User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 73

  1. #41
    Senior Member prplchknz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    yupp
    Posts
    29,780

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    Statistically, teen drivers (especially, young males) are a risk.

    So, teen drivers should not drive?
    if we upped the driving age, then that age group would more than likely be more of a risk. though not hundred percent sure on this
    In no likes experiment.

    that is all

    i dunno what else to say so

  2. #42
    Senior Member cafe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Socionics
    INFj None
    Posts
    9,827

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    Statistically, teen drivers (especially, young males) are a risk.

    So, teen drivers should not drive?
    The teen driver probably has quite a bit more control over his individual risk than he has about his place in the economy. Just like driving, there are things you can do to screw your odds of getting any kind of job completely over, but just because you don't do any of those things doesn't mean you won't spend your life as working poor.
    “There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.”
    ~ John Rogers

  3. #43
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cafe View Post
    The teen driver probably has quite a bit more control over his individual risk than he has about his place in the economy. Just like driving, there are things you can do to screw your odds of getting any kind of job completely over, but just because you don't do any of those things doesn't mean you won't spend your life as working poor.
    Fair enough. However, it still doesn't bypass the ecological fallacy, inherent in the thought that statistically, if you're poor, you'll remain poor (working or otherwise), and using that to justify your action at the individual level.

  4. #44
    Senior Member cafe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Socionics
    INFj None
    Posts
    9,827

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    Fair enough. However, it still doesn't bypass the ecological fallacy, inherent in the thought that statistically, if you're poor, you'll remain poor (working or otherwise), and using that to justify your action at the individual level.
    Probably not, but it's pretty discouraging to know that no matter what you do, no matter how hard you try, your odds are pretty bad.
    “There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.”
    ~ John Rogers

  5. #45
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    Statistically, teen drivers (especially, young males) are a risk.

    So, teen drivers should not drive?
    There must always be a relatively high risk group. This is just the cut-off point we decided on (eg: not 15 years old, not 17 years old, equivalent male/female).

  6. #46
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    There must always be a relatively high risk group. This is just the cut-off point we decided on (eg: not 15 years old, not 17 years old, equivalent male/female).
    My point was to highlight ecological fallacy. That just because you belong in a high-risk group, doesn't mean that it applies to you, as an individual.

  7. #47
    Artisan Conquerer Halla74's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    7w8 sx/so
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,927

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edgar View Post
    That depends on were on the spectrum of parasitism/symbiotism the whole thing falls
    First off, you're twisting terminology in a way that doesn't make sense – there is no “spectrum of parasitism/symbiotism” - because parasitism is a form of symbiosis, as are mutualism and commensalism.

    http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Symbiosis

    “Symbiosis” is by definition a long-term relationship between two different species. Forms of symbiosis include:
    Mutualism – benefit for both
    Commensalism – benefit for one, neutral for the other
    Parasitism – benefit for one (the parasite), costly (often injurious, can be deadly) for the other (the host)

    For the sake of argument let's say the terms above can also be applied to long-term interpersonal relationships between two human beings...
    That brings us to:

    Quote Originally Posted by Edgar
    - for example, your relative-benefactor enjoys your company immensely and you run their errands and take care of their chores
    In terms of symbiotism being defined by interdependence...
    http://m.dictionary.com/definition/symbiotic

    ...your example above is along the lines of "two people supporting each other" – and thus a relationship of mutual benefit – or one of “mutualism.”

    However, that is NOT what phobik said, his reply was: "Or find someone to support you." - which is a commensalist relationship at best, and in other cases parasitic. Your example below...

    Quote Originally Posted by Edgar
    …vs. you annoy everyone around you with your misery, and your daily activity revolves around getting fucked up and wallowing your own stench.
    ...is clearly one of parasitism, as the mere presence of, let alone a long-term relationship with someone as vile as you described above is very unlikely to be neutral in impact to those they have relations with, the presence of such a person is going to be at the cost of others well being – and they are thus a parasite.

    Quote Originally Posted by Edgar
    And like I said, it can be a symbiotic relationship - unless you think housewives are gold diggers too.
    Again – you're misusing terminology.

    A “Housewife” is defined as: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/housewife?s=t
    ”A married woman who manages her own household, especially as her principal occupation.”

    Usage Note
    Most people, married or unmarried, find the term housewife *perfectly acceptable. But it is sometimes perceived as insulting, perhaps because it implies a lowly status (“She’s just a housewife”) or because it defines an occupation in terms of a woman's relation to a man. Homemaker*is a fairly common substitute.

    ...whereas a “Gold digger” is defined as: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gold+digger?s=t
    ”A woman who associates with or marries a man chiefly for material gain.”

    SO – to clarify your statement above; if you wish to infer that the relationship of a housewife/homemaker to her husband is MUTUALISTIC (as both are benefiting from each other) I'm good with that. And if you wish to infer that a gold digger is at best in a COMMENSALIST relationship with her husband, and possibly a PARASITIC relationship – I'm good with that too. But once you equivocate housewives/homemakers to gold diggers then you're off in left field and I don't agree with you at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Edgar
    It happened in 2008... and it's still happening. So not really that rare for the times we're currently living in.
    In 2008 many economies went to shit, yes, however I don't agree that degree of an economic apocalypse is still happening. A paradigm shift happened in 2008, and though a considerable amount of recovery has occurred since, things are not the same as they were – nor will they ever be – because things changed. That doesn't mean that events equal or even similar in magnitude as the sub-prime market collapse are occurring year after year, as you allude to above.

