An idiot and his table saw...

Page 2 of 8  


It was Keith that dragged Obama blaming Bush and not accepting responsibility into this, not me. That is what seems a giant leap to me. And sorry, but his whole post is in fact based on ideology, which is simply a set of beliefs. Apparently he believes that accepting personal responsibility somehow negates the need for safety protection devices. That doesn't compute in my world and all I did was point it out.
> If you don't

As I replied to Keith, what does any of that have to do with the usefulness of SawStop on a table saw? It's not an issue of personal responsibility. It's an issue of safety and the fact that accidents happen to everyone. ======================================================== It's much more than that. Safety is fine. Having it shoved down our throats is not. If people want safe, let them buy a SS. End of story. But just the beginning of the MANDATED story, which is what that SS hustler Gass is all about.
Ditto seatbelts, helmet laws. There's no fukn safety safety concern for the public in seatbelt laws. The safety bullshit is all bullshit rhetoric, it's *clearly* all about revenue raising.
The others are correct -- personal responsibility -- and the education usually associated with PR -- could easily be MORE effective -- and as importantly, more overall PRODUCTIVE -- than a gadget that works by destruction. . Just how fukn hard is it to push a piece of wood thru a g-d saw, so's you don't get cut?? Answer: Not hard at all. Just become educated, such as thru the original vid in the OP -- which, amongst other things, showed that low-profile push-blocks mebbe aren't such a good idea, afterall.
Howzat crawling helmet going, btw??
--
EA





Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/5/2012 11:59 AM, Existential Angst wrote: ...

Well, that isn't so, in reality, no.
There's a very big societal cost in the higher injury/death rates owing to folks not being individually responsible-enough to use them. It's kinda' like the class staying after school because of one somebody threw a spitball...we all pay for the sins of the few.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, then, technically, I remain correck: Gummint don't give a fuck about an indivdual's safety, they're concerned about their own bottom line. :) :)
It's

A good analogy.... Altho I think kidnapping, extortion, and ransom are better analogies. :) And there's no SWAT team for our rescue....
--
EA


>
> --
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/5/2012 1:07 PM, Existential Angst wrote:
...

Well, fundamentally they're the same...and should be concerned about "their" bottom line since again, fundamentally, that's us.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sometimes people get a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt, even if they always have been. It's a warning not to ever again exceed the local speed limit. Like the cop said: "Oh my, we got us a local".
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The thing is we're all paying through the nose for airbags all over the place that were originally sold to Congress on the basis that they made seat belts unnecessary, and now the reason we have to wear seat belts is to protect us from the damned airbags.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That "logic" can be applied to any/all of our freedoms. You really do want government to own you rather than the other way 'round.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
says...

This notion that seat belts or banning tobacco or restricting portion sizes or the like can reduce the death rate is one of the stupidest arguments I have ever seen. The death rate is constant--one person, one death. Everybody dies. The question is not whether, it is when.
Seat belts do not save lives. They may prolong them, which is a different issue. As to "cost", which costs more, to treat acute trauma from an automobile accident or to treat Alzheimer's?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Statists aren't known for their logic.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/5/2012 12:19 PM, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

What has this to do with personally responsibility? If you are stupid enough to put a cup of near boiling hot coffee between your legs, the company that made the coffee hot like you told them you want should not be held responsible for your stupidity.
I am as safe as any one. The stupid mistake I made with my table saw is the first I have made in the 50 years of using the saw. Should I have the right to sue the manufacture because I was stupid?
The nanny state can not continue to require some safety device for every stupid action that someone makes. If someone does something stupid and looses a finger, it will be (or not be)there to remind them to be safer in the future.
Regardless of how many safety devices are places on a saw or anything else you use, they will not make you safe unless you accept the responsibility for your own safety. If you do not know enough about the saw or whatever device you are using to KNOW what is an unsafe act, you should not be using it.
Maybe the next step is for our nanny state is to regulate the use of table saws, and only allow you to use it after you have passed a test and paid the government money for a license. Because government licenses we now have no auto death or injuries.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I never suggested suing anyone. The thread isn't about suing anyone for anything. It's about a device that can stop a spinning saw to prevent injury. Kind of like seatbelts in cars and airbags, both of which have proven to have significant benefits.

Again, the issue was SawStop, not litigation.

That kind of Darwinian logic means we should remove all safety devices from everything and we'd be better off. Seat belts, air bags, smoke detectors..

Did you watch the video? Even the experienced woodworker didn't realize how close he came to a serious injury while making that video. Yes, there is SOME relationship between personal responsibility and accident rates. But even the most responsible person can still have an accident. I asked you before. The conservatives out there are always talking about personal responsibility. They speak out like you do about it not being right for someone to sue if they pour hot coffee on themselves. So, let's look at them. You think they are immune from accidents? MAYBE they have a somewhat lower accident rate, but I guarantee you plenty of them have had saw accidents. It's a SAFETY issue and ACCIDENTS happen] to everyone. That's why we call them accidents, not "on purposes".

