Popular National Acquisition - Covid

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by steve B

The number of things the government does where we trust them is way too large to really try to mention it all.

"We" trust the government to assure a more or less safe food supply. What's "safe" or "clean is debatable, but the odds of getting say some bad beef is much lower than it would be if it was unregulated.

"We" trust them to ensure our air is sort of clean. And compared to say 1970 its WAY better. One of the particulate regs in the 80's was fought by industry until they realized the equipment to comply made their stuff more efficient with some very interesting cost reductions.

"we" trust them to operate a fairly safe highway system

"we" trust them to ensure that airlines are safe.. (Baggage being lost and flights cancelled is much less regulated)

IS everything the government does a benefit to me? Of course not. Do they do some really bad things? Again, of course.
But overall, I'd trust them over PSA..

I hear you, 100%. The anti-regulation crowd is concerned with the "slippery slope" of authoritarianism, but deregulation is a slippery slope as well. Distrust of government is not only justified, I think it is healthy to an extent. The nice thing about it though is that, as opposed to the private sector, accountability (at least in theory) is more possible. For a purely hypothetical example, a wealthy person who spends their life conning people out of their money in business might get away with it if they have good enough lawyers, but they could run into trouble if they do this as a prominent member of the government.

[timzcardz]

Originally Posted by steve B

That's an interesting study.
Their conclusions say a powered air purifying respirator is much better, which pretty much didn't really require a study.

The part of the study that I found most interesting is

that it was funded by Theranova Inc.,

that created and spun out the privately funded company JustAir,

that was the manufacturer of the powered air purifying respirator (PAPR) used for the study.

Feel free to decide if there was any real or perceived bias in the study.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I agree most of the discussion of masks at all levels has been undifferentiated and has failed to distinguish between masks that are little more than virtue signaling and masks that likely have a protective effect.

Video showing the effectiveness of 1,2 and 3 layer masks at limiting droplets expelled during a sneeze.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TX-2TZZu7Kg


Another showing multi layer and surgical, plus unmasked.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNeYfUTA11s

Simulated cough through a variety of face coverings.

https://www.fau.edu/newsdesk/article...oronavirus.php

One using bacteria growth.
https://www.wral.com/coronavirus/thi...irus/19169675/


I saw a very good one using a particle counter to test different materials, but can't find it now. The ones above only show the limiting of outgoing droplets and particles, but the particle counter showed the potential to limit intake.

The best common material was surprising, no woven polypropylene, or reusable shopping bags.
At the maker space we also looked at it under an electron microscope and it was obviously really close to being equal to N-95.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

This is not what has been promoted for COVID prevention.

Probably because fixing the lifetime of less than perfect choices takes a lot longer than the month or two we had to get things under control.

I'm a bit over weight, and dont exercise enough. (And on a card collecting board, who would have figured...)

How do you suppose I could lose 40-50lbs and fix my cardio to gym rat levels in two months with a late 50's body? ANd do that in 2 months?

[steve B]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

Who are you to tell me what I should or shouldn't be comfortable with? Isn't that a basic fundamental right we can all get behind?

Shocking that you still got COVID. No idea how after all 3 jabs. And you lived. Amazing.

And who are YOU to tell me what to be comfortable with?

If you truly believe what you write, then you are in fact simply trading one fear for another and supporting that choice with a lot of bluster.

Hypocrisy? Yep.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by steve B

Probably because fixing the lifetime of less than perfect choices takes a lot longer than the month or two we had to get things under control.

I'm a bit over weight, and dont exercise enough. (And on a card collecting board, who would have figured...)

How do you suppose I could lose 40-50lbs and fix my cardio to gym rat levels in two months with a late 50's body? ANd do that in 2 months?

Why is it my responsibility to change my life because of choices you made?

Originally Posted by steve B

And who are YOU to tell me what to be comfortable with?

If you truly believe what you write, then you are in fact simply trading one fear for another and supporting that choice with a lot of bluster.

Hypocrisy? Yep.

