Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Aftershocking verdictFollow

#27 Oct 24 2012 at 1:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
This seems like a desire to blame someone to me.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner.

Scape-goating, pure and simple. I think it's disgusting, personally.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#28 Oct 24 2012 at 3:11 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Nilatai wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
This seems like a desire to blame someone to me.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner.

Scape-goating, pure and simple. I think it's disgusting, personally.



Is this where I insert a stock statement about how this is an inevitable result of socialism/nanny-state/etc?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#29 Oct 24 2012 at 3:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,400 posts
gbaji wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
This seems like a desire to blame someone to me.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner.

Scape-goating, pure and simple. I think it's disgusting, personally.



Is this where I insert a stock statement about how this is an inevitable result of socialism/nanny-state/etc?


Even if it wasn't, I'm not sure I could see that stopping you. Smiley: wink
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#30 Oct 24 2012 at 3:34 PM Rating: Excellent
****
5,684 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
This seems like a desire to blame someone to me.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner.

Scape-goating, pure and simple. I think it's disgusting, personally.



Is this where I insert a stock statement about how this is an inevitable result of socialism/nanny-state/etc?


Even if it wasn't, I'm not sure I could see that stopping you. Smiley: wink

Gbaji is going to insert it whether you want him to or not. It's what god would want.

Edited, Oct 24th 2012 4:35pm by Bardalicious
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#31 Oct 24 2012 at 3:35 PM Rating: Good
******
21,720 posts
Bardalicious wrote:
Gbaji is going to insert it whether you want him to or not. It's what god would want.

And it's almost never legitimate.


Edited, Oct 24th 2012 4:36pm by BrownDuck
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#32 Oct 24 2012 at 4:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
This seems like a desire to blame someone to me.
Ding ding ding! We have a winner.

Scape-goating, pure and simple. I think it's disgusting, personally.
Is this where I insert a stock statement about how this is an inevitable result of socialism/nanny-state/etc?

You think blame-shifting is somehow uniquely socialist? Are you in grade school or something?

I mean "Yes, this is exactly the point where you make a smug and erroneous statement. Actually, every point is that point when you're Gbaji."
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#33 Oct 24 2012 at 4:39 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Is this where I insert a stock statement about how this is an inevitable result of socialism/nanny-state/etc?

You think blame-shifting is somehow uniquely socialist?


No. But socialist states tend to take control of (and thus responsibility for) more aspects of the lives of their citizens. So if you create something called the "National Commission for Forecasting and Predicting Great Risks", the citizens are going to be that much more likely to expect that their government will be able to predict great risks. And when their government fails them, they'll be more likely to point the finger of blame.

It's about expectations.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#34 Oct 24 2012 at 5:05 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,909 posts
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Is this where I insert a stock statement about how this is an inevitable result of socialism/nanny-state/etc?

You think blame-shifting is somehow uniquely socialist?


No. But socialist states tend to take control of (and thus responsibility for) more aspects of the lives of their citizens. So if you create something called the "National Commission for Forecasting and Predicting Great Risks", the citizens are going to be that much more likely to expect that their government will be able to predict great risks. And when their government fails them, they'll be more likely to point the finger of blame.

It's about expectations.


No one expects private sector committees to accomplish anything.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#35 Oct 24 2012 at 5:08 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Is this where I insert a stock statement about how this is an inevitable result of socialism/nanny-state/etc?

You think blame-shifting is somehow uniquely socialist?


No. But socialist states tend to take control of (and thus responsibility for) more aspects of the lives of their citizens. So if you create something called the "National Commission for Forecasting and Predicting Great Risks", the citizens are going to be that much more likely to expect that their government will be able to predict great risks. And when their government fails them, they'll be more likely to point the finger of blame.

It's about expectations.
Sure. And in a purely capitalistic system the masses expect no help or 'warning' before or in the wake of a great natural disaster - and they don't get any.

I don't think the scientists or the commission should be held legally responsible. Civilly or occupationally liable to some extent maybe, but they should't go to jail.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#36 Oct 24 2012 at 5:19 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
Right, because corporations are known for standing up and saying, "You know what? My bad."

[EDIT]

And question, do we have any indication that this even IS a public committee? It could just as easily be an independent organization contracted by the government.

But, of course, that wouldn't suit gbaji's rhetoric.

Edited, Oct 24th 2012 7:21pm by idiggory
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#37 Oct 24 2012 at 5:39 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:

And question, do we have any indication that this even IS a public committee? It could just as easily be an independent organization contracted by the government.


Quote:
The view from L'Aquila, however, is quite different. Prosecutors and the families of victims alike say that the trial has nothing to do with the ability to predict earthquakes, and everything to do with the failure of government-appointed scientists serving on an advisory panel to adequately evaluate, and then communicate, the potential risk to the local population. The charges, detailed in a 224-page document filed by Picuti, allege that members of the National Commission for Forecasting and Predicting Great Risks, who held a special meeting in L'Aquila the week before the earthquake, provided "incomplete, imprecise, and contradictory information" to a public that had been unnerved by months of persistent, low-level tremors. Picuti says that the commission was more interested in pacifying the local population than in giving clear advice about earthquake preparedness.

"I'm not crazy," Picuti says. "I know they can't predict earthquakes. The basis of the charges is not that they didn't predict the earthquake. As functionaries of the state, they had certain duties imposed by law: to evaluate and characterize the risks that were present in L'Aquila." Part of that risk assessment, he says, should have included the density of the urban population and the known fragility of many ancient buildings in the city centre. "They were obligated to evaluate the degree of risk given all these factors," he says, "and they did not."



I'd say that's an indication. Wouldn't you agree?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#38 Oct 24 2012 at 6:28 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
All I've been able to find conflicts. This article calls it Italy's top disaster relief organization.

But the top disaster relief organization for the US is the American Red Cross, which isn't led by the state.

So that doesn't actually give me any room to say.

Furthermore, the articles keep saying seven were convicted--six scientists and one (ex)government official. But all seven were members of the National Commission.

So, what? Was there only one person there capable of acting in any official capacity? Why are all of them being held liable then--it's obviously isn't their job if they aren't given a position of authority.

And I'm seeing quotes that "These are professionals who spoke in good faith and were by no means motivated by personal interests." Is that just trying to reinforce their defense, or were they actually just experts called in to discuss the situation, without a personal stake in the issue?

I have no clue. I'm not seeing anything close to definitive proof for either argument.

And my point is that you're a biased moron for jumping to that conclusion.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#39 Oct 24 2012 at 7:43 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
All I've been able to find conflicts. This article calls it Italy's top disaster relief organization.

But the top disaster relief organization for the US is the American Red Cross, which isn't led by the state.

So that doesn't actually give me any room to say.


You're arguing the wrong point though. Doesn't matter whether said organization is directly part of the government, or was simply called by the government to put on a PR show for the people. What matters is that the government did set up the meeting. It did put those scientists in the room with the public. It did so with the specific goal of dispelling people's fears that a big quake was coming. And as a result, the people believed that they did not need to take the normal precautions they would take when a series of tremors were occurring.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#40 Oct 24 2012 at 7:51 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
Right, because you're not making any wild assumptions there at all.

And, of course, a gov't that just says ****'em is so much better.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#41 Oct 24 2012 at 8:57 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
TirithRR wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Is this where I insert a stock statement about how this is an inevitable result of socialism/nanny-state/etc?

You think blame-shifting is somehow uniquely socialist?


No. But socialist states tend to take control of (and thus responsibility for) more aspects of the lives of their citizens. So if you create something called the "National Commission for Forecasting and Predicting Great Risks", the citizens are going to be that much more likely to expect that their government will be able to predict great risks. And when their government fails them, they'll be more likely to point the finger of blame.

It's about expectations.


No one expects private sector committees to accomplish anything.

No, they should expect their President to personally prevent such tragedies from occurring. Like we do.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#42 Oct 24 2012 at 11:12 PM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
Elinda wrote:
I don't think the scientists or the commission should be held legally responsible. Civilly or occupationally liable to some extent maybe, but they should't go to jail.


