Some People are just daft

[Old farrier]

5 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Well that just shows the nasty person you can be sometimes!

😂😂😂

Edited May 1, 2020 by Old farrier

[12gauge82]

1 hour ago, grrclark said:

The spread of individual opinions on this thread is no better example of why we have laws and regulations that tend to be proscriptive.  Quite simply we have to.

If we have to rely on individuals making their own assessment then they will make that assessment based on their own wants, needs and interests.

It is easy to find examples of where lockdown measures appear to be absurd by looking at the fringes, i.e. someone alone on a beach fishing or in a pigeon hide, but those are the exceptions and also massively in the minority.

The guidelines and rules are set to try and cover the vast majority.  It is estimated that 83% of the British populace live in urban settings, so they don't have a local isolated beach or field with a sitty tree.  If choice was left to the individual they all might choose to travel to your isolated beach or field.

Should those with the privilege of having local access to the isolated beach, field, etc be allowed to exploit that privilege whilst the vast majority (83%) are denied?

I wonder if this conversation was about the privilege of wealth would some of the contributors still argue the same way.

 

Since this post is aimed at me, I'll reply.

Obviously if you turn up to your local, usually isolated spot and it's crowded, common sense says you turn around and go home.

Why deny someone a benefit just because someone else can't enjoy it?You really are showing the inner workings of your mindset, it's rather ugly!

[grrclark]

15 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

 

Since this post is aimed at me, I'll reply.

Obviously if you turn up to your local, usually isolated spot and it's crowded, common sense says you turn around and go home.

Why deny someone a benefit just because someone else can't enjoy it?You really are showing the inner workings of your mindset, it's rather ugly!

In a discussion thread of 5 pages why do you think my reply was directed to you?  Do you really think your thoughts or comments are that important to me that I would make a post just to target you?  It was an observational statement and question based on all the coments.

This reply is of course directed solely at you in response.

The question I posed is exactly that, a question.  If you actually took the time to read properly and make a considered assessment of what I wrote you would see it was a question, i made no statement of what should or should not be denied.

Some folk have privilege and others don't, in this example privilege is about having access to a beach or field.

When the majority of people do not have access to those areas of isolation should they have to endure an enforced lockdown whilst others do not?

How would we expect the 83% of urban dwellers to react when privilged people share pictures of themselves fishing on an isolated beach when they can't sit in a grassy park because it is too busy?  That starts to ask questions about the fairness of the system due to personal circumstance.

Should the urban dwellers be allowed to drive to the same beaches and fields that you, or other PW members, have access to?

The question is one of privilige, no more no less, so it isn't a leap at all to then consider the privilige of wealth, yet we have countless threads and comments on this site where people gripe about the inequalities resulting from that.  A great long thread about taxation recently highlights that pretty well.  That's why I asked the question.

I believe it may have been your suggestion that an individual should be limited to £1bn of personal wealth, but why deny them more just because someone else can't have that.  Does that mean the inner workings of your mindset is rather ugly?

For the avoidance of any doubt I realy don't care in the slightest that you may think my mindset is ugly, from what I see of your reasoning process by reading your comments on these threads I think you're actually pretty thick, but blinded by arrogance and prejudice.

[12gauge82]

1 minute ago, grrclark said:

In a discussion thread of 5 pages why do you think my reply was directed to you?  Do you really think your thoughts or comments are that important to me that I would make a post just to target you?  It was an observational statement and question based on all the coments.

This reply is of course directed solely at you in response.

The question I posed is exactly that, a question.  If you actually took the time to read properly and make a considered assessment of what I wrote you would see it was a question, i made no statement of what should or should not be denied.

Some folk have privilege and others don't, in this example privilege is about having access to a beach or field.

When the majority of people do not have access to those areas of isolation should they have to endure an enforced lockdown whilst others do not?

How would we expect the 83% of urban dwellers to react when privilged people share pictures of themselves fishing on an isolated beach when they can't sit in a grassy park because it is too busy?  That starts to ask questions about the fairness of the system due to personal circumstance.

