Fu*%face Von Clownstick

Road and highway safety is one of the single biggest public health challenges that we face, and we could fix it tomorrow by government force. It would save just one life, and then some.
 
Muggs said:
Road and highway safety is one of the single biggest public health challenges that we face, and we could fix it tomorrow by government force. It would save just one life, and then some.
Click to expand...
And I do wish that the world would just slow the fuck down. I would love to see cars limited severely, for those and other reasons. It’s also apparent that many people will act directly against their own best interests as much as they’d do shitty things to others, and need to be protected from themselves as much as everyone else needs to be protected from them. Without rules, shit just falls apart. I could make examples all day, but I trust that you get what I’m saying.
 
Muggs said:
We all recognize the faulty logic of this argument, whether we care to admit it or not. Hundreds of people die in the US every year in swimming pool accidents. Where are the public demands for health officials and bureaucrats to force the closure of all backyard swimming pools?

We can all agree that if we forced every single driver and passenger in vehicles on the roads to wear full body harnesses and helmets, similar to NASCAR, and we reduced the speed limits on the roads by 80%, that we would save hundreds of thousands of lives. Hell, we could prevent every, single, fatality and injury on the roads, if we could just force everybody to stop driving. But we don't do it. Why? Maybe because somewhere, in some tiny little back pocket of our brains, we all understand that life involves risk.

There are literally thousands of things that government over-reach could force on the population that would save a lot more than just one life.
Click to expand...
Those affect the people who are doing the activity, not the innocent ones who are killed because someone else didn't care.
A motorcycle rider who doesn't wear a helmet is only affecting their outcome. Killing me or a member of my family because you think it is your right not to wear a mask in public is ludicrous.
If your child died because they caught covid in a grocery store, you would sing a different tune.
 
Matias said:
Ultimately rules only exist to account for our lowest common denominators; our weak links. If people would just stay the fuck away from everyone else as soon as they get sick, then diseases would become a smaller part of our reality. That would be nice, but people are selfish.
Click to expand...
Yep. On friday I had a neighbor ask me to come by and look at some tree work even though he had a family member in his household with covid. This POS didn’t say a word to us as he knowingly exposed my wife and myself to covid. I had to hear it from a fucking neighbor. Needless to say I won’t being doing any tree work for this fella in the future.
 
Shadowscape said:
Those affect the people who are doing the activity, not the innocent ones who are killed because someone else didn't care.
A motorcycle rider who doesn't wear a helmet is only affecting their outcome. Killing me or a member of my family because you think it is your right not to wear a mask in public is ludicrous.
If your child died because they caught covid in a grocery store, you would sing a different tune.
Click to expand...
Thousands of innocent passengers and pedestrians are killed every year on the roadways. People who did nothing wrong.
 
I have not said anything whatsoever about masks or the maga jabs. I'm not talking about that stuff at all. I'm talking about the supposed logic of using government force to impose (insert arbitrary policy here) to save just one life.
 
Muggs said:
I have not said anything whatsoever about masks or the maga jabs. I'm not talking about that stuff at all. I'm talking about the supposed logic of using government force to impose (insert arbitrary policy here) to save just one life.
Click to expand...
My apologies.
But doesn't Government forced mask wearing fall into your category? You are correct, you didn't say anything about that. So, where do you stand on that issue? Just so I don't stomp on your toes unjustified once again.
 
Muggs said:
You know, things like closing down the parks for inner city kids, or arresting solitary surfers in the water, or forcing the closure of millions of small businesses.
Click to expand...
You know, for less than what ended up being spent out of the public coffers, the government could have provided the means for everyone to safely endure a real serious 3 week lockdown, and if everyone would’ve taken it seriously, for the good of all including themselves, then there’s a very real possibility that we could have seen things play out very differently. People were too stubborn from the start, demanding their freedom from the tyranny of the very idea of being helped or helping others. I’m not pointing fingers, because there were bad actors in every corner, and there still are. Nobody’s camp is spotless. But the idea that everyone has it out for you is not supported by the available data. Some do and some don’t, and a lot goes into getting objective information.
 
Muggs said:
We all recognize the faulty logic of this argument, whether we care to admit it or not. Hundreds of people die in the US every year in swimming pool accidents. Where are the public demands for health officials and bureaucrats to force the closure of all backyard swimming pools?

We can all agree that if we forced every single driver and passenger in vehicles on the roads to wear full body harnesses and helmets, similar to NASCAR, and we reduced the speed limits on the roads by 80%, that we would save hundreds of thousands of lives. Hell, we could prevent every, single, fatality and injury on the roads, if we could just force everybody to stop driving. But we don't do it. Why? Maybe because somewhere, in some tiny little back pocket of our brains, we all understand that life involves risk.

There are literally thousands of things that government over-reach could force on the population that would save a lot more than just one life.
Click to expand...
I would love it if we some how got rid of cars. F..k cars. Bikes are so much more fun. Cars make riding my bike less fun.
 
I don't think it was a mistake to get it out there, but numb nuts with his, inject disinfectant, and light will cure it in minutes, and it is not a big deal bullshit made the situation much worse than it needed to be. But then, he screwed everything up and made it worse.
 
rico said:
“whoever saves one life, saves the world entire”

We all like to piss and moan about all the suffering and inconvenience we had to endure during covid, but maybe, just maybe, all those covid measures saved the life of one of your loved ones?
Click to expand...
Yes exactly. Same with gun issue and enviroment issue. Large and loud groups of people are into this all or nothing idea. If we cant stop all gun violence lets not do anything, if we cant solve all enviromental problems in 1 swoop lets not take any steps . If we cant stop or solve covid entirely we should do nothing. The whole mask issue is a perfect example.
 