When have I told you what to be comfortable with?

My "fears" (as you call them; concerns would be a better word) don't result in me demanding you change your life to make me feel comfortable.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

I hear you, 100%. The anti-regulation crowd is concerned with the "slippery slope" of authoritarianism, but deregulation is a slippery slope as well. Distrust of government is not only justified, I think it is healthy to an extent. The nice thing about it though is that, as opposed to the private sector, accountability (at least in theory) is more possible. For a purely hypothetical example, a wealthy person who spends their life conning people out of their money in business might get away with it if they have good enough lawyers, but they could run into trouble if they do this as a prominent member of the government.

In the private sector, businesses that develop bad reputations often don't survive, and people responsible can be sued. Have you ever heard of senators being sued for making unfair policy? As far as prominent members of government running into trouble, I've got 2 words for you to google: Cattle Futures.

I have always thought a great example of good government regulation is weights and measures (whatever the actual department name is... maybe Commerce?) When I'm driving cross country and stop at a gas station, it's good to know when I buy 15 gallons of gas from a station I will never visit again, I am actually going to get 15 gallons.

On the mask thing, and speaking of slippery slopes, I wonder this:

If a person with HIV infects someone, they can be held criminally liable. What if someone who had Covid sneezed on an elderly, vulnerable person, who then died of Covid complications? I suppose the first thing would be to try to establish it was that specific person who introduced the virus to the victim. Suppose that could be done without reasonable doubt. Did the person know they had Covid? Should they have known? Did they have symptoms, and did they test themself? And, finally, did they take any precautions, like masking up?

If this whole Covid thing was playing out differently, meaning, if lawsuits were flying against people suspected of willfully spreading the virus, I'll bet a lot more people would be using masks, if for no other reason than to protect themselves against liability.

That's my random thought for the day.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by steve B

Those things are and have been promoted for decades.
Even to the point of government over reach, not usually on the part of the overall program, but the local people implementing it.

https://www.fns.usda.gov/programs

https://www.americanprogress.org/art...ting-exercise/

https://www.myplate.gov/

Being healthy and eating right is a good thing, but it's not the answer to everything.

In fact, Michelle Obama tried to promote healthier eating habits. As I recall, the right in that instance went nuts.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by Carter08

In fact, Michelle Obama tried to promote healthier eating habits. As I recall, the right in that instance went nuts.

No. Michael Obama tried to CONTROL health.

See? We're consistent. Don't tread on me.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

No. Michael Obama tried to CONTROL health.

See? We're consistent. Don't tread on me.

But at the height of the pandemic refusing to wear a mask was treading on me. Just like driving drunk treads on me. I’d understand the fear mongering if mask mandates have stayed in place. When numbers have gotten better they have gone away.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

No. Michael Obama tried to CONTROL health.

See? We're consistent. Don't tread on me.

Sadly so.

[Deertick]

On a completely different topic, does anyone else remember how obnoxious they were in their 20's?

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by Carter08

But at the height of the pandemic refusing to wear a mask was treading on me. Just like driving drunk treads on me. I’d understand the fear mongering if mask mandates have stayed in place. When numbers have gotten better they have gone away.

No it wasn't. You had every right not to go out in public.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by Deertick

On a completely different topic, does anyone else remember how obnoxious they were in their 20's?

You have yet to point out where I'm wrong.

To quote Judge Smails, "Well? We're waiting."

[G1911]

Isn’t ageism one of those ism prejudices enlightened folks believe to be bad, like racism, sexism, etc.?

A claim is right or wrong on the merit of the claim, not because of who is older. One should debate that and advocate the logical merits of their position instead of appeals to authority by virtue of age.

Carry on.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by Carter08

But at the height of the pandemic refusing to wear a mask was treading on me. Just like driving drunk treads on me. I’d understand the fear mongering if mask mandates have stayed in place. When numbers have gotten better they have gone away.

How did she try to control health?