    Wild animals must find food and water each day, and avoid being eaten by their predators (sharks excluded, of course). Any wild animals that think they will have access to food and water each day, and be at no risk of being preyed upon – are not that smart, and will not live very long.

    Humans in industrialized nations must earn enough income on an on-going basis to pay for their necessities and luxuries when possible. To do so humans need to have transferable skills that are relevant in the market place they reside in, or can participate in remotely. Humans must keep their occupational skill sets up to date and ensure they are in demand of employers/clients if they wish to have a chance at earning a living as an employee/contractor.

    The moral of the story? CHANGE IS THE ONLY CONSTANT. Any humans that think they they do not have to keep their occupational skill set up to date and marketable are similarly foolish to wild animals who think they will have access to food and water each day with no risk of being killed and/or eaten, and will not be economically self-sufficient in the long-run.

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    That's a simplicistic view of the matter, true for smaller companies, incorrect (imho) for corporations.
    Yes, my example was simplistic. Elaboration follows.

    Corporations have more tolerance for bad hiring decisions based on their mass as compared to smaller companies, agreed. However, that does not mean that corporations are immune to bad hiring practices – particularly those that are nepotistic/favoritist. Promoting an incompetent, lazy person to any position of authority undermines the authority of their office/position. Word will get out that a lazy idiot is at the reigns, and when that happens the department/corporate division/organizational unit they work in will become less effective, less profitable, and less influential than when a competent individual was in charge. Whoever hired them will look bad at the very least. If a total asshole is hired it is possible for them to dismantle a functional enterprise in a short amount of time. The degree of damage caused is dependent on several variables, and the size of the corporation and their economic viability is indeed a significant factor as to how much damage they can contain, undo, sweep under the rug, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    Moreoever, our lives do not last indefinitely thus we don't normally wish to wait until those companies go out of business.
    I didn't mean that literally – please pardon any confusion as such. Jumping ship to a different firm when you need to is often good enough for most. If you can land a better paying job when leaving after a nincompoop has been made your boss, that's a bit sweeter. To see your previous employer go under from a single bad hire is in most cases unlikely, but it is possible – depending on the degree of cretin we're talking about. One bad hire as such leads to lost productivity, loss of morale, turnover of top performing employees who are qualified to get work elsewhere quickly, and loss of profit, loss of goodwill, and potentially – loss of marketshare – which if it goes on long enough, can certainly lead to a firm going out of business. Years to build, moments to ruin.

    I hope that clarifies things.

    Cheers,



    -Halla74
    --------------------
    Type Stats:
    MBTI -> (E) 77.14% | (i) 22.86% ; (S) 60% | (n) 40% ; (T) 72.22% | (f) 27.78% ; (P) 51.43% | (j) 48.57%
    BIG 5 -> Extroversion 77% ; Accommodation 60% ; Orderliness 62% ; Emotional Stability 64% ; Open Mindedness 74%

    Quotes:
    "If somebody asks your MBTI type on a first date, run". -Donna Cecilia
    "Enneagram is psychological underpinnings. Cognitive Functions are mental reasoning and perceptional processes. -Sanjuro

  8. #48
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    My point was to highlight ecological fallacy. That just because you belong in a high-risk group, doesn't mean that it applies to you, as an individual.
    I get that, but the question "should teenagers not be allowed to drive" is misleading. Removing a high risk group is the exact opposite of assuming a individual is representative. And beyond that, there is always a highest risk group in any activity that carries risk (ie: slippery slope to no risk). The question should be "should you not allow your teenager to drive", if you want to use that analogy.

  9. #49
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cafe View Post
    The teen driver probably has quite a bit more control over his individual risk than he has about his place in the economy.
    You have as much downward control as you could ever wish for. That's my point..

    If you can afford it, that power is...at the least, a power..

    Like I said, if you're young, with no obligations...isn't it wiser to pursue the power...

    That 50k job isn't going anywhere.

    But that billion dollar paycheck is, if you're young.

    ????

  10. #50
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    I get that, but the question "should teenagers not be allowed to drive" is misleading. Removing a high risk group is the exact opposite of assuming a individual is representative. And beyond that, there is always a highest risk group in any activity that carries risk (ie: slippery slope to no risk). The question should be "should you not allow your teenager to drive", if you want to use that analogy.
    Yes. The question should have been posed towards an individual, not group.

Similar Threads

  1. Does the South actually want to be a part of the United States?
    By gromit in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 07-15-2015, 02:41 PM
  2. Replies: 27
    Last Post: 10-05-2013, 11:44 AM
  3. would you choose to be a miner on an asteroid?
    By jcloudz in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 05-05-2012, 08:43 PM
  4. [MBTItm] If you get to be a RATIONAL(NT) which type would you choose to be?
    By Riva in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 99
    Last Post: 12-23-2008, 11:46 AM
  5. Would you choose to be born?
    By proteanmix in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 10-09-2007, 05:34 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO