The Other "Why I'm better than everyone else" thread

[ajqtrz]

Thank you for once again totally missing the point of a post because you are so stuck in your own mind you are incapable of understanding another's opinion.

You have made a claim that I missed the point of a post and then described my condition as "incapable of understandings another's opinion." What point did I not understand: please quote the point as it was made and then my reply to it so we can compare and I can learn from my mistake.

I will observe that attacking an opponent in a debate is usually a sign that the speaker has nothing further to contribute to the debate. If you do have something you wish to contribute, including an explanation of what point I missed and how I missed it or "why you conclude that I am incapable of understanding another's opinion," please do so. Otherwise it is probably best to refrain from vacuous statements attacking the speaker without providing the evidence supporting your conclusion.

Thank you

AJ

 

[ajqtrz]

@SoggyShorts
You said:

How can you read the opposite of what I'm saying?
When I leave late, it means I missed the nice window where there are fewer drivers, so I have to drive slower. It does not mean I go faster it's the exact opposite.
You are consistently trying to use the mistake of being late as a motive, and I would rather not repeat again that such is never my motive.

The average accident is 1.6 in a million miles on the freeway, and I'm estimating I'll drive about 50,000 freeway miles in my life that puts my odds at
50,000/1,000,000 =0.05
0.05*1.6=0.08 or 8% chance
If I'm lucky I can average 75 in the 60 zone over all of the trips so
15mph =4.5% increased risk.
8% becomes 8.36% chance

~110h vs 0.36% chance of an accident. interesting.

I'm not sure how they'd ever get stats on it but I am curious how much of a role driver fatigue would play in this. at 2.5h it's a boring drive, and at 3.5h it's even more boring."

To which I reply:

Nice job. You are correct that the chance of having an accident is only slightly more per mile and thus, if you take the mileage you have and divide the accidents per million miles calculations you should get the increase in percentage of having an accident at whatever speed. The average American driver drives 13,000 miles per vehicle per year. So whatever their rate, yours is nearly 4 times more than the average driver. But of course, if you use the same formula to determine the severity of the accident you will get in every 20 years of so (5% x 20 = 100) then while your accident rate may remain a constant .036, the severity rise would be 12% higher per each 5mph...36% higher chance you won't survive, 36% chance that if you do survive your injuries will be severe, and if they aren't severe a 36% chance they will be moderate as verses minor.

But more to the point perhaps, is the question of your risk is personal, but what of the risk you are adding to the others on the roadway. Do you have the right to increase their risk needlessly? If you are never in a hurry from being late, then why drive at 75? If you aren't in a hurry to get there, get there at the same time. I do apologize if I overstated or said that you were in hurry because you had left late after a Sunday fun time or something. It may have been somebody else who spoke of having had a good time on Sunday and leaving late for work....which I assumed would motivate them to drive faster.

At least you do agree that the speed increase does present an increase in accident rate (however small it is perceived) and severity. If that is true then the rational thing and humane thing is to not increase those things for your fellow travelers and drive the speed limit.

AJ

 

[ajqtrz]

perhaps you should look more closely at my words. I didn't say they weren't being paid, I said they are not receiving severance or notice. They are being cut loose on the spot because the laws about notice and severance take back seat to the laws about paying off creditors during a bankruptcy. They are breaking one law, because a different law gives them permission to do so.

I am corrected. Still, if you don't like the laws, change them. Lobby and work hard to do so. It can be done. If, on the other hand, you don't think it's worth your time and energy then they won't be changed. The big companies you speak of collect money from their customers to lobby for laws benefiting their bottom line. Workers need to do the same.

AJ

 

[ajqtrz]

@SoggyShorts

You said:

"Correction: It would be near zero if everyone was travelling at the same speed in the same direction without change. Same speed doesn't help if you get side swiped by someone who didn't check their blind spot.
Can you tell me how many of those 1.6 per million miles were caused by speeding, and would not have happened if everyone was driving at or under the speed limit?
I imagine a few are from falling asleep, deer or other unexpected obstructions.
Everyone driving at exactly the same speed isn't really feasible either as some larger semis can't do it going up hills, and you often have to adjust your speed if you are exiting the freeway soon."