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by G1911

Isn’t ageism one of those ism prejudices enlightened folks believe to be bad, like racism, sexism, etc.?

A claim is right or wrong on the merit of the claim, not because of who is older. One should debate that and advocate the logical merits of their position instead of appeals to authority by virtue of age.

Carry on.

Absolutely.

However, obnoxiousness, poor judgement, and being a cocksure AH is generally attributed to immaturity, regardless of whatever "logical merits" may or may not be present.

Myself definitely included.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by G1911

Isn’t ageism one of those ism prejudices enlightened folks believe to be bad, like racism, sexism, etc.?

And I don't believe them to be bad. They are bad. Do you not agree?

[Snapolit1]

My only comment is that if you believe politicians over scientists on any issue you are a complete and utter idiot.

Is science always right. Of course not. By definition it is our best known understanding of how things work based on the state of human knowledge. It is refined and revised over time. That’s called the scientific process.

It’s not complete bullshit some idiot politician pulls out of his or her ass.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

My only comment is that if you believe politicians over scientists on any issue you are a complete and utter idiot.

.

I'd agree! But I'd say believe what you know to be true, before anyone else. Nobody has YOUR best interest at heart.

If anything we learned 100% this virus spread just like a common cold. Lysol and cleaning products kills it on surfaces. and washing your hands with soap and hot water is a good defense.

I'm still not sure why scientists claimed they didn't know any of this in the beginning. It seems like a simple lab test would prove what it is. And how it spreads.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Mark17

In the private sector, businesses that develop bad reputations often don't survive, and people responsible can be sued. Have you ever heard of senators being sued for making unfair policy? As far as prominent members of government running into trouble, I've got 2 words for you to google: Cattle Futures.

I have always thought a great example of good government regulation is weights and measures (whatever the actual department name is... maybe Commerce?) When I'm driving cross country and stop at a gas station, it's good to know when I buy 15 gallons of gas from a station I will never visit again, I am actually going to get 15 gallons.

On the mask thing, and speaking of slippery slopes, I wonder this:

If a person with HIV infects someone, they can be held criminally liable. What if someone who had Covid sneezed on an elderly, vulnerable person, who then died of Covid complications? I suppose the first thing would be to try to establish it was that specific person who introduced the virus to the victim. Suppose that could be done without reasonable doubt. Did the person know they had Covid? Should they have known? Did they have symptoms, and did they test themself? And, finally, did they take any precautions, like masking up?

If this whole Covid thing was playing out differently, meaning, if lawsuits were flying against people suspected of willfully spreading the virus, I'll bet a lot more people would be using masks, if for no other reason than to protect themselves against liability.

That's my random thought for the day.

I googled "cattle futures" but I don't think I found what you were pointing to. I would read into it if you provide more info.

I think the gas example is a good one, and I agree. Three industries that come to mind right away where I think more regulation would benefit consumers (the specific regulation would look different in each case) are 1) banking, 2) airlines, 3) cable companies. Various companies in these spaces regularly operate in unethical ways and our government allows them to get away with it (and in some cases, gives them government handouts).

As to the HIV/COVID scenario you bring up, I have to think about that more before opining.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

I'd say believe what you know to be true, before anyone else. Nobody has YOUR best interest at heart.

This is a hard concept for people to grab apparently.

[jethrod3]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

"Despicable" could describe attempts to denigrate the life-saving work of nurses and doctors during a global pandemic. But I guess, to you, risking your health for your fellow Americans is only heroic if you have a gun or a firehose in your hand?

Thank you for crystallizing my thoughts. I'm going to have to respond to his idiotic comment in a separate post.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by jethrod3

Thank you for crystallizing my thoughts. I'm going to have to respond to his idiotic comment in a separate post.

You can save yourself the time. Really not interested in anything else people have to say in this thread.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

I'd agree! But I'd say believe what you know to be true, before anyone else. Nobody has YOUR best interest at heart.

If anything we learned 100% this virus spread just like a common cold. Lysol and cleaning products kills it on surfaces. and washing your hands with soap and hot water is a good defense.

