Ohio Catholic schoolteacher fired for being gay

Post Reply New Topic

This isn't addressing me but I'll answer. A small privately owned shop? No. It may be too costly for an individual to obtain the safe saw. For a massive publicly traded multinational corporation? Maybe. I don't have an ideology that automatically gives me the "correct" answer, which means I have to think about it, balancing the pros and cons before coming to a decision.

You know what's great about the internet? When someone says something about you or something you wrote, people are free to look back over things and decide for themselves, it's sort of self correcting for lies and distortions in that way. That being said, I'll stand by my posts.



I'm actually very familiar with that device and it's inventor, and it's actually a great case study in crony capitalism. A guy invents and patents something that does do something useful, but at a high enough cost that it makes his product uncompetitive in the market. Rather than say, figuring out a way to make his product competitive, he chooses to lobby the state to mandate that his product be used, sidestepping that whole "competition" thing that everyone else has to deal with. And since he controls the patents on the device, a government mandate would de facto kill every other manufacturer of power saws out there not willing to license the technology, and he can charge whatever he wants for the license, as manufacturers have no were else to go. An excellent argument for keeping the state out of the market, thanks for sharing it with us.

Another great example would be the body scanner people, where the company that makes the scanners and holds all the patents related to them, has very cozy ties to the lawmakers who have pushed them as necessary safety devices that must be installed at all airports. So, we get to be subjected to radiation and intrusive scrutiny every time we want to fly so someone can make a buck. Hooray.

Do you think companies with a financial interest should be the ones setting the policy that the rest of us have to live by? As I previously pointed out, private companies also own prisons and lobby the state to lock more people up so they can make more money; you cool with that? After all, what's a few million people being incarcerated next to a statistically insignificant number of saw related injuries?

Don't sell yourself short Marshall, you have a morality that serves much the same stated purpose, but without the pesky thinking.

Wow! I can honestly say I didn't expect such a spectacular fail. I can now leave the argument in peace with myself. But let me explain why. You can then say again you won because I left the argument and all that brilliant stuff that is characteristic of you.

The new thing your post has is a setence we can agree on: people can certainly look back and see our posts and decide who is being rational here. Just as an example you say I lied but didn't say where did I lie. It's interesting, considering that you acuse me of not backing up my points. (self contradiction)

The second point I want to make is that you don't even know how to read. I'll say it again and this time read carefuly (I'll make it in bold so your brain can locate it and not miss it again): "So do you think the legislators in America should pass a law forcing businesses who work with these saws to use this technology (or some technology equivalent to it in terms of safety)?" Other companies invented their own technologies to prevent these accidents. (lack of ability to read properly)

That brings me to my third and main point. Even if there was only one technology on the market, the legislators could make a deal which would serve all parties: the workers who wouldn't lose their fingers, the company that has the patent and the companies who were selling saws, by only passing the law if the price was fair. But you're such a radical free market guy that you didn't even think of this option. You are so blinded by the free market utopia that an obvious thing, such as thousands of people not having to amputate their fingers each year, through intervention of legislative power (not even executive power!), didn't cross your mind. Or, even more seriously, if it crossed your mind, you dismissed it on the basis of prejudice against regulation, prefering that people have their finger chopped off instead. The last post was to see to what extent you are a free market fundamentalist. Such being the case, I prefer not to argue with such people about these things. You keep having that free market utopia dream and I'll continue being just a guy who has a sound ideology. (free market fundamentalism)

As an encore, examples of your usual strawmen. Did I ever say that "companies with a financial interest should be the ones setting the policy that the rest of us have to live by" ? Did I say that I'm in favour of lobbying by companies? They are so bad and far from what I said that it makes me laugh! (strawmen)

PS: Learn when to use "its" and "it's". (Lack of brightness)

Oh I almost forgot the misinterpretation combined with lack of brightness! 3000 amputations a year is indeed a low number compared to the american population, but it's certainly not an insignificant number compared to the number of people who work with these saws.

Say you've been doing this work for 30 years and you've never cut your finger off. Now the government wants to tell you that, because other people aren't careful, you have to buy a whole new saw that is expensive to purchase and maintain. Is that fair to the person who wasn't going to cut off their finger?

Government laws like this which serve to protect the careless and the stupid amongst us only hurt the ones who were doing a good job in the first place. It is harmful to the best people and beneficial to the worst. The same is true for progressive taxes, for the education system (no child left behind), etc. If you cut off a finger it is your fault, not the saw or the government or the public or your co-workers. We're punishing people for success and rewarding a lack of personal responsibility. This may save a few fingers but it will weaken us overall as a society.

Sorry, I'm not discussing this saw thing. Either you get it or you don't. If you don't get it, I'm not going to bother.

Go on thinking yourself a supreme rational thinker because your own vastly superior moral premises devalue squishy fairness and justice in favor of easy to define property rights. Why didn't you read or respond to my longer post regarding anti-discrimination laws?

Not understanding your point and disagreeing with your point are two different things. You brought it up but now you can't defend it. Don't make it seem like I am the reason your argument failed.

It's not that I can't defend it, it's that I won't.