That's my inclination as well.
#43 Oct 26 2012 at 3:39 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
*****
15,952 posts
gbaji wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
This seems like a desire to blame someone to me.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner.

Scape-goating, pure and simple. I think it's disgusting, personally.



Is this where I insert a stock statement about how this is an inevitable result of socialism/nanny-state/etc?

Is this were I insert a stock statement about how in a small government, big capitalist nation fixated on the idea that every individual controls and is completely responsible for his/her own actions, the victims of the earthquake would not only be scapegoating the scientists, but suing them for everything they and their families own and earn. "You didn't hedge an unknowable prediction well enough. Bankruptcy on top of jail for you!"
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#44 Oct 26 2012 at 3:46 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Is this where I insert a stock statement about how this is an inevitable result of socialism/nanny-state/etc?

Is this were I insert a stock statement about how in a small government, big capitalist nation fixated on the idea that every individual controls and is completely responsible for his/her own actions, the victims of the earthquake would not only be scapegoating the scientists, but suing them for everything they and their families own and earn. "You didn't hedge an unknowable prediction well enough. Bankruptcy on top of jail for you!"


In such a society, the individuals would take responsibility for their own well being. I suspect you don't quite grasp what that means. Point being that instead of a government trying to tell the people not to worry about the earthquakes, it would have told them that anything is possible and to take whatever preparations they felt they needed to take. As a result, more people would have chosen to do what they would normally do (stay outside), and fewer would have died. While those who did might attempt to sue, they'd have a hard time doing so because they weren't told that they were perfectly safe.


The issue here is that it's become increasingly common for governments to use scientists as a backdrop to lend weight to their positions. In this case, the scientists were put out in front of the public to give the usual song and dance about earthquakes, then the government official told the public that they were perfectly safe. While the scientists didn't say anything technically untrue (the odds of a big earthquake were low, relatively speaking), it was how they were used that caused the problem. If it had just been a government official telling people not to worry, the people would have told him he doesn't know anything and would have taken precautions themselves. But by saying that in a press release as part of a presentation by a group of expert scientists people put more weight in his words.


I agree that this is somewhat unfair to the scientists, but on the other hand, scientists have become complacent in past decades with regard to how they are used by governments. They darn well know that the PR folks will spin the science, and they usually stand silent when it happens because they get paid to do this sort of thing. And every once in a while it backfires. Did they lie? No. But they allowed their expertise to lend weight to a lie.

____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#45 Oct 26 2012 at 4:11 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
I can't decide if I think this is the stupidest argument gbaji has ever made or not.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#46 Oct 26 2012 at 4:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I can't decide if I think this is the stupidest argument gbaji has ever made or not.

Yeah, I decided the other day to just let it go.

And I debate SSM with Alma! ALMA!!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#47 Oct 26 2012 at 5:12 PM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,342 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I can't decide if I think this is the stupidest argument gbaji has ever made or not.
That mess was gbaji clumsily telling us in a backdoor way that pro-ACC scientists are full of crap...again.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#48 Oct 27 2012 at 11:50 AM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
gbaji wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
This seems like a desire to blame someone to me.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner.

Scape-goating, pure and simple. I think it's disgusting, personally.



Is this where I insert a stock statement about how this is an inevitable result of socialism/nanny-state/etc?

Insert stock rebuttal about how they'd have been sued the shit out of if this has happened in the United States?

As others have said, demanding someone be held responsible isn't even remotely unique to a Socialist country.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#49 Oct 27 2012 at 9:25 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
gbaji wrote:
Aripyanfar wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Is this where I inser
  • List Item
  • t a stock statement about how this is an inevitable result of socialism/nanny-state/etc?

    Is this were I insert a stock statement about how in a small government, big capitalist nation fixated on the idea that every individual controls and is completely responsible for his/her own actions, the victims of the earthquake would not only be scapegoating the scientists, but suing them for everything they and their families own and earn. "You didn't hedge an unknowable prediction well enough. Bankruptcy on top of jail for you!"


    In such a society, the individuals would take responsibility for their own well being. I suspect you don't quite grasp what that means. Point being that instead of a government trying to tell the people not to worry about the earthquakes, it would have told them that anything is possible and to take whatever preparations they felt they needed to take. As a result, more people would have chosen to do what they would normally do (stay outside), and fewer would have died. While those who did might attempt to sue, they'd have a hard time doing so because they weren't told that they were perfectly safe.

    Maybe they shouldn't live in active earthquake zones? Or near volcanoes, or below sea level in hurricane-qprone areas...
    ____________________________
    publiusvarus wrote:
    we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
    #50 Oct 28 2012 at 7:49 AM Rating: Good
    Skelly Poker Since 2008
    *****
    16,595 posts
    gbaji wrote:
    Aripyanfar wrote:
    gbaji wrote:
    Is this where I insert a stock statement about how this is an inevitable result of socialism/nanny-state/etc?

    Is this were I insert a stock statement about how in a small government, big capitalist nation fixated on the idea that every individual controls and is completely responsible for his/her own actions, the victims of the earthquake would not only be scapegoating the scientists, but suing them for everything they and their families own and earn. "You didn't hedge an unknowable prediction well enough. Bankruptcy on top of jail for you!"


    In such a society, the individuals would take responsibility for their own well being. I suspect you don't quite grasp what that means. Point being that instead of a government trying to tell the people not to worry about the earthquakes, it would have told them that anything is possible and to take whatever preparations they felt they needed to take. As a result, more people would have chosen to do what they would normally do (stay outside), and fewer would have died. While those who did might attempt to sue, they'd have a hard time doing so because they weren't told that they were perfectly safe.


    The issue here is that it's become increasingly common for governments to use scientists as a backdrop to lend weight to their positions. In this case, the scientists were put out in front of the public to give the usual song and dance about earthquakes, then the government official told the public that they were perfectly safe. While the scientists didn't say anything technically untrue (the odds of a big earthquake were low, relatively speaking), it was how they were used that caused the problem. If it had just been a government official telling people not to worry, the people would have told him he doesn't know anything and would have taken precautions themselves. But by saying that in a press release as part of a presentation by a group of expert scientists people put more weight in his words.


    I agree that this is somewhat unfair to the scientists, but on the other hand, scientists have become complacent in past decades with regard to how they are used by governments. They darn well know that the PR folks will spin the science, and they usually stand silent when it happens because they get paid to do this sort of thing. And every once in a while it backfires. Did they lie? No. But they allowed their expertise to lend weight to a lie.


    Yeah, keep the masses uninformed or better yet, misinformed. Knowledge is power, yo.
    ____________________________
    Alma wrote:
    I lost my post
    #51 Oct 28 2012 at 6:26 PM Rating: Excellent
    Will swallow your soul
    ******
    29,244 posts
    Debalic wrote:
    gbaji wrote:
    Aripyanfar wrote:
    gbaji wrote:
    Is this where I inser
  • List Item
  • t a stock statement about how this is an inevitable result of socialism/nanny-state/etc?

    Is this were I insert a stock statement about how in a small government, big capitalist nation fixated on the idea that every individual controls and is completely responsible for his/her own actions, the victims of the earthquake would not only be scapegoating the scientists, but suing them for everything they and their families own and earn. "You didn't hedge an unknowable prediction well enough. Bankruptcy on top of jail for you!"


    In such a society, the individuals would take responsibility for their own well being. I suspect you don't quite grasp what that means. Point being that instead of a government trying to tell the people not to worry about the earthquakes, it would have told them that anything is possible and to take whatever preparations they felt they needed to take. As a result, more people would have chosen to do what they would normally do (stay outside), and fewer would have died. While those who did might attempt to sue, they'd have a hard time doing so because they weren't told that they were perfectly safe.

    Maybe they shouldn't live in active earthquake zones? Or near volcanoes, or below sea level in hurricane-qprone areas...



    Yeah, speaking of which, good luck with that megastorm moving your way.

    ____________________________
    In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

    Reply To Thread

    Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

     

    Recent Visitors: 2 All times are in CST
    Anonymous Guests (2)