I'm still not sure why scientists claimed they didn't know any of this in the beginning. It seems like a simple lab test would prove what it is. And how it spreads.

How does a layperson KNOW something to be true in an area of complex and emerging science? At least in this context sounds a bit like an empty aphorism.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

I googled "cattle futures" but I don't think I found what you were pointing to. I would read into it if you provide more info.

I think the gas example is a good one, and I agree. Three industries that come to mind right away where I think more regulation would benefit consumers (the specific regulation would look different in each case) are 1) banking, 2) airlines, 3) cable companies. Various companies in these spaces regularly operate in unethical ways and our government allows them to get away with it (and in some cases, gives them government handouts).

As to the HIV/COVID scenario you bring up, I have to think about that more before opining.

The reference to cattle futures was a bad example, sorry. Suffice it to say, prominent politicians have gotten away with all sorts of things due to their privilege. They are safer from accountability than the rest of us, including businessmen with lawyers. Try googling "Chappaquiddick" instead.

My example, to be clear, was regulation of individual gas stations, not the gas industry. When I go to a gas station I'll never go to again, and the owner sees my out of state plate and figures that out, he could be tempted to cheat me, knowing I'd have little recourse. But because his dispensers are regularly checked for accuracy by the government, it's very difficult for him to do so.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Mark17

The reference to cattle futures was a bad example, sorry. Suffice it to say, prominent politicians have gotten away with all sorts of things due to their privilege. They are safer from accountability than the rest of us, including businessmen with lawyers. Try googling "Chappaquiddick" instead.

My example, to be clear, was regulation of individual gas stations, not the gas industry. When I go to a gas station I'll never go to again, and the owner sees my out of state plate and figures that out, he could be tempted to cheat me, knowing I'd have little recourse. But because his dispensers are regularly checked for accuracy by the government, it's very difficult for him to do so.

Yes, I know that one. "Nancy Pelosi stock trading" is another one that would fit with what you're saying. I disagree that they are "safer from accountability than the rest of us". From you and me, perhaps, but not from the ultra-wealthy, who are some of their biggest campaign contributors.

I got your meaning on the gas station example. My examples are different, but I shared them as I think they would potentially provide the same sort of benefit to consumers (knowing that you won't get bumped from an overbooked flight, for example).

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

How does a layperson KNOW something to be true in an area of complex and emerging science? At least in this context sounds a bit like an empty aphorism.

Perhaps the same way they "know" that "crime in (insert name of large city) is out of control!" and "acknowledging that gay and trans people exist is corrupting our youth!"

[Peter_Spaeth]

One thing this thread reveals if nothing else, there may be an inverse correlation between knowledge and arrogance.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Deertick

And I don't believe them to be bad. They are bad. Do you not agree?

It is an opinion, a belief. A belief is not, can not, inherently be right or wrong; because it is a belief and not a fact. It is the defining fundamental characteristic of an opinion that it is not fact; a value judgement is by its nature an opinion. It is a belief I personally agree with, that prejudice based on biological characteristics is illogical, unreasonable, and in my opinion morally reprehensible, but that does not make it not a belief, because I agree with it. Beliefs I agree with are not facts; facts are not opinions and opinions are not facts however proper I find them to be.

I am greatly amused that the response to my post is to ask if, or suggest I am racist, sexist and/or ageist because I am cognizant of what a belief is, from the guy throwing ageist attacks at someone else. Pray, continue the witch-hunt for ism's only from people you might disagree with.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

One thing this thread reveals if nothing else, there may be an inverse correlation between knowledge and arrogance.

I believe there have been numerous scientific studies showing that to be true. Or as the venerable Dr. Phil put it, "he who yells loudest and last ain't right!"

[jethrod3]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

1) One of the main learning tools for kids when it comes to speaking is visual. They watch others' mouths when they speak to help form words. This is a known fact. Take that away, and you'll see speech disorders. Add in the lack of social engagement which helps speech, and you'll see it even more. These are common sense, known facts. People didn't see smiles, etc. Masks are a detriment to development and mental health. Prove me wrong. 100% wrong.