If everyone is driving as the same speed in the same direction then nobody would be side-swiped since to do that the distance between the swiping car and the swiped car would have to decrease and thus, the two would not be driving in the same direction. Two objects traveling in parallel at the same speed will never make contact with each other.

According to the US Dept of Transportation, 23% were caused by "excessive speed." 40% were caused by "traveling too closely" and about 25% were caused in the process of lane changes. Of the 40% caused by "traveling too closely" 10% of those were caused by a vehicle not at the scene who cut off the struck car causing them to break sharply. In general the accident reports indicate that the vehicle not at the scene, the one causing the accident, was traveling "at a high rate of speed."

I agree with you that in some situations it would be difficult for some vehicles to maintain the speed limit. For that reason most states require "slow moving" vehicles to remain in the right lane or two right lanes. Thus, there is a tacit understanding I think, that a lane is necessary for passing slow moving vehicles. But as I've said, I'm not arguing the idea of a passing lane, if it's used strictly for passing. The advocates for a "fast lane" are not arguing they need it for passing, as evidenced by the fact that if you are passing a "slow moving" vehicle it must be that the vehicle is going significantly below the speed limit and thus if you do the speed limit in the "passing lane" you will pass him. But of course people who want the speed limit driver to vacate the "fast lane" are not concerned with merely passing or they would not mind going the sufficient to pass --i.e. the speed limit. They want the fast lane so they can go faster than than the rest of traffic, even when the traffic is already exceeding the speed limit by 5, 10 or even 15mph. I'm arguing that their reasons for doing so are irrational as they are raising both the accident rate and severity for all of us (and thus the insurance rates as well...hmmmm another line of reasons, as if I needed one...LOL).

AJ

 

[Ashrem]

I am corrected. Still, if you don't like the laws, change them. Lobby and work hard to do so.

I made no assessment of whether I like the laws. I said the creditors of Sears probably feel the same way as you do, in response to you writing: "1) Am I convinced that a moral position that obeys the law is superior to one which allows the individual to decide what laws should be obeyed and which should not? It matters not if I have this attitude, it matters if it's a "morally superior" position"

By which I indicated you are apparently in agreement with the management and creditors of a bankrupt company that ensuring the creditors get their money back is morally superior to providing severance/notice to hourly employees because that is how the law is set up. I realize you have a lot of trouble expressing what I think, but perhaps fewer apologies would be necessary if you spent less time telling the world what I think?

 

[SoggyShorts]

According to the US Dept of Transportation, 23% were caused by "excessive speed."

What is their definition of "excessive speed?" Is that anything over the posted limit, or are there categories of speeding?
Also, since we all agree that 2 objects moving in the same direction at the same speed without change cannot hit each other, what else caused the accident? They only way I can think of that speed can be the only factor is if a speeder lost control and went off the road.
If a speeder hit another vehicle that must include either following too close or an improper lane change.

 

[mucksterme]

You have made a claim that I missed the point of a post and then described my condition as "incapable of understandings another's opinion." What point did I not understand: please quote the point as it was made and then my reply to it so we can compare and I can learn from my mistake.

I will observe that attacking an opponent in a debate is usually a sign that the speaker has nothing further to contribute to the debate. If you do have something you wish to contribute, including an explanation of what point I missed and how I missed it or "why you conclude that I am incapable of understanding another's opinion," please do so. Otherwise it is probably best to refrain from vacuous statements attacking the speaker without providing the evidence supporting your conclusion.

Thank you

AJ

No
I'm not getting into this game of going back and forth forever because you keep misreading what others say. Others here are happy to do that.

I'll just end with this. YOU quoted all the evidence you needed. YOU can not even read what you yourself quoted and interpret a very clear meaning. YOU prove my point with every post you make.

 

[teddeler]

What would happen if you lined up all the cars in the country bumper to bumper so they reached from one coast to the other?
.
.
.
.
.
Someone would try to pass.

 

[teddeler]

Returning to the "Things that bother me" theme:

Block upon block of identical houses - which is why my Elvenar town looks a bit chaotic (not that I'm offended by the orderly Elvenar towns I visit - if efficiency is your priority, go for it ).

