyone seen a similar thing occur with other people on different topics? It’s completely foreign to me. Actual conversation below. ***** ***** ***** Me - Your definition of risk is critical to understanding you in conversation. Me - Conversation relies on using a set of shared mouth sounds that we agree have the same meaning. TheLogicalOne - It depends entirely on the conversation if we're talking about whether the moon is made of cheese or not you understanding my definition of risk is really pointless and honestly if you think that my definition is pivotal to understanding me in conversation and it's not the only reason that you would have that as an established value is because you can't actually argue with what I'm saying but you think you can argue with my definition TheLogicalOne - Not really I mean that is an assumption that a lot of people make and it's actually why conversation is so difficult to have most of the time. Conversation is about getting to what a person is trying to convey by those mouth sounds. Now obviously understanding the language that someone is speaking can help you get closer sometimes but it can also get you further away. One of the things that I loved about the Pixar movie WALL-E was that a huge portion of the beginning of that movie was entirely silent and the main character the only character was a robot. Yet that movie was able to convey a myriad of feelings and interactions and emotion of this Droid when was no ability for the language to be conveyed. TheLogicalOne - And there are many examples in Hollywood where there is dialogue in a language that you understand where multiple moviegoers have no sense of what the f*** the director or the actors were trying to convey such as inception or Lost in translation. Or anything David Lynch does TheLogicalOne - And before you jump on the shark of oh you just don't understand those things I'm using examples of things that are universally recognized as movies that are not understood by The wider populace TheLogicalOne - If you want to start picking on me for movies that I don't understand any example I can think of right now is My Little pony Me - While true that the goal of conversation is to understand what the other person is trying to convey, using shared definitions greatly increases the speed and ability to understand. TheLogicalOne - In my experience it actually doesn't I've got this friend for example and we share many of the same personal political values on paper TheLogicalOne - For example we are both very good with our money on paper TheLogicalOne - But the matter in which I am good with my money is scheduling and managing what I spent and being content with what I have. His method is to try and increase his passive income. As a result he has some money available but the majority of his liquid assets are tied up in potential investments and debt TheLogicalOne - We both live fairly comfortable lives we both make decent salaries we both have many of the assets in kind that you would expect the person to have who is good with his money TheLogicalOne - But you see it is the fundamental differences in those similar definitions on paper that define us as individuals and those factors are way more important than the claim that we are both good with money. For example should the housing market fail my friend will suddenly become somebody who is not so good with money. Should the housing market fail for me I remain somebody who is good with money TheLogicalOne - Shared definition more often than not leads to semantic debates whereas differing understanding and the ability to put yourself in somebody else's shoes and on their perspective results in semiotic differences Me - What is the difference between you and your friends definition of good with money? TheLogicalOne - There isn't one we both hold that same concept we simply approach the concept from two very different points of view TheLogicalOne - One might say that we are both in the same war and we are using different tactics for our army to argue that the war is more important than the tactics is something that only historians have the luxury of doing Me - To me that sounds like you have difference investment strategies and risk tolerance which are different concepts that good with money. TheLogicalOne - Yes that’s the point Me - Yeah so your difference is tactical implementation of the strategic concept Me - So then your conversations with your friend rely on a shared definition TheLogicalOne - If you were to tell someone we are both good with money as a job interview question that would convey significantly less than the implementation of our strategy Me - You only get into disagreement on tactics which are different concepts but you still have a shared definition of those concepts as well TheLogicalOne - In such an instance having a shared definition does not benefit in any way the ability to convey information it in fact implies something of an equal result from either candidate which would necessarily not exist TheLogicalOne - We don't actually that's the interesting Factor here. For him to actually take the risks that he takes he has to convince himself that they are not as risky as they are. And I by proxy necessarily have to have a different definition about those risks or I would take them TheLogicalOne - This is why you have to look at the semiotics in the world rather than the semantics of the universalized standards the people think exist. ***** ***** *****
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 02:00
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:It reads like just cause fallacy and also someone trying to come off as smarter than they really are. They definitely have some insecurities around their intellect/education and subscribe to the idea that more words == smarter/better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 02:03
|
|
|
GrunkleStalin posted:If I’m understanding them right, in order for risk to be taken you must convince yourself the risk is not risky. Which explains why they think risk does not exist. No one would engage in act they think is risky, therefore risk does not exist. As if there is no distinction between risk, risk analysis, nor risk tolerance in their mind. Yeah he's just flat out wrong on that. People do risk analysis all the time, though not in those words. Like, yeah, getting in a car at all is inherently risky because things can go wrong, you could get hit by a drunk driver, you could take a turn a little too fast and flip your car, etc. But, I still need to go to the grocery store and get food, or I will die of starvation, so while the act is inherently risky, it's a risk I have to be willing to take so I can eat. Now, if the situation changes, then my risk analysis will change too. What if my car had its brake lines cut by some rear end in a top hat? Now the risk is too great because even if I need food, not being able to stop the car makes driving it far more dangerous than driving it under optimal conditions. The risk has increased dramatically, and now the risk is no longer worth it. Now's the point where I call a friend and ask them if they can take me grocery shopping in their car which has functional brakes, which sets the risk at a lower, more acceptable level. quote:TheLogicalOne - And there are many examples in Hollywood where there is dialogue in a language that you understand where multiple moviegoers have no sense of what the f*** the director or the actors were trying to convey such as inception or Lost in translation. Or anything David Lynch does Inception and David Lynch movies may be difficult to understand but it isn't because of the loving dialogue. What's weird is he seems to understand that you can tell a story straightforward without words, he uses WALL-E as an example (and I'd say the first ten minutes of Up are the same way), but he doesn't seem to understand that you can also tell a confusing, maybe even incoherent story without words as well. You can even have characters speaking perfectly understandable and straightforward sentences where what's being conveyed is clear, but the setting is what makes it difficult. Gonna make up an example, let's say there's a scene in The Matrix where someone is sitting in their room reading a book, then suddenly the scene shifts and they shoot up from the robot battery pod their body was in. Someone is standing beside them and says "Hey, how are you feeling?" The person then says "Well I'm wet, cold, and not really sure what's going on." The first person says "That's normal, I work for a group to help people like you, I'll take you to our headquarters and help you out." None of this dialog is incomprehensible. Everything is perfectly logical, and anyone can make sense of it. But to someone who doesn't know what The Matrix is about, the scene is confusing because they don't know why the scene shifted from this person reading a book to them waking up in a pod of liquid, or who this other person works for and how they help people. The scene would be confusing, but not because "I have no idea what the words they're saying are conveying!" quote:Me - While true that the goal of conversation is to understand what the other person is trying to convey, using shared definitions greatly increases the speed and ability to understand. This is just absolute nonsense, he wouldn't even be able to respond to your statement properly if he didn't accept the shared definitions of the words you used. Like, what does it mean to understand something? What does "definition" mean? What is a goal? What is conversation? He shouldn't have any idea what you mean by those things if he didn't accept the shared definition of what those words mean. It'd be really easy to troll him too because you could just spout purple monkey dishwasher lolrandom poo poo at him and he wouldn't know what to make of it. To use the example of where my username comes from, if you were to ask him "I say there, TheLogicalOne, butt's twelve by pies?" He would be confused because the only context he has for this statement is the shared definition of those words, and those words don't make sense when used in that fashion. If you were to respond with "Oh I was using my own definition of those words, which isn't the same as the shared definition," he'd ask you to explain what they mean in your definition, which proves that not using shared definitions makes things take longer and make them more difficult to understand, as opposed to when you said a thing and he responded immediately and without asking for clarification on what you meant. GrunkleStalin posted:They definitely have some insecurities around their intellect/education and subscribe to the idea that more words == smarter/better. He's also engaging in a classic "moving the goalposts" strategy. The whole conversation started because he said that safety equipment doesn't always work and that most advances in technology were from people who took risks by not using that equipment. Like here's the first quotes you posted from him: quote:TheLogicalOne - The best way to manage risk is to not be a p**** quote:TheLogicalOne- If it were the employees being whiny little b****** all the time the company would fire them. But the fact of the matter is the company looks for and aims for people who will take risks. quote:TheLogicalOne - Yes and even that seat belt is a risk versus reward scenario You can tell he understood what risk was, and that he thought that anyone who was scared of it was just a wimp who couldn't man up enough to make things happen. Which is stupid, but sure, okay, I can see someone having that outlook. But the more the conversation went on, the more difficult he found it to justify this way of thinking, so now the goalposts have moved to "Well, actually, 'risk' is a derogatory word" and "if you think about it, like, conversation just makes things harder to understand, who even knows what words mean, man?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 03:22
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:It reads like just cause fallacy and also someone trying to come off as smarter than they really are. It seems like he believes in a risk binary. So risk = risk, and if there is risk (which there always is) then it can't get any worse. Also means mitigation is useless, since lowering risk is only worthwhile if risk can be fully eliminated, which it never can be. So trying to lower risk is a waste of time/resources chasing an unreachable goal. It's very, very dumb. Except you know, it's very doubtful he actually believes this because it means getting in a perfectly functional car vs a car with its brake lines cut should make no difference to him, a la the example above. I somehow doubt he actually acts in this fashion. So really he's just playing a semantics game to avoid having to either fully own up to and defend his original position or admit being wrong. Orange Devil fucked around with this message at 11:38 on Jan 19, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 11:29
|
|
|
the_steve posted:I've had chud coworkers for years who actively fantasize about being in a situation where they get to pull out their gun. They talk about how they'll pull up to a red light in a black neighborhood and automatically start looking for cover spots and potential threats in case some thug gangbanger tried to take down the cracker. When I used to work in Keller, TX I know at least 4 or 5 of my colleagues were armed at work every day. At a management consulting firm, the most dangerous of jobs. They loved to talk about stopping power and poo poo like that, it was nauseating.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 13:51
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:It seems like he believes in a risk binary. This is the same conclusion PartnerStalin reached, it’s like probability doesn’t exist. I think their just world view is behind part of it, they are good so nothing bad like an accident can happen to them. Just World and Binary Thinking also explains the conservative response to COVID. There is no chance of getting COVID, you either will or will not get it. I’m starting to think they believe every interaction is Schrodinger’s Cat, there is no way to predict what will happen until it has happened. The thing I don’t get is, how do you plan for the future if there is no probability? I asked TheLogicalOne to express risk mathematically, it’ll be interesting to see their response. Twelve by Pies posted:It'd be really easy to troll him too because you could just spout purple monkey dishwasher lolrandom poo poo at him and he wouldn't know what to make of it. I am definitely going to do this once I’m done asking about risk.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 13:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 16:19 |
|
|
GrunkleStalin posted:I’m starting to think they believe every interaction is Schrodinger’s Cat, there is no way to predict what will happen until it has happened. You don't. You fight tooth and nail to try to rebuild the world as it was in your childhood. Because that already happened, and you were happy once, so that is the ultimate best possible outcome for the universe. (what? no! racism doesn't exist! what are you talking about? I had ice cream!)
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2022 14:02
|
|