2) I think it's despicable to call what medical professionals went through as "the front lines". I also don't think their health was much at risk. The shortage of nurses came from hospitals firing unvaxxed nurses, not a huge spike in nursing deaths. COVID isn't a killer of average healthiness or better people. Most nurses/doctors are healthy. I also talked to nurses and doctors who have said the whole thing is blown way out or proportion. So excuse me for not holding these people in the same regard as military or firefighters, etc. "Front lines"... Psh...

3) Trump super spreader events is what you're going with? I don't recall mass COVID transmission at these. You're not gonna use Obama's Martha's Vineyard party (which legitimately was a mass spreader), or National Sports Collectors Convention (if we want to be less political) as an example? Trump is who you want to target, proving you have bias in this?

4) Thank you for not wasting a breath. I wouldn't want you to rebreathe too much CO2. Ask dogs what they think of Fauci, and if he's "respectable". Oh wait... They're probably dead if he was able to get his hands on them. Better yet, ask him some questions in Chinese. I hear he's fluent. Wuhan.

Enjoy your night.

1) This started with your comment about the harmful effects of CO2, but whatever. For the benefit of others and so I can dispel some of the things you are trying to pass off as fact, I ran your comment about speech disorders by a psychologist that is very well-versed on the issue of masks and development, notably speech development and actually had discussed the issue with colleagues this week. It seems that anti-maskers are using this as a cop-out. The most affected population is infants and unless parents wear masks 24/7 in their own homes, it does not significantly impact their speech development. Plus, it is being shown CURRENTLY, that in affected child populations, kids recover from any speech development set-backs temporarily imposed by schooling with masks on. But many of the senior citizens that kids would have transmitted the virus to (if the kids didn't wear masks) obviously wouldn't have recovered from COVID. Again, not a valid excuse for mask-wearing during a pandemic. Nice try, though!
2) So...it's "despicable to call what medical professionals went through as "the front lines?" Ever consult the dictionary? "Front line: the most important or influential position in a debate or movement." I don't know where you live, but where I live, the healthcare workers most certainly were the most important movement locally. And you're oblivious if you don't think there was a shortage of nurses. There certainly was a shortage of doctors and other hospital staffers. Are you gonna debate that too? Because you can easily google and find out that many medical schools called in their 4th year medical students to assist because in fact, so many hospitals were short of doctors (and nurses) in the first few months of the spike.
3) Nice try again with #3. Trump did more to spread COVID at his rallies and WH events (during the heights of the pandemic before a vaccine was available) than Obama. And oh, the National? Well, maybe if people would have masked up and took precautions...but there were too many folks that thought like you, and didn't want to breath in slightly more CO2 I guess, so they went maskless and found out. But those that were fully vaccinated....at least most didn't get hospitalized and die like Herman Cain, who I believe attended a Trump super-spreader.
4) Nice that you are a dog lover. Hey, common ground I guess because I am too. But I recognize the role that animals play in translational health research. That research has probably saved the life of you or your family members at some point. And rules are in place to use the least sentient species to do health-related research and to use as few as possible and only under the most humane and ethical conditions possible. Now, looking at the rest of your gibberish in your #4 diatribe, it's clear what your mindset is. "Better ask him in Chinese...Wuhan" tells me all I need to know about you.

Because of your last comments in #4 that you made, among other nonsense you've spouted in your passive-aggressive posts and your "attempts to belittle" demeanor, I won't be reading or responding to any more of your posts. There is nothing that you can possibly say on this topic and little about memorabilia that I feel I can trust or that I care to hear your opinions about. But...I do hope you stay healthy and that you, too enjoy your night.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

It is an opinion, a belief. A belief is not, can not, inherently be right or wrong; because it is a belief and not a fact. It is the defining fundamental characteristic of an opinion that it is not fact; a value judgement is by its nature an opinion. It is a belief I personally agree with, that prejudice based on biological characteristics is illogical, unreasonable, and in my opinion morally reprehensible, but that does not make it not a belief, because I agree with it. Beliefs I agree with are not facts; facts are not opinions and opinions are not facts however proper I find them to be.