 

[mucksterme]

Knowing I'm not smart enough to be President
whilst
Knowing I am 3.64 times smarter than The President

 

[DeletedUser]

Jerks who spam game forums with unintelligible gibberish.

 

[shimmerfly]

@Azkaban
I totally and 100% agree. Although there are some who would write pages upon pages (7 you want to get technical) of why they do or do not agree I will try to keep it to a short minimum and not quote miles of clinical and useless information that is off subject and boring.

 

[shimmerfly]

Knowing I'm not smart enough to be President
whilst
Knowing I am 3.64 times smarter than The President

I'd vote for you

 

[ajqtrz]

I made no assessment of whether I like the laws. I said the creditors of Sears probably feel the same way as you do, in response to you writing: "1) Am I convinced that a moral position that obeys the law is superior to one which allows the individual to decide what laws should be obeyed and which should not? It matters not if I have this attitude, it matters if it's a "morally superior" position"

By which I indicated you are apparently in agreement with the management and creditors of a bankrupt company that ensuring the creditors get their money back is morally superior to providing severance/notice to hourly employees because that is how the law is set up. I realize you have a lot of trouble expressing what I think, but perhaps fewer apologies would be necessary if you spent less time telling the world what I think?

As to the creditors I'm of the opinion that worker wages should always come first as the bankruptcy was a usually a decision the creditors could have avoided by simply either writing off the loans or restructuring them. They choose not to do so and thus force the results upon those "creditors" who had no say in the management of the company...the workers. So I think you are right, we agree on that, but that wasn't, as you pointed out, the issue.

As for the bankruptcy, any asset used as collateral for a loan did not belong to the company because it was under a lien of default. As long as the company kept it's part of the contract and met it's fiscal obligations the property is jointly owned by the creditor and the company. Once the company fails to uphold it's part of the contract the asset belongs to the creditor. Thus, the problem is that SEARS has far fewer assets than one would expect exactly because ownership of collateral is transferred to the creditors at the moment of bankruptcy. In most cases whatever is left over is used to first pay back wages and government obligations, then to the unsecured debt.

The question of notification and severance is dependent upon the contract but of course once a company goes bankrupt whatever penalties spelled out in the contract are subject to court review. If there were penalties in the contract for failure to notify or for failure to pay severance it is probable that they would be put into the "wages" category and divided among the workers. However, in speaking to a corporate lawyer about this yesterday, he said that the laws vary greatly on the matter and judges even more so. Some states are better than others.

AJ

 

[mucksterme]

people who can't move on

 

[ajqtrz]

No
I'm not getting into this game of going back and forth forever because you keep misreading what others say. Others here are happy to do that.

I'll just end with this. YOU quoted all the evidence you needed. YOU can not even read what you yourself quoted and interpret a very clear meaning. YOU prove my point with every post you make.

Sorry, but you haven't pointed out a single instance of anything you have claimed. It's quite easy to make claims because you are annoyed, frustrated, or whatever, but good debating style insists that when asked, you explain using evidence ...which means you quote and show of what you are speaking. Anyone can stand and shout, but for the shouting to be intelligent you may wish to include examples.

Of course I quoted the evidence I needed. I didn't see much evidence for the other point of view except personal experience and some reasoning. Good debate depends on information gathered and presented, the more objective the better.

How does this post, since I "prove [your] point with every post make" show that I "can not even read what [I myself] quoted and interpret a very clear meaning?" You continue to make claims and seem to think that by sheer repetition and "shouting" you are magically producing verifiable evidence. Put away your magic wand and do some homework so you can bring actual evidence to the discussion. Opinions are fine but they are summations of personal experience, not substitutions for the experience represented by scientific, verifiable, objective measures.

AJ

 

[ajqtrz]

What is their definition of "excessive speed?" Is that anything over the posted limit, or are there categories of speeding?
Also, since we all agree that 2 objects moving in the same direction at the same speed without change cannot hit each other, what else caused the accident? They only way I can think of that speed can be the only factor is if a speeder lost control and went off the road.
If a speeder hit another vehicle that must include either following too close or an improper lane change.