You most certainly do not. Ownership is entirely a legal concept. If the law does not recognize a proprietary interest, there is nothing that can be owned.

It is a well established principle of the Common Law that there is no property in a living human body, and human remains generally only have a quasi-property right in the executor or administrator of an estate to inter or otherwise dispose of them. The only exception that creates true property rights in human remains is where a person has invested skill in creating from them something that has characteristics distinct from a corpse awaiting disposition (for example, a cadaver, a skeleton or other body part that has been preserved for study, or display).

That being said, you do control your body, and you are entitled to the fruits of your body's labour (unless you have sold those to another). But that is a very different thing from ownership.



Look at your first statement, and in particular, "protect the careless." Everyone, regardless of skill and experience, is careless from time to time. Laws that mitigate risk in the event of carelessness are potentially valuable, and their value should be weighed against the likelihood of risk, and the gravity of damage that may occur in the event. A low chance of death calls for more stringent risk managment than a high likelihood of papercut. Mitigating risk doesn't reward carelessness. Rather, it protects us from carelessness--not merely our own carelessness, but often the carelessness of others, too.

Now, that doesn't excuse corruption. The crony capitalist who gets a legal mandate for the use of his intellectual property is a factor that needs to be weighed against the risk being managed. But to suggest that all regulation is inherently bad is a foolhardy notion.

I am not "punished" for my success. My income is high, and I pay significantly more in taxes than my friends and many of my colleagues. That's not punishment, those are my dues for living in a safe, secure and prosperous society. If anyone is getting punished, its the people who are denied access to a living income because of barriers to access income support and the insufficiency of that support.

Last edited by visagrunt on 26 Apr 2013, 2:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I think you know perfectly well that property rights are but a facet of my personal philosophy, but you're in attack mode, so you're saying things that you know to be untrue because you think they'll cause me some irritation or other ill effect, which you feel I deserve.
I finally found the term to describe your behavior, it's called altruistic punishment, a mechanism that evolved in early hunter/gatherer groups as a solution to free riding and other systemic problems.
http://www.pnas.org/content/100/6/3531.long

In the modern era though, it often goes haywire, and leads to the Nancy Graces of the world screaming for the heads of the Casey Anthonies and Amanda Knoxes of the world, or in this case, the Marshalls of the forum calling for the heads of the Fnords and Ruveyns of the forum, and lashing out at the people who question their authority to do so and the methods chosen. Read the abstract, it's pretty interesting.



I did read it and chose not to respond. I've got a big distraction going on in this thread, and I wasn't sure large scale engagement with you was such a good idea. Not because I can't argue against your ideas, but because I don't trust your self control, and believe it or not I don't want to see you banned, I just want you to behave like everyone else here has to. I don't get to threaten to stab people in the eye or hurl profanity laden insults at people I disagree with, so why should you be afforded that "privilege"? See, I don't completely reject the concept of fairness, but I would argue that evenhanded enforcement of a relatively straightforward rule is a whole different kettle of fish to state imposed "economic fairness", which is highly subjective to say the least.

He should sue them for prejudice and become Athiest and teach in a normal school with real learning!

Such risk assessment decisions are a part of daily life, but they shouldn't automatically be government regulations. Risks and rewards are different for everyone, why should the government get to decide what is in my best interest? I am in favor of freedom of choice, even if that means someone might lose a finger. Give me liberty or give me death.

I try to protect myself from my own carelessness, I shouldn't be forced to help protect everyone else who doesn't bother, nor should I be restricted by their incompetence. Having such a nanny state teaches people that they can walk around blindly and get away with it. They end up thinking "I can do whatever I want, and if I do something stupid it is someone else's problem for not stopping me." Not consciously of course, but that is the inevitable conclusion. A lack of personal responsibility. It does reward carelessness compared to others who are careful, which is a bad thing to promote.



I don't think you are using the same language I am, where not giving someone free stuff is a punishment and not taking as much as we can is a reward.

See what I've been dealing with?

I never said that they should. But regulation is not void ab initio simply because it seeks to manage risk.

Government gets to decide what's in the nation's best interests. People getting injured on the job is a significant drain on economic productivity, and incurs significant cost and pressure on health care services. Addressing preventable injuries is a significant way in which government can address these issues which become significant when aggregated.

This is futher compounded when people refuse to manage risks. Why are seat belts mandatory? Because fuckwits won't wear them otherwise. Why are there laws prohibiting people from working alone in certain situations? Because employers, given just half a chance, will attempt to reduce costs and expose their employees to risk, rather than mitigating those risks.



You trying to protect yourself does nothing for the person who suffers a loss--or worse an injury--when you fail to do so.

You fail to appreciate the constructive aspect of regulation. My professions are heavily regulated, but I don't wind up thinking, "I can do whatever I want." To the contrary. The rules around how medicine and law are practiced serve to reinforce to my attention every day that I am obliged to exercise care and prudence in how I go about my work.



You are describing my tax burden as a punishment. I reject that notion. I replace it with the notion that barriers to accessing a living income are a punishment.

Call me when you've live on welfare for a year, and we'll compare notes about who's getting punished. I'll take my higher tax rates any day of the week, thank you very much.