I am greatly amused that the response to my post is to ask if, or suggest I am racist, sexist and/or ageist because I am cognizant of what a belief is, from the guy throwing ageist attacks at someone else. Pray, continue the witch-hunt for ism's only from people you might disagree with.

In the legal world, opinion and fact are more of a spectrum than a sharp divide.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

In the legal world, opinion and fact are more of a spectrum than a sharp divide.

We are not in a court of law; we are engaged in a debate where the philosophical divide established by Aristotle and predominant in the west for 2,500 years has been the standard. A claim to fact, and an opinion on morals and ethics and what is right and wrong are two very, very different things and have been recognized as such for many, many centuries.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

We are not in a court of law; we are engaged in a debate where the philosophical divide established by Aristotle and predominant in the west for 2,500 years has been the standard. A claim to fact, and an opinion on morals and ethics and what is right and wrong are two very, very different things and have been recognized as such for many, many centuries.

OK, but you have now qualified your definition of opinion to be limited to the topics of morals and ethics.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

OK, but you have now qualified your definition of opinion to be limited to the topics of morals and ethics.

No; I said, quote, " A claim to fact, and an opinion on morals and ethics and what is right and wrong are two very, very different things and have been recognized as such for many, many centuries." I did not say a claim to fact and this kind of opinion are the ONLY "very, very different things", or that this is the ONLY type of opinion there is. In fact, I acknowledge the opposite by giving a specific kind of opinion; the specificity would be pointless if the argument was that this is what all opinion constitutes. I'm sure you can get me for something I've said, but I'm not sure why we would want to argue that an opinion and a fact are not different, and this line sure isn't it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

No; I said, quote, " A claim to fact, and an opinion on morals and ethics and what is right and wrong are two very, very different things and have been recognized as such for many, many centuries." I did not say a claim to fact and this kind of opinion are the ONLY "very, very different things", or that this is the ONLY type of opinion there is. In fact, I acknowledge the opposite by giving a specific kind of opinion; the specificity would be pointless if the argument was that this is what all opinion constitutes. I'm sure you can get me for something I've said, but I'm not sure why we would want to argue that an opinion and a fact are not different, and this line sure isn't it.

I never said they were not different, my point and I stand by it is that the sharp demarcation you are drawing is not so sharp in the legal world, lots of statements in the securities fraud context for example are held to be mixed statements of fact and opinion, and even pure opinions can be fraudulent in some circumstances. Your rejoinder that we are not in a court of law doesn't really respond to my point does it?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I never said they were not different, my point and I stand by it is that the sharp demarcation you are drawing is not so sharp in the legal world, lots of statements in the securities fraud context for example are held to be mixed statements of fact and opinion, and even pure opinions can be fraudulent in some circumstances. Your rejoinder that we are not in a court of law doesn't really respond to my point does it?

I'm not a smart man, so perhaps it is my lack of knowledge, but I cannot fathom what securities fraud has to do with what I was talking about and responding too, when another member asked if know, as a fact, that racism, sexism, and all the other ism's are wrong. I do not know about opinion in securities fraud; I am cognizant that a view I have, a moral view, a view of Ethics, a value judgement, is not a fact; it is simply my opinion.

If you are asking me about the different definitions used in a non-philosophical, moral, political, or ethical context; specifically in a court of law in a case of securities fraud, then my reply is that I do not have any opinion on that and it is utterly and completely irrelevant to anything under discussion. Deertick was asking if I am, or suggesting I might, a racist, not a person guilty of securities fraud.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

Yes, I know that one. "Nancy Pelosi stock trading" is another one that would fit with what you're saying. I disagree that they are "safer from accountability than the rest of us". From you and me, perhaps, but not from the ultra-wealthy, who are some of their biggest campaign contributors.