Should the urban dwellers be allowed to drive to the same beaches and fields that you, or other PW members, have access to?

The question is one of privilige, no more no less, so it isn't a leap at all to then consider the privilige of wealth, yet we have countless threads and comments on this site where people gripe about the inequalities resulting from that.  A great long thread about taxation recently highlights that pretty well.  That's why I asked the question.

I believe it may have been your suggestion that an individual should be limited to £1bn of personal wealth, but why deny them more just because someone else can't have that.  Does that mean the inner workings of your mindset is rather ugly?

For the avoidance of any doubt I realy don't care in the slightest that you may think my mindset is ugly, from what I see of your reasoning process by reading your comments on these threads I think you're actually pretty thick, but blinded by arrogance and prejudice.

Yep, definitely a bitter person.

[mel b3]

3 hours ago, grrclark said:

The spread of individual opinions on this thread is no better example of why we have laws and regulations that tend to be proscriptive.  Quite simply we have to.

If we have to rely on individuals making their own assessment then they will make that assessment based on their own wants, needs and interests.

It is easy to find examples of where lockdown measures appear to be absurd by looking at the fringes, i.e. someone alone on a beach fishing or in a pigeon hide, but those are the exceptions and also massively in the minority.

The guidelines and rules are set to try and cover the vast majority.  It is estimated that 83% of the British populace live in urban settings, so they don't have a local isolated beach or field with a sitty tree.  If choice was left to the individual they all might choose to travel to your isolated beach or field.

Should those with the privilege of having local access to the isolated beach, field, etc be allowed to exploit that privilege whilst the vast majority (83%) are denied?

I wonder if this conversation was about the privilege of wealth would some of the contributors still argue the same way.

You're bang on the money as usual Graham.  

The brutal truth is that the government has to put restrictions in place , because a lot of people don't have enough common sense to do it themselves. 

[grrclark]

28 minutes ago, mel b3 said:

 The brutal truth is that the government has to put restrictions in place , because a lot of people don't have enough common sense to do it themselves. 

That's it in a nutshell Mel.  The reasonable and responsible people with a broad social conscience don't really need much policing or laws, but due to the human condition there are a great many who do need to be told what to do.

A similar discussion about individual judgement versus a proscriptive law could be had about speeding.  If on a 3 lane motorway in good conditions and there is no traffic then an individual could decide that doing 150mph presents no risk to anybody else as the road was empty.  If that person was caught on camera should the police use common sense and judgement to allow that activity to go unpenalised?

We would typically make a subjective decision and say 150mph is mental in any case, but what if it was just 90mph?  Still an empty road, should the speeder be done?

What if the road had other users, but they were all in lane 1 and the speeder in lane 3?  There is a margin of safety in the distance between lanes and no converging traffic so the risk is still minimal, should they be done or can we still make a judgement call?

The point of that endless example where we can keep adding in variables is that judgement is wholly subjective and is determined on one's own appetite for risk, the capabilities of the person making the choice, the ability to take an action without consequence of external influence, etc.

We also know that as the police have differences in judgement, Scully's example of someone being told to stop playing the violin in their own driveway is an example, I think, of a daft judgement.

So if left to judgement there is massive inconsistency, massive cries of things being unfair and much unhappiness as a result.

The easy thing to do is say this is the rule and it's the same rule for everyone, that way everyone knows where they stand.  As i said before it is easy to find absurd examples of how a blanket approach is stupid, but those examples are all exceptional and in the minority.

As ever people can and should make their own choices about what being responsible means to them, the government in applying rules has to consider what being responsible means to everyone in the country.

[mel b3]

4 minutes ago, grrclark said:

That's it in a nutshell Mel.  The reasonable and responsible people with a broad social conscience don't really need much policing or laws, but due to the human condition there are a great many who do need to be told what to do.

A similar discussion about individual judgement versus a proscriptive law could be had about speeding.  If on a 3 lane motorway in good conditions and there is no traffic then an individual could decide that doing 150mph presents no risk to anybody else as the road was empty.  If that person was caught on camera should the police use common sense and judgement to allow that activity to go unpenalised?

