Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ggamer]

Well, some money is necessary, not just because of the possible lost income of the deceased, but to show the government isn't taking this lightly (because it alo sets precedent for the government to pay if it happens again). However, I can't help but feel that a large part of that incredibly higb sum of money would have been better used making sure whatever caused the crash doesn't happen again.

I agree with this. money is good, and it helps soften the pain. However, that much money makes people mean, makes them bad. When a dear friend gets 1.7 million for the loss of his family, some people see this dear friend, not as a grieving source of depression, but as a big pile of money that they don't need.

Basically, I think that the govt did good with giving the family money, but some could be used to, you know, prevent this.

[Fenrir]

I am not sure that the money could have prevented this either, as it was the pilot’s error that sent the plane crashing into the houses, not a lack of funding.

[Truean]

Justice, actual justice, would consist of a time machine to make sure this never happened, no matter and especially given the cost to the public at any and every price no matter how high. Failing that resurrection wouldn't even really do it, because they'd still have the memory of being burned alive by jet fuel and the relatives would remember it. How the hell would you recover from that? Nevermind the house being destroyed. People seem to forget that a house in California can easily be  over $1Million without a lot in many areas. Nevermind the property in the house or the feeling of the survivors of fear of having a god damn jet fall out of the sky on you again....

We can't have actual objective justice listed above (time machine) or even the distant second (resurrection)listed above. So as a sorry excuse we accept that all we can really give is money. O, I could give you the legal formula for measuring the damages in a strict liability situation like this including the lost wages etc, but I don't know if that's really adequate. Put yourself in their position, really fucking feel it as much as you can knowing that you'll never feel it and then think about it.

Everything I've said so far tries and fails only to go to compensation and not to punishment and policy. Fact of the matter is, if they don't have these large awards, then the people in charge don't care about the rest of us. They don't care; they don't care; they don't care, period. We need more money for plane safety in this program but hey "what's the worst that could happen if we don't?" Right.... Certainly it couldn't cost us Millions right...? Right? The only thing the people in charge care about, the only way to make them accountable is large damages. It makes them look bad even if they don't have to pay it themselves and they can't hide from them.

That's the real, insidious thing about "tort reform." It allows the people in charge to hide from the full consequences of their actions and the costs, by saying those costs should be lower. "We didn't screw up THAT bad." NO, no you didn't. You screwed up worse....

The costs shouldn't be lower, the people RESPONSIBLE should be better, damn it.

[ggamer]

I am not sure that the money could have prevented this either, as it was the pilot’s error that sent the plane crashing into the houses, not a lack of funding.

more funding = better training

I imagine the "don't crash your damn plane into a house" portion of the training was cut due to budget restrictions. There are times that these can be avoided, but better training for pilots is always good

[Fenrir]

Put yourself in their position, really fucking feel it as much as you can knowing that you'll never feel it and then think about it.

Are you suggesting that, if I try hard enough, I shall be able to put a dollar value on the people I love? I understand your anger, and your compassion is to be commended, but I think it clouds your reason here.

Everything I've said so far tries and fails only to go to compensation and not to punishment and policy. Fact of the matter is, if they don't have these large awards, then the people in charge don't care about the rest of us. They don't care; they don't care; they don't care, period. We need more money for plane safety in this program but hey "what's the worst that could happen if we don't?" Right.... Certainly it couldn't cost us Millions right...? Right? The only thing the people in charge care about, the only way to make them accountable is large damages. It makes them look bad even if they don't have to pay it themselves and they can't hide from them.

That's the real, insidious thing about "tort reform." It allows the people in charge to hide from the full consequences of their actions and the costs, by saying those costs should be lower.

The costs shouldn't be lower, the people RESPONSIBLE should be better, damn it.

I am not sure that paying exorbitant sums to make people look bad is a very good plan either, but I would not know precisely. It sounds like a leap to suppose that they shall care more if other people lose more money.

[Frumple]

I am not sure that the money could have prevented this either, as it was the pilot’s error that sent the plane crashing into the houses, not a lack of funding.

Ah... read the article more carefully. If what it's stating is accurate, it was due to mechanical failure, probably brought about by people cutting corners (to save money). If it had been strictly pilot error, there wouldn't have been 13 people 'disciplined' for the crash. It said series of bad decisions, but it doesn't say anything about them belonging to the pilot. Bit more detail would probably be enlightening, but I doubt that'd be available to the public.

Frumple, I think that you are assuming incorrectly that people make money simply for the utility of it. There are people that enjoy earning money, so, while they have money in excess of what they truly need to sustain themselves, I would suppose that they just like the feeling of earning money. I am, of course, speculating, but it does not seem completely incomprehensible to me.

Well, I did include a caveat of 'sane', but 'healthy' would have worked, too, I think. Making money for the sake of making money is... misguided is the kindest way I could put it, or perhaps naive. Shortsighted would probably work, too. Money itself has absolutely no intrinsic value; it only has meaning, purpose, in what it represents and what it can be used to do. Making money just to earn money is collecting potentia, or perhaps power, with no intention or plan for its use. I can grant there's comprehensibility in there, but it's the understanding of a kleptomaniac or paranoiac. Gathering for the sake of gathering, rather for actual reason or goal. That's neither healthy, nor rational, nor safe; we've all seen all the ways that sort of behavior leads to disaster.

One could say it's for the challenge of matching wits with others, to make profit and come out ahead, but there's much healthier (or at least safer, in an injury-to-others sense) ways of indulging in that kind of drive (Sports, games, for example.), ways that doesn't involve such potential repercussions. I can comprehend the joy of competition, I just can't comprehend the joy of competition where the pieces being played with often involve other peoples lives. I've not yet been able to find a rational reason to gather money just for the sake of gathering money; once you've got a certain amount, there's simply no (rational, sane) justification for getting more unless you intend to do something with it, something beyond the self.

I can understand making money over a certain amount when you intend reasonable ends for it. Health, safety, home. Support for family, friends, community, descendants. Comfort and entertainment, sure, with the caveat of efficient expenditure. But fulfilling all of those still hits a solid line beyond which more resources (money) isn't necessary or even particularly useful for doing the job. It's the point beyond that, and the fervor that so many seek that point... it doesn't click to me. There seems to be no thought to it; the action of a lemming, not a man -- perhaps not even an animal, but something even less capable of cunning. It makes no sense, brings no happiness, and fulfills no purpose. *vague shrug* I don't get it.

Everything I've said so far tries and fails only to go to compensation and not to punishment and policy. Fact of the matter is, if they don't have these large awards, then the people in charge don't care about the rest of us. They don't care; they don't care; they don't care, period. We need more money for plane safety in this program but hey "what's the worst that could happen if we don't?" Right.... Certainly it couldn't cost us Millions right...? Right? The only thing the people in charge care about, the only way to make them accountable is large damages. It makes them look bad even if they don't have to pay it themselves and they can't hide from them.

This says to me that maybe, just maybe, a little barbarism would be in order. 'Making them look bad' definitely seems to be not nearly damned enough. Failing that, take the money from the people that caused the crash; from the income of the people that allowed the program to fall so far, and everyone above them. Take from them everything but a living stipend and turn that money over to the people wronged. If nothing else, it would make the burden of responsibility much more direct.

The costs shouldn't be lower, the people RESPONSIBLE should be held responsible, damn it, and meaningfully, so that they don't fuck up in the first place.

Would fit my perception a bit better. As you say, the compensation is not truly just, but we could at least mete out the punishment so it lands on those responsible more fully.

Put yourself in their position, really fucking feel it as much as you can knowing that you'll never feel it and then think about it.

I would want the heads of the bastards that allowed it to happen. What damn use is money to me when my family is dead and the cause still walking? Money would be a damned insult when the cause of my loss stands unchastised. "We will not give you justice, so we will give you wealth, to forget the wrongs done to you"? What sort of message should I take that as?

That sort of wrong isn't one that money, any amount of money, can compensate for. As I said above, money has no intrinsic value, only potential. It's roughly equivalent to give the person you love and know better than anyone, even yourself, a gift card instead of something that would actually please them. "I do not know the right action to take, so I will put the burden of choice on you."

It could be used as punishment for those who committed the wrong; but again, what harm does it do to the perpetrators? What does it take from them to make the balance equal?

I can see the legal reasoning, and understand it well enough, I suppose. It just seems terribly empty to me. There is not justice there, nor punishment, only placation, and a poor example of it.

[Fenrir]

I am not sure that the money could have prevented this either, as it was the pilot’s error that sent the plane crashing into the houses, not a lack of funding.

Ah... read the article more carefully. If what it's stating is accurate, it was due to mechanical failure, probably brought about by people cutting corners (to save money). If it had been strictly pilot error, there wouldn't have been 13 people 'disciplined' for the crash. It said series of bad decisions, but it doesn't say anything about them belonging to the pilot. Bit more detail would probably be enlightening, but I doubt that'd be available to the public.

Yes, my mistake.