"Excessive speed" is speed in excess of the speed limit. It's excessive because it exceeds the speed limit set by engineers responsible for determining what is not excessive.

I know I've clarified this before, but again, if all cars are moving at the same speed, in the same direction, the only way there can be an accident is if something changes. Thus, there could be no accident without change. I may have inadvertently left out something in a sentence and made it appear I was claiming that an accident could happen if all cars were going in the same direction at the same speed. If so I did not mean that. In a situation where everybody is traveling the same speed and direction, it is change that causes accidents, and change is to what a person has to react all the time. The human body can only react so fast, hence the constant problem with rear endings. People need to give themselves enough time to react and don't.

This tells you how speed can be a factor. For if everybody is doing 55 and there is sufficient distance between cars there would be no rear end collisions. However, once you increase the speed if people do not increase the distance between vehicles speed becomes a bigger factor. Thus, speed is related to the rate of accidents because people do not adjust to increased speed sufficiently.

The "following too closely" is the key phrase since is it possible for a speeder to not be following at all and just slam into the other guy without that guy slowing down or anything. I would suspect the driver who does that is probably high or drunk.

AJ

 

[ajqtrz]

@Ashrem

"By which I indicated you are apparently in agreement with the management and creditors of a bankrupt company that ensuring the creditors get their money back is morally superior to providing severance/notice to hourly employees because that is how the law is set up. I realize you have a lot of trouble expressing what I think, but perhaps fewer apologies would be necessary if you spent less time telling the world what I think?"

I'm not sure but it would appear that saying I am "in agreement with the management and creditors of a bankrupt company that ensuring the creditors get their money back is morally superior to providing severance/notice to hourly employees because that is how the law is set up" is telling people what you think I think, right?

Well, I apologize a lot because it's important, I think, to be as honest as one can and to fess up to one's mistakes, be they large or small. I may or may not have a hard time expressing what you think because maybe, what you think isn't always as clearly presented as you think. Usually when I get a "correction" I just assume I misread the original statement and assume the fault was my own. Even when I go back to the original statement I sometimes find it less clear than the person who wrote it thought it was. But then I apologize anyway as it's not that important to me since I just received the clarification and wish to stay on subject not to denounce any lack of clarity I may find in the original post. I have broad shoulders and don't mind taking the blame as much as I can for misunderstandings.

But back a bit to the laws regarding bankruptcy. They, as I said earlier, vary a lot. In an ideal situation a company should take care of its workers. But how that is done is a large area of disagreement. Workers work for wages and benefits usually spelled out when they are hired. Notification and severance may or may not be a part of the package. For any employee to expect notification and severance they need to look at the wages and benefit package and see what it says. If they expected it and it wasn't in the wages and benefits package they they did not do their homework before the company went bankrupt. If they had looked and found nothing in the wages and benefits package regarding notification and severance then why would they expect a benefit for which they did not ask or make any effort to secure. This is not to say SEARS should not have provided it, but it is to say that the employees did not include it in the contract for their services and probably didn't even think of it.

Now if the employees did not think of it in advance why is it the company is to blame if they too did not think of it? To fault the company you would have to show that they did think of it but made a calculation that they would not do it. Do you have any evidence of that?

Of course you are speaking not of legal things in the matter, but of moral. Upon what basis are you resting your understanding of what is moral and what is not? For if you have no basis then it's just a gut feeling you have and while I can respect that, I am not persuaded by it and won't be unless I suddenly get the same gut feeling. Here I am not putting words into your mouth so much as asking for your basis for morality.

AJ

 

[SoggyShorts]

@ajqtrz
4 full paragraphs and nothing resembling an answer.....I'll try one more time:

Speeding cannot by itself cause an accident with another vehicle.
Hitting another vehicle requires either a lane change, or following too close.
So I ask again, do you know what else was involved in the 23% of accidents that involved speeding? Or does the USDT not have that data?

 

[DeletedUser]

@Azkaban
I totally and 100% agree. Although there are some who would write pages upon pages (7 you want to get technical) of why they do or do not agree I will try to keep it to a short minimum and not quote miles of clinical and useless information that is off subject and boring.

Oh, yeah, that too...