Nan remains the most powerful lady in the USA, and the man who left a live woman to die remained a senator for decades, up until his death. That's the very definition of being safe from accountability. And there are many more examples, on all sides of the political map.

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

I got your meaning on the gas station example. My examples are different, but I shared them as I think they would potentially provide the same sort of benefit to consumers (knowing that you won't get bumped from an overbooked flight, for example).

I understand why airlines overbook flights - to cover themselves against cancellations. I've long thoght the simple solution would be to offer guaranteed seating. A customer pays for his ticket, understanding it is non-refundable. The airline is guaranteed that seat is sold and the customer is guaranteed that seat is his. People who want to have the option of cancelling if they must can reserve tickets the usual way, understanding it's a two-way street: they can cancel on the airline, and the airline can bump them.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I'm not a smart man, so perhaps it is my lack of knowledge, but I cannot fathom what securities fraud has to do with what I was talking about and responding too, when another member asked if know, as a fact, that racism, sexism, and all the other ism's are wrong. I do not know about opinion in securities fraud; I am cognizant that a view I have, a moral view, a view of Ethics, a value judgement, is not a fact; it is simply my opinion.

If you are asking me about the different definitions used in a non-philosophical, moral, political, or ethical context; specifically in a court of law in a case of securities fraud, then my reply is that I do not have any opinion on that and it is utterly and completely irrelevant to anything under discussion. Deertick was asking if I am, or suggesting I might, a racist, not a person guilty of securities fraud.

Perhaps I segued into a different topic if so my culpa, just something about the way your phrased your answer led to these thoughts.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

This is a hard concept for people to grab apparently.

They are all out to get you. There is a pizza parlor pedophile ring etc etc.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Nan remains the most powerful lady in the USA, and the man who left a live woman to die remained a senator for decades, up until his death. That's the very definition of being safe from accountability. And there are many more examples, on all sides of the political map.

Definitely. I am also thinking of "accountability" in a somewhat different way as well. I'll call it "accountability to the consumer". For example, if I get a weird letter from a government agency, there is a way for me to find out, via laws and public information, what is going on and why. If my cable internet stops working, I call and get to speak to "John" in New Delhi whose expertise is limited to suggesting that I plug and unplug something. The company is not obligated to tell me anything, or even help.

To circle back to the "regulation" issues, these companies have effective monopolies in some places and competition is stifled by issues of infrastructure ownership and rights. In many European countries, regulations have helped give consumers more, cheaper and better options for high speed internet.

Originally Posted by Mark17

I understand why airlines overbook flights - to cover themselves against cancellations. I've long thoght the simple solution would be to offer guaranteed seating. A customer pays for his ticket, understanding it is non-refundable. The airline is guaranteed that seat is sold and the customer is guaranteed that seat is his. People who want to have the option of cancelling if they must can reserve tickets the usual way, understanding it's a two-way street: they can cancel on the airline, and the airline can bump them.

I agree that would be a solution, but for them, why do that when they can overbook (including non-refundable, non-guaranteed tickets) and double dip?

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by BobbyStrawberry

Definitely. I am also thinking of "accountability" in a somewhat different way as well. I'll call it "accountability to the consumer". For example, if I get a weird letter from a government agency, there is a way for me to find out, via laws and public information, what is going on and why. If my cable internet stops working, I call and get to speak to "John" in New Delhi whose expertise is limited to suggesting that I plug and unplug something. The company is not obligated to tell me anything, or even help.

If a company gives you poor service, you can switch companies. I don't have cable; if you had to, you could live without it too. Satellite dish services, Netflix, Amazon, internet streaming, free broadcast TV, buy DVDs, or just spend half of the rest of your life on Net54 like Peter and me.