Well, I did include a caveat of 'sane', but 'healthy' would have worked, too, I think. Making money for the sake of making money is... misguided is the kindest way I could put it, or perhaps naive. Shortsighted would probably work, too. Money itself has absolutely no intrinsic value; it only has meaning, purpose, in what it represents and what it can be used to do. Making money just to earn money is collecting potentia, or perhaps power, with no intention or plan for its use. I can grant there's comprehensibility in there, but it's the understanding of a kleptomaniac or paranoiac. Gathering for the sake of gathering, rather for actual reason or goal. That's neither healthy, nor rational, nor safe; we've all seen all the ways that sort of behavior leads to disaster.

You would need to cite some good psychology papers to convince me that earning money for the fun of it is somehow psychologically unhealthy. You may not approve of it for whatever reason, but I would not suppose that it is damaging or neurotic somehow.

One could say it's for the challenge of matching wits with others, to make profit and come out ahead, but there's much healthier (or at least safer, in an injury-to-others sense) ways of indulging in that kind of drive (Sports, games, for example.), ways that doesn't involve such potential repercussions. I can comprehend the joy of competition, I just can't comprehend the joy of competition where the pieces being played with often involve other peoples lives.

Were we talking about people that earn? or people that do villianous things to gain money? Fair trade is not a zero-sum game, so I see no harm in earning money. Now, if we are talking about ruthless competition with no regard for the safety of others, we are in agreement.

I've not yet been able to find a rational reason to gather money just for the sake of gathering money; once you've got a certain amount, there's simply no (rational, sane) justification for getting more unless you intend to do something with it, something beyond the self.

Unless that rational, sane reason for getting more is because you enjoy getting more.

I can understand making money over a certain amount when you intend reasonable ends for it. Health, safety, home. Support for family, friends, community, descendants. Comfort and entertainment, sure, with the caveat of efficient expenditure. But fulfilling all of those still hits a solid line beyond which more resources (money) isn't necessary or even particularly useful for doing the job. It's the point beyond that, and the fervor that so many seek that point... it doesn't click to me. There seems to be no thought to it; the action of a lemming, not a man -- perhaps not even an animal, but something even less capable of cunning. It makes no sense, brings no happiness, and fulfills no purpose. *vague shrug* I don't get it.

So it seems I shall have to disagree with you on this.

Of course, I understand that I am speculating about the motives of a large group of people, but I am just trying to assert that I think there is no reason to think them all mad.

[G-Flex]

I would want the heads of the bastards that allowed it to happen. What damn use is money to me when my family is dead and the cause still walking? Money would be a damned insult when the cause of my loss stands unchastised. "We will not give you justice, so we will give you wealth, to forget the wrongs done to you"? What sort of message should I take that as?

That sort of wrong isn't one that money, any amount of money, can compensate for. As I said above, money has no intrinsic value, only potential. It's roughly equivalent to give the person you love and know better than anyone, even yourself, a gift card instead of something that would actually please them. "I do not know the right action to take, so I will put the burden of choice on you."

Why does "having their heads" have any intrinsic value either? Why is killing people for you to forget those wrongs any better? What sort of message is that? It's not as if anything you do is actually going to bring them back.

[Tellemurius]

So making a statement now. I relocated to Utah on christmas eve to be with my family. So far my social connections with people is weird. LDS are stranger than Boulder freaks, you can't piss them off in anyways a normal person can but sure as hell i cuss they bring the wrath of god upon me. Murder is cool yall just don't be swearing up and down these damned streets -_-

[Frumple]

You would need to cite some good psychology papers to convince me that earning money for the fun of it is somehow psychologically unhealthy. You may not approve of it for whatever reason, but I would not suppose that it is damaging or neurotic somehow.

Not necessarily damaging to the person that's doing it (Though I could go dig up the info on the studies that show that money over a certain point has effectively zero influence on personal happiness, and there are definite cases where it becomes outright insanity, but that tends to be on an individual, case by case basis, not endemic of the whole group.), but in a more general sense. If there's neurosis in that, it's neurosis of underdevelopment, I'd think; not thinking about or caring about the actual impact of what you're doing. The actions of a child instead of an adult.

Were we talking about people that earn? or people that do villianous things to gain money? Fair trade is not a zero-sum game, so I see no harm in earning money. Now, if we are talking about ruthless competition with no regard for the safety of others, we are in agreement.

Definitely the latter more than the former, but I would say that there is (or, at least, very strongly can be) harm in simply 'earning money,' because the implications involved there go beyond the dollar sign in the bank. When you're making money, you're collecting the resources it represents as much as the currency, and moving and (especially) keeping those resources has implications far beyond the immediate act. That's why I first mentioned 'shortsighted' or 'naive' as possibly descriptors.

Unless that rational, sane reason for getting more is because you enjoy getting more.

To clarify my point (and be happy to disagree!), I don't see that as a rational reason, because money is an empty thing. If you're getting money strictly to get more money (point of emphasis, the acquisition of money/wealth for particular or general ends doesn't trouble me; I understand and emphasis with that very easily), you're either collecting what amounts to air (which is irrational) or hoarding resources for the sake of hoarding (which is insane, either due to paranoia or hoarding behavior).

If you're doing it for the thrill of doing it, there's avenues for that sort of psych trigger that doesn't involve such a risk of negatively impacting others; in that case, it strikes me as irrational because you could get the same fulfillment while risking considerably less damage, especially to others. It may also be insane, because you're either unable or unwilling to consider or emphasize with the results of your action.

So it seems I shall have to disagree with you on this.

Which is fair! This is more a personal trouble than moral or social condemnation, though it often tries to slip into the latter. I seek understanding, yeah.

Of course, I understand that I am speculating about the motives of a large group of people, but I am just trying to assert that I think there is no reason to think them all mad.

Yeah, I'm not exactly saying they're mad, in any directly assertive way. I'm saying I can see no sane reason for their behavior, which isn't the same thing

Why does "having their heads" have any intrinsic value either? Why is killing people for you to forget those wrongs any better? What sort of message is that? It's not as if anything you do is actually going to bring them back.

No, it's not for anything that would fulfill me personally, to any large degree, outside the very irrational (and recognized as irrational, unreasonable, and immoral) desire for strict revenge toward those who genuinely harm me and mine. The question for that particular blurb was how I'd, personally, react on a personal/emotional level to the event. As stated, money would mean shit to me in that situation; only very physical repercussions for the responsible would provide any immediate emotional comfort -- soothing the rage, if not the grief.

Beyond that, it's just a very large 'will not take this shit' drawn in the sand, mixed with ensuring that those who did the wrong will not commit it again. It's not fair, it's not better, it's not truly just, but it would ensure that those responsible would be facing something truly meaningful for screwing up. There's definitely ryhme and reason to ascending degrees of punishment; when lives are lost, great punishment should fall on those responsible, because they have failed in their responsibility to the highest degree possible.

Being more rational about it, I would say that the just thing would be to surrender the lives of those responsible to the party wronged. If wronged want the party responsible to die, then they die. If they want the courts to handle it, then the courts will handle it. If they want those people as slaves for the rest of their lives, then so mote it be. If the wronged want nothing done, forgiveness granted, and the responsible let free with no repercussions, then that is what happens. Nothing can genuinely recompense the wronged when their family is dead, there is no truly just response, so let them decide what is enough. There would need be limitations, of course, but it would be closer to something meaningful to me, I think.

[ChairmanPoo]

.

Being more rational about it, I would say that the just thing would be to surrender the lives of those responsible to the party wronged. If wronged want the party responsible to die, then they die.

Welcome tl the wonders of Iran's justice system

[Kedly]

Well, some money is necessary, not just because of the possible lost income of the deceased, but to show the government isn't taking this lightly (because it alo sets precedent for the government to pay if it happens again). However, I can't help but feel that a large part of that incredibly higb sum of money would have been better used making sure whatever caused the crash doesn't happen again.

I agree with this. money is good, and it helps soften the pain. However, that much money makes people mean, makes them bad. When a dear friend gets 1.7 million for the loss of his family, some people see this dear friend, not as a grieving source of depression, but as a big pile of money that they don't need.

Basically, I think that the govt did good with giving the family money, but some could be used to, you know, prevent this.

Having lost my mother about two years ago now, I can definately say that money in no way softens the pain, in fact it can lead to feeling like you profited off of a loved ones death. That said, in the jet case it IS a good way of admitting that you fudged up and that your trying to compensate for the error.

[Nadaka]

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-may-lose-gay-voters-gary-johnson-2012-043309996.html

I need to find out more about Gary Johnson's other political views.

"Libertarian" can mean a lot of different things, and some of them are good.

Edit: nevermind, I actually looked into him a few months ago and can not support him at all during the current economic crisis because of his retarded plan to balance the budget and stimulate the economy by cutting taxes and believe in free market magic to save everything.

[GlyphGryph]

Is any candidate going to agree with everything you want from them?

[Nadaka]

Is any candidate going to agree with everything you want from them?

Considering that I am a weird mix of progressive, liberal and libertarian with a strong rationalist and idealistic patriotic streak that believes in objective morality (and the conclusions I have reached are diametrically opposed to those of Randian objectivists) who is also a capitalistic socialist?

In a word? No.

But the immanent abject economic failure of the US is the single greatest and most immediate threat we face right now. So my primary criteria is someone who is going to make progress on that front, and libertarian economics are regression. It isn't that equality and liberty are not important, it is that liberty and equality are much more likely to be expanded and sooner if we don't fall into the chaos of a failed state.