We would typically make a subjective decision and say 150mph is mental in any case, but what if it was just 90mph?  Still an empty road, should the speeder be done?

What if the road had other users, but they were all in lane 1 and the speeder in lane 3?  There is a margin of safety in the distance between lanes and no converging traffic so the risk is still minimal, should they be done or can we still make a judgement call?

The point of that endless example where we can keep adding in variables is that judgement is wholly subjective and is determined on one's own appetite for risk, the capabilities of the person making the choice, the ability to take an action without consequence of external influence, etc.

We also know that as the police have differences in judgement, Scully's example of someone being told to stop playing the violin in their own driveway is an example, I think, of a daft judgement.

So if left to judgement there is massive inconsistency, massive cries of things being unfair and much unhappiness as a result.

The easy thing to do is say this is the rule and it's the same rule for everyone, that way everyone knows where they stand.  As i said before it is easy to find absurd examples of how a blanket approach is stupid, but those examples are all exceptional and in the minority.

As ever people can and should make their own choices about what being responsible means to them, the government in applying rules has to consider what being responsible means to everyone in the country.

That's exactly what I meant,  but you said it so much posher 😊.

[grrclark]

12 minutes ago, mel b3 said:

That's exactly what I meant,  but you said it so much posher 😊.

With 1000 more words

So i'm wordy and bitter apparently...

Edited May 1, 2020 by grrclark

[Raja Clavata]

58 minutes ago, grrclark said:

As ever people can and should make their own choices about what being responsible means to them, the government in applying rules has to consider what being responsible means to everyone in the country.

And are unfortunately somewhat governed by the rule of lowest common denominator - speed limits are indeed a prime example.

Personally I tend to stick to a self governing rule of both hands on the wheel at ~150mph, especially if the road is wet.

[AVB]

5 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

And are unfortunately somewhat governed by the rule of lowest common denominator - speed limits are indeed a prime example.

Personally I tend to stick to a self governing rule of both hands on the wheel at ~150mph, especially if the road is wet.

How old fashioned. I let my car drive itself and I have a snooze. 

[Raja Clavata]

Just now, AVB said:

How old fashioned. I let my car drive itself and I have a snooze. 

Yeah, I'm old school and also work on technology enabling higher levels of autonomy in cars 🙂 

[grrclark]

20 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

And are unfortunately somewhat governed by the rule of lowest common denominator - speed limits are indeed a prime example.

Personally I tend to stick to a self governing rule of both hands on the wheel at ~150mph, especially if the road is wet.

Which is depressingly low.

I think your approach to risk mitigation is appropriate using both hands, that AVB fella is frankly reckless, but at 150mph his electric rocket ship's batteries will go flat pretty quick so the risk, and his snooze, is limited by duration.

[mel b3]

1 hour ago, grrclark said:

With 1000 more words

So i'm wordy and bitter apparently...

you may be wordy and bitter , but i reckon that you definitely look and sound like mel gibson in braveheart 

[Raja Clavata]

But not to worry because if it all goes wrong then, as a martyred evangelist, I believe an unlimited array of technology and gadgets await him in the afterlife.

Just now, mel b3 said:

you may be wordy and bitter , but i reckon that you definitely look and sound like mel gibson in braveheart 

Would "bitterly wordy" not be a more succinct characterisation, I'm not supporting the notion at all by the way, just a passing observation / suggestion...

[grrclark]

2 minutes ago, mel b3 said:

you may be wordy and bitter , but i reckon that you definitely look and sound like mel gibson in braveheart 

hahahah i rather regret the reality is something far removed.

3 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

But not to worry because if it all goes wrong then, as a martyred evangelist, I believe an unlimited array of technology and gadgets await him in the afterlife.

Virginal technology unsullied by finger prints from filthy mortals, no hand hygiene required in the celestial plane.

[mel b3]

6 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

But not to worry because if it all goes wrong then, as a martyred evangelist, I believe an unlimited array of technology and gadgets await him in the afterlife.