Muggs said:
We all recognize the faulty logic of this argument, whether we care to admit it or not. Hundreds of people die in the US every year in swimming pool accidents. Where are the public demands for health officials and bureaucrats to force the closure of all backyard swimming pools?

We can all agree that if we forced every single driver and passenger in vehicles on the roads to wear full body harnesses and helmets, similar to NASCAR, and we reduced the speed limits on the roads by 80%, that we would save hundreds of thousands of lives. Hell, we could prevent every, single, fatality and injury on the roads, if we could just force everybody to stop driving. But we don't do it. Why? Maybe because somewhere, in some tiny little back pocket of our brains, we all understand that life involves risk.

There are literally thousands of things that government over-reach could force on the population that would save a lot more than just one life.
Click to expand...
This is faulty logic. This is all or nothing thinking. All your examples are not reasonable. Speed limits, seat belts, masks and vaccines are reasonable. A law saying we can not climb trees because it is dangerous would not be reasonable. Being required to wear a helmet when climbing a tree is reasonable. How many of you dont wear a helmet because being required to wear one violates your freedom?
 
I really don't want to completely derail this thread that is supposed to be about "Fu*%face Von Clownstick". There are other threads to talk about the pandemic. I have never advocated that we should have done "nothing" , nor would I ever claim that we did "all". I am simply pointing out that a lot of what was done was arbitrary, and not just in hindsight. And that setting the burden of proof of a policy at "just one life saved" is an extremely low goalpost when that policy will effect millions. To say that the whole thing was grossly mismanaged is an understatement, whether you like blue hats or red hats. Trump is an asshat, and I do wish we had better people in charge of things, both then, and now.
 
Muggs said:
I really don't want to completely derail this thread that is supposed to be about "Fu*%face Von Clownstick". There are other threads to talk about the pandemic. I have never advocated that we should have done "nothing" , nor would I ever claim that we did "all". I am simply pointing out that a lot of what was done was arbitrary, and not just in hindsight. And that setting the burden of proof of a policy at "just one life saved" is an extremely low goalpost when that policy will effect millions. To say that the whole thing was grossly mismanaged is an understatement, whether you like blue hats or red hats. Trump is an asshat, and I do wish we had better people in charge of things, both then, and now.
Click to expand...
Nice topping in the wind, by the way. Looks like you have a good ground man.
 
Muggs said:
I really don't want to completely derail this thread that is supposed to be about "Fu*%face Von Clownstick". There are other threads to talk about the pandemic. I have never advocated that we should have done "nothing" , nor would I ever claim that we did "all". I am simply pointing out that a lot of what was done was arbitrary, and not just in hindsight. And that setting the burden of proof of a policy at "just one life saved" is an extremely low goalpost when that policy will effect millions. To say that the whole thing was grossly mismanaged is an understatement, whether you like blue hats or red hats. Trump is an asshat, and I do wish we had better people in charge of things, both then, and now.
Click to expand...
Suggesting that everyone stop driving is an example of " all " in my equation. Preventing 1 death isnt enough to take reasonable steps is the do nothing. I understand your point. I dont think you are saying we should do nothing. The real question is what steps should the gov take in these cases that are reasonable? 1 death isnt your theshold to take reasonable steps. What is? I am quessing few people in our country die each year from hand grenades, why not make them legal then? Why because they are dangerous and it is reasonable to make a law preventing people from owning them. Alot of what was done was not arbitrary. In fact the exact oppisite. Steps put in place were things that made reasonable sense. Masks, vaccines both reasonable steps when dealing with a virus that in the past have been used. How much closing of schools, work places etc was necesary is open for debate. Surely closing nothing or closing everything wasnt reasonable.
 
Perhaps if trump had once considered using the Obama administration's Pandemic playbook and kept politics out of it, we might have accepted that 1. This was a worldwide crisis and 2. There were global organizations and very wise people in place to handle it. It is a government's job to protect citizens during health catastrophes--and segregating sick people is the primary part of that process. It's the way all pandemics are handled--and no one has come up with a better idea.
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/6819268/Pandemic-Playbook.pdf

When we act like America's policies were overly restrictive, we should recall that the entire world shut down:

If the next pandemic starts in America, do we really want China and the rest of the world to blame it on us, or would we wish them to work with us to overcome it? Would we want American nurses and doctors to be harassed, to leave the medical profession altogether, or to commit suicide?

Thousands of people around the world still die of COVID every day; to deny that fact is madness. Will those who prioritize "freedom" over public safety wish to share the grocery store with Ebola patients, should it come to that? Probably . . . and that's very sad.

Three of my cousins died after avoiding vaccines for political reasons; trump and his followers are largely responsible for that. And now we can look forward to measles and other types of outbreaks due to anti-vaccine fallacies. It's nuts!
 
Dr. Shigo admonished us about bridging biology and botany. I'm going to make a thought bridge here though.

In the early days of EAB a task force of agency foresters/arborists in the affected region gathered to come up with some structure for dealing with EAB. They reached out to people at the CDC to get a different outlook.

Epidemics, no matter their heritage, act alike is what was discussed. In the end the tree care folks agreed on some variety of sanitation and inoculation. Through the years of COVID issues I've been surprised that arbos who have cut down trees with DED, EAB, etc etc or used industry accepted injections didn't bridge their thoughts to COVID. Epidemics are epidemics is what the CDC brought to our game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Kask Stihl NORTHEASTERN Arborists Wesspur TreeStuff.com Teufelberger Westminster X-Rigging Teufelberger
Back
Top Bottom