Passing a test would seem to be more in line with your method, ie making people personally responsible. The only way I see a 40 year old who isn't responsible possibly becoming responsible around a saw is via education. Yeah, I know, you'd prefer he visit the hospital to learn and have all of us pay for it, right?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Haven't you heard? Trader4 is an economist, and knows everyfuknthing there is to know about everyfuknthing. Somehow, tho, he winds up jerking himself on ng's, instead of tryna learn a li'l sumpn sumpn -- which ultimately is the real purpose of ng's, imo.
And when you admit to learning sumpn, or being wrong, or whatever, then he calls you an idiot. Which speaks volumes about his character.
--
EA



>
> --
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/5/2012 2:27 PM, Existential Angst wrote:

you just have time on your hands and like to bitch?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Funny you should ask..... Ackshooly, I'm on vacation, have a TON of shit to do, and I'm procrastinating like mad.... Trader4 is sort of a sport....
BUT, I got a treeeeeeMENdous post in the offing, for RW, on paint spraying.... yer gonna love it....
--
EA




Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

You do know that this thread is crossposted to three groups?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There was no context. But it is interesting that someone would drag Bush and Obama into a discussion about SawStop. Do they have a SawStop or even use a table saw?

What exactly am I stretching? Keith believes in a Darwinian system, where instead of having safety devices we rely on people cutting off their fingers, which according to him teaches them personal responsibility. That is in fact an ideology. Based on that, we should rip out all the GFCIs, seatbelts, smoke detectors, etc. Be careless around the house with a cigarette, you'll learn by dying in a fire, right? Misuse that hairdryer and you'll get shocked or killed. That will teach you.

Fool. I didn't say people should not be personally responsible. Nor did I say people should be sue happy, another red herring Keith is now draggin in here. I said that a feature like SafetyStop has nothing to with personal responsibility because accidents can and do happen to all of us.

You sure are.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Oh, my, I'll miss you dear....
See, a discussion would be more meaningful if you had actual facts and specifics instead of just wandering around. Never made the statements? Exactly what statements are those that you claim that I falsely ascribed to him?
That I said he dragged Bush and Obama into a discussion about SawStop?
He didn't? Then someone must have hijacked his computer when this post was made:
"Every one from obama who is still blaming President Bush for his failures to the man working in his garden. "
You then claimed that I was dragging ideology into the discussion? Better look up the definition. Keith clearly has an ideologoy of his own, that I would call misguided. His belief is that all accidents stem from lack of personal reposnibility, negating the need for safety devices, which of course is nonsense on both counts. All accidents don't stem from lack of personal responsibility and even if that were true, it still does not negate the usefullness of safety devices. Given his reference to Obama and the above, I then simply posed the question about conservatives. Virtually all of them extole the virtues of self reliance, taking personal responsibility. So, none of them have table saw accidents, right?
>You should

I turned it into a philosohy? Keith has the philosophy I outlined above and posted it here. Just because I showed you it doesn't make any sense, all of a sudden, I'm the bad guy?
As for it being your last post, that's probably a good idea. Because you're incapable of addressing any specifics, and are now resorting to insults and lies.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 6 Dec 2012 13:00:22 -0800 (PST), " snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net"

Everyone has accidents, but not purchasing medical and disability insurance is a choice. Why should a successful business be punished by having to cover the deadbeats?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I assume you're referring to Obamacare? I don't believe Obamacare is the right approach and there are better ways of achieving the same thing with less govt involvement. But here is the essence of the problem. Not only are businesses already covering the cost of deadbeats, most of the public is. What do you think happens when the guy with no insurance, low pay or no job, etc has an accident and runs up a $100K hospital bill? We are all paying it for it now. The business and individuals pay for it in the form of higher insurance costs. We pay for it in the form of outrageous hospital charges when we go there. One big reason an aspirin costs $10 in a hospital is so that they can use that money to offset their losses from the guy who shows up sick or from an accident with no insurance.
Now, please tell me you're not going to pretend that problem isn't real, that we can just make the guy pay, like another poster here. If anything, REQUIRING everyone to have medical insurance is the personal responsibility approach, because it makes everyone have a means to pay for their own care.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Because according to the idiots, that would make you bad person
Frankly I don't have a problem with people donating to private charity to help the needy But when the government starts picking your pocket to do it, I have a problem One only has to look at how UNsuccessfull government is about solving the problem All their "welfare" programs are spiraling out of control BECAUSE of ALL the leaches that are hanging on to the tit. And these idiots want to attract even more leeches
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.