Woman Killed By Pokémon Go Driver

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
if you give people slack when their argument is if it saves one life. the next thing you know your rights are taken from under your nose.

Ask Z about whatever right you are concerned with and find out how much he values that right himself.

I've gone days and weeks in circular arguments with Z, and some others here and in the topics we are arguing about you would think that we were complete polar opposites.

Then I have quietly engaged them with a PM, told them about myself, my life, read about there's and gotten to our worries and concerns and what I keep finding out is that we are far more alike than we are different.

Try it, you might like it.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
It does need fixing.
That line of thought is why we have airbags mandated for every single car that does more harm than good. It's because jumping on the bandwagon onto safety without properly thinking about it does a lot more harm than good.
His line of thought would shift blame onto game manufacturers for a really really low percentage of human trash that cannot control themselves. It would litigate people out of jobs and we already have too many laws which blame others instead of the ones causing the problem.
In his previous example he wanted to mandate $1500 for thermal imaging in cars. That adds a huge cost and weight to an already expensive system into cars, let alone the maintenance costs. It's questionable how many lives that would save a year. Clearly the FTA doesn't think it's worth while technology to pursue.
Even in the medical profession we have concepts such as triage which is to treat the patients who have the highest chance of saving first. That's how you save the most people is to figure out ways to address the problems affecting the most people, then move on to the unlikely chances.
This pokemon go issue is a very unlikely chance. It's outright silly to treat it like a epidemic.

But if you stamp out his line of thought without remorse and completely eliminate it, what happens then? You can not approach problem solving without weighting pros and cons. You can't select the best course of action without having more than one course to choose from.

A democracy isn't a democracy if everyone thinks exactly the same and has exactly the same values, it's just an Ant Farm.

We need difference and we need to value difference and we all, despite our differences need to be able to come together and find solutions to problems that work. Maybe this time, guys like Z don't have the best approach, but what about the next problem?

I'll keep him around, I have one hell of an ego and I think I am always right, but one thing I try not to forget is that everything I ever learned, I learned from someone else, or I learned the hard way.

And sometimes learning the hard way sucked.
 

wizzi01

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
2,972
Ask Z about whatever right you are concerned with and find out how much he values that right himself.

I've gone days and weeks in circular arguments with Z, and some others here and in the topics we are arguing about you would think that we were complete polar opposites.

Then I have quietly engaged them with a PM, told them about myself, my life, read about there's and gotten to our worries and concerns and what I keep finding out is that we are far more alike than we are different.

Try it, you might like it.

I already know his stance on gun control. If you missed the posts you can search for them.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
I think you are missing my point. His stance on gun control is his to have. I wouldn't try and take it from him any more than I would try and take your views from you or want someone to take mine from me. But his stance on gun control doesn't have anything to do with his stance on this subject and even if it differs from your own on both these issues it doesn't mean you don't share very close positions on many more topics.

What I am saying is that overall the two of you might be much closer together than you might think.

I've been working on my anger issues, can you guys tell? :sneaky:
 

Gigus Fire

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Messages
2,275
But if you stamp out his line of thought without remorse and completely eliminate it, what happens then? You can not approach problem solving without weighting pros and cons. You can't select the best course of action without having more than one course to choose from.

A democracy isn't a democracy if everyone thinks exactly the same and has exactly the same values, it's just an Ant Farm.

We need difference and we need to value difference and we all, despite our differences need to be able to come together and find solutions to problems that work. Maybe this time, guys like Z don't have the best approach, but what about the next problem?

I'll keep him around, I have one hell of an ego and I think I am always right, but one thing I try not to forget is that everything I ever learned, I learned from someone else, or I learned the hard way.