Would "bitterly wordy" not be a more succinct characterisation, I'm not supporting the notion at all by the way, just a passing observation / suggestion...

i dont know , i just couldnt get the thought of graham wearing mel gibsons kilt out of my head.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

3 minutes ago, mel b3 said:

i dont know , i just couldnt get the thought of graham wearing mel gibsons kilt out of my head.

You sad little man!

[grrclark]

9 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

Would "bitterly wordy" not be a more succinct characterisation, I'm not supporting the notion at all by the way, just a passing observation / suggestion...

That's a really interesting question.  "Bitterly wordly" would suggest i am overy verbose deliberately due to bitterness.

4 minutes ago, mel b3 said:

i dont know , i just couldnt get the thought of graham wearing mel gibsons kilt out of my head.

Lockdown does strange things to a man Mel...however i rather suspect i have a bit too much belly for your namesake's kilt, he is a shade leaner than I.

[mel b3]

17 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

You sad little man!

yeah yeah , dont pretend that you dont spend time thinking about men in skirts

14 minutes ago, grrclark said:

That's a really interesting question.  "Bitterly wordly" would suggest i am overy verbose deliberately due to bitterness.

Lockdown does strange things to a man Mel...however i rather suspect i have a bit too much belly for your namesake's kilt, he is a shade leaner than I.

i reckon you could still carry it off , with much style and panache mate , even if your bum crack was showing 

[Raja Clavata]

16 minutes ago, grrclark said:

That's a really interesting question.  "Bitterly wordly" would suggest i am overy verbose deliberately due to bitterness.

You slightly misquoted me, lol, but I'll not retort in kind since mis-spelling "virginal technology" could lead us all to the naughty step...

I can't add anything about men in skirts or bum cracks, but I need to get the visual out of my head before dinner 😛 

[grrclark]

1 hour ago, Raja Clavata said:

You slightly misquoted me, lol, but I'll not retort in kind since mis-spelling "virginal technology" could lead us all to the naughty step...

I can't add anything about men in skirts or bum cracks, but I need to get the visual out of my head before dinner 😛 

That fair made me chuckle.

[NoBodyImportant]

My thoughts in a nutshell.  If your older or vulnerable then stay in.  If you young then make your own call.  I wouldn’t have impromptu wrestling matches with the neighbors but a stroll on the beach, shooting in a field, or riding a bike is fine.  

[ClemFandango]

On 30/04/2020 at 16:13, 12gauge82 said:

Rock and roll life style you lead there 😜

 

 

 

Seriously though, each to their own, I just find it hilarious the amount of people who are trying to impose their slant of what is and isn't acceptable during the lock down, much of it not backed up by law at all.

Or any understanding of viruses.

 

[Mice!]

7 hours ago, NoBodyImportant said:

My thoughts in a nutshell.  If your older or vulnerable then stay in.  If you young then make your own call.  I wouldn’t have impromptu wrestling matches with the neighbors but a stroll on the beach, shooting in a field, or riding a bike is fine.  

In theory yes, but then old folk will complain their being told to stay in and don't want to, and often the nice beaches are where everyone heads on sunny days. No real difference between shooting or fishing,  but then why not go golfing or horse riding or out in your boat, and then others will say if they can do that then I'm going to ..........

So unfortunately everything has to stop, that way everyone is doing there bit.

[Dave-G]

44 minutes ago, Mice! said:

In theory yes, but then old folk will complain their being told to stay in and don't want to, and often the nice beaches are where everyone heads on sunny days. No real difference between shooting or fishing,  but then why not go golfing or horse riding or out in your boat, and then others will say if they can do that then I'm going to ..........

So unfortunately everything has to stop, that way everyone is doing there bit.

That's as ridiculous as saying if one person has to go broke then everyone should.

I'll have to differ, each of those exercise/fresh air/vitamin C gathering activities can be done in solitude but it easier to police a total ban on common sense.

Edited May 2, 2020 by Dave-G