With companies, you have the option to not do business with them. If government is unfair to you, you can't simply cancel your service with them, and moving to another country is not really a practical option for most.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

If a company gives you poor service, you can switch companies. I don't have cable; if you had to, you could live without it too. Satellite dish services, Netflix, Amazon, internet streaming, free broadcast TV, buy DVDs, or just spend half of the rest of your life on Net54 like Peter and me.

With companies, you have the option to not do business with them. If government is unfair to you, you can't simply cancel your service with them, and moving to another country is not really a practical option for most.

Yeah, in some ways the government is the ultimate monopolist.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by Mark17

If a company gives you poor service, you can switch companies. I don't have cable; if you had to, you could live without it too. Satellite dish services, Netflix, Amazon, internet streaming, free broadcast TV, buy DVDs, or just spend half of the rest of your life on Net54 like Peter and me.

With companies, you have the option to not do business with them. If government is unfair to you, you can't simply cancel your service with them, and moving to another country is not really a practical option for most.

High speed internet providers have effective monopolies in some locations. Even in places where there is competition, the competitors will treat their customers with equal disdain. Since our country refuses to invest in transportation alternatives, if you have to get from X to Y quickly, you have to deal with the airlines (or airline). This is just like your gas example–let's say there was no regulation of the sort you described. In that case, you don't know your options or how to choose them if you're on the road in an unfamiliar place. In my examples, if you are lucky enough to have options, they might all suck equally. Government regulation can improve that, just as it does in your gas example.

ETA - I don't pay for cable tv and never have. Clearly I'm on my way to the "life on net54" camp.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

One thing this thread reveals if nothing else, there may be an inverse correlation between knowledge and arrogance.

Washing hands with warm water and soap...more effective than a paper surgical mask? What say you?

What about

Orignal.models "flattening the curve" showed more deaths over a longer period but not inundating hospitals. Those would.be the heros that sacrificed.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by G1911

I'm not a smart man, so perhaps it is my lack of knowledge, but I cannot fathom what securities fraud has to do with what I was talking about and responding too, when another member asked if know, as a fact, that racism, sexism, and all the other ism's are wrong. I do not know about opinion in securities fraud; I am cognizant that a view I have, a moral view, a view of Ethics, a value judgement, is not a fact; it is simply my opinion.

If you are asking me about the different definitions used in a non-philosophical, moral, political, or ethical context; specifically in a court of law in a case of securities fraud, then my reply is that I do not have any opinion on that and it is utterly and completely irrelevant to anything under discussion. Deertick was asking if I am, or suggesting I might, a racist, not a person guilty of securities fraud.

Originally Posted by G1911

Isn’t ageism one of those ism prejudices enlightened folks believe to be bad, like racism, sexism, etc.?

A claim is right or wrong on the merit of the claim, not because of who is older. One should debate that and advocate the logical merits of their position instead of appeals to authority by virtue of age.

Carry on.

Greg, I did not ask you if you "know, as a fact, that racism, sexism, and all the other ism's are wrong." I simply asked you if you agreed with "the enlightened folks". In my reading, the phrasing of your comment is ambiguous at best. I assumed it was just a poorly constructed attempt to ridicule, and I was attempting to point that out in an absurd way.

A belief or opinion can be debated. I have never heard the other side of the ism issue as in "I believe it is good". Only whether or not it exists (it has, forever) or the extent (valid).

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Washing hands with warm water and soap...more effective than a paper surgical mask? What say you?

What about

Orignal.models "flattening the curve" showed more deaths over a longer period but not inundating hospitals. Those would.be the heros that sacrificed.

How is washing hands going to stop airborne transmission which is the main way this virus spreads?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Deertick

And I don't believe them to be bad. They are bad. Do you not agree?

Here you are, expressly and explicitly denying that it is a belief, an opinion, and asking if I agree it is a fact, not a belief or opinion.

All I can do is read your actual words, as written.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

How is washing hands going to stop airborne transmission which is the main way this virus spreads?

Well from CDC website it says

"Reduces respiratory illnesses, like colds, in the general population by 16-21%".

So theres that, I guess they didnt know that science in the beginning.