And sometimes learning the hard way sucked.
No, it's perfectly normal to "stamp out" irrational lines of thought and explain why they're absurd. Nothing happens then because it doesn't solve anything and causes more problems if seriously listened to.
For example, if someone was concerned about their house being built next to the ocean and flooding/tidal waves, one might suggest building a sea wall. Others might suggest raising the structure using pylons. Others might even suggest relocating the house. Someone might suggest moving the house to mars because there's no water on mars.
If you seriously consider that last suggestion as something viable then you end up wasting your time because it would cause a lot more problems moving the house to mars than any of the other reasonable solutions.
Also, a democracy is all about majority rule, not diversity. I believe you're confusing the two to make an illogical argument.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
No, it's perfectly normal to "stamp out" irrational lines of thought and explain why they're absurd. Nothing happens then because it doesn't solve anything and causes more problems if seriously listened to.
For example, if someone was concerned about their house being built next to the ocean and flooding/tidal waves, one might suggest building a sea wall. Others might suggest raising the structure using pylons. Others might even suggest relocating the house. Someone might suggest moving the house to mars because there's no water on mars.
If you seriously consider that last suggestion as something viable then you end up wasting your time because it would cause a lot more problems moving the house to mars than any of the other reasonable solutions.
Also, a democracy is all about majority rule, not diversity. I believe you're confusing the two to make an illogical argument.

But you are operating under a false premise. Your example suggests that we are a group has has something to say about what is to be done. That we have some authority over the outcome and an impact on the choices. We do not, and if we do, this is not the "forum" for that activity. This is only a place for discussion, exploring ideas and a little friendly bonding. While your argument would be sound if we were the Politburo, it looses validity on the [H]. Here, opinions are not required to be viable and although no one requires that you respect the opinions of others, I think we'll all enjoy each other a little more if we at least respect their right to have their own opinions.

Like I said, Z might not have the best solution for this problem but it doesn't mean he doesn't have good ideas on other problems or that by listening to his reasoning that together you won't both discover the best option available.

Have you never had someone suggest something that wouldn't actually work, but it made you think of something else that would work even better than what you had initially come up with?
 

Gigus Fire

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Messages
2,275
But you are operating under a false premise. Your example suggests that we are a group has has something to say about what is to be done. That we have some authority over the outcome and an impact on the choices. We do not, and if we do, this is not the "forum" for that activity. This is only a place for discussion, exploring ideas and a little friendly bonding. While your argument would be sound if we were the Politburo, it looses validity on the [H]. Here, opinions are not required to be viable and although no one requires that you respect the opinions of others, I think we'll all enjoy each other a little more if we at least respect their right to have their own opinions.

Like I said, Z might not have the best solution for this problem but it doesn't mean he doesn't have good ideas on other problems or that by listening to his reasoning that together you won't both discover the best option available.

Have you never had someone suggest something that wouldn't actually work, but it made you think of something else that would work even better than what you had initially come up with?
I'm not operating under any premise. The internet itself is the perfect forum for opinions and ideas.
While everyone has the right to their own opinion, opinions in general should be considered and reviewed. Whether something is viable or not is prevalent to the discussion. Whether or not someone agrees with the opinion or disagrees is purely up to the people who actively participate to decide on and if they choose to do so, to post about it.
The right to have an opinion does not supersede the right of others to have an opinion of that opinion. This isn't some safe space, this is real life.
Specific to this discussion, the idea that the government mandate infrared technology to have cars see in the dark would be costly and unreasonable. Giving people the choice to buy cars with that technology is not. That's called the free market system which we sort of have.
Pushing responsibility on video game manufacturers to babysit the players of the game is unreasonable and would stifle innovation. Having people be responsible when they drive is how real life works.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
Hypergreatthing, I need to backtrack a little. I was thinking it was you that brought up Z's stance on gun control and that his thinking was intractable. It was not you and I just spent some time re-reading most of this thread. Overall there has been some decent discussion going on, if anything, I am guilty of leading this topic right off the rails. You and I agree in our views on the specifics regarding this article. Z has a different take, but I was addressing you as the one who was trying to shut Z down and that was my error. Sorry about that, my mistake.

Oh, and my new car has a terrific backup assist and cross path detection system. It can't be that expensive a feature to add, not to improve on by adding forward looking collision warning features. I think it's well past time for them and they apply not just for distracted driving but for bad visability etc.
I don't know about making them mandatory, but I sure value the safety systems in my Challenger and have grown to rely on them heavily.
 

LatexRat

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
181
We should just ban driving. It's making our texting and games unsafe.
 
Last edited:
Top